Gasland’s Fracking Nonsense

[CapelDodger]

This set the ol' crank alarm ringing for me.

Any mention of "Al Gore" is a definite signifier .

Given the evidence of industrial society so far there will be a down-side to this new process which those with a pecuniary interest in it will conceal as long as possible, and deny it for even longer.

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course that's just Industry shills. EPA bureaucrats always know more than people who actually do know what they're doing.

The Texas Railroad Commission regulates natural-gas drilling?

I don't doubt they know what they're doing. The question is, what are they doing? Trying to establish the truth or to obfuscate it?

There are many reasons gas may be entering the acquifer; old wells, failed casing, etc.

All of which must, of course, be demonstrated not to be the cause before fracking gets fingered.

"Industry officials and Texas regulators say fracking is safe because the chemically treated water is injected far below any usable drinking water - in this instance, the Trinity Aquifer. They say the gas in widely distributed flaming-water videos was not caused by fracking"

Where I come from "Texas regulator" is code for someone who'll take a bung. Unfair, perhaps, but there it is.

Maybe MythBusters can get on the flaming-water videos. It sounds right up their street.

 

[Nihilianth]

Hi. My first post here.

I know what the gas companies are doing to Pennsylvania. You should see some of these frakking pads on the Marcellus Shale in the middle of some of the formerly most beautiful pieces of land in North America.

There is no possible way those chemicals can't be anything but bad. And they are pumping that garbage into some of the cleanest spring water in existence, poisoning peoples' wells. It's a damn shame, really.

 

[Loss Leader]

The word is spelled f-r-a-k-k-i-n-g.

 

[Edx]

 

[EHocking]

The word is spelled f-r-a-k-k-i-n-g.

With respect. It's fraC'ing or fraCCing (short for fracturing, or a frac job)

Then again, I speak English not American.

 

[EHocking]

Maybe MythBusters can get on the flaming-water videos. It sounds right up their street.

It should be noted that methane can be of biogenic origin within an aquifer.
Only by testing the gas can you "fingerprint" it to originating from a gas well, so the above cannot be taken as proof of fraccing causing gas from ng wells to migrate into aquifers.

 

[EHocking]

Hi. My first post here.

I know what the gas companies are doing to Pennsylvania. You should see some of these frakking pads on the Marcellus Shale in the middle of some of the formerly most beautiful pieces of land in North America.

Just because these sites are unsightly it does not follow that.

There is no possible way those chemicals can't be anything but bad.

Do you have evidence that fraccing fluids and produced methane from any of these wells is contaminating aquifers from downhole, which this next seems to be implying?

And they are pumping that garbage into some of the cleanest spring water in existence, poisoning peoples' wells. It's a damn shame, really.

The greatest potential for water pollution from these operations is leaks from surface storage dams or disposal into water systems themselves.

Note also that methane can be naturally generated in aquifers.
It does not necessarily follow that methane in a water supply is from a gas well nearby. In fact, given the geology and how wells are drilled it is most unlikely.

I fully admit none of the above can be said with 100% surety, but the few examples I've looked up on the EPA site have proved to be biogenic methane originating within an aquifer and not migrating from a gas well.

 

[EHocking]

Here is a podcast with additional information about Frakking.

That link doesn't work.

The guest speaker is a biology professor

I hesitate to criticise without hearing the podcast - but my first impression is, what would a biology professor know about geology or hydrocarbon drilling practices?

who lives within 20 miles of Arkansas' largest site, the Fayetteville Shale.

Ah, proximity seems to be his qualifications.

OK, that was uncalled for, but I'd be interested to hear his take, because at the moment it smacks of argument from authority.

 

[AlBell]

OK, that was uncalled for, but I'd be interested to hear his take, because at the moment it smacks of argument from authority.

I think you meant argument from idiocy; something we see too much of here.

 

[EHocking]

Perhaps argument from improper authority?

 

[Nihilianth]

Just because these sites are unsightly it does not follow that.Do you have evidence that fraccing fluids and produced methane from any of these wells is contaminating aquifers from downhole,

Tell me, from a physics standpoint, how can drilling directly into the earth's crust using all kinds of chemical compounds, NOT get into the water table? That doesn't even make any sense to say "there is no evidence." Of course there is. The evidence is that rock, and particularly shale (which is what PA is mainly made up of,) is inherently porous. The very reason why they do frakking to begin with, is to break apart ("fracture") the shale so the natural gas can "leak" into the well. At the same time, the porousness of the shale, physically speaking, allows the chemicals to seep through into the groundwater. This is only common sense.

The greatest potential for water pollution from these operations is leaks from surface storage dams or disposal into water systems themselves.

Actually, the greatest potential is from accidents specifically. Of which there have been more than enough examples of happening throughout the region of NY and PA. The leaks can be just as bad, however, as in the case of Lycoming County.

Note also that methane can be naturally generated in aquifers.
It does not necessarily follow that methane in a water supply is from a gas well nearby. In fact, given the geology and how wells are drilled it is most unlikely.

Pine Creek Valley PA state park authorities frequently test the waters throughout the Valley. In the past twenty years, the water in Big Pine Creek has been safe to swim, and even to drink. That is, until about 2007 when drilling began in the area. The only conclusion could be the methane (and other chemicals) that have been seeping into the creeks and groundwater is because of the drilling. Note, also, that the chemical they use isn't just methane, either. Hydraulic fracture fluids contains much much more than just methane. So yeah. When other chemical compounds show up in the water testing, it is very easy to determine exactly where the pollution is coming from.

I fully admit none of the above can be said with 100% surety, but the few examples I've looked up on the EPA site have proved to be biogenic methane originating within an aquifer and not migrating from a gas well.

Upon a cursory glance at the EPA website, I couldn't find anything real specific. I shall peruse the site at a later date when I have more time. I saw a couple of links to some companies, one of which was a subpoena for Haliburton.

Now, to my main points. First of all, the very purpose of fracking....frakking....however you want to spell. Doesn't matter. I'll spell it how you did for the time-being: "frakking."

Anyway, the very purpose of frakking (short for "hydraulic fracturing") is to pump man-made fluids into the ground, in order to drill down into the earth. This inherently puts the local ground water at risk of contamination. Especially when the casing breaks, which happens too often. Good case of drinking water becoming contaminated: Dimock PA. I don't entirely remember the details at the moment, but it was a pretty big deal, which made national news headlines.

Another danger is the transporting of these fluids. There have been a number of accidents involving the trucks that haul the fluids in PA. There was a trucking accident up past Waterville in Pine Creek. This had the localized effect of a disastrous oil spill. It contaminated everyone's drinking water in the area, forcing those people to go out and buy their own water. Which is a damned shame, because the water in the Valley used to be some of the cleanest waters in the world. I remember the entire Valley was up in arms to ban drilling. The local newspaper, and even the local TV news station from out in Scranton reported on it.

There was also an accident that involved two or three frakking trucks on I-80. Spilled tons of the chemicals all over the place.

There was a well-blowout in Clearfield last year. This sent tens of thousands of gallons of the fluid directly into the state forest land. People had to be evacuated, and was perhaps one of the largest disasters in the state of PA involving gas drilling. That, too, made national headlines.

Shall I go on? The numbers of incidences are hair-raising. The state forest lands are getting too much dosage of this garbage. It affects everyone living in and around those areas, as well as the wildlife.

There have been many leaks, spills, and accidents all over the state. The water has been frequently tested in Pine Creek Valley, for instance, for the better part of two decades before the gas drilling companies came along. They still test the waters, and they have to issue warnings to the locals once in a while about the PH levels getting too high. They never used to issue PH warnings before the drilling began.

For your perusal, here's the wiki article on "frakking:"

Damn, I cannot post links! Look up "Hydraulic Fracturing" on wikipedia.

I was going to post a blog that described an accident. But blogs are mostly opinion pieces, and are less reliable than Wiki. It was about an explosion that injured three people, and contaminated the local area.

An article about one of the accidents I was thinking of while writing this post. A leak of 13,000 gallons of crap that happened in Lycoming County, which happens to be where I am from. (Local newspaper, and the local news station, The Williamsport Sun Gazette, and Newswatch 16 did some extensive coverage of the accident. The residents of Williamsport were put on an advisory alert.) The same article talked about a "35 mile spill" that happened up in Wellsboro. About 45 minutes from where I live. This just happened quite recently, in October.

Can't post links yet, so the article is at "workers . org / 2010 / us / fracking _ 1209."

If you want to know about the spill which reached 35 to 40 miles away (about as far south as Williamsport almost. A city of 50,000. My hometown.) just Google "fracking spill in wellsboro PA" That is not the only incident just within Wellsboro alone! There have been other incidences of spills in Tioga county. There was a trucking accident in Wellsboro before I remember reading about.

It is funny how PA has some of the weakest regulations regarding drilling, and yet has issued over 8,000 violations in the past three years.

Also, the unsightliness of the drill pads does matter. The people who buy and own land in those areas do so because of the natural beauty. The fracking pads are driving prices down, and hurting the real-estate business. Just because the pads are no big deal to you when you are remote from the issue of the ugliness of the pads, doesn't mean that issue alone does not matter.

ETA: spelling/grammar corrections. Forgot to proofread before posting.

 

[EHocking]

Tell me, from a physics standpoint, how can drilling directly into the earth's crust using all kinds of chemical compounds, NOT get into the water table?

By using engineers to design the well and not physicists!

Basically, you generally drill "just" overbalanced, a small amout of fluid is lost to the formation, but in doing so a layer of filtrate forms in the wellbore and effectively seals the wellbore while drilling ahead. You of course case of reactive formations and aquifers.

That doesn't even make any sense to say "there is no evidence." Of course there is. The evidence is that rock, and particularly shale (which is what PA is mainly made up of,) is inherently porous.

While its porosity may be higher than sandston, its permeability is low. A low permeability, by definition, restricts fluid flow. Shale formations can and do form oiltraps, in that, they don't allow fluids to migrate through them. Very useful if above a fluid bearing sandstone that is, as well as porous, permeable.

The very reason why they do frakking to begin with, is to break apart ("fracture") the shale so the natural gas can "leak" into the well.

They frac shale to create MORE PORES because of shale's low permeability. It is because fluids do NOT flow readily through shales that fraccing is performed.

At the same time, the porousness of the shale, physically speaking, allows the chemicals to seep through into the groundwater. This is only common sense.

I hope from my previous responses you can see that, in this case, common sense does not reflect reality.

Actually, the greatest potential is from accidents specifically. Of which there have been more than enough examples of happening throughout the region of NY and PA. The leaks can be just as bad, however, as in the case of Lycoming County.

If you are speaking of spills, I can only agree with you. The surface water systems are in more danger of being polluted by poor operations standards than migration of fluids from the wellbore through overlying formations.

Pine Creek Valley PA state park authorities frequently test the waters throughout the Valley. In the past twenty years, the water in Big Pine Creek has been safe to swim, and even to drink. That is, until about 2007 when drilling began in the area. The only conclusion could be the methane (and other chemicals) that have been seeping into the creeks and groundwater is because of the drilling.

Do you have a cite for the SP authority reports on water quality and contaminants?
This sounds like a very specific case and it would be interesting to determine what the causes for water pollution in the area.

Note, also, that the chemical they use isn't just methane, either.

Methane is not used in fraccing. It is the result of fraccing a shale.

Hydraulic fracture fluids contains much much more than just methane.

No. There is no methane in fraccing fluids. From the sound of much of this post I don't think you fully understand the subject as you have come to a number of incorrect conclusion based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the process.

So yeah. When other chemical compounds show up in the water testing, it is very easy to determine exactly where the pollution is coming from.

This is true to a point. Methane, certainly, can be "fingerprinted", so if it was turning up in the groundwater it is mostly possible to determine its source, i.e. biogenic, or gas shale.

The other chemicals are also in cleaning products and used in agriculture so are not as readily identified as coming directly from the gas drilling ops.

Upon a cursory glance at the EPA website, I couldn't find anything real specific. I shall peruse the site at a later date when I have more time. I saw a couple of links to some companies, one of which was a subpoena for Haliburton.

Because Halliburton were the only company of 9 that would not readily divulge information regarding frac practices. Halliburton is not necessarily representative of the these other 8 companies.

Now, to my main points. First of all, the very purpose of fracking....frakking....however you want to spell. Doesn't matter. I'll spell it how you did for the time-being: "frakking."

Anyway, the very purpose of frakking (short for "hydraulic fracturing") is to pump man-made fluids into the ground, in order to drill down into the earth.

No. Stop right there. I suggest that you read the Wiki entry on Hydraulic Fracturing^WP before you continue.

This inherently puts the local ground water at risk of contamination. Especially when the casing breaks, which happens too often.

No it doesn't. Unless you can provide a cite for this accusation?.

Good case of drinking water becoming contaminated: Dimock PA. I don't entirely remember the details at the moment, but it was a pretty big deal, which made national news headlines.

Guess what? Hundreds of wells are drilled in the GoM. Not all of them end up as Macondo did. Similarly, a single operation in PA is not indicative of the entire industry.

Also, the contamination was not from migration out of the wellbore, it was surface spills and lack of containment of produced and flowback water.

Another danger is the transporting of these fluids. There have been a number of accidents involving the trucks that haul the fluids in PA. There was a trucking accident up past Waterville in Pine Creek. This had the localized effect of a disastrous oil spill. It contaminated everyone's drinking water in the area, forcing those people to go out and buy their own water. Which is a damned shame, because the water in the Valley used to be some of the cleanest waters in the world. I remember the entire Valley was up in arms to ban drilling. The local newspaper, and even the local TV news station from out in Scranton reported on it.

There was also an accident that involved two or three frakking trucks on I-80. Spilled tons of the chemicals all over the place.

I fully agree with the above - but none of this points to groundwater contamination from fluids migrating out of a wellbore through formations.

All of the above are transport incidents.

There was a well-blowout in Clearfield last year. This sent tens of thousands of gallons of the fluid directly into the state forest land. People had to be evacuated, and was perhaps one of the largest disasters in the state of PA involving gas drilling. That, too, made national headlines.

Shall I go on? The numbers of incidences are hair-raising. The state forest lands are getting too much dosage of this garbage. It affects everyone living in and around those areas, as well as the wildlife.

I agree with you, but all of the above can (and does) equally relate to conventional oil and gas drilling as it does mining and other industries.

There have been many leaks, spills, and accidents all over the state. The water has been frequently tested in Pine Creek Valley, for instance, for the better part of two decades before the gas drilling companies came along. They still test the waters, and they have to issue warnings to the locals once in a while about the PH levels getting too high. They never used to issue PH warnings before the drilling began.

For your perusal, here's the wiki article on "frakking:"

Damn, I cannot post links! Look up "Hydraulic Fracturing" on wikipedia.

You'd do well to read it yourself and familiarise yourself with the operation.

<snip> There was a trucking accident in Wellsboro before I remember reading about.

I can understand your grief and certainly an increase in trucking will inherently increase the possibility of road accidents.

It is funny how PA has some of the weakest regulations regarding drilling, and yet has issued over 8,000 violations in the past three years.

I have no experience with PA regulatory bodies.

Also, the unsightliness of the drill pads does matter. The people who buy and own land in those areas do so because of the natural beauty. The fracking pads are driving prices down, and hurting the real-estate business. Just because the pads are no big deal to you when you are remote from the issue of the ugliness of the pads, doesn't mean that issue alone does not matter.

I agreed that they can be unsightly, unfortunately prospecting laws don't protect that.

ETA: spelling/grammar corrections. Forgot to proofread before posting.

I'm going to take my chances and hit Submit.

ETA: I and NOT defending poor practices by operators in the State nor am I defending the relaxation of regulations by the government bodies involved in the industry in the State. Remember. The companies need to seek permission from government before they started any ops.

 

[macdoc]

The take away of the long post

Groundwater pollution from the wells directly is low incidence currently but the long term risk of the wells going through the ground water layer to the gas is uncertain.

Water and air and soil pollution from the surface operations is an ongoing issue and given the widespread incidence and rush to drill- likely to increase than decrease.

 

[EHocking]

The take away of the long post

Groundwater pollution from the wells directly is low incidence currently but the long term risk of the wells going through the ground water layer to the gas is uncertain.

No, it's not. Practically all land wells have to drill through a relatively shallow aquifer to get to the lower hydrocarbon reservoir. In outback Queensland, if an oilwell comes up "dry" (in a commercial sense), the well is by default converted to a water well for the property owner. Been going on for decades.

Water and air and soil pollution from the surface operations is an ongoing issue and given the widespread incidence and rush to drill- likely to increase than decrease.

No argument there, unfortunately that is a very real concern.

 

[Nihilianth]

By using engineers to design the well and not physicists!

Basically, you generally drill "just" overbalanced, a small amout of fluid is lost to the formation, but in doing so a layer of filtrate forms in the wellbore and effectively seals the wellbore while drilling ahead. You of course case of reactive formations and aquifers.

While its porosity may be higher than sandston, its permeability is low. A low permeability, by definition, restricts fluid flow. Shale formations can and do form oiltraps, in that, they don't allow fluids to migrate through them. Very useful if above a fluid bearing sandstone that is, as well as porous, permeable.They frac shale to create MORE PORES because of shale's low permeability. It is because fluids do NOT flow readily through shales that fraccing is performed.I hope from my previous responses you can see that, in this case, common sense does not reflect reality.If you are speaking of spills, I can only agree with you. The surface water systems are in more danger of being polluted by poor operations standards than migration of fluids from the wellbore through overlying formations.

I don't know much at all about porosity/permeability of the rock, nor any of the specific operations of the process of drilling itself. Probably would have been better to keep my mouth shut on that to begin with.

I just assumed since they are using this fracking fluid to break apart the rock in order to be able to drill down to the gas, that the chemicals should be able to seep into the water table. I also know that the fracking fluid they use is composed of many different types of chemicals, none of which are natural to the area, and is quite harmful if it does reach the water table.

Do you have a cite for the SP authority reports on water quality and contaminants?

None that I can link to until I reach 15 posts in here. Sorry. The best I can do currently, is to direct you to the PA DCNR site.

This sounds like a very specific case and it would be interesting to determine what the causes for water pollution in the area.Methane is not used in fraccing. It is the result of fraccing a shale.No. There is no methane in fraccing fluids. From the sound of much of this post I don't think you fully understand the subject as you have come to a number of incorrect conclusion based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the process.This is true to a point. Methane, certainly, can be "fingerprinted", so if it was turning up in the groundwater it is mostly possible to determine its source, i.e. biogenic, or gas shale.

The other chemicals are also in cleaning products and used in agriculture so are not as readily identified as coming directly from the gas drilling ops.
Because Halliburton were the only company of 9 that would not readily divulge information regarding frac practices. Halliburton is not necessarily representative of the these other 8 companies.

Now, to my main points. First of all, the very purpose of fracking....frakking....however you want to spell. Doesn't matter. I'll spell it how you did for the time-being: "frakking."

The state game commissioners up in Tioga County have released a pamphlet describing the release of these chemicals into the ground water, and the water table. They briefly describe how and why they test for chemicals, and which chemicals they test for, and how they determine the source of the release of said chemicals.

Considering there is a lack of any significant farming, combined with a very sparsely populated forest lands from Pine Creek Valley, and up to the Endless Mountains region, and indeed, throughout all of the Pennsylvania "Wilds," the likelihood of even some of these chemicals coming from household products and agriculture is pretty remote. The only human activities of any significance in some of these areas are the gas drilling operations. Therefore, it is very easy for the DCNR to determine where some of these specific chemicals are coming from.

Anyway, the very purpose of frakking (short for "hydraulic fracturing") is to pump man-made fluids into the ground, in order to drill down into the earth.

No. Stop right there. I suggest that you read the Wiki entry on Hydraulic Fracturing^WP before you continue.No it doesn't. Unless you can provide a cite for this accusation?. Guess what? Hundreds of wells are drilled in the GoM. Not all of them end up as Macondo did. Similarly, a single operation in PA is not indicative of the entire industry.

Well, first of all, let me say that hydraulic fracturing is used for the purposes of drilling for oil, gas, and what have you. I don;t know what you mean, when you say "No, it doesn't." If they don't use hydraulic fluids for the purposes of drilling, then why are they even using the stuff? Why not just place a big-old drill bit in the bore hole, and just pond away at the rock "Armageddon" style?

Also, the bolded. The Marcellus Shale drilling is not a "single operation in PA." It is a massive operation, involving many different companies, each with many different operations throughout the entire shale in the states of NY and PA. There have been over 8,000 reported violations by the state of PA in a single year alone. Two incidences up in Wellsboro, one which was a pretty major incident. One in Lycoming County, in which chemicals were leaking from the well bores. Several trucking accidents along interstate 80, several more accidents in PCV (Pine Creek Valley.)

One well-documented case is in Dimock PA. If you only follow just one source I can provide, I strongly urge you to Google these words: "Dimock PA gas wells." There are all kinds of videos on the nagative impacts on the local environments and neighborhoods. The water that comes out of people's faucets are brown. The whole site and operation in Dimock is beyond disgusting. It's a wonder they let it get so out of hand down there.

The amount of pollution being pumped into the Delaware River, which is in turn going down to the Chesapeake Bay, is costing the state taxpayers of PA and DE millions of dollars to try to clean up under federal and state regulations.

Also, the contamination was not from migration out of the wellbore, it was surface spills and lack of containment of produced and flowback water.
I fully agree with the above - but none of this points to groundwater contamination from fluids migrating out of a wellbore through formations.

That's exactly what happened in my home county though. A couple of the well bores in Lycoming County was leaking tens of thousands of gallons directly into the water table, and the groundwater. The city of Williamsport (50,000 residents!) was put on an advisory. The advisory reach as far as Clinton County as well, with a couple of other smaller towns out there. In all, this affected probably over 100,000 people.

There have been plenty of other examples of leaks from the well bores. Casings inside the bores don't always hold up, and are not terribly reliable in stopping the chemicals from seeping into the water table.

All of the above are transport incidents.I agree with you, but all of the above can (and does) equally relate to conventional oil and gas drilling as it does mining and other industries.You'd do well to read it yourself and familiarise yourself with the operation.I can understand your grief and certainly an increase in trucking will inherently increase the possibility of road accidents. I have no experience with PA regulatory bodies.I agreed that they can be unsightly, unfortunately prospecting laws don't protect that.I'm going to take my chances and hit Submit.

ETA: I and NOT defending poor practices by operators in the State nor am I defending the relaxation of regulations by the government bodies involved in the industry in the State. Remember. The companies need to seek permission from government before they started any ops.

I'm glad you are not defending poor practices. I just don;t think there are very many people that fully realize the full scope of the damage that is caused by these operatons. It isn't just environmental either, though that is perhaps of the greatest concerns.

Other concerns relate to the wear-and-tear of the roads that are paid for by the state tax payers. Roads that are already in desperate shape, without having huge mulit-billion dollar out-of-state companies coming in to use those roads, free-of-charge. Of course, the state mandates that the companies repair any damages that happen to the roads they use. But those companies often violate their agreements, and/or do a piss-poor job in the repairs, leaving the roads still worse off than they found them in. The state does a terrible job in regulating the use of roads, and documenting what damages are done, and just how badly damaged they are.

And still others are the unsightliness of once-peaceful and beautiful areas that people purposely moved into because of the natural beauty. The loudness of the operations. In Dimock, for example, Haliburton or one of them companies just came and plopped like 30 big trucks, started drilling, which is a very loud process, and transporting dangerous chemicals, mere yards from people's homes with children. They planted a drill directly between two homes in one video.

Of course, that is probably the "fault" of the state and the town for not regulating those practices, and for signing poorly draw-up contracts.

 

[macdoc]

No, it's not. Practically all land wells have to drill through a relatively shallow aquifer to get to the lower hydrocarbon reservoir. In outback Queensland, if an oilwell comes up "dry" (in a commercial sense), the well is by default converted to a water well for the property owner. Been going on for decades.

That is a dodge - those wells are not fracked nor are the chemicals pumped in.
That adds a whole new dimension to the risks.

Hydro-fracking and earthquakes? Uh-oh…
March 11, 2010 2:05 pm by Kate Mackenzie

The shale gas industry won’t like this one: a study has found that a shale gas saltwater disposal well in the Barnett Shale may have caused some earthquakes there.

Researchers from University of Texas and Southern Methodist University looked at three sets of earthquakes in the Dallas-Forth Worth region in 2008 and 2009. The biggest of these had a magnitude of 3.3 (though the most recent event has not yet been studied in detail).

Earthquakes caused by oil and gas drilling are not unknown, as the map shows, and the study’s authors cite examples going back to the early 20th century, with magnitudes of up to 4.6.

more
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/03/11/hydro-fracking-and-earthquakes-uh-oh/

as I said.....uncertain,

 

[EHocking]

I don't know much at all about porosity/permeability of the rock, nor any of the specific operations of the process of drilling itself. Probably would have been better to keep my mouth shut on that to begin with.

Meh - how are you going to find out if you don't ask?

I just assumed since they are using this fracking fluid to break apart the rock in order to be able to drill down to the gas, that the chemicals should be able to seep into the water table.

No. Fraccing is part of the completion/production phase. Applied only to the producing formation and only after drilling down to it. It is not part of the wellbore making process.

I also know that the fracking fluid they use is composed of many different types of chemicals, none of which are natural to the area, and is quite harmful if it does reach the water table.

Well, even that is a bit overegged by the media. Most fraccing fluid is water - around 99%+, more often than not, with sand transported in it to prop open the fractures after the water has been evacuated from the formation once it has done the job of creating new fractures. But that's your basic frac. After that things can get quite exotic.

None that I can link to until I reach 15 posts in here. Sorry. The best I can do currently, is to direct you to the PA DCNR site.

Yeah. Had a cruise of that myself. It's not a terribly user friendly site finding specifics.

The state game commissioners up in Tioga County have released a pamphlet describing the release of these chemicals into the ground water, and the water table. They briefly describe how and why they test for chemicals, and which chemicals they test for, and how they determine the source of the release of said chemicals.

Again, I couldn't find it, so can't comment on the program.

Considering there is a lack of any significant farming, combined with a very sparsely populated forest lands from Pine Creek Valley, and up to the Endless Mountains region, and indeed, throughout all of the Pennsylvania "Wilds," the likelihood of even some of these chemicals coming from household products and agriculture is pretty remote. The only human activities of any significance in some of these areas are the gas drilling operations. Therefore, it is very easy for the DCNR to determine where some of these specific chemicals are coming from.

And the answer is? At the moment both you and I are only speculating.

Anyway, the very purpose of frakking (short for "hydraulic fracturing") is to pump man-made fluids into the ground, in order to drill down into the earth.

Well, first of all, let me say that hydraulic fracturing is used for the purposes of drilling for oil, gas, and what have you. I don;t know what you mean, when you say "No, it doesn't." If they don't use hydraulic fluids for the purposes of drilling, then why are they even using the stuff? Why not just place a big-old drill bit in the bore hole, and just pond away at the rock "Armageddon" style?

Answered above.

Also, the bolded. The Marcellus Shale drilling is not a "single operation in PA." It is a massive operation, involving many different companies, each with many different operations throughout the entire shale in the states of NY and PA. There have been over 8,000 reported violations by the state of PA in a single year alone. Two incidences up in Wellsboro, one which was a pretty major incident. One in Lycoming County, in which chemicals were leaking from the well bores.

It sounds like the governing body is doing a great job. 8,000 infractions and only 3 incidents of note.
(OK, that was facetious). But again, these are all "surface" spills. None which indicate fluid is migrating underground into aquifers.

Several trucking accidents along interstate 80, several more accidents in PCV (Pine Creek Valley.)

One well-documented case is in Dimock PA. If you only follow just one source I can provide, I strongly urge you to Google these words: "Dimock PA gas wells." There are all kinds of videos on the nagative impacts on the local environments and neighborhoods. The water that comes out of people's faucets are brown. The whole site and operation in Dimock is beyond disgusting. It's a wonder they let it get so out of hand down there.

While I share your disgust - this is one operator.

The amount of pollution being pumped into the Delaware River, which is in turn going down to the Chesapeake Bay, is costing the state taxpayers of PA and DE millions of dollars to try to clean up under federal and state regulations.

And none of this is fluid migrating from fracced formations into aquifers.

That's exactly what happened in my home county though. A couple of the well bores in Lycoming County was leaking tens of thousands of gallons directly into the water table, and the groundwater. The city of Williamsport (50,000 residents!) was put on an advisory. The advisory reach as far as Clinton County as well, with a couple of other smaller towns out there. In all, this affected probably over 100,000 people.

But, again, this was not frac fluid, this was a subsurface blowout of gas. Think Macondo, but underground.
It certainly points towards wells being drilled where there is poor understanding of the underlying geology and frankly, I'd be worried about this practice. There's another thread here on the Australians being worried about the same type of activity in little explored areas.

There have been plenty of other examples of leaks from the well bores. Casings inside the bores don't always hold up, and are not terribly reliable in stopping the chemicals from seeping into the water table.

This is quite wrong. 10s of thousands of wells are drilled in the US each year. VERY few have construction failures.

I'm glad you are not defending poor practices. I just don;t think there are very many people that fully realize the full scope of the damage that is caused by these operatons. It isn't just environmental either, though that is perhaps of the greatest concerns.

The other quite disturbing thing to consider is depletion of aquifers ( large concern in Australia). Frac ops consume millions of gallons of water daily.

Other concerns relate to the wear-and-tear of the roads that are paid for by the state tax payers. Roads that are already in desperate shape, without having huge mulit-billion dollar out-of-state companies coming in to use those roads, free-of-charge. Of course, the state mandates that the companies repair any damages that happen to the roads they use. But those companies often violate their agreements, and/or do a piss-poor job in the repairs, leaving the roads still worse off than they found them in. The state does a terrible job in regulating the use of roads, and documenting what damages are done, and just how badly damaged they are.

And still others are the unsightliness of once-peaceful and beautiful areas that people purposely moved into because of the natural beauty. The loudness of the operations. In Dimock, for example, Haliburton or one of them companies just came and plopped like 30 big trucks, started drilling, which is a very loud process, and transporting dangerous chemicals, mere yards from people's homes with children. They planted a drill directly between two homes in one video.

Unfortunately, oil and gas is big money - and the government gets a good whack of that. There is always an incentive to allow drilling over the concerns of a community. I don't know the answer to it.

Of course, that is probably the "fault" of the state and the town for not regulating those practices. Much like it would be the fault of law enforcement if they don't stop someone from mugging or raping someone.

No, in this case the government is giving permission for the mugging and the raping and then fining the mugger if they didn't do it as agreed (after taking a percentage of the cash as well).

 

[EHocking]

That is a dodge - those wells are not fracked nor are the chemicals pumped in.

It is not a dodge, I addressed exactly what you posted.

Groundwater pollution from the wells directly is low incidence currently but the long term risk of the wells going through the ground water layer to the gas is uncertain.

Practically every land well drilled has to drill through the shallower groundwater formation (aquifer) to get to the lower hydrocarbon formation. It has been this way practically from the first well ever drilled.
The risks of drilling through aquifers to reach lower formations is well known and treated accordingly.

That adds a whole new dimension to the risks.

No, it doesn't, since there is nothing new here.

more
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/03/11/hydro-fracking-and-earthquakes-uh-oh/

as I said.....uncertain,

This has nothing to do with drilling through or contaminating groundwater, and the paper itself is pretty speculative in its conclusion;

"More than 12,000 wells have been completed in the Barnett
Shale of the Fort Worth Basin in the past decade..., and all received hydraulic fracture treatments. More than 200 saltwater disposal wells are active in the area of Barnett production. If the DFW earthquakes were caused by saltwater injection or other activities associated with producing gas, it is puzzling why there are only one or two areas of felt seismicity.​

 

[Nihilianth]

Meh - how are you going to find out if you don't ask?

I didn't know there was anything to ask. I just assumed, and took my assumption at face value, that if they are using chemicals to break apart the rock, then it would make sense those chemicals would end up in the water table, and the groundwater.

No. Fraccing is part of the completion/production phase. Applied only to the producing formation and only after drilling down to it. It is not part of the wellbore making process.

Oh, I knew it wasn't used for initially creating the well bore. I always thought it was used for breaking apart some of the shale in order to get to the gas. I should probably read that wiki article completely and thoroughly.

Well, even that is a bit overegged by the media. Most fraccing fluid is water - around 99%+, more often than not, with sand transported in it to prop open the fractures after the water has been evacuated from the formation once it has done the job of creating new fractures. But that's your basic frac. After that things can get quite exotic.

What is the other 1%? I know that if you were to compose a cupful of water that contains 1% arsenic, it will kill you straightaway. 1% out of thousands upon thousands of gallons of water is a lot of chemicals that can do quite a bit of harm.

Yeah. Had a cruise of that myself. It's not a terribly user friendly site finding specifics.

lol, you don't need to tell me! I had to search around pretty extensively, and ran across a PDF that was a report on chemicals found in some of the groundwater that was tested. Unforuntely, I couldn't d/l the PDF. My computer got hung-up, and crashed. I'll try again later, and link ya when I reach my 15 posts.

Again, I couldn't find it, so can't comment on the program.

The pamphlet wasn't anywhere on the internet. I physically held it in my hands. They were handing these things out like candy up in Rickett's Glen this past June, though. (You ever get a chance to come to PA, I HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY suggest you go to Ricket's Glen, btw!)

And the answer is? At the moment both you and I are only speculating.

I'll continue my search for exact specifications, since you are asking. I'll take a few days, maybe a week or so to gather some materials if you wish. But my hypothesis using common sense, is that any chemicals found in some of those waterways way out there in the deep wilderness is from fracking fluids. I know the waters in the PCV was perfectly fine for more than twenty years. And like I said, there isn't any real agriculture or human habitation in some of these areas. Particularly further west. The only conclusion I can think of where these chemicals (which didn't seem to exist before the discovery of the Macellus Shale) comes from, is the fracking.

It sounds like the governing body is doing a great job. 8,000 infractions and only 3 incidents of note. (OK, that was facetious). But again, these are all "surface" spills. None which indicate fluid is migrating underground into aquifers.

It was pretty facetious. There are more than just three incidents of note, of course.

Any specific reasons why some of these "surface spills" should not migrate to the water table, and hence on into the aquifers? The leak in Lyco County, one of the incidents that I talked a bit about, was just that: A leak. It wasn't a surface spill, per se. And we were given a "water advisory" which lasted a couple of weeks. I can only assume with the advisory that it must have entered, or was in danger of entering, the area's water supply.

While I share your disgust - this is one operator.

And one operator is all it takes to completely destroy the local environment. And this is not the only incident either, unfortunately.

And none of this is fluid migrating from fracced formations into aquifers.

How do you know? Even if you are correct, the aquifers aren't the only thing of concern here. The Delaware river is the most endangered river in North America. It is absolutely filthy. And the pollution reaching the Chesapeake Bay has much more far-reaching effects than just the local areas. The Chesapeake Bay affects literally millions of people, and the economies of 5 states, and several fishing industries.

But, again, this was not frac fluid, this was a subsurface blowout of gas. Think Macondo, but underground.

Yeah, and Macondo was the man-made environmental disaster I can think of. Worse even than Exxon-Valdez. A blow-out is only one danger we have to contend with out of a myriad others.

It certainly points towards wells being drilled where there is poor understanding of the underlying geology and frankly, I'd be worried about this practice. There's another thread here on the Australians being worried about the same type of activity in little explored areas.

Indeed!

There have been plenty of other examples of leaks from the well bores. Casings inside the bores don't always hold up, and are not terribly reliable in stopping the chemicals from seeping into the water table.

This is quite wrong. 10s of thousands of wells are drilled in the US each year. VERY few have construction failures.

Then why have they been happening in Pa, then? I'll have to find the exact numbers, but it seems to happen on a far too regular basis around here.

The other quite disturbing thing to consider is depletion of aquifers ( large concern in Australia). Frac ops consume millions of gallons of water daily.

Lucky for us, we are not nearly as dry as Australia. But still, the price of water on the utility bill has been on the rise.

Other concerns relate to the wear-and-tear of the roads that are paid for by the state tax payers. Roads that are already in desperate shape, without having huge mulit-billion dollar out-of-state companies coming in to use those roads, free-of-charge. Of course, the state mandates that the companies repair any damages that happen to the roads they use. But those companies often violate their agreements, and/or do a piss-poor job in the repairs, leaving the roads still worse off than they found them in. The state does a terrible job in regulating the use of roads, and documenting what damages are done, and just how badly damaged they are.

And still others are the unsightliness of once-peaceful and beautiful areas that people purposely moved into because of the natural beauty. The loudness of the operations. In Dimock, for example, Haliburton or one of them companies just came and plopped like 30 big trucks, started drilling, which is a very loud process, and transporting dangerous chemicals, mere yards from people's homes with children. They planted a drill directly between two homes in one video.

Unfortunately, oil and gas is big money - and the government gets a good whack of that. There is always an incentive to allow drilling over the concerns of a community. I don't know the answer to it.

I don't claim to know the answer, either. Which is why there are protests going on in Harrisburgh fairly often these days. The sad thing is, these large companies are from Texas. They bring their workers with them from Texas. And transfer their profits back to Texas. Basically, Texas is coming into Pennsylvania, tearing apart this state, and our state budget is STILL in the red with the worst roads on the East Coast. I honestly have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, but I smell a rat in all of this.

No, in this case the government is giving permission for the mugging and the raping and then fining the mugger if they didn't do it as agreed (after taking a percentage of the cash as well).

Heh, and what they do with the cash they are supposedly taking, God only knows. As stated above, the roads are in terrible repair. It feels like you are driving along in an African safari, only with vehicles that cannot take the punishment and not built for such a terrible bumpy ride. The education system in this state ranks about 28th in the nation. And the state budget is still in the red. All of these, despite the fact that the state has pretty much done away with most gambling laws, which was supposedly to cause huge cash infusion into the state coffers as well. Between gambling and drilling profits, roads that are not being maintained, and the education system not up to par, something is most definitely wrong.