EPA discloses evidence that fracking contaminates drinking water

[herm0016]

This particular case had nothing to do with oil or gas exploitation, or building a home. The owners hired an earth moving company to literally flatten their farm, so that from the house they could see virtually all of it. Survey their kingdom, so to speak. In some places, they removed forty to sixty feet of earth and rock. In others, they added up to twenty or thirty. The sulfur could have come from an oil or gas deposit - there are wells for both in this part of Tennessee. But there are not (to my knowledge) any such wells within maybe five to seven miles, and the guy from the state concluded that the problem was that the expansion and contraction of the land (due to removing and adding tons of weight) changed the underlying hydrology. The altered flow of subterranean water both lessened the well's flow and soured it. To my knowledge, there were no conclusions made about the exact nature of the sulphuric deposit(s) encountered, or even whether it was a new source of sulphur or simply a concentration due to the greatly lessened water flow. It was much the same with the pond; its underground seepage stopped, or nearly so. (Although that is much harder to quantify because not only is there no way to capture and measure the flow into the pond, but direct surface runoff was greatly reduced by flattening the surrounding land.) As to intent, that was merely to demonstrate that changes in overlying structures (through any means) can cause disproportionate and unintended changes in hydrology. In this case, changes in stress caused underground streams to reroute. In other cases, fracking causes unexpected results such as flammable and/or sulfuric gases coming into potable wells.

I understand that all this can be modeled, but the ability to model something does not necessarily translate into perfect understanding of or control over that thing.

uh yes? i was demonstrating to others that water well contamination does not only come from oil and gas production. building a house moves tones of earth/adds weight to a spot just like moving a hill does. Fracture propagation is measured in 100s of feet, not thousands or miles. This is why we space wells sometimes as close as a 10 acre circle, or in older fields start drilling in-between the old wells to recover more from the zone. when fracturing, Nearby wells are monitored for pressure. Very rarely do we actually link fractures between wells even less than 1000 feet apart.

link from a reputable source that has proven this? "In other cases, fracking causes unexpected results such as flammable and/or sulfuric gases coming into potable wells"
as above, the case in gasland was proven false before the movie ever came to be, by a state regulatory agency and 2 independent labs.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

True. The thing is, Oil and gas and their constituents have also been in the ground far longer than we have been fracking for them or testing water, Some times they even bubble up to the surface on their own. There are instants where gas is found naturally in the top of an aquifer because the geology is good at trapping gas, oil and water. Oil and Gas are nearly always produced with water in the same geology.

the draft report, released in the summer of 2015, EPA said they “did not find evidence that these mechanisms [fracking] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.”
despite the same data in the final report, they changed the tone from science to speculation about the impacts.

Millions of wells in the US have been fracked over the last 60 or so years. Yes, there have been problems. These problems are generally related to casing and well construction and not fracking itself.

Fracking is a particular process that one can use in the construction of an oil well. The Drilling and casing of the well are not fracking. What the EPA said, is that the process of fracking is not the thing that is causing the few and far between problems they see. The things causing the issues are things like casing corrosion, leaking parts inside the wells, and badly maintained surface equipment. ( These are the 3 things i have seen the most).

Many states require that well integrity is proven before wells are bought /sold and on every new well drilled, this should be a national requirement i believe. It would also give us more business as we offer these services to well operators.

Isn't this basically the Flint water argument? It wasn't the quality of the water but, the change in ph? In both cases it seems the public had to pay the price to insure corporate profits rather than the other way around. 'First, do no harm' aught to apply to corporations as well as the medical profession.

 

[werepossum]

uh yes? i was demonstrating to others that water well contamination does not only come from oil and gas production. building a house moves tones of earth/adds weight to a spot just like moving a hill does. Fracture propagation is measured in 100s of feet, not thousands or miles. This is why we space wells sometimes as close as a 10 acre circle, or in older fields start drilling in-between the old wells to recover more from the zone. when fracturing, Nearby wells are monitored for pressure. Very rarely do we actually link fractures between wells even less than 1000 feet apart.

link from a reputable source that has proven this? "In other cases, fracking causes unexpected results such as flammable and/or sulfuric gases coming into potable wells"
as above, the case in gasland was proven false before the movie ever came to be, by a state regulatory agency and 2 independent labs.

Dominic DiGiulio and the Stanford School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences have a study released in Environmental Science and Technology showing that. It can be very difficult to provide since fracking companies often consider it a trade secret exactly what they are injecting into the ground, and some of the compounds (such as methanol) quickly break down. But they were able to show that environmental contaminates matching the fracking waste pits had been introduced into wells.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

This should not be at all controversial. If you inject something under great pressure at around the same depth as underground aquifers, and your purpose in doing so is to fracture rock, then of course the two are going to mingle. How could they not? There is no practical way to accurately model the exact complete underground system, we can only take test bores and make assumptions on the intervening areas. But we already know from the test bores that rock strata are not completely uniform.

 

[werepossum]

Isn't this basically the Flint water argument? It wasn't the quality of the water but, the change in ph? In both cases it seems the public had to pay the price to insure corporate profits rather than the other way around. 'First, do no harm' aught to apply to corporations as well as the medical profession.

I don't think it's possible to do no harm and still get the energy we need. But it should be possible to make sure that companies make restitution and mitigate damage when it occurs. To me, that starts with knowing (and controlling) exactly what is being injected into the earth.

 

[herm0016]

argument? it is because of the additives in the water. and no Private corp's were involved in flint... what the hell you are talking about now? millions of homes in this country use lead water pipes without leaching because the correct things are kept in the water. Flint's city council and manager decided they would restart their water plant to save money over buying it from Detroit. the plant was run improperly and households were exposed to lead because the city owned and run water plant had no idea how to manage and run a water plant. My family is from flint. The city has been struggling with their water system for the better part of 50 years. What is more concerning than the lead, is the outbreak of legionnaires, but that was not reported on because its not quite the grabbing headline. Those are the basics of that case and have nothing to do with anything in the thread.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don't think it's possible to do no harm and still get the energy we need. But it should be possible to make sure that companies make restitution and mitigate damage when it occurs. To me, that starts with knowing (and controlling) exactly what is being injected into the earth.

It's not the what or how as much as the net result. Things are changing albeit ever so slowly from the days of hydro mining but, you can still see the scars on the land. I truly hope we don't have those kind of scars from fracking.

 

[herm0016]

Dominic DiGiulio and the Stanford School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences have a study released in Environmental Science and Technology showing that. It can be very difficult to provide since fracking companies often consider it a trade secret exactly what they are injecting into the ground, and some of the compounds (such as methanol) quickly break down. But they were able to show that environmental contaminates matching the fracking waste pits had been introduced into wells.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

This should not be at all controversial. If you inject something under great pressure at around the same depth as underground aquifers, and your purpose in doing so is to fracture rock, then of course the two are going to mingle. How could they not? There is no practical way to accurately model the exact complete underground system, we can only take test bores and make assumptions on the intervening areas. But we already know from the test bores that rock strata are not completely uniform.

and it's from improperly managed waste water, not from the process of fracking. Fracking does not take place next to or in potable aquifers. it is 1000s of feet below any useable water. the water at the depths fracking takes place is laced with lots of natural chemicals including oil and gas, benzine, large amounts of mineral salts.

waste water from all sorts of things can damage an aquifer, it should be regulated and fixed. the regulations should be placed on all waste water from all industries. . .


show us the scars, as there must be some from the past 60 years ( of fracking, not just oil and gas drilling) if you are talking about all oil and gas drilling and production, say so. don't hide behind one process that may or may not be used on a particular well. It's kinda like saying drilling a water well is bad because the sewage at the treatment plant overflows into the river sometimes, damages the river, thus we need to stop using water.

frac focus is happy to provide you with all but a few chemical formulas for a 17x,000 wells. some states do require you provide all of them, but some are kept confidential at the state level.

 

[werepossum]

and it's from improperly managed waste water, not from the process of fracking. Fracking does not take place next to or in potable aquifers. it is 1000s of feet below any useable water. the water at the depths fracking takes place is laced with lots of natural chemicals including oil and gas, benzine, large amounts of mineral salts.

waste water from all sorts of things can damage an aquifer, it should be regulated and fixed. the regulations should be placed on all waste water from all industries. . .

show us the scars, as there must be some from the past 60 years ( of fracking, not just oil and gas drilling) if you are talking about all oil and gas drilling and production, say so. don't hide behind one process that may or may not be used on a particular well. It's kinda like saying drilling a water well is bad because the sewage at the treatment plant overflows into the river sometimes, damages the river, thus we need to stop using water.

frac focus is happy to provide you with all but a few chemical formulas for a 17x,000 wells. some states do require you provide all of them, but some are kept confidential at the state level.

Usually fracking takes place deep underground, but approximately 1 in 6 are shallow wells, occurring as shallow as a few hundred feet. Aquifers often extend down as much as a thousand feet, and given that fracking cracks are known to extend upward as much as 2,000 feet, we should have no shallow fracking, period. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fracking-groundwater-pavillion-20140811-story.html#page=1

DiGiulio and Jackson plotted the depths of fracked wells, as well as domestic drinking water wells in the Pavillion area. They found that companies used acid stimulation and hydraulic fracturing at depths of the deepest water wells near the Pavillion gas field, at 700 to 750 feet, far shallower than fracking was previously thought to occur in the area.

“It's true that fracking often occurs miles below the surface,” said Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford. “People don't realize, though, that it's sometimes happening less than a thousand feet underground in sources of drinking water.”

Note that 700 to 750 feet was the depth of the fracking itself, NOT the minimum depth where rock fracturing actually happened.

 

[herm0016]

I have worked in circle Ridge, shoshone, grass creek, spring creek fields around that area. The drillers 100 years ago did not care about the environment or do much to keep it nice. pavilion is a horrible example of what not to do. Everything above applies to wells drilled with modern techniques and api/gov standards.

 

[werepossum]

I have worked in circle Ridge, shoshone, grass creek, spring creek fields around that area. The drillers 100 years ago did not care about the environment or do much to keep it nice. pavilion is a horrible example of what not to do. Everything above applies to wells drilled with modern techniques and api/gov standards.

Agreed, but shallow fracking is still occurring today.

 

[Thump553]

That was the Department of Energy, not the EPA, but keep on lying, it makes Republicans look even better.

Actually he wants to kill off both of them. Look at the joker he nominated to be the head of the EPA.

 

[Puffnstuff]

When fracking directly impacts the water quality at one of Trumps properties he might do something about it but until them permits away.

 

[soulcougher73]

Who would have thought anything bad would happen from this practice? Oh wait...anyone with a brain.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/12/gold-king-mine-epa-employee-will-not-prosecute/
No prosecution against EPA official linked to Gold King Mine disaster, feds say

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/12/gold-king-mine-epa-employee-will-not-prosecute/
No prosecution against EPA official linked to Gold King Mine disaster, feds say

House Repubs have no shame, obviously. They'll demonize the EPA at every opportunity, smear slime on whoever gets in the way in the process including the DoJ.

I doubt they'll oppose Trump's plans for the EPA in the slightest-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerem...2832350.html?gclid=CL7B8tzVhtECFYS1wAodPkEPjg

 

[imported_tajmahal]

House Repubs have no shame, obviously. They'll demonize the EPA at every opportunity, smear slime on whoever gets in the way in the process including the DoJ.

I doubt they'll oppose Trump's plans for the EPA in the slightest-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerem...2832350.html?gclid=CL7B8tzVhtECFYS1wAodPkEPjg

You say it like it is a bad thing. I approve that message.

 

[herm0016]

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/12/gold-king-mine-epa-employee-will-not-prosecute/
No prosecution against EPA official linked to Gold King Mine disaster, feds say

no worries, the government is infallible. haven't you been paying attention? Government regulation will save us all from the evil private sector.

Who would have thought anything bad would happen from this practice? Oh wait...anyone with a brain.

a question for everyone here:
where would you like to get your energy from? how much are you willing to pay and what are you, personally, doing about it?

as above, i am an engineer in the oil industry. We also have an electric car and solar on our house, with lots of efficiency upgrades such as all LED lighting, on demand hot water, 90+ furnace, triple pane, low-E windows... reducing demand is the only real way to make an impact. Complaining about a process that is not understood at all by the general public on the internet, or trying to stop a pipeline that reduces demand by reducing transportation energy use is doing nothing.

put your money where you mouth is and maybe we will actually get somewhere.

 

[soulcougher73]

a question for everyone here:
where would you like to get your energy from? how much are you willing to pay and what are you, personally, doing about it?

as above, i am an engineer in the oil industry. We also have an electric car and solar on our house, with lots of efficiency upgrades such as all LED lighting, on demand hot water, 90+ furnace, triple pane, low-E windows... reducing demand is the only real way to make an impact. Complaining about a process that is not understood at all by the general public on the internet, or trying to stop a pipeline that reduces demand by reducing transportation energy use is doing nothing.

put your money where you mouth is and maybe we will actually get somewhere.

I work for one of the top energy/water/telecom engineering companies. I'm just a tech and not an engineer, but i have access to lots of info Im not opposed to old school drilling of oil and i wish we'd do more of it right here in the US to not be dependent on other countries. I was not opposed to a pipe line other than the route of it. I do own a hybrid car as far as what im "trying" to do about it.

Ive been a big fan of solar shingles for along time and i hope Elon can make it a true reality someday. Solar is my favorite energy source and if every house/building had them we could feed the grid to areas with less sun etc as well as his power walls. Id love for that to be the future that i can see with current knowledge. But more nuke plants would be a good start also. Worked on a nuke project here at my company but for another country But there are 3 nuke plants currently underway here in the US that im aware of. Think one ever fired up recently in Georgia if i remember right. Im not in the nuke side of the business anymore/at the moment but a friend is still and i get some tid bits from his FB posts at times.

 

[crashtech]

A little OT, but the assertion that the EPA can't get anything done re water quality is false, since they successfully lowered the permissible arsenic level from 50ppb to 10ppb back in '01, which sounds nice until you realize that countless small towns with levels of 11-15ppb had to spend millions they didn't have on upgrades, despite the total lack of evidence that 10ppb is safer than 15 or even 50ppb, for that matter.

 

[herm0016]

sounds good soul, i just found your assertion to be without commentary. Directing that question to everyone.
People who act are the leaders of revolutions, not people who complain.

I, also, am a supporter of Nuclear power. I would love for oil to be 100 per barrel again!