Slashdot Mirror


Study Finds Fracking Chemicals Didn't Pollute Water

RoccamOccam sends this news from the Associated Press: "A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site. After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water."

56 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds iffy by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can they be sure that they didn't detect the fracking chemicals when the industry continues to refuse to reveal the identity of said chemicals? It is nearly impossible to do a study where you watch for every conceivable chemical that ever has or ever could exist.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Sounds iffy by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know, right?

      It is virutally impossible to detect Dihydroxen Monoxide once it gets into the ground water.

    2. Re:Sounds iffy by dlakelan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's pretty easy to run water through a gas chromatograph / mass spec and see if it has anything other than water in it, and how much of that stuff it has. A bit harder to figure out exactly what the pollutant is, but if you have a sample of the fracking water it's easy to look at the peaks the fracking water has and see if they appear in the drinking water even if you don't know the identity of the chemicals.

      --
      ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
    3. Re:Sounds iffy by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      The way I read it (yes, I read the article) is that they put a marker of some kind into the chemical brew being slugged into the ground, and found no sign of that marker in ground water. Now obviously there are still questions to be raised, but still, in and of itself, this seems a pretty reasonable way to determine groundwater contamination.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Sounds iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you would RTFA, you would notice that they're not just testing the drinking water for ytterbium contamination, they are using seismographic technologies to watch the spread of liquids in the fracking boreholes. That's how they can tell that one well's liquids migrated 1,800 feet from the target region (which is also noted to still be around a mile below the surface and far from any drinking water).

    5. Re:Sounds iffy by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends on the marker that they use. If the marker is something that is not as soluble or emulates the characteristic of the fracking recipe. You also have the problem of how they injected the marker versus how they normally proceed. A concern was that they were more careful in projects where they were injecting the marker rather than how they normally do business. Finally, Pennsylvania is not the only place they do fracking different soils and naturally occurring fault lines were major concerns.

    6. Re:Sounds iffy by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way I read it (yes, I read the article) is that they put a marker of some kind into the chemical brew being slugged into the ground, and found no sign of that marker in ground water. Now obviously there are still questions to be raised, but still, in and of itself, this seems a pretty reasonable way to determine groundwater contamination.

      How is that even reasonable? Why not measure the actual contaminants and check elevation levels?

      Here's a question that immediately comes up for me: What if the markers have different rock/soil permeability compared to the chemicals used in fracking? Are those markers closely enough in characteristics to the chemicals used as to be valid for purposes of testing exposure/pollution?

      How about another one - why is the DoE doing this test as opposed to the EPA (who are likely more versed in measuring pullution)?

      Not testing the presence of the actual chemicals/pollutants doesn't pass the sniff test for me. Something stinks here.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    7. Re:Sounds iffy by oreaq · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree, it wouldn't be that difficult. But that is not what was done in the study. An undisclosed amount of four unnamed marker chemicals where added to the chemicals used for fracking by a company at one fracking site. Within the one year the study has been running, non of these markers where detected in a predetermined "monitoring zone". Maybe the study has some value, but since there is no citation in the article and the article contains no facts beside the ones I just mentioned, it is really hard to tell.

    8. Re:Sounds iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but if that's truly the case, then where precisely are the chemicals coming from that are making the water flammable?

      That's methane. Any natural gas well can leak methane into the aquifer. If the top of the well shaft is poorly sealed, that can happen, with or without fracking.

    9. Re:Sounds iffy by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One would imagine that if the marker was significantly different in solubility (or other characteristics) from the fracking solution, It would cause problems with said fracking solution, such as changing its viscosity, precipitating out or floating out, or any number of things. Based on this reasonable assumption, One would imagine that the marker was chosen to be able to be mixed into the fracking solution and remain a homogenous part of that solution. Thus, if any of the solution got where it was not supposed to be, it would show. If the marker had a predilection for separating itself from the solution, it would be more possible to throw a false positive (most likely way it would separate out would be to be lighter than the fracking solution and rise out).

      But thats just my best guess, based on how *i* would come at a project like that.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    10. Re:Sounds iffy by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 3, Informative

      this effect also can occur naturally, without drilling. (I knew a person lived far from any drilling who could light their water taps. They would go out instantly from the water pouring with the gas, but it made an interesting flash.)

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    11. Re:Sounds iffy by virtig01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but if that's truly the case, then where precisely are the chemicals coming from that are making the water flammable?

      It's not the chemicals that make water flammable, but methane.

      Of course methane exists in the shale where they're fracking, but it can also exist at various layers of the ground above the shale. Pretty much anywhere organic material is decomposing, methane can exist. I would bet that the origin of any methane found in drinking water is likely above the shale. It's possible that the seismic activity caused by fracking disturbs the ground high above, releasing methane into a nearby water source. But in some places methane is just emitted naturally; in the old days, people could take advantage of relatively shallow methane as a fuel source.

    12. Re:Sounds iffy by Freddybear · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nothing changed. That area has had methane in the ground water since long before fracking ever happened.

    13. Re:Sounds iffy by Xicor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nothing changed. That area has had methane in the ground water since long before fracking ever happened.

      this article only talks about the fracking chemicals being leaked into the groundwater... it does not mention the other problem with fracking, which is that it causes fault lines to shift and ruptures in the ground due to increased pressure. the latter is what causes methane to leak into the groundwater, which then gets into drinking water. methane is not one of the fracking chemicals, and therefore the study didnt mention it.

    14. Re:Sounds iffy by PRMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Again, I wish I had mod points today.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:Sounds iffy by mellon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: the study is contradicted by known data, so it would be interesting to understand why.

      FTFY.

    16. Re:Sounds iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because who should you trust - engineers and scientists who have worked on energy production for decades or fearmongering alarmists who want to shut down energy production in America by any means necessary?

    17. Re:Sounds iffy by kevmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People seem unable to read papers any longer. This is especially true of the news media. The study on earthquakes repeatedly pointed out that there was NO evidence that fracking itself led to earthquakes. It said that the practice of pumping the toxic waste from fracking into deep wells for disposal, a common, but not universal practice, could and did lead to quakes.

      Back in the mid 1960s Colorado experienced a series of quakes, some strong enough to cause damage. Those earthquakes were tracked to the use of deep well disposal at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. The well was used for disposal of chemical warfare agents (toxic gases and their components). The strongest was felt quite strongly in Trinidad, CO, some 200 miles south of the well. I grew up there and felt it personally. This led to the discontinuation of this disposal method.

      I am simply amazed that half a century after this well documented and researched event that it seems to have been forgotten.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    18. Re:Sounds iffy by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Translation: the study is contradicted by made up data, so it would be interesting to understand why.

      FTFY

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    19. Re:Sounds iffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because not being a goddamn idiot and insisting that we make sure we're not shitting where we eat means we want to shut down energy production in America by any means necessary?

    20. Re:Sounds iffy by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snicker snort. You make them sound like dangerous terrists. Been reading Zodiac for trollspiration?

      Funny that the AC is right on the money. Perhaps you should be paying attention to the various environmental groups that are running amok and protesting everything from building new power plants, to transporting oil by pipeline. Because "it hurts the environment...says their feelings."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    21. Re:Sounds iffy by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      It's pretty easy to run water through a gas chromatograph / mass spec and see if it has anything other than water in it, and how much of that stuff it has.

      I do MS and MS data interpretation on a regular basis and I need to point out to you that you are oversimplifying the situation. MS detection is limited by - at the very least - two important factors; the ion source and the ion detector. If you don't know what compounds you are looking for, you may well not be able to ionize them using any of your common methods (water and most alcohols are great examples of this; they usually are shed in the ionization process). Similarly if you don't know the appropriate mass window for your molecule you may miss them in detection completely as every detector has its sweet spot where it does a better job of detecting ions.

      In other words, mass spec is great but it is no cure all. A MS experiment can be doomed to failure if there is inadequate advanced knowledge of the sample that is being examined.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    22. Re:Sounds iffy by Gorobei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it was a totally solid study. From the article:

      paragraph 1: "A landmark federal study"
      paragraph 2: "After a year of monitoring"
      paragraph 3: "Although the results are preliminary"
      paragraph 4: "Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface"
      paragraph 8: "The study marked the first time that a drilling company let government scientists inject special tracers into the fracking fluid"

      See, fracking is totally safe. A single "landmark" study proves it. When the fracking was 1.5 miles deep, after one year, no bad effects were observed. Also, this was the one study allowed by any drilling company.

      Sheesh, what are you people concerned about?

    23. Re:Sounds iffy by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      The study you don't like said they didn't find fracking chemicals. The study you cite doesn't say anything about fracking chemicals. It says they found methane and propane. That's not good, but it's not the same thing. My request for refuting data still stands.

    24. Re:Sounds iffy by mellon · · Score: 2

      The advocates of this study want you to think that hydrofracking doesn't affect groundwater, and that the study says that, but of course it doesn't say that, and the link I gave you shows evidence to the contrary. Having said that, since you ask, here's an EPA study from Wyoming that shows contamination from fracking fluids: ReportOnPavilion.pdf

    25. Re:Sounds iffy by mellon · · Score: 2

      You can call any data made up data, but I'd like you to read over the extremely detailed study they did in Pavillion, Wyoming, and in particular the conclusions from the report they did on this study in 2011, and tell me again all about how you've concluded that the data is made up.

    26. Re:Sounds iffy by epiccollision · · Score: 2

      you'd think with all the subsurface methane floating around why would they be fraking at all???? interesting how there is no biogenic methane projects harnessing all this free floating methane right in the water table this whole time...you don't even have to use the water you can just recycle it back into the aquifer after the gas has separated itself once brought to the surface and then have the bacteria replenish the supply, so renewable...stupid humans...drilling giant holes in the ground and breaking up geological structures just to get something that is available in vast quantities just below the surface....except that's not true...at all...it may take a few critical thinking skills but if as many people got methane just from drilling water wells....fraking seems a little silly...yes there is biogenic methane in well water....you can rarely find enough to catch things on fire if vented properly and you wouldn't be able to do it more then once a year...

  2. That's even worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So what the hell is being done about keeping your damn hippie drinking water from contaminating my fracking solution??

  3. OK, That's One (this is a preliminary study) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    One site, one test well. Big whoop.

    >shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site

    > one was injected with four different man-made tracers

    1. Re:OK, That's One (this is a preliminary study) by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Who picked the site? What was the criteria for selection? A year of monitoring also seems to be pretty short to come to conclusions when we are talking about the most important resource on the planet.

      Jackson said the 1,800-foot fracture was very interesting, but also noted it is still a mile from the surface.

      Love the lackadaisical attitude.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:OK, That's One (this is a preliminary study) by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed: http://www.howstuffworks.com/search.php?terms=fracking

      The main issue does not appear to be that a properly administered site leaks fracking fluids into the drinking water... it's that most sites have no oversight and don't always handle the fracking fluids properly.

      While it's useful to know that there isn't contamination from the properly injected deep-seam fracking fluids, this doesn't really help the people who are victims of sites where the injection column lelaked at drinking water levels, extra fluid was dumped at ground level, or any of the other hundreds of possible things that could happen... happened.

    3. Re:OK, That's One (this is a preliminary study) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the 'injection column' (as you put it) leaks in any way, shape or form, at any depth, it isn't a fracking issue, and it never was. The wellbore wasn't cemented properly when the casing was installed, an operation that was completed months or even years before the frack company was hired by the well owner to come in and do the frac.

      Here's more food for thought: Such a well is going to leak hydrocarbons and water and whatever else comes up the wellbore, whether or not it gets fracked.

      Feel free to demand more regulation and oversight when an oil company drills and cases the well. The frackers are pretty tired of dealing with the heat for that shit.

  4. One data point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assuming everything's above the board (so to speak), these results are all fine and dandy, but this single scenario doesn't itself make for a glowing endorsement of fracking's safety. For one thing, I'm wondering how the results from sites with fracking-related earthquakes might look.

    Does anyone really want to bet that aquifers near other fracking sites are just as fracking-chemical-free?

  5. Not possible by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not possible! The results are politically incorrect and will go against the dogma of 'we must be miserable'. Not to worry, someone will quickly find a way to bury this, spin this or otherwise make this moot. We can't let science speak, that's what we have greenpeace for.

    1. Re:Not possible by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 2

      After a year of monitoring

      Yay! It's safe! *phew*

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
  6. In this case. by intermodal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, it didn't get into the groundwater this time. My concern is whether proper studies are being done to ensure that other sites do not see different results from the supposedly clean ones here.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  7. What about long term? by csubi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing made its way up in a year, hardly surprising.

    I'm sure people will be happy when they see these chemical showing up in the water a couple hundred years from now, then discovering records about fracking in archives. They will probably say things like : they could not have been this stupid?!

    Again, the problem here is timescale. One should not think in decades but in centuries.

    1. Re:What about long term? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its almost as bad as storing a dangerous explosive gas below ground. Not just a few cubic meters mind you, but millions! I think we should do our best to take these volatile organic compounds from their unregulated and unauthorized locations -- and for the children -- dispose of them in such a way that they will not combust and threaten the lives of our precious innocents!

    2. Re:What about long term? by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're asking for long-term thinking from corporations? Ha! They can't think long-term even when it'd benefit them, imagine when they don't give a shit about it.

  8. Says it all! by Tempest451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "While the lack of contamination is encouraging, Jackson said he wondered whether the unidentified drilling company might have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with the research site, since it was being watched. " Ya think?

  9. From a comment on the story - so this is bogus by PoconoPCDoctor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This segment of oil and gas propaganda was brought to you by the good ol' folks of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and its friends at ANGA. What a joke! I'm sure the American Natural Gas Association (ANGA) will advertise even more on your station now as a thank you for this puff piece you proffered as news. I live in SW PA. I sadly know many, many families whose lives have been destroyed by the onslaught of drilling and fracking. For them, this might be the most insulting study I have seen to date. Why not point out, CBS, that the state of PA never even had 1 cumulative impact study on human health or the environment before they allowed the takeover of our state and government by big oil and gas. No consideration whatsoever for what this would do to our health, our air, our water. We are here to be the guinea pigs and no one really seems to care thanks to a lack of media integrity and coverage about the reality of living in the gasfields. CBS should be embarrassed to even play along with this type of bought and paid for "journalism". Congratulations Duke! You found a company here that can drill and maintain a gas pad exactly as it should be without a single complication and did a study (like the 7 or 8% failure rate on the cement well casings. This is one of the major reasons we have had so much water contamination and methane migration in this state. Check the DEP numbers here in PA. That is failure of cement casing on just the completion of wells, not the overall failure rate, over time, that is much, much higher). It is terrifying to think about all of the damage that the fractures (1800 ft) themselves can or will do in addition to the failed casings. You seem there are hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells, and coal mines in all corners of this state that are further complicating this type of migration and contamination. Why not investigate that? Looking at one well and saying "Hey, this is how it is supposed to work when it does. See, it can happen." is not any kind of science or research that helps those of us screaming "WHAT DO WE DO WHEN YOUR DRILL SITES FAIL; WHEN YOUR FRACK PITS LEAK TOXIC WASTE; WHEN YOUR TRUCKS SPILL AND YOUR WORKERS ILLEGALLY DUMP ON OUR ROADS AND IN OUR WATERWAYS? WHAT DO WE DO WHEN WE CAN'T BREATHE THE AIR OUTSIDE OF OUR HOMES AND ALL OF OUR POLITICIANS and REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE BEHOLDEN TO INDUSTRY AND NOT THE PEOPLE THEY WORK FOR?" Now there's a story we here in Gasland would love to see. I will take any honest journalist on a tour of what fracking really looks like when things go wrong, as they often do, from the view of the harmed, the sickened, the destroyed forests and farmland. I will show you the massive frackpits that sit behind people's houses and poison their air. I will show you what black, putrid water looks like where it used to run clean and water animals. I will let you smell the smell of flaring and burning of god knows what from giant cyrogenic plants next to the home of toddlers and daycare centers. I will show you where toxic waste is buried on farmland and where water catches fire and well after well is destroyed, thanks to all of the disruption of the earth below it. I could show you all of this and yet the sad truth is that you wouldn't even investigate or report on it, just like the media round these parts. You have an organization to run and that takes lots of advertising dollars, not honest reporting. Just keep spewing the BS about jobs, safety, doing it right, American independence from foreign oil, and every other lie and industry talking point that you tell to justify the plight of my neighbors and the destruction of our land and the profit of your news organization. I'll be here shaking my head at your fault, but fighting back. I'll watch as our resources are shipped to China and India, while more and more foreign companies drill and have more rights in our backyards than the citizens of this state. I'll watch with great sadness, your participation in the destruction of my democracy. And I will continue to speak truth to power. My eyes were opened a long time ago. I understand how the world works. I know what part in the coverup media outlets like you play. I only hope that many of your viewers wake up and take your news for what it is, good old American journaltizing at its best.

    --
    "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
    1. Re:From a comment on the story - so this is bogus by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're obviously right, they use paragraphs.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. Fire water? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But what about the videos of people lighting their tap water. Are there explanations that don't directly implicate fracking? I asking seriously. I haven't read up on those films and I'm sure someone has a perfectly reasonable sounding story for how that could be.

    And suppose the fracking chemicals themselves don't migrate. What about the petrochemicals they've broken loose (which is the whole reason for fracking in the first place, as I understand it)? Can those work their way up into the water supply?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Fire water? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      And suppose the fracking chemicals themselves don't migrate.

      . . . they could be carried by a swallow . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Fire water? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But what about the videos of people lighting their tap water. Are there explanations that don't directly implicate fracking? I asking seriously. I haven't read up on those films and I'm sure someone has a perfectly reasonable sounding story for how that could be.

      And suppose the fracking chemicals themselves don't migrate. What about the petrochemicals they've broken loose (which is the whole reason for fracking in the first place, as I understand it)? Can those work their way up into the water supply?

      As I understand it, when done properly, the petro and fracking chemicals either stay in the shale or end up back in the tankers.

      The problem is, according to some studies, it's only done properly 20% of the time or less, due to the high costs of doing it properly and the lack of effective oversight.

      In short, the chemicals usually migrate into the water supply due to dumping, accidents, and badly maintained equipment, not because they were properly injected into the shale/extracted and shipped to petrochemical companies.

    3. Re:Fire water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Methane has been fairly common in groundwater long before fracking. Of course, the environmental activists don't want you to know that.

    4. Re:Fire water? by steelfood · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't recally where I heard this, but my understanding is that the tap water was flammable even prior to the fracking. Natural gas was contaminating the groundwater long before people began mining it. The way I see it, it may be that more places have flammable tap water after fracking, but being able to light water on fire by itself is not indicative of contaminated drinking water. It's more just attention-whoring and if you abscribe malice to the media, then classic straw-man misdirection.

      Stronger correlators, such as the tails of cows falling off after fracking began (I don't recall which, but one of the known chemicals used in fracking caused tails to fall off in laboratory experiments), would be a better argument for groundwater contamination.

      The other thing to realize is that just because one area is not contaminated does not imply that fracking in general does not contaminate the ground water. It could be due to the specific geology of the area. Or it could be variations in the fracking process used in that particular area or for this particular test.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Fire water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The explanation for every one of those tap water fires is the same: shitty well bore zone isolation. Whether or not fracking was used in the areas around those communities, it's not the fracking itself that leads to the fires. It's the shitty two-bit gas co that used shitty half-cut cement mix and thin-by-a-third casing strings, which one after another fail over time, letting gas from their production zone migrate up the well and out into places it should have never had the opportunity to go. Fracking chemicals aren't even the issue, because in any competent well those chemicals will never touch anything but gas-rich rock, and steel to surface.

        A standard production well should have a minimum of 3 separate sets of steel & cement between the production gas and nearest surface aquifer. That's been industry standard practice for more than 30 years. As an oil & gas guy, I can promise you, despite the vilification, that it's not BP or Halliburton who cut those corners. It's the fly-by-night & brother, son-of-the-mayor & developer piece of crap wildcat bastards who drill, fail, and run away from projects they should have never been permited to start. Love 'em or hate 'em, the big companies know that they'll still be around in 30 years to face the music for shit they screw up, so they work hard to minimize their future pain.

    6. Re:Fire water? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, the environmental activists don't want you to know that.

      So name one, point to an environmentalist that is claiming the phenomena is always a result of fracking.

      As an environmentalist since the 70's I want people to know they are pumping an unknown substance into the ground because they claim it's more effective than using plain old water (ie: it's more profitable). I want people to know that the US congress refuses to force frackers to reveal the recipe for their fluid.

      Also as a pragmatic environmentalist I can see that burning gas (or uranium) is a lesser evil than burning coal but it seems to me (in the US at least) that greed and the regulatory blindness it creates will destroy the overall social benefit from these natural resources, just as it has in Nigeria and dozens of other resource rich hell holes around the globe.

      Disclaimer: As someone who has a BSc and a lifelong passion for science I'm well aware that dissolved methane in tap water is more often a natural phenomena than a man made one. I am not responsible for other people making outrageous claims under the banner of "environmentalism", nor will I defend them if the science does not stack up.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  11. Not the only issue by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    From my understanding, part of the problem with fracking is that the well casings don't always hold. So the chemicals and methane can leak out farther up the well where the drinking water is. The failure rate is supposedly pretty high, with 5% leaking immediately and 30% leaking over 10 years, or something like that. I don't know exact figures and it's hard to know who to trust these days anyway.

    Having just watched Gasland II, I don't necessarily trust the government's pronouncements either. According to that documentary (which is a bit propagandistic to be honest) the EPA did a study in Wyoming and found greatly elevated levels of chemicals in the drinking water. When the press release came out it gave the water a big thumbs up. Like I said, it's hard to know who to trust these days. Seems like everyone has an agenda.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    1. Re:Not the only issue by phayes · · Score: 2

      My father has a farm in wellsville NY, inside the Marcellus shale region. The problem with methane saturated water wells long predates the use of fracking as the area is filled with played out oil wells from the initial oil boom in the late 1880's but hey, why be rational when complaining about fracking gets you in the news...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:Not the only issue by MSG · · Score: 2

      Seems like everyone has an agenda.

      Well, yes, but I tend to side first with the people whose agenda is "Don't kill us."

  12. At least we know fire water is safe by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems the US government has a very loose definition of "polluted".
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/06/fracking

  13. Obvious conclusion. by alexhs · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, they didn't test water pollution, only checked that fracking didn't contaminate water by using markers.
    Hower, other studies showed a correlation between fracking and presence of water pollutants.

    Therefore, the only logical conclusion is: water pollution causes fracking !

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  14. paid article. bunk! by helobugz · · Score: 2

    How much do you suppose CHK Energy forked over for that article to appear?

    Article doesn't address other much more serious incidents all over the NE in recent years...

  15. Gasland II by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Watch Gasland II.
    All wells will eventually leak into surface water. About 5% failure rate per year. (The cement around the pipe develops cracks.)
    They studied one well which didn't leak in the first year.
    Gasland II shows what happens when they do eventually leak.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?