HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: A new technique for releasing natural gas in shale rock has contaminated at least some drinking water wells in Pennsylvania and New York State.
Image: © David Biello
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
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 »
Drilling for natural gas is booming in Pennsylvania—thanks to fracturing shale rock with a water and chemical cocktail paired with the ability to drill in any direction. Despite homeowner complaints, however, research on how such hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is impacting local water wells has not kept pace. Now a new study that sampled water from 60 such wells has found evidence for natural gas–contamination in those within a kilometer of a new natural gas well.
"Methane concentrations in drinking water were much higher if the homeowner was near an active gas well," explains environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University, who led the study published online May 9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "We wanted to try and separate fact from emotion."
The researchers discovered methane in 51 of the 60 wells tested—that is not out of the ordinary. A small amount of methane from both deep and biological sources is present in most of the aquifers in this region of Pennsylvania and New York State. By measuring the ratio of radioactive carbon present in the methane contamination, however, the researchers determined that in drinking water wells near active natural gas wells, the methane was old and therefore fossil natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, rather than more freshly produced methane. This marks the first time that drinking water contamination has been definitively linked to fracking.
In fact, concentrations were 17 times higher in those drinking water wells within one kilometer of an active natural gas well than those farther away. Also, average methane concentrations of 19 milligrams of methane per liter in those wells were well above the 10-milligram- per-liter recommendation (pdf) set by the U.S. Department of the Interior for action to reduce concentrations. Above 28-milligram-per-liter concentrations, such wells must be properly ventilated to reduce the risk of explosion. One well tested had methane concentrations of 64 milligrams per liter.
"I saw a homeowner light his water on fire," Jackson notes. "The biggest risk is flammability and explosion."
Few studies have been done to date on the health risks of chronic exposure to methane and other gaseous hydrocarbons. (The researchers also found ethane, propane and butane in some of the drinking water wells.)
At the same time, the researchers found no evidence that either the chemicals in fracking fluids or the natural contamination in deep waters were polluting relatively shallow water wells in the vicinity of the deep natural gas wells. That suggests that leaking wells are likely the source of such methane contamination, rather than any migration upward from the deep. "It's easier to envision a gas well casing that's leaking, especially with the high pressures, than it is to envision the mass movement of gas or liquids 5,000 feet upwards," Jackson notes. "I don't know that it's impossible but I think it's unlikely."
Because of such concerns the U.S. Department of Energy has convened a special task force to improve the safety and environmental impacts of such fracking for natural gas, including how best to dispose of the voluminous wastewater as well as ensuring proper sealing of wells to prevent such groundwater contamination.
"America's vast natural gas resources can generate many new jobs and provide significant environmental benefits," noted Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in a prepared statement announcing the panel, "but we need to ensure that we harness these resources safely." In fact, the panel is charged with providing "recommendations as to actions that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of shale gas extraction processes and other steps to ensure protection of public health and safety," according to Chu's memo (pdf) laying out its mission, which must deliver "immediate steps to be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking" within 90 days of its first meeting.
Fracking is specifically exempted from much federal regulation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Local regulatory requirements may not help: for instance, although the researchers discovered methane contamination at homes within 1,000 meters of active natural gas wells, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection only holds drilling companies responsible for drinking water within 305 meters. "That's a ninefold increase in area," Jackson notes. "Who pays for [testing]? Should gas companies be required to do it?"
And it remains to be seen whether natural gas delivers environmental benefits—such as reduced emissions of carbon dioxide when burned—given that it in itself is a potent greenhouse gas if it escapes during drilling or pipeline operations, so-called fugitive emissions. "We are interested in getting pre- and post-drilling samples," Jackson says of his future research, although he has been threatened with subpoena. "We'd like to get data for fugitive methane emissions as well. This summer we're going to try and detect methane in the air."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
49 Comments
Add CommentInjecting chemicals into the ground can't possibly affect the groundwater. Just like injecting tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can't have any effect on our environment. A true human can't be 'homeless' on this planet, it would be like saying a wolf is homeless because it doesn't have a doghouse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommenter, please understand the physics of forcing hydraulic fluid into the ground. When the bedrock breaks releasing the gas, thousands, if not millions of tiny fractures are created in the surrounding bedrock from the process. Then once the gas has begun to release, it goes out of the deposit in three dimensions away from any place that the rock is fractured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe natural gas industry has been fighting against these kinds of results since the beginning of the use of the fracking method. Also, of the hundreds of chemicals and compounds used in the hydraulic fluid, many of them are proprietary, thus nobody knows what the compounds name or chemical make up is... The toxicity of natural gas is one of the most underreported issues in our society today.
What is the purpose of adding the chemicals to the high pressure water in this process?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What is the purpose of adding the chemicals to the high pressure water in this process?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt enhances the profit margin of the operation. And we all know that anything that makes a profit is always good and anything that prevents one extra dime going into a corporation is a crime against humanity.
If you haven't seen this, you should...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8
Now, brian01, you know none of that is true. You just made all that up to make the fracking gas companies look bad. You are not a true American by posting lies like that. The gas companies have no reason to lie about the safety of fracking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also know that what I'm about to say is just a big lie too, to make the gas companies look bad, "The waste water that bursts, sometimes, hundreds of feet into the air and spreads over the ground for hundreds of acres, from gas fracking is radioactive to the point that it comes very close to a small nuclear melt down or staying out in the Sun of a desert for two days unprotected, and it takes it hundreds of miles before it disappears into the air. Land animals and marine animals have been killed as far away as 3 to 4 hundred miles from the waste water runoff." You can also find that video on Sundance, but it is all a big lie created by these tree huggers like Robert Jackson to make the gas companies look bad.
The gas companies are now taking land from people in West Virginia under the 'Immanent Domain Law' granted to utilities companies and the highway department by the West Virginia government so they can start fracking, on what use to be their land, for natural gas. The people are forced to move from their land until the gas company is finished fracking, which sometimes will take years. But, that is also a big lie to make the gas companies and greedy governments look bad.
There is a simple solution to this. 1. Require the oil companies install either a burner to everyones water well, and so that that energy isn't wasted the burner should be used to heat the house or some other purpose. 2. Or require the oil companies to eliminate the other chemicals used or install separators at the wells so that they may recoup those same chemicals. Problem solved and everybody's happy the oil companies still get the oil and the land owners get realatively clean water again and this would be cheaper then a huge class action suit where nobody wins. Note I said realatively clean water because even with out the oil companies drilling for water in oil/gas filled soils will give you contaminated water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you guys should all take a breath and ask someone who has first hand experience with fracking... Like me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, it is impossible for fracs done at depths of a mile to propagate to surface and contaminate ground water. Rock mechanics won't allow it. Think about it; a frac at a mile needs 20-40,000 horsepower to propagate a fracture maybe 30 -60 feet from the wellbore. To get within a few hundred feet of the surface, millions of HP are required, well out of the range of Halliburton, but theoretically possible with a Romulan quantum singularity warp core as your power source.
As to gas in the water, it is possible or even likely that gas is migrating around the casing cement. Many gas bearing formations are encountered during the course of drilling a well. Some are shallow, some are deeper. Some have a lot of gas, some very little. Cementing into shales is very difficult as they tend to cave and slough in. Achieving a good bond between the cement and the rock is difficult.
I wonder if the methane content increases or decreases in these wells over time. Maybe some work should be done on that?
On our farm, we draw water from a coal seam. Have done so for over a century. Nice clean fresh water from a huge activated charcoal filter. Is there methane in there? Yes. In a hundred years has it hurt anyone? No. Methane solubility in water is extremely low.
And people are exposed to far more methane during their own daily toilette activities and inhaling their own (or somebody else's) noxious emissions than in their drinking water.
Again, more fear-mongering by the eco-nuts. Since AGW is dead and buried, they need a new cause to rally the troops around an keep $$$$ coming in. I wouldn't mind it so much if they just knew what they were talking about for a change.
If the process is completely safe, then energy companies should be facilitating research. They also should have no problem with the reversal of the exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFracking has been used hundreds of thousands of times since the 1940s with almost no problems. Why this epidemic now? Could it be related to the nature of the rock under the surface?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI predict that the gas industry will endow a chair at Duke to get more palatable research, and drop great wads of money on the appropriate committees of our grifter congress. Problem solved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to wonder why you never ever read the article you comment on. If you had then you would have read this:
"In fact, concentrations were 17 times higher in those drinking water wells within one kilometer of an active natural gas well than those farther away. Also, average methane concentrations of 19 milligrams of methane per liter in those wells were well above the 10-milligram- per-liter recommendation (pdf) set by the U.S. Department of the Interior for action to reduce concentrations. Above 28-milligram-per-liter concentrations, such wells must be properly ventilated to reduce the risk of explosion. One well tested had methane concentrations of 64 milligrams per liter."
Is it your intention to discredit all defenders of these business by giving the appearance of incompetence? If so, then allow me to congratulate you on job well done.
I appreciate your perspective, and would like to continue this rational discussion. What about existing holes in the earth that can become conduits for newly released gas? A few days ago the New York Times reported: "Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Become Pollution Portals
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy ROBERTO SURO
Published: May 03, 1992
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page
From the Louisiana bayous to the arid plains of Texas and Oklahoma, thousands of oil and gas wells, abandoned at the end of their productive life, have become conduits for noxious liquids that bubble up from deep below the earth's surface to kill crops and taint drinking water.
For state governments in America's oil patch, these abandoned wells have become an expensive legacy left by a fading industry.
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are about 1.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide and that some 200,000 of them may not be properly plugged. In Texas alone, officials calculate there are 40,000 to 50,000 abandoned wells that could pose pollution problems.
Often drilled to depths of a mile or more, oil wells typically tap into sandy formations permeated with a brine that is up to four times saltier than sea water and that is laced with radioactivity, heavy metals and other toxins. Without extensive and costly plugging, that brine can flow up the well shaft and seep into fresh water aquifers or sometimes reach the surface.
I dont know what happened to the date on this article when I cut and pasted it- the date in the original was May 3, 2011.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know about "take a breath", but at least read what the article says, and not what you want it to say. Essentially what they say agrees with you: no presence of frac chemicals, and no hint of contamination from other water sources, suggesting that the likely source of the methane is a leaking wellbore ("At the same time, the researchers found no evidence that either the chemicals in fracking fluids or the natural contamination in deep waters were polluting relatively shallow water wells in the vicinity of the deep natural gas wells. That suggests that leaking wells are likely the source of such methane contamination, rather than any migration upward from the deep. "It's easier to envision a gas well casing that's leaking, especially with the high pressures, than it is to envision the mass movement of gas or liquids 5,000 feet upwards," Jackson notes.")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat doesn't relieve the drillers of responsibility for the problem; what it does is provide some direction on what problem needs to be fixed.
"Fracking has been used hundreds of thousands of times since the 1940s with almost no problems." This is an industry claim which is in effect propaganda. The TERM "Fracking" has been around since the 1940's, but the practice as is now being deployed has not. Three things changed. First, the use of horizontal drilling, which makes the chance of untoward leakage much greater per well drilled, followed by the movement from the deep shale covered with clay in the west to shallower shale not covered with clay in the east, and then compounded by changing in chemicals (coupled with the amendment to the Clean Water Act under Bush which excluded these chemicals from regulatory oversights.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaken together, we have a riskier process being relocated to a more vulnerable area, but with less regulation.
www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should consider reading this report before you make such farfetched claims about an industry you do not understand.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/05/running-headlong-into-a-false-headline/
Also all of the chemicals have been disclosed. Check out this site before you continue to brain wash people into believing your mediocrity:
http://fracfocus.org/
Do yourself a favor and learn a little bit about the topics you write on.
Maybe you should do some more reading into the topics you are citing. Check out these quotes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the report itself: “Methane migration [via fracturing] through the 1- to 2-km-thick geological formations that overlie the Marcellus and Utica shales is less likely as a mechanism for methane contamination than leaky well casings …” (Osborn, et al., Duke Univ., 5/9/11)
More from the paper: “Based on our data (Table 2), we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids.” (Ibid)
“I think the most likely explanation is that there are gas well casings that are leaking. I think that’s more likely than the mass movement of gas or liquids thousands of feet underground. … Again, we did not find any evidence for contamination from [fracturing fluids].” (Duke researcher Rob Jackson interview w/ Bloomberg, 5/10/11)
"The study found no evidence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids or saline produced waters," their report says. (NY Times/E&E News, 5/9/11)
“They found no evidence of the chemicals used as part of the rock-fracturing process common in natural-gas drilling.” (Bloomberg, 5/9/11)
“The Duke researchers said the gas they found in water is not coming up through rocks from the pressure of fracturing…” (NY Times/E&E News, 5/9/11)
“The paper found no evidence of contamination from the chemicals used to fracture the rock or from "produced" water -- the wastewater that emerges from the wells after the shale has been fractured.” (AFP, 5/10/11)
“Environmental groups and residents had long feared that the chemicals were -- or could be-- finding their way from the well bore and into drinking water well, but the Duke study found no evidence of this.” (Huffington Post, 5/10/11)
Abandoned well bores that were never plugged should now be plugged. Who will do that work? Who will pay to have it done?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew wells should be properly plugged and low enough in the bore hole to prevent deep aquaifer pollution.
I am skeptical that methane is only slightly soluable in
water, that burning water wells would solve the supposed water quality problem.
I work for a small, independent oil & gas company in the midwest. I also consider myself an environmental advocate and it can be tough to square the two. There have been an awful lot of sarcastic comments with a lot of bad or lacking science, but there have also been some very reasonable conclusions. First of all, the potential for contamination from fracking at depth is extremely remote, given the normally thick intervening, impermeable rock layers between the rock being fractured and those that might provide fresh water, as well as the tendency for fractures at depth to propagate vertically rather than horizontally due to overburden pressure (in other words, a heckuva lot of rock tonnage sitting on top of the fractured zone!). There are, however, some specialized instances in which fracking could be of potential concern. For example, of more concern, in my opinion, than potential near surface leaks in the new shale wells is the possibility of communication with (as already mentioned) older, poorly plugged wells. Decades ago, plugging requirements were very lax and I can find old plugging records where literally all that was done was to dump sand, rock and tree branches, possibly with some drilling mud. This is hardly an effective seal but, in those days, no one was waterflooding or drilling horizontal wells. Fracs were much smaller than today. So, if these Marcellus Shale wells are being drilled near older, abandoned wells that are at least as deep as the Marcellus there could be a problem with communication - not because of leakage in the new well's cement casing, rather due to the Marcellus fracs communicating through the formation into the old wellbores which may have no cement and, in early days, did not require adequate surface pipe to protect deeper drinking water sources. I do not know this to be the case, but it warrants study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern wells are required to set and cement "surface pipe" 50' or 100' below a designated USDW, which is defined as a zone containing less than 10,000 mg/l of total dissolved solids (TDS). For perspective, the maximimum recommended level of TDS for drinking water is 500 mg/l and water containing in excess of 1,000 mg/l is considered unfit for human consumption, so the statute is quite conservative. Although not impossible, the new wells are less likely to be the culprits, but the high volume fracs reach out quite a bit further than the 30-60' previously suggested. Rock mechanics analysis must include natural fracture systems that can propagate the treatments much further.
A quick blurb about frac fluids (any completion engineers, feel free to correct me if I am in error):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrac fluids are almost completely fresh water... well, usually 2% KCl water to keep clays from swelling and reducing premeability. There are minute additives that are designed to either gel or slicken the water to reduce friction in order to increase injection rate. Sometimes, frac sand (essentially playground sand) is pumped in with the water to prop open the new fractures. I doubt that this frac water poses significant risk. In Pennsylvania, however, I understand it is standard practice to flow back the frac fluids (one might expect about 50% to come back) into open pits to be sent to waste treatment plants for eventual discharge into rivers. That could be worrisome, not so much due to the trace chemicals in the frac water, more due to the salinity and naturally occurring radioactive content of the shale water. I do not operate in that region, so would decline to draw any conclusions, but citizen concern is understandable.
Regarding what to do about old, improperly plugged wells... where I operate, orphaned, abandoned wells are essentially plugged by the industry. We have a voluntary checkoff program that everyone participates in that generates funds to plug these wells. Also, when applying to drill or convert a saltwater disposal well, the applicant has to provide regulators with a plat showing the location of any fresh water wells within 1/2 mile and the location of all drilled wells for oil and/or gas, whether dry holes, currently producing, shut in, or depleted & plugged, within 1/4 mile of the well I am converting. Then, regulators can review drilling and plugging records of those wells to determine if all were properly completed and/or plugged, leaving little risk of communication and contamination from the proposed disposal well. These and others are reasonable requirements to ensure that USDWs are adequately protected. In particularly vulnerable areas, a similar survey might be prudent prior to large frac operations.
@vor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to say that all is well. But is it? The Duke study seems to say otherwise. Who will sort that out? If orphaned, abandoned wells are plugged by the industry, and if new wells are cased and plugged to prevent aquifer pollution, what's the problem?
I assume frack wastewater is initially contained in lined waste pits. Are the wastewater treatment plants typically municiple wastewater treatment plants? Can municiple wastewater plants desalinate frack wastewater or somehow dilute it before discharging it into rivers? Do drillers pay for wastewater treatment? (Probably so.) Do they pay enough to cover special treatment costs? What's the problem with radioactivity? I see Japanese people learning to live with higher levels of radioactvity (again).
All this evidence and conjecture begs more evidence and objective relations. Surely the problem belongs in somebody's regulatory balliwick.
I think Scientific American should link a brief primer about how gas wells are drilled and completed in shale formations, because I see many comments which really miss the point. I too wonder about the way the study was done. Evidently, if the gas is leaking to a fresh water aquifer then it's coming via a cement sheath failure. It's not related to the fracture stimulation, other than fracking allows more gas to move towards the wellbore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf natural gas is escaping into a fresh water aquifer, a responsible operator would be very interested in knowing this is happening, because there's a huge liability if the gas gets into somebody's kitchen and explodes or starts a fire. Therefore the issue shouldn't be regulation or being careful, rather educate the public about what's going on properly (which the article really fails to do), and point out the potential solutions.
I also saw a question about what's added to the fracturing fluids: most of it is viscosifiers, polymers which make the water look like snot and allow it to carry the fracture proppant, which is usually sand. Companies like to make a big mistery out of it so they can charge more, but it's basically corn derivatives.
Chemicals are added to increase water viscosity to allow it to carry sand which props the fracture open. The viscosified water also has less tendency to leak into a permeable interval, which allows it to keep on pushing down the fracture, rather than leak away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not at all suggesting that all is well. I am only attempting to more accurately describe frac procedures and the physics involved so we can better define the potential problems and address them. Apparently, there are very few saltwater disposal wells in the Pennsylvania fields in question. Hopefully, someone with more experience in that region will comment further here, but I suspect there are geological reasons for this - perhaps few injectible formations that can handle high volumes. This does not make it OK to settle for potentially harmful disposal practices and I do not have the solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask, "If orphaned, abandoned wells are plugged by the industry, and if new wells are cased and plugged to prevent aquifer pollution, what's the problem?" If industry in the NE will proactively take on the problem through some sort of checkoff program similar to that utilized in Oklahoma, pollution risks will be significantly reduced. Note, I say "significantly reduced". There is no such thing as risk-free operations (TANSTAAFL).
Society has to decide how important it is to access to these vast gas reserves. This is no different from many other industrial activities designed to improve quality of life. We make choices in life every day that carry with them some degree of [what we would call] acceptable risk. What degree of risk is acceptable will continue to be a source of vigorous debate.
You write "Evidently, if the gas is leaking to a fresh water aquifer then it's coming via a cement sheath failure. It's not related to the fracture stimulation, other than fracking allows more gas to move towards the wellbore." While this is certainly not impossible, it seems unlikely that there would be widespread multiple failures in what is a well-refined operation. I still think the more likely culprit is communication with old, poorly plugged wellbores. I have seen just this thing happen... a formation being fracked, communicating with an old (1920s vintage) producing well, and coming to the surface. As the old well would only have about 70' of surface pipe and fresh water aquifers extend deeper, there is nothing to protect those deeper aquifers from the frac fluids on their way to the surface. I could certainly be wrong, but I think this possibility bears more investigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised that liquid petroleum gas(LPG) was not mentioned in the article. Some say that this could be a resolution to contaminated water during fracking because LPG goes in as a liquid gel, enters the rock, converts to gas and releases the trapped gas in the rock all of which come back to the surface together and are captured. Supposedly, when captured, LPG can be re-used and thus creates a circular loop. There are also claims that it does not compromise the rock formation like traditional fracking does. Anyone have more insight or experience with this? Is this all too good to be true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVoiceofreason, you may be right. I have to admit I didn't consider the possibility of old wellbores in the area. But if they do exist, then the correlation of methane concentration to distance should be to distance to an old well, and not an existing well. This of course may be what happens if an old well location was used to drill the new well. What they report in the article is puzzling, because multiple cement failures are so rare. I assume they would use a double string to cover the aquifer. If they are not, then the state regulatory authorities should require it, and the companies which drilled the wells to date should go hire better engineers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say it's impractical. Fracturing involves forcing a liquid and sand into fractures induced in the rock at depth. It's a one shot operation done when the well is drilled, not a continuous process. To carry the sand, the fracturing fluid is viscosified, otherwise the ratio of water to sand is a lot higher, and this in turn means there's a lot of water pumped to make the fracture. The issue here is contamination of fresh water layers by methane, the solution needs to focus on the pathway used by the methane to get to the shallower fresh water zones, something I find quite puzzling if they are following standard industry practice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to the 'old studies', that said the same thing. Do results have a shelf-life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich old studies which said what same thing? I own two houses, both in areas where natural gas is produced, and we never saw water contamination. What bothered me was the compressors they installed on the wells when they got old, this is an area where there needs to be regulation, and force the well owner or operator to install electric-driven compressors enclosed in sound-proof structures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe this Title and Article. Has the whole scientific world lost its brains. In essence this article is a rehash of the recent Duke article, but it ignores the Duke article and is totally flawed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Duke article said it found methane in drinking water close to natural as wells. PERIOD. It went on to say that it was improbable that fracking could cause contamination and there was no evidence of methane due to fracking.
This article's title says that methane linked to fracking and in the third paragraph says "This marks the first time that drinking water contamination has been definitively linked to fracking." THAT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE DUKE ARTICLE SAYS!
Then in the 7th paragraph this article says the complete opposite of what it said in paragraph 3. "At the same time, the researchers found no evidence that either the chemicals in fracking fluids or the natural contamination in deep waters were polluting relatively shallow water wells in the vicinity of the deep natural gas wells."
Well, which is it. Holy cow!!
It should also be known that the area studied by Duke has already been extensively investigated by the State of PA and they concluded that Cabot Energy caused contamination of shallow drinking water wells by not properly cementing their casing and allowing shallow gas zones to migrate methane to shallow aquifers. Cabot has been fine a lt of money.
Lastly, the rocks in this area are all of the same general age and type and there are lots of shallow and deep oil and gas bearing zones and lots of shales just like the Marcellus. The presence of gas just depends on the local geology. It is interesting to note that many of the drinking water wells sampled in the Duke study that were very close to gas wells had almost no methane in them.
This was a horrible and non-scientific, and conflicting article and SA should be ashamed. Pure capitalist greed by SA and an attempt to sell more magazines buy preying on peoples fear.
injecting chemicals into drinking water aquifers will definitely harm the water, but injecting very dilute chemicals in hydrocarbon zones, where the hydrocarbons are extremely toxic by themselves is a non-issue. Some frack water contains benzene in parts per billion yet some Marcellus Shales contain 30% condensate or essentially gasoline of which benzene is a major component.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I am saying that the process of fracking doesn't contaminate but improper cementing of wells and mishandling of produced fluids (containing 30% gasoline) can be bad.
the whole point of a frac is to get sand grains into fractures that are created by the water pressure so that gas can flow along the sand in the fractures and get to the well more easily. Sand allows faster flow whereas shale doesn't. After the frac the shale tends to close-up again and some of the sand actually gets crushed. So the introduction of chemicals into the water and sand mixture is there for many reasons but in general to keep the gel stable until the sand is emplaced but also to make sure the shales doesn't swell, that bacteria doesn't grow and clog the sand, etc. But I think the very dilute chemicals in frac fluid is not an issue because the chemicals in the oil and gas are a zillion times more concentrated and toxic. I mean some Marcellus wells have 30% condensate which is essentially gasoline. It is like saying it is bad to put a teaspoon of salt into the ocean. Surface management of all fluids is where everyone needs to be careful. The fracking is a non issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat is totally not true regarding the chemicals used. Every company has already provided the list. Regarding gas migration it travels to low pressure areas and travels fastest along fractures especially fracked fractures with sand in them. The lowest pressure outlet for this gas is to the well not away from it. Pressure in rocks and exerted on fluids including gas comes from the huge weight of the rocks piled above it. The Marcellus has say 6000 feet of heavy rock on top of it. The Marcellus has pressure on it but in time as the gas is depleted the pressure drops and no more gas will flow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissweet and such clarity. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe reason the exemption is there is because the EPA studied it and found it not-worth regulating under specific regulations. It is still regulated under the SDWA just exempt from some detailed regs because it is not germane. Everyone is just a hater and like to bash folks and big business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is no evidence of fracking causing contamination. I have seen two high-profile cases where I believe contamination occurred in PA because of bad cementing of the casing allowing shallow gas to migrate to aquifers. I think Cheseapeake and Cabot were the two companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think all of this is true, except the older wells are generally very shallow often between 100 and 300 feet and were drilled in the 1910-25 range. Deeper wells generally are better constructed mainly because of the high pressures and self-preservation and not wanting a blowout. BUt yes oil is toxic but we use it and need it and it has allowed us to live better and longer. So sure lets be careful and tread lightly but oil is cool stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLPG is extremely flammable and explosive and I doubt that anyone would want to deal with it. But if they did use it it would be because it was good for the formation (didn't damage the rock) or because it used less water. But really I can't believe it is a good alternative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah am upset with the Dimock PA situation and the apparently crappy completions. Chesapeake is also under fines for the same thing. Anyone know why they can't seem to complete these wells properly? This assumes that the fines are justified and it was the company's fault. But from the comments I have read from the regulators who dealt with this site I would say they are correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is where i think the real indicator of truth lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have oil & gas companies hiring companies to do this frack work. They are spending a lot of money to do this, it isn't cheap (I work in the O&G industry and we do fracking).
I understand exactly how tight money is on any of these projects and how closely these publicly owned and privately owned companies are watching their margins.
So it is safe to say none of them would give away money or increase their cost without a very good, economic reason.
That said, you are going to tell me that companies with teams of lawyers at the ready are going to claim they aren't responsible, yet spend a lot of money to remediate the water poisoning for hundreds of families by trucking in water (expensive) as long as they live there, as well as paying some medical expenses (expensive) when they have done nothing wrong and are not at fault. You mean to tell me that these companies are going to voluntarily eat away at their profit for something they never did?
My wife, the attorney, says it is very simple - follow the money and there will be the truth.
I find the evidence and the indicating behavior very implicating - After all, the innocent usually don't act like the guilty, unless of course, they are guilty.
Usually fines never get paid, are held up in appeal and are so low that they are easily absorbed and cheaper than the fix.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank GW for that, they gutted the process by which these fines are processed, also for the Coal Mining industry. The collection rates for fines run less than 30% and usually settle for pennies on the dollar after appeals. There is nothing punitive about them, they are a joke.
<a href="http://www.caslab.com/Shale-Gas-Testing/">Hydraulic Fracturing</a> is an incredibly technical process. Picking out unsupported points and arguing without facts won't help anyone understand what is really happening. We all need to do some research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydraulic Fracturing is an incredibly technical process. Picking out unsupported points and arguing without facts won't help anyone understand what is really happening. We all need to do some research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.caslab.com/Shale-Gas-Testing
@JohnShale its not Hydraulic Fluid, its Hydraulic in the sense that it uses liquid. Please check out http://www.frackingnaturalgas.com/hydraulic-fracturing-and-our-drinking-water/ We looked into some of the chemicals and were quite disturbed about the Bromide. I think we can do it sucessfully its just a matter of doing the right thing. I hear the CEO of halburton drank some of his new fracking fluid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/halliburton-executive-drinks-fracking-fluid_n_933621.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEasily remove radiation from any water source
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur University of Alabama patented solar desalination product uses no electricity, has no filters to replace, can be taken anywhere and extracts pure water from any contaminated water source. It removes radiation, fluoride, salt, pesticides, bacteria, dirt and other contaminants from any water. It aids people to be prepared for disasters. Made tough in the U.S.A.
Please visit us:
http://freshwater DOT ecogreenenergies DOT com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisman im sick of hearing all this talk being perpetrated by intellectual dumbasses about fracing... first fracing is nothing new, been around and has nothing to do with drilling... its damn sure not gonna get far enough up hole to bother fresh water resevoirs all mandated by the govt. casing is set and cemented, then tested.. to insure integrity.. oilmen care just as much about nature if not more than most tree huggers.. we do know something about nature we work in it and recreate as well!!! ya'll havent a clue about oil business or what it takes to work in the business !!! if u gonna spew shit , at least get ur ass out there climb up in a frac van and watch it work.., now u understand that simple statement! not new,not drilling,pretty damn safe