EPA theorizes fracking-pollution link

joesmalls · Dec 9, 2011

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FRACKING_GROUNDWATER_POLLUTION

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday for the first time that fracking - a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells - may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution.

The draft finding could have significant implications while states try to determine how to regulate the process. Environmentalists characterized the report as a significant development though it met immediate criticism from the oil and gas industry and a U.S. senator.

The practice is called hydraulic fracturing and involves pumping pressurized water, sand and chemicals underground to open fissures and improve the flow of oil or gas to the surface.

The EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. Health officials last year advised them not to drink their water after the EPA found low levels hydrocarbons in their wells.

The EPA announcement could add to the controversy over fracking, which has played a large role in opening up many gas reserves, including the Marcellus Shale in the eastern U.S. in recent years.

The industry has long contended that fracking is safe, but environmentalists and some residents who live near drilling sites say it has poisoned groundwater.

The EPA said its announcement is the first step in a process of opening up its findings for review by the public and other scientists.

"EPA's highest priority remains ensuring that Pavillion residents have access to safe drinking water," said Jim Martin, EPA regional administrator in Denver. "We look forward to having these findings in the draft report informed by a transparent and public review process."

The EPA also emphasized that the findings are specific to the Pavillion area. The agency said the fracking that occurred in Pavillion differed from fracking methods used elsewhere in regions with different geological characteristics.

The fracking occurred below the level of the drinking water aquifer and close to water wells, the EPA said. Elsewhere, drilling is more remote and fracking occurs much deeper than the level of groundwater that would normally be used.

Environmentalists welcomed the news of the EPA report, calling it an important turning point in the fracking debate.

"This is an important first indication there are potential problems with fracking that can impact domestic water wells. It's I think a clarion call to industry to make sure they take a great deal of care in their drilling practices," said Steve Jones with the Wyoming Outdoor Council.

Pavillion resident John Fenton, chairman of the group Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, applauded the EPA for listening to the homeowners with contaminated water.

"Those of us who suffer the impacts from the unchecked development in our community are extremely happy the contamination source is being identified," Fenton said.

Calgary, Alberta-based Encana Corp. owns the Pavillion gas field. An announced $45 million sale to Midland, Texas-based Legacy Reserves LP fell through last month amid what Encana said were Legacy's concerns about the EPA investigation.

Encana spokesman Doug Hock said there was much to question about the draft study.

The compounds EPA said could be associated with fracking, he said, could have had other origins not related to gas development.

"Those could just have likely been brought about by contamination in their sampling process or construction of their well," Hock said.

The low levels of hydrocarbons found in local water wells likewise haven't been linked to gas development and substances such as methane itself are naturally occurring in the area.

"There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. This is a probability and it is one we believe is incorrect," Hock said.

Sen. James Inhofe said the study was "not based on sound science but rather on political science."

"Its findings are premature, given that the Agency has not gone through the necessary peer-review process, and there are still serious outstanding questions regarding EPA's data and methodology," the Oklahoma Republican said in a statement.

Wyoming last year became one of the first states to require oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in fracking. Colorado regulators are considering doing the same.

The public and industry representatives packed an 11-hour hearing on the issue in Denver on Monday. They all generally supported the proposal but the sticking point is whether trade secrets would have to be disclosed and how quickly the information would have to be turned over.

And while the EPA emphasized the Wyoming findings were highly localized, the report is likely to reverberate.

The issue has been highly contentious in New York, where some upstate residents and politicians argue that the gas industry will bring desperately needed jobs while others demand a ban on fracking to protect water supplies. New York regulators haven't issued permits for gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale since they began an extensive environmental review in 2008.

In Pennsylvania, where thousands of gas wells have been drilled and fracked over the past three years, some residents say their water wells have been contaminated with methane and drilling fluids.

Kate Sinding, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York City, said in an email Thursday that the EPA in Wyoming is now recognizing what other experts and families in fracking communities have known for some time: "Fracking poses serious threats to safe drinking water."

David Neslin, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said the Wyoming case is being watched.

"Protection of drinking water in Colorado is of the highest importance to us and therefore we look forward to reviewing EPA's draft analysis, as well as feedback from other parties, including Wyoming, on this matter," he said.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to find out what other scientific reviews find as well based. While the EPA makes it clear that this is specific to the area that was tested, it does at least give the scientific community the chance to investigate further while using some of the information provided in the EPA's report. It allows others to either verify it or propose other theories.

Professor Peabody · Dec 9, 2011

joesmalls said: ↑

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FRACKING_GROUNDWATER_POLLUTION

I'm curious to find out what other scientific reviews find as well based. While the EPA makes it clear that this is specific to the area that was tested, it does at least give the scientific community the chance to investigate further while using some of the information provided in the EPA's report. It allows others to either verify it or propose other theories.
Click to expand...

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday for the first time that fracking - a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells - may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution."

Get back to us when those Dick Cabeza's have some proof.

Mac-7 · Dec 9, 2011

Professor Peabody said: ↑

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday for the first time that fracking - a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells - may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution."

Get back to us when those Dick Cabeza's have some proof.
Click to expand...

"Maybe" is all that liberal environmentalists who are worried about the end of the world due to burning fossil fuels need to hear.

For them if there is even the remotest possibility that oil and gas production can be stopped on a technicality they are all for it.

darckriver · Dec 9, 2011

Mac-7 said: ↑

"Maybe" is all that liberal environmentalists who are worried about the end of the world due to burning fossil fuels need to hear.

For them if there is even the remotest possibility that oil and gas production can be stopped on a technicality they are all for it.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. We must SAVE THE PLANET!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c[/ame]

waltky · Dec 24, 2011

Dey gonna crack the aquifer...

Black, Foamy Water Worries Fracking Neighbors
December 12, 2011 - Pennsylvania residents blame illness on natural gas extraction

There is a lot of construction near Janet McIntyre's home in southwestern Pennsylvania. It's not new houses, but new industry: 10 gas wells, a compressor station and multiple drilling-waste ponds. The state sits atop the nation’s largest deposit of natural gas known as the Marcellus Shale. What concerns McIntyre and her neighbors is an extraction process called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking." It combines deep horizontal and vertical drilling with enormous amounts of water, chemicals and sand.

Water troubles

McIntyre never worried about her water before. When she looks out on the wooded rural landscape from her front porch she talks about her well water liked a cherished lost friend. “We never ran out of water. We never had a problem with our water. It was cold coming out of the spigot just as if you went to a regular spring and got it. It was gorgeous water.”

Then one night McIntyre got sick. She had a bad headache and vomited. When her husband Fred went for a glass of water and turned on the spigot, it spewed out smelly foam. “He hollers back, I think I know why we’re sick," she remembers. "There’s something wrong with our water.” The McIntyres stopped drinking the well water.

Neighbor Kim McEvoy says her water turned black and she got sick too. “My fingernails were growing downward. My hair was falling out. I’d get dizzy.” McEvoy and McIntyre complained to the gas company and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The gas company gave them bottled water.

'Unsafe levels'
Click to expand...

See also:

Rush to Extract Natural Gas Stirs Health Concerns
December 23, 2011 - Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Reservoir holds largest US supply

The rush is on to tap new sources of domestic energy in the United States and the competition is especially fierce in Pennsylvania. The eastern state sits atop the Marcellus Shale, a 350-million-year-old rock formation, more than a kilometer underground, that holds the largest reservoir of natural gas in the United States. Since 2005, Pennsylvania has issued 4,000 permits to extract the gas, with another 2,500 expected each year for the foreseeable future. The growth is evident on back country roads where wells dot the farms, forests and fields across the state.

Fracking

But controversy surrounds how operators drill the gas. The process is called hydraulic fracturing or “fracking." Brian Grove, senior director of corporate development for Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second largest gas company, says it has been used safely for decades. "The United States has drilled over one million wells in the last 50 or 60 years.” What’s new is the combination of horizontal and vertical drilling, allowing multiple fractures across large horizontal stretches from a single well-site. Chesapeake Energy is drilling this day on a hillside in northern Pennsylvania. It's converted this rural landscape into an industrial complex with a maze of interlocking pipes and an arsenal of pump trucks, water tanks and tractor-trailer containers of sand.

Grove has his eyes fixed on the towering rig. He says between 15 and 20 million liters of fracking fluid are pumped down the well hole at great pressure to crack shale that lies a kilometer underneath. “Once that fracture happens, then we inject sand into the fluid. That sand and water will then follow the fracture network with the sand being lodged in place to keep those fractures open to allow gas to flow.” The fluid is pumped into the ground through steel pipes encased in multiple layers of cement. The cement collar ensures that, as the pipe passes through the relatively shallow groundwater zones, there is no accidental contamination of the drinking water.

Ninety-nine percent of the fracking fluid is water. The rest is sand and chemicals. Grove says the chemicals help reduce cracking and corrosion in the pipes and do not harm the environment. “We have a laser-like focus on health and the environment in every job we do.You can never eliminate human error or mechanical failure from any system, whether drilling or any other business, but we try to do that from the design of our sites, to the design of our mechanical systems in the field. So even when you have a failure, it's not going to result in an actual environmental harm."

Health concerns
Click to expand...

Blackrook · Dec 24, 2011

Liberals want to go back to the days of horse and buggy.

dujac · Dec 24, 2011

Mac-7 said: ↑

"Maybe" is all that liberal environmentalists who are worried about the end of the world due to burning fossil fuels need to hear.
Click to expand...

i'd be willing to bet that the people in this video are far from 'liberal'

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMFYndOpWqs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMFYndOpWqs[/ame]

SiliconMagician · Dec 24, 2011

dujac said: ↑

i'd be willing to bet that the people in this video are far from 'liberal'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMFYndOpWqs
Click to expand...

Useful idiots

Blackrook · Dec 24, 2011

To understand the liberal mindset on the environment read Lord of the Rings.

The man who builds industry is Sarumon, the evil wizard.

The Treants who get angry and destroy his factory.

That's what liberals want to do to American industry and free enterprise.

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

The second iteration of man-made global warming.

Another giant farce masquerading as science.

MissFortune · Dec 24, 2011

The government is always late on these kinds of environmental problems, especially when it poses a threat to profitable ventures. More EPA stuff...

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_exec_summ.pdf

Diesel is the worst additive...

EPA has determined that in some cases, constituents of potential concern (section ES-6) are injected directly into USDWs during the course of normal fracturing operations. The use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids introduces benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) into USDWs (underground sources of drinking water).
Click to expand...

Benzene = known carcinogen

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp

Look up the others, they're not great either.

Even without the diesel, there's still nitrogen in fracturing fluids...

http://www.water-research.net/nitrate.htm

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

MissFortune said: ↑

The government is always late on these kinds of environmental problems, especially when it poses a threat to profitable ventures. More EPA stuff...

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_exec_summ.pdf

Diesel is the worst additive...

Benzene = known carcinogen

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp

Look up the others, they're not great either.

Even without the diesel, there's still nitrogen in fracturing fluids...

http://www.water-research.net/nitrate.htm
Click to expand...

The EPA is an activist organization. It's hard to take anything they say seriously.

MissFortune · Dec 24, 2011

I'm trying to find better articles from google scholar and other databases I have access to but many of the papers require membership....give me a minute and I'll see what I can find.

Margot · Dec 24, 2011

Blackrook said: ↑

Liberals want to go back to the days of horse and buggy.
Click to expand...

This isn't a partisan issue... Its a drinking water issue. These homeowners are concerned about health and safety.

That has to be addressed by scientists, NOT partisan hacks.

Margot · Dec 24, 2011

Ethereal said: ↑

The EPA is an activist organization. It's hard to take anything they say seriously.
Click to expand...

Have you ever actually dealt with the EPA on any new technology?

MissFortune · Dec 24, 2011

From google scholar:

http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-c...8/10aug19_NorthrupEPAcommentsFracking2010.pdf

Based on the volume of fluids moved, the fracking of a shale formation amounts to a massive water
bomb. Since the lighter fracking chemicals separate out of the frack water, they are more likely to show up as
pollutants in aquifers and ground water. This explains their presence in water wells near active shale gas wells.

Faulting and Dispersion as Pathways into Aquifers The fact that the fracked area of a well is horizontal and
of a considerable length simply increases the odds that some vertically and inclined faulting or localized
faulting will be encountered (Figure 1). Since shale has relatively low permeability, the well has to be fracked
repeatedly in order for it to continue to produce. Such multiple fracks simply increase the odds that the gas
will either go out of zone via faulting, or out of the well bore via faulty casing. In either case, area ground
water and aquifers are vulnerable to be polluted first by escaped natural gas, and subsequently by fracking
fluids, including toxic chemicals such as benzene, which will separate out of the frack water over time.
Click to expand...

http://www.highswartz.com/library/files/wlj_haz3120_commentary_myers-flenner_.pdf

There are many potential environmental consequences of natural gas drilling. These
include the effects of well pad construction, water withdrawals, wastewater and solid
waste generation from drilling and fracking, air emissions from drilling equipment,
hazardous material spills, and logistical support operations (such as truck traffic and
pipeline construction).

The large water requirements for drilling and fracking require significant freshwater
sources. Much of the used fracking water is returned to the surface as flow-back
through the well bore. Flow-back water can amount to 50 percent or more of the
input water volume.
Flow-back water contains a large amount of pollutants, including sand, chemicals
and trace radioactive particles found in many geologic formations. Fracking chemicals may include petroleum derivatives, alcohols, acids, heavy metals, and other
organic and inorganic compounds. These contaminants can reach water supplies
through improper well construction or surface spills. Flow-back water must be treated
before being discharged into streams.
Click to expand...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866701/

Recent evidence suggests fracking may have contributed to groundwater contamination with methane in some instances and that proprietary chemicals used in the procedure could theoretically pose a public health threat. However, because groundwater supplies and natural gas deposits are often separated by thousands of feet of rock and earth, and groundwater can be contaminated by many sources, it is difficult to establish a definitive connection between contaminated drinking water and fracking. Further, there has been very little in-depth research on the subject with respect to drilling in shale beds.
Click to expand...

I guess you can believe what you want while the research isn't there to back it up, but I still believe it poses a threat. In any case it's a huge water waster for sure.

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

Margot said: ↑

Have you ever actually dealt with the EPA on any new technology?
Click to expand...

Oh, Margot. Please don't patronize me.

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

MissFortune said: ↑

From google scholar:

http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-c...8/10aug19_NorthrupEPAcommentsFracking2010.pdf

http://www.highswartz.com/library/files/wlj_haz3120_commentary_myers-flenner_.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866701/

I guess you can believe what you want while the research isn't there to back it up, but I still believe it poses a threat. In any case it's a huge water waster for sure.
Click to expand...

I'll take the time to read and respond to these studies if you promise to have an open mind about my rebuttal.

MissFortune · Dec 24, 2011

Of course =) everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if we don't agree. Perhaps you can offer some new insight, I tried to include parts I found most relevant, my fav source (most used) ncbi, seemed to say the verdict is still out. I stand by my thoughts though.

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

MissFortune said: ↑

Of course =) everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if we don't agree. Perhaps you can offer some new insight, I tried to include parts I found most relevant, my fav source (most used) ncbi, seemed to say the verdict is still out. I stand by my thoughts though.
Click to expand...

Alright then. As soon as I sober up, I'll get right on it.

Margot · Dec 24, 2011

Ethereal said: ↑

Oh, Margot. Please don't patronize me.
Click to expand...

Your statement re: the EPA was silly.

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

Margot said: ↑

Your statement re: the EPA was silly.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The EPA has gone way outside the bounds of rationality. They are nothing more than a bunch of progressive activists. It's not about the environment anymore, it's about a radical "green" agenda.

My friend made an excellent point the other day. Environmentalists are actually damaging the environment by politicizing the entire issue. People are becoming benumbed by "environmental" concerns because of the radical activists. They've drained regular people of their good will. It's the same thing with the leftist obsession with calling people racists. It downplays actual racism by cheapening the term.

Margot · Dec 24, 2011

Ethereal said: ↑

Not at all. The EPA has gone way outside the bounds of rationality. They are nothing more than a bunch of progressive activists. It's not about the environment anymore, it's about a radical "green" agenda.

My friend made an excellent point the other day. Environmentalists are actually damaging the environment by politicizing the entire issue. People are becoming benumbed by "environmental" concerns because of the radical activists. They've drained regular people of their good will. It's the same thing with the leftist obsession with calling people racists. It downplays actual racism by cheapening the term.
Click to expand...

On one thread you bash all foreigners claiming they criticize the US and want our downfall and in the next you make a blanket accusation re: the EPA.. which YOU have never dealt with.

The EPA is NOT radical.. and environmental safety is NOT a partisan issue. YOU and your "friend" seek to dismiss environmental concerns by politicizing them

Ethereal · Dec 24, 2011

Margot said: ↑

On one thread you bash all foreigners claiming they criticize the US and want our downfall and in the next you make a blanket accusation re: the EPA.. which YOU have never dealt with.
Click to expand...

I didn't bash all foreigners. That's just silly. I bashed a specific subset of foreigners who spend the majority of their free time on this forum bashing our country.

And I don't need to deal with the EPA in order to know they're a radical agenda-driven government agency. Simple observation is sufficient.

The EPA is NOT radical.. and environmental safety is NOT a partisan issue. YOU and your "friend" seek to dismiss environmental concerns by politicizing them
Click to expand...

Sure, Margot. Still love ya...

hoytmonger · Dec 24, 2011

Ethereal said: ↑

The EPA is an activist organization. It's hard to take anything they say seriously.
Click to expand...

True. The EPA only exists to carry out the policies of the executive.

Log in or Sign up

EPA theorizes fracking-pollution link

joesmalls New Member

Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

Mac-7 Banned

darckriver New Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

Blackrook Banned

dujac Well-Known Member

SiliconMagician Banned

Blackrook Banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

MissFortune New Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

MissFortune New Member

Margot Account closed, not banned

Margot Account closed, not banned

MissFortune New Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

MissFortune New Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Margot Account closed, not banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Margot Account closed, not banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

hoytmonger New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

EPA theorizes fracking-pollution link

joesmalls New Member

Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

Mac-7 Banned

darckriver New Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

Blackrook Banned

dujac Well-Known Member

SiliconMagician Banned

Blackrook Banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

MissFortune New Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

MissFortune New Member

Margot Account closed, not banned

Margot Account closed, not banned

MissFortune New Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

MissFortune New Member

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Margot Account closed, not banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

Margot Account closed, not banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

hoytmonger New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches