Water, Water Everywhere - But, Is It Safe to Drink?

People in Western PA, WV and areas of OH are literally sitting right on top of the “Coal Measures”. The coals were lain down in an anoxic reducing environment.

Where coals are present in the subsurface, water quality issues are quite common: such as the presence of (coal bed) methane, sulfur, arsenic, manganese and other metals.

Many people in Western PA, WV and areas of OH have been using water from springs and wells with long term quality issues that have long gone undetected.

Drilling comes to the neighborhood, and people suddenly become concerned with water quality. Now, this concern rightfully should have been present all along – with people regularly (annually) testing the quality of the water they drink. But, human nature being what it is, people have assumed no problems until they have reason to fear.

The rigs appear in the neighborhood.

People read fearful articles and editorials in the local press.

They send a little bottle of their tap water off to a lab.

The results come back detailing water quality issues.

Why, it must be the fracing!

“The fracing is coming! The fracing is coming! cries Chicken Little.”

The drilling companies say: “No, nothing in our frac fluid could have caused your water problems,” 

But, the people had no problem with their water before the drilling – where is the proof that the people had no problem with their water before the drilling?

Without regular well testing, how would anyone know what was in their water?

Please read the study below, particularly: “About 40 percent of the water wells exceeded at least one aesthetic or health indicator standard — most frequently for manganese, turbidity, or coliform bacteria — before gas well drilling occurred.”. 

Close to 100% of the people believed that they had been drinking “safe” water – the study demonstrates that perhaps 40% are (and have been) drinking tainted water. 

In rural areas, the well (or spring) often sits on the one side of the house – the septic tank sits on the other side of the house. Maybe, just maybe, that “funny taste” might not be due to fracing.

Text of study below:

http://www.ngwa.org/Media-Center/press/2011/Pages/2011-11-11-pa-stu...  All Site Content

Pennsylvania study reveals need for regular water well maintenance and water testing

Page Content

(Westerville, OH — November 11, 2011) A study released last month by The Center for Rural Pennsylvania reveals the need for owners of household water wells to regularly test their water and maintain their wells, the National Ground Water Association said today.

Among the findings in the study, The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies, are:

  • Only 20 percent of the wells in the study had a sanitary well cap
  • An obvious grout seal existed on only eight percent of the wells in one phase of the study
  • About 40 percent of the water wells exceeded at least one aesthetic or health indicator standard — most frequently for manganese, turbidity, or coliform bacteria — before gas well drilling occurred.

Manganese is not a health risk, but can cause staining.

Turbidity refers to cloudiness of water. It has no health effects, but can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms.

Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the environment and used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful, bacteria may be present such as fecal coliform (found in eight percent of wells in the Pennsylvania study).

If drinking water tests show turbidity or coliforms exceeding standards, use a qualified water well system contractor to look for possible problems.

“The National Ground Water Association recommends household water well owners annually test their water for bacteria, nitrate, and anything of local concern,” said NGWA Public Awareness Director Cliff Treyens. “This should be done whether or not a well owner lives near hydraulic fracturing activity for gas.”

Treyens said NGWA also recommends household well owners get an annual water well maintenance checkup. “A maintenance inspection typically checks all the sanitary seals on a water well system. Well checkups also should determine if the well needs cleaning, since a dirty well can harbor bacteria,” he said.

Overall, the results of the water quality parameters measured in the Pennsylvania study did not indicate any obvious influence from hydraulic fracturing in gas wells nearby.

 

All in my humble opinion.

One size fits most.

 

JS

Views: 583

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by George Brown on December 18, 2011 at 10:24am

Awesome post, Jack.

Nothing like a little scientific sanity in a world of knee-jerk, emotional over-reactions.

Permalink Reply by craig on December 18, 2011 at 12:34pm

I've asked the question "when was the last time you had your well tested" many times of folks that seemed overly worried about their drinking water and drilling in general. I can say that absolutely NONE of them have had their water tested in the last 5 yrs or even decades ....yeah they were always worried about their water.

Thing is I was guilty of this until about 1999. At the time I was taking a water sample for a potability test for my business and I decided to get my well water tested too. Good thing is that my water is excellent, with the exception of having to use bleach once every few years to keep in check any Coliforms that seem to slowly creep into my water supply. 

What you posted hits the nail squarely on the head.

Permalink Reply by brian kulp on December 18, 2011 at 1:40pm

so true i love it when they say it a moutain sping that feed there water supply. like my uncles place in mckean co right it had 5 100 yr old gas well on it tell me those caseing didn't leak. everyone needs get there warter supply tested to cover your butts so if something dose happen you know and your not getting upset needlessly becouse of and exsisting problem just my 2cents thanks brian

 

ps great info you provided in this post thks

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 18, 2011 at 2:17pm

I do not understand why the anti-fracing crowd are so keen upon encouraging pollution in America?

Are they receiving financial support from China or Russia?

I have read where Russia has been providing financial support for the anti-fracing crowd in places like Poland (where they have started looking at the gas shales present in their sub-surface). Russia does not want Poland to produce their own Natural Gas; Russia wants Poland to import Natural Gas from Russia.

Or, are they being supported by Cuba or Iran?

When you look at it, anti-fracing seems to be downright anti-American.

Why are the anti-fracing crowd such great supporters of polluters?

Why do the anti-fracing crowd want to poison our air, our water, our soil?

Why do the anti-fracing crowd want to poison our children?

 

If the anti-fracing crowd were really interested in the environment they would want to support the fracing for clean natural gas.

You can burn clean Natural Gas ….

Or, you can burn dirty Coal. After all, burning clean Natural Gas displaces/replaces the burning of dirty Coal.

Also, which has the potential to create greater environmental damage: drilling Natural Gas wells or the strip mining of Coal?

What would you rather have coming out of the smokestack? CO2 (plant food) and Water Vapor (from burning Natural Gas).

Or would you rather have the shopping bag of pollutants that come out of a Coal burning smokestack.

 

From: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

"Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.

500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.

10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.”

 

Nationally, when it comes to toxic pollutant emissions, Pennsylvania and Ohio place first and second, Indiana ranks third. And if you live in Pennsylvania, the westerly winds make sure that you will get a lot of the stuff from Ohio and Indiana.

When it comes to toxic pollutant emissions:   PA – we’re Number 1!

                                                                         PA – we’re Number 1!

 

Why are the anti-fracing crowd so opposed to clean Natural Gas?

Just uninformed – I guess.

Maybe the anti-fracing crowd need to put things in perspective.

 

All in my humble opinion.

One size fits most.

 

JS

Permalink Reply by George Brown on December 18, 2011 at 2:53pm

Jack, please stop with the logical arguments. We all know the antis are complled by how they "feel" about fracing, not by logic. I guess you just don't get it (he said with sarcasm).

Permalink Reply by Dave on December 18, 2011 at 3:07pm

george,

jack is on a roll kinda like belushi in animal house "when the nazis bombed pearl harbor"

I am still hacked off I got sucked into critical thinking ians fracing rant

 

merry christmas, happy hanukkah, seasons greetings, may we all see a well soon

and if I have offened anybody lately.....get over it

 

drill baby drill

 

Permalink Reply by Sherry Martin on December 18, 2011 at 3:44pm

Actually Jack I love your posts ... live in WNC ... own property in Eastern Ohio ... waiting ... waiting!! but long story short ... you are so very right ... we get you guys coal gases as well as our own... lets do away with it and go with gas (natural) for everything ... firm believer... don't burn anymore wood around me and especially coal!! LOL

2s72s0k9mm8gdPermalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on December 18, 2011 at 4:15pm

My hats off to you again Jack!

All these "ban this" and "ban that" types are just pawns in a bigger game.

I think you know the ultimate goal of their taskmasters.

Truth be told , Russia and China are funding alot of subversive activity here on our own soil yet today. You can bet on that.

Permalink Reply by Dave on December 18, 2011 at 4:20pm

middle east, and the STAN countries as well

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 18, 2011 at 4:54pm

If the anti-fracing crowd were truly interested in the environment, they would push for incentives to convert from heating with dirty Fuel Oil to heating with clean Natural Gas.

 

There seems to be a lot of disinformation, misinformation, exaggeration and worse promulgated by the anti-fracing crowd. It is difficult to discern their exact motives in doing so; hard to think of any honorable reasons for their behavior, easy to guess at some reasons that might be construed as less than honorable.

 

We can heat homes by burning imported Oil or we can heat homes by burning American Natural Gas; the anti-fracing crowd would have us burn imported Oil. And, fuel oil comes from the dregs of the barrel; about the only product of the refining of a barrel of oil that is worse is asphalt.

 

A bit old, but never-the-less interesting article:

http://blowinghotandcold.wordpress.com/new-york-times-article-fuel-...

“New York Times Article – Fuel Oil Pollution

Studies Link No. 4 and No. 6 Heating Oil to Poor Air Quality

By MIREYA NAVARRO
Published: January 01, 2010

When it comes to finding a major culprit for the tainted air in a wintry New York, one often needs to look no farther than out the window to see a big building spewing black smoke.

The source is often No. 6 heating oil, the cheapest but most viscous type pumped into aging boilers, or its cousin No. 4 heavy oil, which is only slightly less noxious.

City officials have already promised to introduce regulations over the next year to phase out both types. But the issue has acquired a bit of urgency since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, released a comprehensive survey of air quality in the city two weeks ago.

The study found the highest levels of fine particles, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants in neighborhoods where many residential and commercial buildings burn No. 4 or No. 6 oil.

Now pressure is building on the administration to give buildings a firm 10-year deadline for switching to cleaner oil or to natural gas. Environmental groups and the American Lung Association said the move would significantly reduce soot pollution, alleviating heart and lung ailments.

“This is a simple, common-sense solution to ensure that New York City residents are breathing cleaner air,” said Michael Seilback, vice president for public policy and communications for the Lung Association in New York State and New York City.

City officials say they have been trying to settle on the best approach for ridding buildings of the dirty oil for about a year and expect to issue new rules early this year.

Building owners say it can take more than $100,000 to replace oil burners, clean up tanks and switch their heating systems to cleaner oil or to gain access to suitable natural gas pipelines.

Rohit T. Aggarwala, director of the mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, said the city must weigh the costs of a changeover and the availability of natural gas citywide. “We’re working on a fix,” said Jason Post, a spokesman for the mayor’s office. “We want to do this right.”

The Environmental Defense Fund, a national environmental group, recently issued its own report saying that just 1 percent of all buildings in the city – about 9,000 large commercial, residential and institutional structures – create 87 percent of the soot pollution arising from heating oil. (The group has posted a list at www.edf.org/dirtybuildings so New Yorkers can see which kind of oil their buildings burn.)

If those buildings were to burn cleaner oil, the fund’s report said, the amount of airborne pollutants they release would decline by as much as 65 percent to 95 percent.

The numbers by which heating oil is classified are based on boiling temperature, composition and other factors. No. 2 heating oil, which is cleaner but more expensive than No. 6 or No. 4, accounts for an estimated 73 percent of the heating oil burned in the city, the environmental group found.

Evan Thies, a spokesman for the group, said users of the most polluting fuels tended to be larger buildings that could accommodate huge boilers that generate the heat necessary to burn heavy oil.

The dirtiest oils can cost about 60 cents less a gallon, which has been another disincentive for buildings to upgrade their boilers. But in its report, the Environmental Defense Fund said that cleaner fuels improve the efficiency of burners and reduce operating costs, compensating for the up-front costs and the higher price of No. 2 oil.

The group, using records from the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which approves boiler permits, points out in its report that heavy oil heats buildings in some of the wealthiest ZIP codes in the city, most of them in Manhattan.

The pollution is aggravated by diesel fuel emissions from heavy car and truck traffic in some areas. But Stuart M. Saft, chairman of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, says the assumption that only the rich live in the buildings at issue ignores the reality that even at wealthy addresses, “there are people living on fixed incomes or on Social Security who bought their apartments 40 years ago.”

Aside from the $100,000 that he estimates it would cost up front for the average 100- to 150-unit building to replace its oil burner and clean up its oil tanks to make the switch, the cost difference between the dirty and cleaner oils is substantial, Mr. Saft said.

His group, he said, would oppose any phase-out that did not exempt “functioning” heating systems, as opposed to those at the end of their life.

But some buildings are already converting their systems as part of broader environmental efforts.

Diane C. Nardone, president of the board at 11 Fifth Avenue, a 288-apartment cooperative in two 20-story buildings in Greenwich Village, said it was in the midst of converting to natural gas from two boilers that use No. 6 oil. She said the switch would cost roughly $225,000, which the co-op will be able to cover after refinancing its mortgage.

But the cooperative expects to recoup the up-front costs in about two years through fuel savings, she said, given that natural gas will be cheaper than oil in the long run.

“We understand the impact it will have on the economics of the building and, equally important, on the environment,” she said.

The co-op is also installing two new roofs with vegetation that will absorb rainwater, and energy-efficient windows. Still, Ms. Nardone said that city and state governments needed to offer more financial incentives to help buildings meet any new environmental regulations.

“Give property tax credits, make loans available at low interest, if you want the general population to take the measures that need to be taken to improve the environment,” she said.

City officials say older people and young children are particularly vulnerable to air pollution, which can irritate the lungs and worsen conditions like asthma and emphysema, as well as increase the risk of heart attack and premature death.

Mindful of the health risks, the city is already converting some of its own heavy-oil-burning boilers to natural gas, after identifying 100 city school buildings burning No. 6 oil in neighborhoods with high asthma rates.”

 

All in my humble opinion.

One size fits most.

 

JS

 

Permalink Reply by George Brown on December 18, 2011 at 4:59pm

More great information.

Permalink Reply by Sherry Martin on December 18, 2011 at 5:11pm

You are on a roll Jack and I love it... Kudos to you and all those who say we must do something about the air we breath!! Stay on your roll Jack and always ... always keep us informed!! I read your post first and then Dr. J or is it I could not tell!! But keep us informed ... we love your research and then your sides ,,, keep up the good work ... we are with you 100%.. Merry Christmas (Do not believe in Happy Holidays) May God bless and keep you always!!

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service