Once waste is underground, though, there are few ways to track how far it goes, how quickly or where it winds up. There is plenty of theory, but little data to prove the system works.
"I do think the risks are low, but it has never been adequately demonstrated," said John Apps, a leading geoscientist who advises the Department of Energy for Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. "Every statement is based on a collection of experts that offer you their opinions. Then you do a scientific analysis of their opinions and get some probability out of it. This is a wonderful way to go when you don't have any evidence one way or another... But it really doesn't mean anything scientifically."
The hard data that does exist comes from well inspections conducted by federal and state regulators, who can issue citations to operators for injecting illegally, for not maintaining wells, or for operating wells at unsafe pressures. This information is the EPA's primary means of tracking the system's health on a national scale.
Yet, in response to questions from ProPublica, the EPA acknowledged it has done very little with the data it collects. The agency could not provide ProPublica with a tally of how frequently wells fail or of how often disposal regulations are violated. It has not counted the number of cases of waste migration or contamination in more than 20 years. The agency often accepts reports from state injection regulators that are partly blank, contain conflicting figures or are missing key details, ProPublica found.
In 2007, the EPA launched a national data system to centralize reports on injection wells. As of September 2011 — the last time the EPA issued a public update — less than half of the state and local regulatory agencies overseeing injection were contributing to the database. It contained complete information from only a handful of states, accounting for a small fraction of the deep wells in the country.
The EPA did not respond to questions seeking more detail about how it handles its data, or about how the agency judges whether its oversight is working.
In a 2008 interview with ProPublica, one EPA scientist acknowledged shortcomings in the way the agency oversees the injection program.
"It's assumed that the monitoring rules and requirements are in place and are protective — that's assumed," said Gregory Oberley, an EPA groundwater specialist who studies injection and water issues in the Rocky Mountain region. "You're not going to know what's going on until someone's well is contaminated and they are complaining about it."
***
ProPublica's analysis of case histories and EPA data from October 2007 to October 2010 showed that when an injection well fails, it is most often because of holes or cracks in the well structure itself.
Operators are required to do so-called "mechanical integrity" tests at regular intervals, yearly for Class 1 wells and at least once every five years for Class 2 wells. In 2010, the tests led to more than 7,500 violations nationally, with more than 2,300 wells failing. In Texas, one violation was issued for every three Class 2 wells examined in 2010.
Such breakdowns can have serious consequences. Damage to the cement or steel casing can allow fluids to seep into the earth, where they could migrate into water supplies.
Regulators say redundant layers of protection usually prevent waste from getting that far, but EPA data shows that in the three years analyzed by ProPublica, more than 7,500 well test failures involved what federal water protection regulations describe as "fluid migration" and "significant leaks."
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentFossil fuel companies: "We're going to squeeze every last drop of oil out of this continent, even if it takes the life of every man, woman & child."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't they just set off a nuke in Yellowstone and get it over with? The Indians should have kicked the Spanish and other Europeans back to the old world. Hard.
Maybe this is the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The cavitation hydrovibrator is a proprietary green technology that operates using pure water, without the use of any of the 200 chemicals traditionally used in fracking that damage the environment and contaminate water tables. The cavitation hydrovibrator is mounted in a drilling line and inserted into a vertical or horizontal borehole at the appropriate stratum level. Pressured water is fed to the cavitation hydrovibrator inlet through the drilling line using a drill pump. "
http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2009/12/a-green-alternative-to-chemicalbased-hydraulic-fracturing-or-fracking-for-shale-gas-drillingcavitati.html
This is the kind of misquoted OPINION article that create a major division about what is really occurring - There are few if any evidence where a fraking well fluids contaminated existing water wells. There have been chemical spills and they were cleaned up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author says there are 680,000 underground waste and injection wells. There are not 680,000 wells from fraking he is mixing cherries and watermelons.
The underground waters of the geysers in the National parks are much more toxic than any industrial or fraking liquid. They boil up from the depths of earth in molten rocks carrying acids, metals, and are high in mineral content. yes, Mother nature makes some toxic teas all on her own.
The problem with your comment, Profitsup... is that it lacks common sense, because people do not live near geysers, and other natural toxic areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the proof of water contamination is showing up all over the US and other parts of the world.
People are not stupid. Shame on you, making money by poising people.
Sorry, poisoning... spelled wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are just too many reck-less, greedy, con-artist standing in the way of a better life for everyone.
There's cleaner ways to do almost everything.
Well as long as "Profitsup" nothing will be done about this travesty. As we have recently learned, corporations are "people" but are MANDATED to have NO Heart! They are actually expected to BREAK THE LAW if it's cheaper than complying and it increases their profit. By law they must do whatever they can to make a profit for their "investors". Sick,Sick ,Sick!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispriddseren (comment above) states the problem sarcastically but correctly; CEOs certainly will not be around to have to deal with this time-bomb and and their very rich descendants will rule over the mutant public from their sterilized under-ground nuclear bunkers.
The article carefully leaves one issue unaddressed, that is that the fracking protocols that were used on these older wells are several generations old. New technology is already addressing many of these concerns. Soon the type of technology cited by bernardpalmer above will be replacing the chemical mix in current use. Why the change? because it is economically more efficient to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfitsup wrote, "The author says there are 680,000 underground waste and injection wells. There are not 680,000 wells from fraking he is mixing cherries and watermelons."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author, Abrahm Lustgarten, wrote, "There are more than 680,000 underground waste and injection wells nationwide, more than 150,000 of which shoot industrial fluids thousands of feet below the surface."
Lustgarten NEVER claimed that 680,000 wells were from fracking. He said there were over 150,000 wells used for "industrial fluids." These are Class 1 and Class 2 wells (mostly Class 2 wells). Fracking waste water is pumped into Class 2 wells.
Profitsup, do you know the number of wells used for fracking waste water injection? If so, please provide your number and source.
Maybe the article should have been better titled. Very little was mentioned about fracking through the entire article. The article primarily addressed the injection of all industrial waste water (Class 1 and 2 wells). But, does it really matter? The concern is with the integrity of injection wells which is an issue with fracking and the disposal of waste water from fracking (which the contaminants -- benzene, etc, -- are considered proprietary).
As the author of this article, I just want to clarify: Nowhere does this article discuss fracking wells or say that there are 680,000 fracked wells (there are actually many more) but if you read what I have published today it is about a different topic really -- waste across all industries that is handled under a separate, federally regulated program. Geologists are concerned that the fractures underground are increasing permeability for all underground fluids. I appreciate your interest and taking the time to comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, it was a fine article. Clearly it isn't easy to even do a good piece on something about which there are so many unknowns. At least it is certainly hard to come to definitive conclusions. I think you successfully communicated the primary message, that there's a lot of optimistic thinking and severe pressure to just declare it all 'not a problem' when indeed it could be anything from a localized problem in a few areas all the way up to a vast ecological catastrophe in the making.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must say, I'm not optimistic. We're far too cavalier about dumping waste about (and many other things), but I guess we'll see...
The problem with wellbores in gas fields is that, as they age, the wellbore becomes a pathway for gas to rise into groundwater. This can occur outside the outer cement casing, since the cement does not adhere to the surrounding rock, and, over time, it shrinks and cracks, enabling gas to vent up the wellbore. This is a common problem in fields where wellbores go through multiple shallow gas bearing formations that are above shale gas targets - such as the Marcellus in NE Pa. The wellbore does not have to be a gas well. An injection well will suffice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo then the title was meant to grab people's attention with a loaded word but not meant to convey the subject matter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr it could be that the title of the article was chosen correctly, but the introductory and concluding paragraphs were poorly written by not conveying a message of where the greatest risks exist: disposing of proprietary (i.e. secret) fracking fluids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an EPA study that includes info on fracking waste:
http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/HF_Study__Plan_110211_FINAL_508.pdf
An individual who puts poison in water supplies is termed a terrorist and is sent to prison. The same justice should be applied to frackers...Or is it a case that the rich escape justice?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe title of Lustgarten's excellent article is so extremely reserved that it borders on tongue-in-cheek. This would more accurately be titled "Fracking Wastewater Wells ARE Poisoning Aquifers and Drinking Water".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBribery of public officials is routine business in the USA, hence the missing EPA data and an agency that destroys evidence for the sake of the oil, chemical, and waste disposal companies. Pass a bribe to your congress person to get them to lean on the agency that collects evidence of malfeasance and harm done to the public. This is the usual method to avoid being prosecuted for crimes done by those that have the means.
In view of the spotty integrity on the part of government agencies, any reasonable person will anticipate that geologists hired by oil companies and others selling wastewater fracking are screened to ensure compliance and spinelessness in the service of corporate dishonesty. In my view, their reassuring lies about the possibility of their poison flowing into our aquifers are worth no more than the waste itself.
These corporations must be dissolved as a public menace so that the individuals that have poisoned our water for their personal enrichment are held personally accountable for every man, woman, and child that they have sickened and murdered as well as property damages ensuing from aquifer contamination.
MAY pose a risk? I guess it wasn't IMPORTANT until people in L.A. realized their water was being poisoned?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsk the thousands of people in Pennsylvania whose water that they depend on for drinking, preparinbg meals and washing their children what to do, now that their water is FLAMMABLE.
This is another of those environmental stories where the interested parties all take their perfunctory places in the debate. The oilies claim vast knowledge and technical capability, the enviros scream, emotion and passion and the regulators play catch-up. Why can't there be another approach, where everyone gives up their role in favor of having EPA name a technical review panel that makes regulatory recommendations that everyone understands. Such a panel might begin with a clear description of what is known and what is unknown, make a list of priority data collections and analysis needed to resolve a priority listing of the unknowns and then everyone would at least be on the same page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just too boring, not to mention expensive, to wait for everyone to repeat the same boring script before buckling down to the science.
GasFrac has a process that does not use water, therefore no waste water to be concerned about. check at gasfrac.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup, tharter, I'm not optimistic either. But, as they say, "money talks, bs walks," and that has produced the dangerous world we're busily creating. It's our kids & grand kids who will be paying the price, though. Anyone see the movie "Idiotcracy"? A very relevant flick that was almost still-born. It came out in 2006, but for I-can't-remember-what reason, never made it to the theaters. I did find a DVD of it at Barnes & Noble, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHelp us keep Ireland Frack Free. Anyone can sign this. Thanks http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/northern-ireland-no-fracking-required-here.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://dontfractureillinois.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy friends and I have been very busy shining the light on the problems this practice creates. We're attempting to keep frackers from creating wastewater wells in the sandstone near the New Madrid and Walbash faults located between the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers in Southern Illinois. I'm very excited about what your research shows.
Ooops. Wabash
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Fracking shale moves water that could meet up with naturally occurring fractures in sandstone and result in faster movement to the surface [aquifers]," Myers said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://truth-out.org/news/item/9076-the-potential-for-fracking-fluids-to-reach-freshwater-aquifers
EnergyPoint Research wrote a piece about risks associated with the handling of water a couple months back. Rather than recount it's points in this forum, here's the link...http://energypointresearch.com/oilfield-insights/archives/705
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this