The true extent of water contamination in Pennsylvania from fracking has been concealed.

[skookerasbil]

lol..........nobody cares about this

 

[toobfreak]

Kinda sounds like you're saying the ground water is already bad, so making it worse isn't a problem ...

Just dangerous to LIVE over methane infused ground in the first place..

Just two SIDE thoughts:

1. If you live in one of these areas, maybe the people there ought to be more concerned with pumping some of this valuable fossil fuel out themselves on their property and PROFITING from it rather than just bitching about their water?
2. Aren't there systems available by which you can add filtration to your water to clean it of most anything to make it safe for household use?

 

[ReinyDays]

Just two SIDE thoughts:

1. If you live in one of these areas, maybe the people there ought to be more concerned with pumping some of this valuable fossil fuel out themselves on their property and PROFITING from it rather than just bitching about their water?
2. Aren't there systems available by which you can add filtration to your water to clean it of most anything to make it safe for household use?

1. Only if you own the mineral rights to your land ... and have the capital to invest on the equipment needed ... alternately you can just sell the rights to the gas and let somebody with the equipment come in an pump it ... the Escrow Officer should disclose to you if the property you're buying includes the mineral rights, and the deed should clearly say who owns the mineral rights ...

But yeah, the Oklahoma rancher will shut down his oil rigs when prices are down ... start them up again when they're high ... same with cattle ... same with his windmills ...

2. Yes ... and the more comprehensive, the more expensive ... places like Flint, MI it's cheaper to truck in drinking water ... my water here spends two or three years draining through volcanic ash deposits, where it emerges as spring water it's too pure to support life in the spring pools ... toss a bit of chlorine in and straight to my taps ... health officials recommend mineral supplements ... the water is too soft ...

 

[ding]

What chemicals do fracking companies pump in the ground?

Frac fluid is a crosslinked gel. The major components are guar (or a refined guar like HPG), water and sand or proppant. The other additives (biocides, surfactants, etc.) are minuscule in comparison. Crosslinked gel is how the frac fluid builds viscosity which is necessary to carry the sand or proppant.

 

[ding]

It's an engineered solution that added to the clean water.. Contains surfactants (soap), benzene, and a couple other things.. There are diff vendors with diff recipes.. The benzene is lower in that solution than what is FOUND NATURALLY in the shale under a gas field.. Like pissing into a sewer..

What happens to this engineered solution after it's been used? ... is it recycled and reused, or is it just left behind? ...

Kinda sounds like you're saying the ground water is already bad, so making it worse isn't a problem ...

The toxicity is next to nothing. Where does it go? It stays in the zone it was injected into. Realize that the hydrocarbon they are after is contained by the same strata.

The purpose of fracing is to inject a sand slurry that will leave behind a higher permeability path for hydrocarbons in the reservoir to flow to the well. It is done for productivity purposes. First a pad (water, gel and crosslink plus a small amount of additives) is pumped above rock closure pressure which builds geometry (width, height and length). Then several stages of increasing sand density is added to the frac fluid to create the higher perm pathway.

Typically we are talking about a maximum height of a couple of hundred feet, a 1/4" of width and then depending upon if it is a soft rock or hard rock application as short as 90 ft to several hundred ft of length or radius. If you look at a lithological cross section you would see that based upon the amount pumped it would be next to impossible to affect anything that wasn't a couple of hundred feet away. I am not saying that there is no risk of frac'ing into fresh water. I am saying that for the vast number of applications, it is very safe. The shallower one is the greater the risk but anything deeper than 3000 ft is safe to frac. Like I said before... millions of wells have been frac'd.

 

[ding]

I should probably add that I am a 36 year practicing petroleum engineer. I've done my fair share of fracs.

 

[ReinyDays]

The toxicity is next to nothing. Where does it go? It stays in the zone it was injected into. Realize that the hydrocarbon they are after is contained by the same strata.

The purpose of fracing is to inject a sand slurry that will leave behind a higher permeability path for hydrocarbons in the reservoir to flow to the well. It is done for productivity purposes. First a pad (water, gel and crosslink plus a small amount of additives) is pumped above rock closure pressure which builds geometry (width, height and length). Then several stages of increasing sand density is added to the frac fluid to create the higher perm pathway.

Typically we are talking about a maximum height of a couple of hundred feet, a 1/4" of width and then depending upon if it is a soft rock or hard rock application as short as 90 ft to several hundred ft of length or radius. If you look at a lithological cross section you would see that based upon the amount pumped it would be next to impossible to affect anything that wasn't a couple of hundred feet away. I am not saying that there is no risk of frac'ing into fresh water. I am saying that for the vast number of applications, it is very safe. The shallower one is the greater the risk but anything deeper than 3000 ft is safe to frac. Like I said before... millions of wells have been frac'd.

So ... they just leave it behind ...

Guar is a nitrogen-fixer ... healthier soils AND more natural gas ... too bad I live on mid-Holocene deposits ...

 

[ding]

The toxicity is next to nothing. Where does it go? It stays in the zone it was injected into. Realize that the hydrocarbon they are after is contained by the same strata.

The purpose of fracing is to inject a sand slurry that will leave behind a higher permeability path for hydrocarbons in the reservoir to flow to the well. It is done for productivity purposes. First a pad (water, gel and crosslink plus a small amount of additives) is pumped above rock closure pressure which builds geometry (width, height and length). Then several stages of increasing sand density is added to the frac fluid to create the higher perm pathway.

Typically we are talking about a maximum height of a couple of hundred feet, a 1/4" of width and then depending upon if it is a soft rock or hard rock application as short as 90 ft to several hundred ft of length or radius. If you look at a lithological cross section you would see that based upon the amount pumped it would be next to impossible to affect anything that wasn't a couple of hundred feet away. I am not saying that there is no risk of frac'ing into fresh water. I am saying that for the vast number of applications, it is very safe. The shallower one is the greater the risk but anything deeper than 3000 ft is safe to frac. Like I said before... millions of wells have been frac'd.

So ... they just leave it behind ...

Guar is a nitrogen-fixer ... healthier soils AND more natural gas ... too bad I live on mid-Holocene deposits ...

Yep, we typically see 10% come back during flowback. We aren't as efficient as people think we are at getting stuff out of the ground.

 

[flacaltenn]

I should probably add that I am a 36 year practicing petroleum engineer. I've done my fair share of fracs.

How close is this to the water/solution injections used for major geothermal processing plants?

I think the only real diff - is the geometry of the drilling.. I know that a blow-out from a "totally harmless and VERY GREEN" geothermal energy mine can KILL EVERYTHING within a large radius because of the high sulphur and hydrocarbons in the steam.. And that these plants literally rot on site because of corrosion..

And NOBODY wants to live within miles of one of these "keen" Green digs...

 

[ReinyDays]

I should probably add that I am a 36 year practicing petroleum engineer. I've done my fair share of fracs.

That explains why you're so keen on burning tires ...

How close is this to the water/solution injections used for major geothermal processing plants?

I think the only real diff - is the geometry of the drilling.. I know that a blow-out from a "totally harmless and VERY GREEN" geothermal energy mine can KILL EVERYTHING within a large radius because of the high sulphur and hydrocarbons in the steam.. And that these plants literally rot on site because of corrosion..

And NOBODY wants to live within miles of one of these "keen" Green digs...

I wouldn't think there'd be much methane near geothermal activity ... as far as I know, there no fossil fuels within 1,000 mile of here, and we've plenty of geothermal ... Cascades are new lands, eroding as fast as the eruptions ...

If geo is there, I say use it ... a community across the mountains pumps it under their main streets and keeps them ice free in winter ... plus the electricity ... they have something of a unique resource and they're exploiting it ... God knows that place has nothing else ... no sulfur or hydrocarbons worth yelling about, just the boiling water that pours out of the ground ...

 

[flacaltenn]

I should probably add that I am a 36 year practicing petroleum engineer. I've done my fair share of fracs.

That explains why you're so keen on burning tires ...

How close is this to the water/solution injections used for major geothermal processing plants?

I think the only real diff - is the geometry of the drilling.. I know that a blow-out from a "totally harmless and VERY GREEN" geothermal energy mine can KILL EVERYTHING within a large radius because of the high sulphur and hydrocarbons in the steam.. And that these plants literally rot on site because of corrosion..

And NOBODY wants to live within miles of one of these "keen" Green digs...

I wouldn't think there'd be much methane near geothermal activity ... as far as I know, there no fossil fuels within 1,000 mile of here, and we've plenty of geothermal ... Cascades are new lands, eroding as fast as the eruptions ...

If geo is there, I say use it ... a community across the mountains pumps it under their main streets and keeps them ice free in winter ... plus the electricity ... they have something of a unique resource and they're exploiting it ... God knows that place has nothing else ... no sulfur or hydrocarbons worth yelling about, just the boiling water that pours out of the ground ...

I'm with you.. But it aint renewable or green.. If you have to drill for "hot water" to make steam -- the wells "peter out" over time or corrode up.. So you drill another one..

And SOME "hot water sites" may not be a problem if the water has been in natural underground aquifers. But if you're trying to exploit a "dry site" for the heat -- your pumping in water and getting a LOT of bad evil stuff coming up with the steam..

They BANNED it from sensitive areas in Hawaii after several toxic blow-outs.

Puna Geothermal Blowout | Blowout Shuts Geothermal Unit in Hawaii - Los Angeles Times

HONOLULU — Hawaii state officials ordered a geothermal company to halt all drilling Friday after a well blowout spewed toxic gas and routed 75 people from their homes on the island of Hawaii.

Opponents of geothermal drilling near the nation's last remaining tropical rain forest claimed the accident shows Hawaii's volcanic resource may be unmanageable.

Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies

An overview of the environmental impacts of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

www.ucsusa.org

The method used to convert geothermal steam or hot water to electricity directly affects the amount of waste generated. Closed-loop systems are almost totally benign, since gases or fluids removed from the well are not exposed to the atmosphere and are usually injected back into the ground after giving up their heat. Although this technology is more expensive than conventional open-loop systems, in some cases it may reduce scrubber and solid waste disposal costs enough to provide a significant economic advantage.

Open-loop systems, on the other hand, can generate large amounts of solid wastes as well as noxious fumes. Metals, minerals, and gases leach out into the geothermal steam or hot water as it passes through the rocks. The large amounts of chemicals released when geothermal fields are tapped for commercial production can be hazardous or objectionable to people living and working nearby.

At The Geysers, the largest geothermal development, steam vented at the surface contains hydrogen sulfide (H2S)-accounting for the area's "rotten egg" smell-as well as ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide. At hydrothermal plants carbon dioxide is expected to make up about 10 percent of the gases trapped in geopressured brines. For each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, however, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted is still only about 5 percent of the amount emitted by a coal- or oil-fired power plant.

Scrubbers reduce air emissions but produce a watery sludge high in sulfur and vanadium, a heavy metal that can be toxic in high concentrations. Additional sludge is generated when hydrothermal steam is condensed, causing the dissolved solids to precipitate out. This sludge is generally high in silica compounds, chlorides, arsenic, mercury, nickel, and other toxic heavy metals. One costly method of waste disposal involves drying it as thoroughly as possible and shipping it to licensed hazardous waste sites. Research under way at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York points to the possibility of treating these wastes with microbes designed to recover commercially valuable metals while rendering the waste nontoxic.

Usually the best disposal method is to inject liquid wastes or redissolved solids back into a porous stratum of a geothermal well. This technique is especially important at geopressured power plants because of the sheer volume of wastes they produce each day. Wastes must be injected well below fresh water aquifers to make certain that there is no communication between the usable water and waste-water strata. Leaks in the well casing at shallow depths must also be prevented.

In addition to providing safe waste disposal, injection may also help prevent land subsidence. At Wairakei, New Zealand, where wastes and condensates were not injected for many years, one area has sunk 7.5 meters since 1958. Land subsidence has not been detected at other hydrothermal plants in long-term operation. Since geopressured brines primarily are found along the Gulf of Mexico coast, where natural land subsidence is already a problem, even slight settling could have major implications for flood control and hurricane damage. So far, however, no settling has been detected at any of the three experimental wells under study.

 

[ding]

I should probably add that I am a 36 year practicing petroleum engineer. I've done my fair share of fracs.

How close is this to the water/solution injections used for major geothermal processing plants?

I think the only real diff - is the geometry of the drilling.. I know that a blow-out from a "totally harmless and VERY GREEN" geothermal energy mine can KILL EVERYTHING within a large radius because of the high sulphur and hydrocarbons in the steam.. And that these plants literally rot on site because of corrosion..

And NOBODY wants to live within miles of one of these "keen" Green digs...

Don't get me to lying to you, I only have passing knowledge of geothermal wells. I doubt they viscosify their injection fluid because to my knowledge they aren't injecting proppant. Our production horizons aren't anywhere near as nasty as what you are describing. Sure there are some intervals with H2S but those are few, far between and not the magnitude of what you are describing. What you are describing is related to the formation they are injecting into, not the injection fluid.

 

[jc456]

It's an engineered solution that added to the clean water.. Contains surfactants (soap), benzene, and a couple other things.. There are diff vendors with diff recipes.. The benzene is lower in that solution than what is FOUND NATURALLY in the shale under a gas field.. Like pissing into a sewer..

What happens to this engineered solution after it's been used? ... is it recycled and reused, or is it just left behind? ...

Kinda sounds like you're saying the ground water is already bad, so making it worse isn't a problem ...

not how I read it. I interpreted as the contaminants have been there, and the readings today are consistent and similar to previous years that any contaminants are natural and not added by fracking.

 

[ReinyDays]

not how I read it. I interpreted as the contaminants have been there, and the readings today are consistent and similar to previous years that any contaminants are natural and not added by fracking.

You're late to dinner, son ... these fracking contaminants are NOT there until evil people pump massive amounts of this shit into the drinking water supply of millions of people ... oh the humanity ...

The good news is these contaminants have nutritional value and are a food source in many places around the world ... guar is closely related to peas and beans ... I'm not saying these evil frackers aren't trying to murder all of us ... just that they're not very good at it ... how dare they poison our drinking water with plants ... [rolls eyes] ...

 

[ding]

OMG