Aquifer/Drinking Water Contamination

This is an important finding.   Although we do not understand the process by which waste water buried deep within the ground migrates into aquifers,  evidence suggests that it happens.  Read here.  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemicals-found-in...

Views: 2572

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brian Oram, PG on July 11, 2010 at 6:48pm
New Publication Available from Wilkes University
http://www.wilkes.edu/water

This covers general issues on drinking water quality. We are working on other topics.

Thanks
Permalink Reply by Jean Michel LeTennier on July 11, 2010 at 10:28pm
If it is not necessary to use millions of gallon of Water, whyu would you., there are several closed loop systems in production today , as well as http:///www.gasfrac.com (no WAter at all) that make drilling 100% safe... it's only a matter of will of the Leasees to insist on the technology used..
Permalink Reply by Brian Oram, PG on July 17, 2010 at 3:47pm
Thanks for the link- I was aware of this process - do you work for this company. We would be interested in getting more information on the process and maybe having a seminar at Wilkes.
Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on September 10, 2010 at 2:27pm
http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/10-09-09/news-contamination.html

Don’t drink the water
Wyoming well contamination confirmed

By FRITZ MAYER

PAVILION, WY — More than 18 months ago, they started testing the water. Now, they can confirm that the water is not fit for human consumption. Still, they can’t specifically name the source of the contamination.

On August 31, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a conference call with reporters said that at least 20 wells in the Pavilion, WY area were contaminated with an array of substances and that residents should not drink or cook with the water.

More than two years ago, local residents contacted the EPA Region Eight when they suspected that nearby gas drilling operations had fouled their drinking water. In a report, the EPA said that some of the substances found “may be an indication of groundwater contamination by oil and gas activities,” but that had not yet been determined. Officials said they hope to determine the source as the investigation moves forward.

In the meantime, EnCana Oil and Gas USA, which operates oil and gas wells in the area, has agreed to pay for treating the well water or to provide an alternate source of water.

Can frack fluid migrate to the surface?

There is an ongoing debate about whether fracking fluids, which often contain toxic chemicals and are pumped underground under high pressure, can migrate through layers of the earth and pollute surface water or aquifers.

Industry supporters say that is impossible and that there has never been a confirmed case of well water contamination tied to fracking. Opponents respond that’s because the vast majority of water wells near gas drilling operations have never been tested, and because gas companies won’t divulge the chemicals in specific frack jobs, so scientists don’t know what to test for.

Now, a man who has been involved in ownership of drilling rigs has added his voice to the fray. James Northrup says in the Marcellus Shale it is not only possible but likely that frack fluids will migrate to the surface.

In an interview with Sustainable Otsego, Northrup said, “The pressures that are used to break the shale up have become extraordinary. Industry will say anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 pounds per square inch (PSI), there’s anecdotal evidence that it goes up to 15,000 PSI.”

He continued, “That’s about 30 times the pressure of a thermo baric bomb they would use in Afghanistan or Iraq. When you’re dealing with up to 3,000,000 gallons of fluid, effectively what you’re doing is exploding a bomb underground. It’s a horizontal bomb, it’s a pipe bomb, but it’s a very large bomb.”

And the problem with that, said Northrup, particularly in the Marcellus Shale, is that there are many faults in the shale, some of which go from the bedrock to the surface.

He said, “There’s not a lot of seismic data in this part of New York, and the odds are that you’ll hit a fault that you can’t see from the surface. And when you’d frack the fault, you would open that fault line up, the proppant in the fracking fluid would hold that fault open, and that fracking fluid would go right up through that fault. It could go into an aquifer; ostensibly it could go all the way to the surface. You’ve basically blown open a piece of the earth, you’ve propped it open with proppant, you’ve released fracking fluid into it, and you’ve released natural gas into it.”
Permalink Reply by Brian Oram, PG on September 11, 2010 at 2:39am
I am in the middle on this issue - I believe that more regulations are needed and the process better monitored, but I think it is clearly misleading in any way to come the frac process to a bomb.

Definition
Bomb - (key word explosive)
An explosive weapon detonated by impact, proximity to an object, a timing mechanism
In the definition of explosion the key word is sudden.

Explosion (Keyword sudden)
An explosion is a release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.

The fracing process builds a pressure until the rock cracks and then the pressure is removed. Again - I am not defending the process - just the wordsmithing of the person the author quoted.

The use of the term bomb is Inflammatory and misleading. Also - I think it is important to remember we are over a mile below grade -At I mile below rock the pressure greated by the rock is probably at least 7000 psi.

Under 1 mile of water - 2400 psi
Under our 5 to 11 miles of atmosphere - about 1 psi

So does comparing an a pressure wave moving through a fluid with a pressure resistance of 1 psi seem fair to compare to a material with a pressure resistance of 7000 psi? I would say no - but a lot of good wordsmithing. Does it get media attention - YES - Does it scare people - YES. I would always hope the goal is to get out fact, the truth, and educate - and not agenda.

This website links to reports, I believe peer reviewed, on the fracturing process -

http://www.bfenvironmental.com/education-wkshp.php


Note: The other problem with the report is that they showed a map of NY that appeared to include all of the surface fractures not just the faults or fractures that may extend to a depth and they forgot to mention when you remove the pressure the weight of the earth causes about 50 % of the openings to close. Fracturing appears to open fractures about 1000 to 1500 feet from the source of the pressure and the proppant only travels about 300 to 500 feet. After this distance, ie., 300 to 500 feet, the parting closes after the pressure is released (see reports cited on website).
Chip NorthrupPermalink Reply by Chip Northrup on October 2, 2010 at 4:56am
Made a video about my thoughts on horizontal hydrofracking in New York. Several people have focused on my comparison of horizontal hydrofracking to a "bomb". The full paper is on Otsego 2000 website.

http://63.134.196.109/documents/NorthrupEPAFinal9-12-10.pdf

I was addressing the extreme pressures involved - and the difficulties in containing those pressures. Horizontal hydrofracking of shale involves a series of explosions. The first being the perforation of the casing with explosives. Then a series of explosions to break up the rock. The only difference between these explosions and a "bomb" is time, not motive force.

Dr Ingraffea does an excellent job of explaining the process in his videos. See for instance

http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/28577813 ;

The pressures of these shale fracks are extreme - considerably more than the pressure that blew out out the BP Gulf well. Such pressures are difficult to contain - and they are not being sufficiently contained, as evidence by the blow-outs on the Cabot wells.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/final_cabot_c...

The second challenge with horizontal hydrofracking are the volumes of the fluids used.
Frack flowback is polluted with frack chemicals and whatever it picks up in the formation - which can include Radium 226, as shown in NYS DEP tests, and as reported in Scientific American.

http://63.134.196.109/documents/10sep21_RadioactiveWastefromHorizon...

There is no safe way to dispose of the expected quantities of waste water in New York state. Not any time soon. New York only has 4 permitted disposal wells in seismically questionable geology. Texas has almost 12,000 permitted disposal wells in seismically stable formations.

Until New York is adequately prepared to dispose of the expected volume of flowback, horizontal hydrofracking of shale should not proceed.

The NYS DEC draft dsGEIS was grossly flawed. It did not have to be - but it was. The DEC could have addressed the particular risks of horizontal hydrofracking of shale more effectively from the outset. But they didn't.

Please take a minute and read our comments at Otsego2000.org.

http://www.otsego2000.org/

When the DEC has adequately addressed the issues of horizontal hydrofracking in NY, then the exploitation of the Marcellusa and Utica in NYS can begin safely.

Many of the advocates for proceeding without those safeguards in place - and disposal facilities ready to handle the waste water - are, IMO, acting irresponsibly. They have made economic bets - before the regulatory rules of the game have been established. Their objectivity on what the rules should be is questionable.

The rules and regulations in NYS should be tied to NY's geology, surface conditions, and disposal facilities - and on empirical data for this region. Not to what worked in the Fort Worth Basin. Getting those regulations in place may take some time, because they need to be right.

Regards

James "Chip" Northrup
Cooperstown
Permalink Reply by Brian Oram, PG on October 2, 2010 at 7:24am
When as professionals do we use wikipedia as a reference? I think the use of the word bomb is more for affect than a true representation of what happens.

The casing is perforated - Yes
The pressure that is created needs to be enough to casing existing fractures that extend from 1000 to 1500 feet from the horizontal or vertical leg to part. These fractures are both vertical, but most are horizontal.
The sand proppent only extends out 300 to 500 feet - the remaining footage of the partings close.

I agree a significant problem is cementing of the casing, placement of the casing, depth of casing placement, and migration of the gas (both Marcellus and shallow gas).
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs on October 2, 2010 at 8:06am
I would doubt that the frac pressure would exceed the test pressure rating of the casing.
Chip NorthrupPermalink Reply by Chip Northrup on October 2, 2010 at 10:38am
Of course the frack pressure exceeded the casing/ cement tolerance - that's how the Cabot wells leaked in Dimock. And Cabot agreed to plug, cap and abandon the wells - a tacit admission of guilt - before they issued their press release denying culpability.

The frack pressure on a shale gas well exceeds the pressure that blew out the BP Gulf well. These frack pressures are, by vertical well standard, excessive - and hence problematic.

Cabot was fined on more than 50% of their 62 Dimock, Pa. wells. Mostly for surface problems, which Cabot failed to address in their recent press release.

In New York, a problem for all horizontal hydrofracking of shale is the lack of sufficient disposal facilities for the radioactive waste from horizontal hydrofracked shale wells.

http://63.134.196.109/documents/10sep21_RadioactiveWastefromHorizon...
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs on October 2, 2010 at 1:36pm
Then they are at fault just like BP and should suffer extreme penalties for their mistakes. I work in the oil patch and whenever a slacker comes in and drills crap wells that hurt the planet that we live on then it makes my job harder to do. I am new to the Marcellus and just here to learn. One thing to keep in mind is if these wells are producing H2S then it doesn't matter about the pressure, a hard casing can fracture under lower pressure due to the H2S. Softer casing is not as prone to this as the harder casing.
Permalink Reply by Brian Oram, PG on October 9, 2010 at 3:51pm
In general we do not have a H2S problem.
Chip NorthrupPermalink Reply by Chip Northrup on October 23, 2010 at 6:08am
What we don't have - in New York anyway - is a regulatory agency capable of addressing these issues responsibly. Which is why the DEC's commissioner just quit - over staff cuts.
No reason why NY cannot prepare - starting by adopting "best practices" as I discuss in Horizontal Hydrofracking of Shale in New York on otsego2000.org
Attachments:

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service