Editorial: Fracking waste raises concerns

  • Posted: Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:11 a.m.

As state legislators push through fracking legislation to open up the state to shale-gas exploration and extraction, most of the attention has focused on the potential economic benefits if extensive reserves are discovered here. There’s been less discussion about disposing of millions of gallons of fracking wastewater — but that may be changing.

The Senate bill (SB 76) that lifts the state’s moratorium on fracking also lifts a state ban on deep injection wells, which are typically used for fracking wastewater disposal. These wells employ steel or cement casings that may extend a mile or more beneath the surface, where pressurized wastewater is injected into subterranean rock formations that, theoretically, keep it contained.


Fracking requires a lot of water — 3-5 million gallons per well. In many cases, the disposal wells are drilled in proximity to the fracking operations, and fracking supporters apparently thought that would be the case for shale deposits believed to be centered in the Piedmont’s Lee County. But now, according to a report in the Charlotte Observer, geologists say that area’s subterranean rock formations aren’t suitable for absorbing fracking waste. Instead, the injection wells would need to be sunk farther east, extending down into the coastal plain’s saline aquifers and stratified clay.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. E.S. “Buck” Newton, a Republican representing Johnson, Nash and Wilson, told the newspaper he didn’t see this as an issue.

At least one of his Republican colleagues does. Rep. Rick Catlin is from Wilmington, in the heart of the coastal tourism area that suddenly has a high stake in the injection well issue. Here’s what he said: “You’re basically contaminating an aquifer forever. Please don’t inject any down here.”

Catlin, by the way, is a hydrogeologist and an environmental engineer, so his concerns shouldn’t be dismissed as mere “not-in-my-backyard” recalcitrance.

As with other aspects of fracking, there’s sharp disagreement over the potential risks from injection wells. Environmental concerns include water contamination and seismic disruptions. While leaks have occurred, industry representatives and supportive legislators say they’re rare, and they brush aside concerns about groundwater contamination from fracking “brine,” which can contain chemical contaminants. They point out that more than 30 states use deep-well injection disposal. The EPA says it’s safe “when properly done.”

The injection wells that leaked near Wilmington back in the 1960s, provoking the existing ban, supposedly had been properly done, too. Extraction and disposal technologies have improved in the intervening decades. But communities that are likely to be the site of injection wells have reason for concern. Lawmakers should slow the legislative rush and drill deeper into the waste-disposal issues that have been injected into the fracking debate.

Notice about comments:

Salisburypost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Salisburypost.com cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Salisburypost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Do not post the following:

  • Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
  • Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
  • Personal attacks, insults or threats.
  • The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
  • Comments unrelated to the story.