USA Today: DOE study: Fracking chemicals didn't taint water

[Captain Wiggles]

Hurray! So a similar situation occurred down here in NC a week and a half ago. Yet I'm only hearing about it now.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/us/north-carolina-coal-ash-spill/

[China]

Bill would weaken water protections

 

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A year after a toxic leak contaminated drinking water for 300,000 residents, West Virginia lawmakers are considering a series of proposals that would weaken a new chemical tank safety law, remove stronger pollution protections for streams across the state, and protect the coal industry from enforcement actions over violations of water quality standards.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Three Pennsylvania wells likely contaminated by fracking

 

Public arguments about fracking (at least among those who have heard of the natural gas production technique) have become contentious—a situation not helped by the technical and complicated topic. Lots of information and claims fly around, but there's little in the way of an established framework to help make sense of them.

 

Claims that fracking has contaminated water can be difficult to resolve, and some turn out to be unrelated to fracking.

 

...

 

A group of Penn State researchers led by environmental consultant Garth Llewellyn (who worked for the affected homeowners during their lawsuit) decided to turn some bigger analytical guns on the question. They subjected water samples collected during the investigation to a type of testing capable of revealing many more compounds, even at concentrations lower than one part per trillion. For comparison, they also got 30 samples of water used to frack gas wells in the area—though they didn’t have any samples from the suspect gas wells near the affected homes.

Complex measures

The testing allowed the researchers to fingerprint the water samples based on the many faintly present organic compounds they contained. All of the fracking water samples had a similar fingerprint (which is good). The impacted water wells shared that same fingerprint, while local, uncontaminated water wells did not.

 

The researchers also looked for a particular compound that has been used before to infer the presence of fracking fluids—2-butoxyethanol, a surfactant common in cleaning products. They detected 2-butoxyethanol in some of the frack water samples as well as one of the three affected water wells, where it was present at less than 0.5 parts per trillion. When 8 of the 10 natural gas wells were re-fracked in 2012, 2-butoxyethanol was among the chemicals the company reported using (via the Frac Focus website).

 

Although it wasn’t detected in two of the three water wells (which, to be clear, doesn’t guarantee it wasn’t there), 2-butoxyethanol is a good candidate to have caused the foaming in those wells as methane bubbled up. It’s also possible that some of the other low-level organic compounds were responsible, instead.

 

The researchers also analyzed the isotopic composition of the methane from the water and gas wells and the ratio of chlorine to bromine in the various water samples. The results told them that the methane in the drinking water wells matched the methane in the gas wells, but it was unlikely that fracking fluid had mixed with the deep, salty water and come back up to reach the wells. Instead, the fracking fluid that contaminated the water wells was probably just on its way down.

 

So how did this happen? It turns out that while the gas wells were surrounded by a protective seal of concrete and steel down along the top 300 meters and down at the business end below 2,000 meters, there was no such seal in between. Pennsylvania has since tightened up their regulations, but that methodology was legal at the time the wells were drilled.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

EPA: Fracking's no big threat to water

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/epa-report-fracking-no-drinking-water-harm-118643.html

 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-awaited report on fracking dismayed liberal green groups Thursday while pleasing the oil and gas industry — the latest episode in both sides’ fraught relationship with President Barack Obama.

The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. That conclusion dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/epa-report-fracking-no-drinking-water-harm-118643.html#ixzz3cBwEAV6p

[Larry]

The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing.

So, it only pollutes drinking water some of the time?

Well, hell, then. Who cares about that?

[Xameil]

So, it only pollutes drinking water some of the time?

Well, hell, then. Who cares about that?

From being involved with the fracking from a 3rd party lab standpoint in PA, and having to deal with the EPA on several occasions from my years in the environmental lab business, the EPA will NEVER 100% clear any environmental issue that has potential to get them money later as well as now.

Also, alot of these people that claim contamination (at least from PA) never had their water tested before the fracking, and was always contaminated with at least methane and ethane. Also, some had contamination from old wells that were drilled decades ago and they never knew. But this was 2 years ago....I'm sure it's different now...lol

[China]

Arlington Officials Report on Fracking Fluid Blowout

 

ARLINGTON — Two months ago, 100 homes in Arlington had to be evacuated as fracking fluid spilled out of a drilling site onto the city streets.

 

Now we know officially what happened, why it happened, and why Arlington officials are blaming the drilling company for "unacceptable behavior."

 

A series of video recordings obtained by News 8 shows the scene behind the walls of a fracking site 600 feet from a cluster of homes in the state's seventh largest city. In the incident, 42,800 gallons of fracking fluid — boiling up from thousands of feet underground — spewed into the streets and into Arlington storm sewers and streams.

 

Four attempts and 24 hours later, experts were finally able to plug the natural gas well.

 

Nearby residents and Arlington officials feared the worst. Now, two months later, fire officials have concluded their investigation.

"Clearly there was a release of unpermitted materials into the stormwater system," said Arlington Fire Chief Don Crowson as he addressed Arlington City Council members on Tuesday.

 

The good news, according to Crowson: Despite numerous toxic substances being released into the environment, tests show it was not in amounts that did significant damage to the environment.

 

The bad news? He said the drilling company mishandled the spill.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Mad Mike]

Hey I have a great idea... Let's get rid of the EPA.

[twa]

Hey I have a great idea... Let's get rid of the EPA.

 

not doing much good are they?

 

add

 

meanwhile , back to work

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Site-of-Arlington-Fracking-Fluid-Leak-Could-Soon-Reopen-307732141.html

 

gotta pay those fines

[China]

I like to believe that this disaster impacting Kanawha County would change things, but I hoped that Massey would change things, and it didn't. At some point, West Virginians have to recognize that they are not getting any real monetary benefit from being serfs to coal, gas, and chemical companies.

 

Speaking of Massey...

 

Safety Last

 

One of the most reprehensible bosses in recent history is finally facing justice.

 

At 9 a.m. on Oct. 1, former coal baron Donald Leon Blankenship will stand before a judge at the Robert C. Byrd U.S. Courthouse in Charleston, West Virginia, for what promises to be a lengthy, complex, and historic criminal trial.

 

The tall, jowly man was chief executive of the now-defunct Massey Energy Company for a decade. He will be brought to justice for allegedly shunning coal mine safety rules, conspiring to conceal safety violations, and lying to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and company shareholders. He faces 30 years in prison if convicted.

 

Should I not have done that?  What that wrong?

 

Known for his in-your-face policies and politics, Blankenship is accused of creating a ruthless work culture that skimped on safety and employee well-being to improve the bottom line. Three investigators have concluded that his methods contributed to the explosion at the company’s Upper Big Branch deep mine at Montcoal, West Virginia, that killed 29 miners on April 5, 2010. It was the worst mine disaster in 40 years in this country.

 

The trial, expected to take at least a month, will go far beyond the four criminal indictments. It represents both a beginning and an end for the Central Appalachian coalfields of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia that have seen plenty of blood, pain, and exploitation.

It is the first time in 150 years of Appalachian mining that the top boss of a coal firm has ever had to answer for how he ran his company. “It’s unusual for a CEO to be indicted on criminal charges, but for the coal industry, it is really unprecedented,” says Pat McGinley, a law professor at West Virginia University. “It’s never really happened in the last century where you have had countless disasters killing thousands of miners,” he says. “It is unique.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

A Fracking Well In West Virginia Is Leaking Chemicals That Can Affect Fertility

 

A first study in a federal survey of deep wells that store fracking wastewater finds fertility-lowering chemicals downstream of a West Virginia facility.

 

 

Dangerous levels of chemicals that can harm fertility flow downstream from a West Virginia fracking wastewater disposal facility, federal and academic researchers reported on Wednesday.

 

The finding raises questions about safety of similar deep disposal sites nationwide, several independent scientists said.

 

The contamination near Fayetteville, West Virginia, flows from a brook called Wolf Creek a few miles upstream of a New River drinking water treatment facility for 11,300 people. The disposal site, which includes a deep waste well, several holding ponds, and storage tanks, sits on a hillside above the creek, and has been the site of a fight over its permit, revoked in 2014 and then renewed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection in August.

 

“I wouldn’t drink out of Wolf Creek,” University of Missouri toxicologist Susan Nagel, a study author, told BuzzFeed News. It’s unclear whether the contamination has reached residents’ drinking water, but that should be tested, Nagel said.

 

U.S. Geological Survey scientists invited Nagel, an expert on “endocrine disrupting” chemicals linked to switched genders in fish, lowered fertility in mice, and hyperactivity in children, to test water upstream and downstream of the fracking waste site. “We found levels of these endocrine disrupting chemicals high enough to threaten health,” Nagel said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

so it reduces population and improves the gene pool? 

 

are you sure the environmentalists aren't behind this scheme

[Elessar78]

 

 

 

 

 

Is this the guy that holds the Undertaker's urn?

[China]

[twa]

Geologists at the University of Cincinnati just wrapped up a three-year investigation of hydraulic fracturing and its impact on local water supplies.

The result? There's no evidence—zero, zilch, nada—that fracking contaminates drinking water. Researchers hoped to keep these findings secret.

Why would a public research university boasting a top-100 geology program deliberately hide its work? Because, as lead researcher Amy Townsend-Small explained, "our funders, the groups that had given us funding in the past, were a little disappointed in our results. They feel that fracking is scary and so they were hoping our data could point to a reason to ban it."

http://www.newsweek.com/hiding-good-news-about-fracking-451400

[China]

 

 

The result? There's no evidence—zero, zilch, nada—that fracking contaminates drinking water. Researchers hoped to keep these findings secret.

 

 

It should be pointed out that this study relates to a specific area, the Utica shale region, in Carroll, Harrison and Belmont counties in Ohio, and doesn't refer to all fracking everywhere.

[twa]

It should be pointed out that this study relates to a specific area, the Utica shale region, in Carroll, Harrison and Belmont counties in Ohio, and doesn't refer to all fracking everywhere.

 

certainly, just as other studies do not directly relate to other areas. 

 

it does help to look at the variables between them before condemning or endorsing broad assertions....such as the anti-fracking movement does (when they are not hiding research  )

[skinsmarydu]

certainly, just as other studies do not directly relate to other areas. 

 

it does help to look at the variables between them before condemning or endorsing broad assertions....such as the anti-fracking movement does (when they are not hiding research  )

like the research findings that everyone's water catches fire?

 

I can only assume that you don't care because it's not your water.  Yet.  (I can't wait for the "why didn't anyone do anything?" argument in a few years.)

 

Has anyone seen the fly=over of all the wells?  Damn.  They're everywhere.

[twa]

science tells ya how to not have flammable water, and it is rather old. 

 

tells ya how not to have high lead levels as well 

[PeterMP]

 

Geologists at the University of Cincinnati just wrapped up a three-year investigation of hydraulic fracturing and its impact on local water supplies.

The result? There's no evidence—zero, zilch, nada—that fracking contaminates drinking water. Researchers hoped to keep these findings secret.

Why would a public research university boasting a top-100 geology program deliberately hide its work? Because, as lead researcher Amy Townsend-Small explained, "our funders, the groups that had given us funding in the past, were a little disappointed in our results. They feel that fracking is scary and so they were hoping our data could point to a reason to ban it."

http://www.newsweek.com/hiding-good-news-about-fracking-451400

 

 

What about earthquakes?

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/08/Research-ties-Ohio-quakes-to-fracking.html

[twa]

What about earthquakes?

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/08/Research-ties-Ohio-quakes-to-fracking.html

 

earthquakes from fracking are very rare and small, excessive wastewater injection is a different matter

the problem does not become worse simply because technology advanced enough to track them

 

from your link

 

The researchers said it is rare for fracking to cause earthquakes big enough to be felt by humans.

But because of advances in seismic monitoring and the growth in fracking to access oil and gas, the number of earthquakes connected with fracking has grown in the past decade nationwide.

[PeterMP]

earthquakes from fracking are very rare and small, excessive wastewater injection is a different matter

the problem does not become worse simply because technology advanced enough to track them

 

from your link

 

The researchers said it is rare for fracking to cause earthquakes big enough to be felt by humans.

But because of advances in seismic monitoring and the growth in fracking to access oil and gas, the number of earthquakes connected with fracking has grown in the past Rar

 

Rare is a bit vague.  There is no doubt that in some areas of OH people have felt earthquakes caused from fracking.

 

And they are making a distinction between fracking and waste water:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/08/Research-ties-Ohio-quakes-to-fracking.html

 

"In October, researchers released a study showing that fracking triggered hundreds of small earthquakes on a previously unmapped fault in Harrison County in 2013.

 

A process that disposes of fracking wastewater also has triggered earthquakes in Ohio. The water, sand and chemicals that come up with oil and gas often are injected into disposal wells across the state."

In at least some locations, both can cause earthquakes.

[twa]

Rare is good enough for your link but not me? 

 

fracturing the earth certainly causes minor seismic readings, doing so on a unknown faultline certainly can make higher readings

 

rarely is that even noticeable though....by your own study

[Predicto]

It's sad when I agree with twa, but this is one of those times.   As far as I can tell, the benefits of fracking for our country far outweigh the negatives.  That includes environmental benefits, because the energy being produced is far cleaner than the energy it is replacing, especially coal.

 

Responsible regulation is necessary of course - undoubtedly far more regulation than twa would like - but broader efforts to block the expansion of fracking is incredibly short sighted.  It is unfortunate that so many of the people on "my" side are unequivocally opposed to fracking and are making it a litmus test for their support.   As far as I can tell, their objections are not based on a genuine cost-benefit analysis, but only on anecdotes and playing on environmentalists' emotional and automatic opposition to anything associated with the the petroleum industry.       

[PeterMP]

It's sad when I agree with twa, but this is one of those times.   As far as I can tell, the benefits of fracking for our country far outweigh the negatives.  That includes environmental benefits, because the energy being produced is far cleaner than the energy it is replacing, especially coal.

 

Responsible regulation is necessary of course - undoubtedly far more regulation than twa would like - but broader efforts to block the expansion of fracking is incredibly short sighted.  It is unfortunate that so many of the people on "my" side are unequivocally opposed to fracking and are making it a litmus test for their support.   As far as I can tell, their objections are not based on a genuine cost-benefit analysis, but only on anecdotes and playing on environmentalists' emotional and automatic opposition to anything associated with the the petroleum industry.       

 

I've said before, I'm not really against fracking.

 

I just wish industry would slow down and especially in the beginning would have slowed down and there was better regulation.

 

It is clear that poor well construction can cause contamination of drinking water, but I've never heard of a company being in trouble for poor well construction (and twa doesn't seem to have either based on a previous conversation with him).

 

In addition, the earthquakes, while minor, are worrisome and absolutely have a negative impact on things like home values, and in some areas are even more pronounced than in OH.  And the long term consequences of them even in terms of the long term robustness of the wells is concerning.

 

We've added information very piece meal.  Today we know that poor well construction can cause drinking water contamination, that waste water injections contributes to earthquake, and that there are quite a few unknown fault lines out there and fracking in those areas increases earth quakes.

 

These all seem like things we could have figured out 20+ years ago if industry would have slowed down and taken some time to honestly study what they were doing and what the effects are and real people would be better off today if they had.

 

Instead we are playing catch up and essentially hoping that the effects that we find aren't/won't be to bad.  So far, things are okay, but given deep waste water injections are causing earthquakes in some areas and earthquakes have a tendency to destabilize structures is anybody going to surprised if we find the well casing in those areas have a high failure rate, which leads to leakage and contamination?