WATER POLLUTION: EPA monitoring wells have detected compounds used in fracking in a Wyoming aquifer.
Image: USGS
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
As the country awaits results from a nationwide safety study on the natural gas drilling process of fracking, a separate government investigation into contamination in a place where residents have long complained that drilling fouled their water has turned up alarming levels of underground pollution.
A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The findings are consistent with water samples the EPA has collected from at least 42 homes in the area since 2008, when ProPublica began reporting on foul water and health concerns in Pavillion and the agency started investigating reports of contamination there.
Last year -- after warning residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered -- the EPA drilled the monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the extent of the contamination.
The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade that the drilling -- and hydraulic fracturing in particular -- has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment, loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants.
The gas industry -- led by the Canadian company EnCana, which owns the wells in Pavillion -- has denied that its activities are responsible for the contamination. EnCana has, however, supplied drinking water to residents.
The information released yesterday by the EPA was limited to raw sampling data: The agency did not interpret the findings or make any attempt to identify the source of the pollution. From the start of its investigation, the EPA has been careful to consider all possible causes of the contamination and to distance its inquiry from the controversy around hydraulic fracturing.
Still, the chemical compounds the EPA detected are consistent with those produced from drilling processes, including one -- a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) -- widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The agency said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame.
The wells also contained benzene at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people, as well as phenols -- another dangerous human carcinogen -- acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel.
The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.
EnCana has recently agreed to sell its wells in the Pavillion area to Texas-based oil and gas company Legacy Reserves for a reported $45 million, but has pledged to continue to cooperate with the EPA's investigation. EnCana bought many of the wells in 2004, after the first problems with groundwater contamination had been reported.
The EPA's research in Wyoming is separate from the agency's ongoing national study of hydraulic fracturing's effect on water supplies, and is being funded through the Superfund cleanup program.
The EPA says it will release a lengthy draft of the Pavillion findings, including a detailed interpretation of them, later this month.
From ProPublica.org (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentIf the exploration companies polluted the aquifer, then make the pay to make it right, whatever that takes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI visit Wyoming often on fishing trips. A very arid state, it often very lush green along rivers where the water is used to irrigate a variety of crops. I often see the crops being drenched in pesticides. Can't tell me that's not in the aquifers too.
Surprised the EPA has not sued to be exempt from managing ground water. So we have these environmental criminals contaminating one of the most important resources we have in order to squeeze more fossil fuels out of the ground. Greed, ignorance and myopia; the core of American resource management policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that you CAN'T clean up an aquifer effectively. Since the volume of water down there is immense, all you can do is try to filter out the contaminants before the water is consumed by people. The problem is that the drilling companies aren't required to disclose many of the chemicals that they use in fracking, so it is extremely difficult to design filters for all these compounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem is that the oil and gas industry receives preferential treatment from the federal government because of their lobbying pressure and political connections. They are exempt from the Clean Water Drinking Act and Clean Air Act for many drilling activities. This preferential treatment is a grievous injury to supposed Free Market Principles because the drilling companies use political connections to skirt the law. Making natural gas and oil artificially cheap because of these political favors is also a huge deviation from Free Market Principles.
We should repeal the exemptions that drilling companies enjoy and make them pay to clean up their mess as much as possible and get the people affected some source of water they can shower with and not have to open their windows when they do it!
I agree. How much more proof do they need. If it is that prevalent in Wyoming, it is that prevalent everywhere else as well. Shut down all natural gas fracking until new regulations are in place and these companies are willing to comply with the regulations. And if they don't comply, then they are shut down and fined millions of dollars ($500 million would be a good figure that will get them to comply) for cleanup. It is really sad when America puts more value on a job than they do human life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere must be a way to do fracking without the pollutants. Using plain old H20 might not be a efficient but it would be a lot safer and would not carry the political overhead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sir are either an incredibly well spoken idiot or a lobbyist for the natural gas industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know if Shoshin's comment got removed, but that's been my general impression of that person for a while now!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems the public and science have forgotten their basic high school science classes. What part of rock is denser than water have you all forgotten? Throw a rock into a body of water. It sinks! Pumping a less dense material(ie Water) into a denser material(Rock) What do these idiots think will happen? The water will move upwards seeking a level where their densities match!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as I have been reading about fracking I have never heard a serious non-polemical answer to the question what chemical or mechanical purpose the chemicals other than water add to the process. Or what reduction in efficiency would result from removing them. Does anyone not connected to the industry know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe chemicals are there to diffuse through the shale and absorb the gas. Then as the chemicals are pumped back up to the surface, the pressure is lowered and the gas bubbles out of the liquid chemical, like shaken soda drink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe problem comes from fracturing the layers of shale, what prevents the layers of rocks above the shale from fracturing too? this lets the chemicals percolate up to the aquifers... in essence, those bastards are injecting the Earth with poison, which of course will find a way into everything around it...
Actually I've noticed that my comments are starting to get get removed regularly. My guess is that the editorial staff has no interest in comments that run counter to their politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a relief, I thought they disagreed with my scientific views.
I also find it strange that as one of the few people who actually have ANY experience with fracking, my comments are censored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess as someone who works in the field my comments are worthless. Typical eco-centric and anti-science views by the editorial staff.
It's fine to disagree with me. I'm not threatened by it in the least. But you need to ask yourself why what I'm saying is so upsetting to other people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll I'm saying is that the eco movement is classically sociopathic. From a formal defition perspective, these comments are quite accurate. The modern day eco-movement has no interest in the views of people who disagree with it and is very manipulative.
As we saw with the recent Keystone Pipeline controversy little scientific evidence was presented, just massive amounts of PR, celebrity condemnation and marketing.
I have personal knowledge of an eco-lobbyist whose words were "... you don't get it. My job here is to stop you from building this mine and I will say anything I need to including lying to make sure that the mine is never built...". Sounds sociopathic to me.
Further, radical eco-adherents have no problem with trespassing, violating the law, or the rights of other people. For the most part, they have no remorse or concern how their actions hurt other people as long as their needs are served. Now Joe Smith failing to get a job as a welder or a pipefitter may not be a big deal to Julia Dreyfuss or Robert Redford as they get paid whether oil flows or not, but a paycheque is a big deal to the Joe Smith's children.
Questions? Comments?
One aspect about fracking that troubles me is that the companies doing it are not required to disclose the chemicals they use for the process. What's to prevent them making a little money on the side by using the process to dump expensive-to-dispose-of toxic chemicals from other industries?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle "blogger for hire" and you'll see where Shoshin is coming from. It's no secret. Quite common, in fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo wonder facts never get to him/her...Oh well, I just LOVE it when big corporations FAIL to buy an election even when they send in piles of money and spin up a bunch of astroturf groups. They may be paid, but I'll still be here doing this for free because I actually care about the future of the planet and not just my bank account.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"what chemical or mechanical purpose the chemicals"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst Siriusofdelf is incorrect in his reply, and doesn't appear to me to know anything about hydraulic fracturing. That's not a personal attack, just the facts as I see them. I'm a geologist, I've been going on frac jobs since I was a teenage oilfield laborer, and I own well where I've done frac jobs myself. I've taken professional training in hydraulic fracturing as recently as this summer (June).
The goal of a frac job is to apply sufficient hydraulic pressure to fracture the target zone and place proppants in the fractures to hold them open after the pressure is removed and the frac fluids withdrawn, thus exposing more porosity to the wellbore. Other treatments are commonly applied along with the frac job, and some of these chemical treatments aren't necessary part of the frac, but are just done at the same time. These other treatments can also be done outside the frac job, independently of it, at a different time. Often a well undergoes many treatments over it's life.
Chemical additives are used to:
- thicken (gel) the frac fluid at the right time (not at the surface) so that it carries the maximum amount of proppants into the fractures. You'd like to pump thin fluid down, getting the max use of the horsepower you have available at the surface, then right before it's about to carry the proppant into the fractures, thicken it up for just long enough to get that proppant in there.
- then thin the frac fluid at the right time ("break it down" we call it) so that it no longer will carry the proppant, so it leaves the proppant in the fractures and it doesn't pull it back out of the fracs.
- wash and clean the downhole casing, tubing, and perforations so they aren't plugged up with gunk
- along with that, a surfactant to reduce surface tensions so the hydrocarbons won't stick to the rock
- a thinner may be used so any waxy, parrafin type components of the hydrocarbons are thinned and don't clog porosity
- a biocide is used so you don't accidentally inject living microbes from the surface into the target formation; a lot of microbes love to eat oil & gas and if they get down there and start heavy population growth they can block porosity and damage the formation
- an acid treatment may be used if there are problems with scale and porosity clogging minerals (like iron oxide or pyrite) clogging porosity
- a pH balancer may be used to control the downhole acidity so that you don't accidentally cause a chemical reaction that may cloud up and clog porosity with precipitants
Thank you rcsalmon for your succinct description of the process. I'd like to see an article in Scientific American that describes it in as much . . . or more . . . detail, along with the names of the chemicals involved, what their functions are, and how they are disposed of/recycled when they have done their jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat info. Thank you.Would fracking be economically useful at all without the chemicals?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What's to prevent them making a little money on the side by using the process to dump expensive-to-dispose-of toxic chemicals from other industries?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, chemicals used in a frac job ARE disclosed now. This was a problem a few years ago, but really isn't now. Most states with oil & gas activity require disclosure, and the ones that don't are in the process of requiring it. However the industry has set up a voluntary, per-well disclosure to try to alleviate public concern about this - http://fracfocus.org/
Now as to the second issue, why they don't use it to dump chemicals .. well that wouldn't work. These wells are there to withdraw fluids and drain the formation, not to stick stuff into them. The frac process is like popping a cork on a pressurized bottle, or like cracking open the seal with a hammer, then the frac fluid is withdrawn and isn't continued to be pumped into the formation. What you are talking about is called an "injection disposal well" and is completely different from a frac job. Remember, the goal of a frac job is to PRODUCE fluids from the target formation, not PUT fluids in it! :-) SO if you tried to secretly stick a bunch of nasty stuff in there, you'd have to deal with it coming out with the gas & oil you produce.
"Great info. Thank you.Would fracking be economically useful at all without the chemicals?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently what is all the rage is the development of "food quality" additives that will perform these functions. There is a huge motivation to try and answer public concerns and reduce the target available for attack by anti-frackers down to as near zero as possible.
But I'd personally like to see more explanation of the situation to the public about what is already IN these target zones, and what the real problems are. The target formation, where you are applying these chemical treatments, is already FULL of toxic chemicals - that is the whole goal of the thing, to access these and produce them for mankind to use! Hydrocarbon bearing rocks, AKA Oil & gas reservoirs, already have polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, napthalene, etc.; they can have H2S, and for sure they have oil & gas that you don't want in your water! That's the whole point!! There really isn't anything used in a frac job that is more toxic than what is already naturally in the formation to begin with.
So to me, some of the freak-out over "they're putting chemicals down there!!" is kind of like freaking out over putting STP in your gas tank, because STP is poisonous. Yeah... your gas tank contains GASOLINE which is already just as poisonous as STP, and also gasoline has 1% benzene already in it!
So the frac job and it's chemicals aren't what folks should be worried about - it's the SURFACE CASING AND CEMENT that is the problem. These are concentric rings of steel pipe and cement that isolate the near-surface aquifers from the inside of the wellbore. These are legally required in all states, but in many states they haven't previously required that they be properly tested to assure integrity before hydraulic fracturing and production. They need to be tested and re-tested to assure they are solid and secure, and I'm 100% for requiring such tests, and having a state geologist or engineer sign off on them. That is where all the problems come from. I do such tests on my wells! But the thing is, almost every time, the test shows no problems, so some people skimp on that part and just gamble that they have a good casing and cement job. That should not be allowed. You do the test for that 1 time out of 300 that it shows you have a problem!
I can teach more about all this but you know, SciAm limits comment lengths and so forth.
"what prevents the layers of rocks above the shale from fracturing too? this lets the chemicals percolate up to the aquifers... in essence, those bastards are injecting the Earth with poison, which of course will find a way into everything around it..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK I feel kind of obligated to answer this one as well before I go..
To begin with, you absolutely DO NOT want fractures to propagate beyond the hydrocarbon reservoir (your 'target zone'). The hydrocarbons haven't floated to the surface because they are in a 'trap.' If they weren't trapped there by a seal, since they're lighter than water and the whole subsurface of a sedimentary basin is pretty much full of water, they would have floated to the surface already, forming an oil or gas seep, tar pit, etc., In which case you'd have nothing to drill for or produce! So you would do just about ANYTHING to prevent fractures from breaking the seal on the formation, which would release hydrocarbons, reduce formation pressure and cause precipitants to fall out, and generally ruin the whole oil or gas deposit and cause you to go broke.
Now has to how this is prevented, for one thing, in many cases where you have a thick, deep, unit like the Marcellus Shale, you couldn't propagate the fractures that far even if you WANTED to .. there simply isn't enough horsepower available to do such a thing! This is because you are pushing against the weight of the innumerable gigatons of thousands of feet of rock overlying your target formation. Mankind just can't come up with the power to do that. This is called "overburden" and the amount of weight pressing down is call "lithostatic pressure" (as opposed to "hydrostatic" for water, or "atmospheric" for air).
OK now, another thing you do is calculate and measure the lithostatic pressure. You have to balance lithostatic pressure with your heavy drilling mud (that's why you put barite in it) to keep stuff from shooting up the hole unintentionally. That's what those idiots at BP did in the Gulf last year as you may recall - they replaced the heavy mud with seawater and POW the pressure differential caused.. well you know what it caused. So you know what the lithostatic pressure is. Then on your frac job, you apply enough pressure to overcome the integrity of the target and fracture it, but NOT more than the lithostatic pressure. This keeps the fractures from propagating upward. Put simply, they don't push UP as much as the overburden is pushing DOWN.
"If it wasn't for the Commies in the EPA than this would never have become known and hence wouldn't be a problem."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------
Hardly true, since many homeowners have gotten extremely sick and many wild and domestic animals have been killed with contaminated water from fracking.
Sweeping pollution problems under the carpet like you and your ilk propose, certainly is not "liberty and justice for all," but an attack on Americans by corporate special interests like the fossil fuel industry in this case!
"Questions? Comments?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------
It's easy to see you paid posters here at SciAm, that never miss a chance to attack any renewable energy project, while at the same time worshiping at the feet of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries to keep the ridiculous status quo of our archaic energy policy!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Energy_Alliance
It is the end of the WORLD!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it is not:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593?click=main_sr#fbIndex4
Lets all thank Scientific America for being so objective and giving a balanced view on an important subject......
I am very sympathetic to the views of the energy industry, for the energy needs of this civilization are astronomical. But, we must not pursue energy at the expense of the environment, because if these folks who need jobs get them, a lot of good it will do if the environment is made inhabitable, and we can't ignore the flaming faucets and other indications that there might be some environmental consequences to fracking. Given that we should let cooler heads prevail and find out what the problems are and address them. I think that rcsalmon's well informed explanation of the fracking process is a good start. Rcsalmon stated the challenges to fracking and what has been used so far to meet those challenges and if we run into even more problems, we will have to solve them too, but with cool, informed heads and not with hysteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 2 cents.
I am very sympathetic to the views of the energy industry, for the energy needs of this civilization are astronomical. But, we must not pursue energy at the expense of the environment, because if these folks who need jobs get them, a lot of good it will do if the environment is made inhabitable, and we can't ignore the flaming faucets and other indications that there might be some environmental consequences to fracking. Given that we should let cooler heads prevail and find out what the problems are and address them. I think that rcsalmon's well informed explanation of the fracking process is a good start. Rcsalmon stated the challenges to fracking and what has been used so far to meet those challenges and if we run into even more problems, we will have to solve them too, but with cool, informed heads and not with hysteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 2 cents.
I am very sympathetic to the views of the energy industry, for the energy needs of this civilization are astronomical. But, we must not pursue energy at the expense of the environment, because if these folks who need jobs get them, a lot of good it will do if the environment is made inhabitable, and we can't ignore the flaming faucets and other indications that there might be some environmental consequences to fracking. Given that we should let cooler heads prevail and find out what the problems are and address them. I think that rcsalmon's well informed explanation of the fracking process is a good start. Rcsalmon stated the challenges to fracking and what has been used so far to meet those challenges and if we run into even more problems, we will have to solve them too, but with cool, informed heads and not with hysteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 2 cents.
After reading the explanations of rcsalmon and the posts of the fracking opponents it is the difference between reading the writings of an adult and that of a child.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much do the dirty energy companies pay people to spread their lies on blogs anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad the IPCC has effectively pulled the rug out from under the Green Movement by saying "All that Man Made Global Warming stuff? ..... yeah..... nevermind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new IPCC draft is downplaying CO2's role and allowing it to fade to black into the background of "natural variability". That's political speak for... we goofed... big time... and now we're trying to wriggle out of it.
The consensus, apparently is gone. Kaput. Fini. Nada. Over.
And CO2 can just go back to being a simple trace gas and plant food.
So much for Co2's 15 minutes of fame. We shall miss you dearly.
And, as for me? Well, I guess I can go back to the job that pays the bills and forget that all this happened.
I think I'll buy a small chunk of bottom land and get married and raise some kids and teach them the value of independent critical thought.
Unless some has a problem with independent critical thought?
Sayonara. Hast la vista. and Happy Motoring!
Shoshin out.
Well, if the fossil fuel companies are going to stop paying you to spread their bogus misinformation then yeah, I guess you need to get a real job. This new canard about the next IPCC report is totally false and I notice that you finished your paid blogging career with 100% totally fact-free posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations! You get your very own frackwater tiki torch for your tireless efforts to make the Koch brothers another billion or so. Just turn on your backyard hose, light it up, and you have all the natural gas-powered light and heat you'll need!
Actually, it's possible to fracture with CO2 - which simultaneously sequesters the CO2. It's not as easy to handle at the surface as water-based fracking fluids, but in the formation it works very well indeed. BTW, I'm the CTO of a geothermal energy company using CO2 as the heat carrier, so I know what I'm talking about here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo rcsalmon - thanks for putting in some real knowledge rather than the uninformed blather we see so much of. For the rest of you, fracking is a tool - and like any other tool, it can be used wisely or unwisely. Blanket statements like "fracking is always bad" or "fracking never causes any problems" are going to be false. I welcome adult non-emotional dialog on how to meet our country's very real energy needs while preserving our environment. We do indeed require development of new sources of energy like solar, wind, and geothermal, but there needs to be some recognition that these new sources will cost more (at least initially) than oil, gas, and coal, which have the advantage of a century's worth of development. We are in the middle of a life-changing transition in energy sources, but most people want that change to happen without being required to change anything in the way they go about their business. It can't and will not happen that way!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this