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."

From a comment on the story - so this is bogus

[PoconoPCDoctor]

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.

Fire water?

[Just Some Guy]

But what about the videos of people lighting their tap water [pri.org]. 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?

At least we know fire water is safe

[pablo_max]

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

Re:OK, That's One (this is a preliminary study)

[Em Adespoton]

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

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.

Re:Fire water?

[Em Adespoton]

But what about the videos of people lighting their tap water [pri.org]. 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.

Re:Sounds iffy

[Jarik C-Bol]

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.

Re:Sounds iffy

[virtig01]

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.

Re:Fire water?

[TapeCutter]

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.