More 'good' news on fracking

[manifold]

State environmental regulators have said the water that flows back from "fracking" natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale is really foul stuff.

A recently published peer-reviewed U.S. Forest Service study offers a glimpse of just how foul.

Mary Beth Adams, a U.S. Forest Service researcher, studied what happened when 75,000 gallons of fracking fluids legally released from a non-Marcellus well were spread on the ground in a quarter-acre section of the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia.

Within two days, all ground plants were dead.

Within 10 days, leaves of trees began to turn brown.

Within two years, more than half of the approximately 150 trees were dead.

But but but, it's perfectly safe.

Fracking water test leaves salty aftertaste | PennLive.com

 

[martybegan]

State environmental regulators have said the water that flows back from "fracking" natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale is really foul stuff.

A recently published peer-reviewed U.S. Forest Service study offers a glimpse of just how foul.

Mary Beth Adams, a U.S. Forest Service researcher, studied what happened when 75,000 gallons of fracking fluids legally released from a non-Marcellus well were spread on the ground in a quarter-acre section of the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia.

Within two days, all ground plants were dead.

Within 10 days, leaves of trees began to turn brown.

Within two years, more than half of the approximately 150 trees were dead.

But but but, it's perfectly safe.

Fracking water test leaves salty aftertaste | PennLive.com

Which is why you have to contain and treat it. This could be purely due to the salinity of the liquid returning from the depths of the well, and not any specific chemical in the original fracking solution.

I agree that the waste stream needs to be contained and treated. This is not however a need to ban the procedure entirely, which some people are trying to do.

 

[manifold]

You do what you like.

Not in my back yard.

 

[martybegan]

You do what you like.

Not in my back yard.

If it were in your backyard you would be making money off it.

In New York they are passing regulations which seem fair, and are very stringent. This includes washback control, and areas near the watershed where it wouldnt be allowed.

 

[Big Fitz]

You do what you like.

Not in my back yard.

If it were in your backyard you would be making money off it.

In New York they are passing regulations which seem fair, and are very stringent. This includes washback control, and areas near the watershed where it wouldnt be allowed.

but but but... I hate oil and this wouldn't serve my long term political desires of destroying western style life! I'm sorry, I was getting the strong feeling to channel my inner Manifold.

 

[Mr. H.]

If it's a containment and/or disposal issue, then treat it as such.
Odd how NY is now considering allowing the practice, then NJ jumps on board outlawing fracking.

The laws will catch up to the practice/technology- give it time.

 

[MikeK]

You do what you like.

Not in my back yard.

That's fine if you're sufficiently isolated. But what if your nearby neighbors allow fracking on their land?

So it's very important that laws governing this practice include adequate standards for testing and compensation for proximate contamination.

 

[Care4all]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

 

[martybegan]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

 

[skookerasbil]

I got bad news for the k00ks........better start getting real used to the idea of fracking. Gonna be happening s0ns..............BIG TIME.

 

[Modbert]

Seriously, if we have to have a debate about the merits of people getting paid vs clean drinking water, then I would have to say on that basis alone that fracking is screwed up. Never mind the countless evidence.

I remember having a discussion with The Rabbi a couple weeks ago about this. He seemed to think the fact that they would lose their drinking water was okay because they're getting paid. Certainly one way to help speed up the coming water crisis.

 

[Mr. H.]

You know those little drips and dribbles that fall from the gas pump hose as you hang it up?
Multiply that times millions each and every day and you get an idea of a real source of groundwater pollution.

Compared to the number of frac jobs, the stats are insignificant regarding release incidents.

 

[Old Rocks]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/120511/full/news.2011.282.htm

A US Congressional report released in April showed that the 14 most active hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States together used nearly 3 billion litres of fracking fluid, not including water. The products contained at least 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens2.

The question is what concentrations these chemicals are used in, and whether the substances (or natural hazards such as radioactive radium present in the rock) escape the drilling area and contaminate water supplies — either by leaking out from the drill site, or through improper disposal. An investigation by The New York Times3 revealed worrying levels of radioactivity in fracking wastewater going to rivers in Pennsylvania. The PNAS study, however, found no evidence that fracking fluids were leaching into wells. The US Environmental Protection Agency launched a study of these questions in March last year — but the agency doesn't expect results to start coming in until the end of 2012, with a report scheduled for 2014.

Aren't there regulations in place to prevent pollution?

Fracking is exempt from the US Safe Drinking Water Act, although the US House of Representatives did introduce a bill in March to close that loophole. The bill seems to have strong Democratic support, but it is unclear how popular it will prove overall.

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
+ Author Affiliations

aCenter on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment,
bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and
cBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011)

Abstract
Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P < 0.05; n = 34). Average &#948;13C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (-37 ± 7&#8240; and -54 ± 11&#8240;, respectively; P < 0.0001). These &#948;13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and &#948;2H-CH4 values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentration samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and&#8212;possibly&#8212;regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.

 

[skookerasbil]

Move to northern Siberia and stop bothering us............

 

[martybegan]

aren't we running out of fresh drinking water to water our crops and for us to drink?

are they using fresh drinking water when they begin this process?

and is there a way to turn it back in to drinkable water after it is processed?

is it still cost effective if everyone mining in this manner, secures and purifies the water after the process?

and can ALL the contaminated water be captured and none of it get in to our flowing underground drinking water?

In this country there is no real drinking water issue. The water used for fracking is minscule compared to the volume required for potable uses.

The layers you frack in typically are not water aquifiers, and if they were they would be "contaminated" by the natural gas that co-mingles with it.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/120511/full/news.2011.282.htm

A US Congressional report released in April showed that the 14 most active hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States together used nearly 3 billion litres of fracking fluid, not including water. The products contained at least 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens2.

The question is what concentrations these chemicals are used in, and whether the substances (or natural hazards such as radioactive radium present in the rock) escape the drilling area and contaminate water supplies — either by leaking out from the drill site, or through improper disposal. An investigation by The New York Times3 revealed worrying levels of radioactivity in fracking wastewater going to rivers in Pennsylvania. The PNAS study, however, found no evidence that fracking fluids were leaching into wells. The US Environmental Protection Agency launched a study of these questions in March last year — but the agency doesn't expect results to start coming in until the end of 2012, with a report scheduled for 2014.

Aren't there regulations in place to prevent pollution?

Fracking is exempt from the US Safe Drinking Water Act, although the US House of Representatives did introduce a bill in March to close that loophole. The bill seems to have strong Democratic support, but it is unclear how popular it will prove overall.

NYC alone uses 1 BILLION gallons of water a DAY, to give you some scale persoective.

Fracking's issues comes from poor control of waste liquid at the surface, and insufficent sealing of the pipe going down to the recovery strata. The actions happening in the gas bearing rock has little impact on aquifiers, as by definintion an aquifier must have layers of impermeable rock isolating it to allow for the accumulation of groundwater.

 

[martybegan]

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
+ Author Affiliations

aCenter on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment,
bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and
cBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011)

Abstract
Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P < 0.05; n = 34). Average &#948;13C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (-37 ± 7‰ and -54 ± 11‰, respectively; P < 0.0001). These &#948;13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and &#948;2H-CH4 values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentration samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.

the sutdy basically concurs with what I said, that the issue is from the piping to the fracturing layer, not the active fracturing in the gas bearing strata. It also notes that most of the gas they found was from biogenic sources, which is science talk for methane from rotting plant/animal remians in the soil.

 

[Mr. H.]

Ironic that NY and NJ are so dead set against the practice of fracking...

EPA Releases New York and New Jersey Sewage Pollution Report - Yahoo! News

The report released today, titled Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public's Water, analyzes the issue of large amounts of stormwater runoff from heavy rains entering and overflowing sewage systems and causing raw sewage to enter bodies of water, including rivers, lakes, and streams.

Put things in perspective, get your priorities straight.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ironic that NY and NJ are so dead set against the practice of fracking...

EPA Releases New York and New Jersey Sewage Pollution Report - Yahoo! News

The report released today, titled Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public's Water, analyzes the issue of large amounts of stormwater runoff from heavy rains entering and overflowing sewage systems and causing raw sewage to enter bodies of water, including rivers, lakes, and streams.

Put things in perspective, get your priorities straight.

apparently shit is better sweet, not savory.

 

[martybegan]

Ironic that NY and NJ are so dead set against the practice of fracking...

EPA Releases New York and New Jersey Sewage Pollution Report - Yahoo! News

The report released today, titled Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public's Water, analyzes the issue of large amounts of stormwater runoff from heavy rains entering and overflowing sewage systems and causing raw sewage to enter bodies of water, including rivers, lakes, and streams.

Put things in perspective, get your priorities straight.

Combined sewer overflows during rain events have been around for decades, and are indeed leftovers of the old method of piping sewage. What is not said in the report is that the amount of rain usually dilutes the sewage to the point that the recieving waters can treat it.

For cities on rivers and lakes, seperating the systems is a priority, and is usually feasible.
New York City, on the other hand discharges to the east river, the LI Sound, Jamaica bay and the Atlantic Ocean. These bodies can handle the rain runoff without too much strain.

The only solution to this is to either dig up every street in NYC and seperate the systems, or build holding tanks that allow for basic treatment of the excess flow (which can be up to 10 times normal flow, current plants can treat up to 2 times normal flow), both of which are very very expensive propositions.