Contamination of streamwater by fracking waste from injection wells

"Evidence indicating the presence of wastewaters from unconventional oil and gas [UOG] production was found in surface waters and sediments near an underground injection well near Fayetteville, West Virginia, according to two recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, University of Missouri, and Duke University.

These are the first published studies to demonstrate water-quality impacts to a surface stream due to activities at an unconventional oil and gas wastewater deep well injection disposal site. ...

The scientists collected water and sediment samples upstream and downstream from the disposal site. These samples were analyzed for a series of chemical markers that are known to be associated with unconventional oil and gas wastewater. In addition, in a just-published collaborative study tests known as bioassays were done to determine the potential for the impacted surface waters to cause endocrine disruption.

Waters and sediments collected downstream from the disposal facility were elevated in constituents that are known markers of UOG wastewater, including sodium, chloride, strontium, lithium and radium, providing indications of wastewater-associated impacts in the stream.

“We found endocrine disrupting activity in surface water at levels that previous studies have shown are high enough to block some hormone receptors and potentially lead to adverse health effects in aquatic organisms,” said Susan C. Nagel, director of the EDC study and associate professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health at University of Missouri."

quote from: https://www.usgs.gov/news/evidence-unconventional-oil-and-gas-waste...

primary source: "Wastewater Disposal from Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Degrades Stream Quality at a West Virginia Injection Facility", Denise M. Akob, et al., Environmental Science & Technology. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.6b00428

Views: 1287

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by paleface on May 29, 2016 at 10:31am

I think a good addendum for the mineral owner and the for the oil and gas co. especially todays prices would be to not produce when there is very little or no profit to gain.The lease would stay in effect till gas co. and mineral owner agree that it would be worth while.It could eliminate a lot of the problems we are seeing today

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on May 30, 2016 at 12:42pm

Paul,

Here is a counter-point to your cited article along with a few potential weaknesses in the underlying work which, IMO, cast doubt on the study's integrity as a legitimate scientific effort.

http://energyindepth.org/national/three-things-to-know-about-usgs-i...

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on May 30, 2016 at 11:16pm

The energyindepth (EID) comment faults the USGS study by Akob et al for choosing a test area where previous contamination took place. This is a bogus objection. The EID people ignored the simple and totally standard method that the USGS researchers used to isolate the contamination effect of the injection well, namely to work with relative pollution levels: pollution downstream of the site minus pollution upstream of the site. If EID had read the report carefully, they would have seen that USGS thereby eliminated previous contamination as an issue. A realist would point out that most of West Virginia and neighboring states have been contaminated by industrial activity of some sort over time. I suspect that EID would prefer that all scientists clear their site locations with EID (that is, with the gas industry) before doing any measurements, and that (surprise!) EID would decide that there were no good test sites, and the whole investigation should be called off, and we should all get back to business, i.e. get back into bed with the gas companies.

“Energy In Depth” should change their name to “Shallow Thoughts about Energy”.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 31, 2016 at 7:43am

Paul,

So, are you saying that the pollution from other sources would only remain above the site of the injection well? If so, you are delusional. Of course any pollution above the site of the well would be found near and below the site of the well. It's a stream with flowing water. That just defies logic. Your bias is blatantly on display .

Your blatant bias also causes you to ignore the fact that none of the "pollutants" found in the stream are associated with the "fracking" process, but are found in other industrial activities such as coal mining.

Further, your blatant is is on display once again in ignoring the fact that very little "brine" was found. Brine a major component of waste waters from oil and gas development.

Finally, your blatant bias realy got the better of you when you ignore the words and conclusions of the researchers them self:

"As the authors point out, the injection well site is surrounded by land that was historically used for industrial activity. According to the report:

“The headwaters of Wolf Creek flow through areas of past surface coal mining that have since been covered or reclaimed and are primarily residential or agricultural land” (p. 6)"

“In addition, background concentrations in streams maybe elevated owing to previous land use, such as coal mining, which highlights the necessity of identifying and sampling an appropriate background site (e.g., upstream).” (p. 17)

“Our findings show that the disposal facility is impacting the stream but we are unable to identify a point source of contaminants to the stream.”(p. 17)

"...but we are unable to identify a point source of the contaminants to the stream."  Well, no kidding! That's because the researchers had already formed a conclusion and didn't research any other possible sources such as the coal mine just up stream from the well site. Or the automotive junkyard just below the well site.

Paul you are a typical environmental extremist, you attack the messenger and ignore the facts.

The researchers admit that they did not connect the well to the pollution in the stream. They admit that they did not find substances associated with "fracking", including brine. And, the research was biased and shoddy. This is all we need to know.

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on May 31, 2016 at 8:33pm

Paul,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion though it would be worthwhile, IMO, for it to be based on a properly conducted scientific study. Did you actually read through the study & associated analytical processes along with the underlying data? 

Even without EID's input, there are a number of obvious critical short-comings, from both a methodology standpoint and from an analytical standpoint, which tarnish their conclusions and call into question their impartiality. 

After thoroughly reading both Akob et al & EID, I personally give the "Shallow Thoughts about Energy" trophy to the former.

Permalink Reply by Fatboyslim on May 30, 2016 at 1:54pm
How about we put all this bickering to the side and thank all the men and women in the military who have gone us to this point
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 31, 2016 at 9:18am

Seems to me no injection wells, waterless fracturing techniques and trade agreements with vetted allies (accepting associated expense) could be the future trend (and the way I see things it SHOULD be the future trend).

I'm good with it myself.

Compete with the hostiles / potential hostiles.  Don't help them by doing business with them.

So........Giddyup with all that !

JMHOs

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 31, 2016 at 12:44pm

I'll also add a little footnote to my earlier reply found just above.

Reading these pages I've observed many complaints about how low the price for Natural Gas and Oil is these days.

I've also read how folks detest the way we're being treated by the OPEC and ME in this market.

Also, I've read many a news article and have seen many a video / heard many a radio broadcast about how we are at war with various hostiles (Radical Jihadist Terrorists / Terrorism at the top of the list).

Forging good Trade Agreements with vetted allies and boycotting / embargoing trade with hostile / potential hostile states addresses all of that.

Why have we been pandering to these hostile forces ?

I think it's way past time to stop.

JMHOs

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service