Comment

Comment by Scott Roberts on January 24, 2010 at 4:07pm

Daniel---Great thread! Keep it up.

Comment by daniel cohen on January 23, 2010 at 7:05pm

Dear Girdon, my apologies for not including the source from which my comments were extracted. It is from the Garfield County Hydrogeologic Study.

Comment by daniel cohen on January 23, 2010 at 7:02pm

Dear Girdon, In your previous posting you mentioned that "some 96% of the chemicals used in "Fracing" are sitting in our kitchen cabinets right now, and in much higher concentrations than used in the Fracing fluid ! ! !"
In my last posting I asked "Which chemicals are you referring to?" I'd still like an answer to my question. In your current posting you raise your concern about "the spread of rumor, misinformation, & misinterpretation." We can agree that it does not add to our understanding when that happens. You suggested that I look up frac fluids. I did just that. Here's what I found:
Fracking fluid has been linked to multiple cases of water contamination and health issues and the chemicals in it remain largely undisclosed – guarded by companies (and the law) as proprietary information.

What's in the toxic brew it uses for so-called frac'ing operations. Compounds commonly injected into the ground include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and a fracing formula called hydrocarbon methanol phosphate ester.
Small quantities of these chemicals have the potential to contaminate entire aquifers. Drillers can pump upward of 100,000 gallons of this frac juice -- per well -- into the ground. These chemicals were exempted from the federal Safe Water Drinking Act as part of the 2005 energy bill, despite their toxicity and potential for release into groundwater. Thanks to intense lobbying from the oil and gas lobby, companies aren't required to tell anyone what they inject, in what concentrations, or how much of it they pump into the ground. Halliburton has said that having to identify its frac'ing ingredients would mean giving away trade secrets, much like requiring Coca-Cola to reveal its secret for Coke.

This seems to suggest that your position as stated, about frac fluids being well publicized, is at odds with what I found. Clearly one of us is in error.

You make another point of some concern to me. You state that the frac fluids have "very little to do with the implied toxicities." I looked that up as well. Here's what I found:

In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act -- except, fracking with diesel. Companies must get state or EPA approval to include diesel in fracking fluid. But it turns out that most state and federal regulators aren’t even tracking the use of diesel. In fact, regulators in Montana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Texas said they believe that diesel isn’t regulated, and that all fracking is exempt from federal regulation under the drinking water law. In Wyoming, where state officials do track fracking chemicals, regulators said that diesel is used regularly, with no special oversight. Why regulate diesel? Deisel is known to contain relatively high levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene – the so-called BTEX chemicals that can pollute water in very small amounts and are known to cause cancer and other serious health problems.

Once again, either you or I are incorrect in what we are saying.

WE do agree on the following point you make "companies can afford to construct the wells & the sites to meet any of the necessary safety standards." I don't believe that these companies are evil, just that they follow economic reasoning rather than looking out for you, me or the land. It's up to each of us to hold them to standards that do look out for us all.

Comment by Girdon E. Buck on January 23, 2010 at 5:00pm

Hi Dan - I'm most concerned w/the spread of rumor, misinformation, & misinterpretation. Why bad news below the acquifiers- ? it is all some form of natures mixture of impervious solid minerals & various concentrations of cocktails some 400,000,000 years in the making, awaiting man to come along and discover where, when, and how to re-arrange it to improve our existence..
The Frac fluids are now well publicized, reducing/eliminating the competitive advantage each of the various companies would have had, and having very little to do with the implied toxicities. Fact - LOOK IT UP ! Frac fluid is 98.5%
water, the balance is fine particulate mud (specially transported Louisiana clay),
and various lubricants,emulsifiers,and finally some real chemicals to neutralize
mineral salts which are rather specific to each region.
From a business side, the value of the production from each well (ave.-80 acres)
over 15-20 years is wildly predicted to be around 10-15 Million Dollars, so
companies can afford to construct the wells & the sites to meet any of
the necessary safety standards. Girdon

Comment by daniel cohen on January 21, 2010 at 12:04pm

Dear Girdon, I believe we can agree that below our aquifer lies much bad news, that the aquifer is fragile and easily impacted, and that we need to be very careful. My own well is at the 410' depth. The water is good, and I sure want to keep it that way. Radon becomes an issue when it is confined in small spaces, and allowed to accumulate in basements or under the house area. Good air circulation eliminates that hazard. I'm not certain why you raise that point, but geologically we (Bradford County) do have that layer and it's worth being aware of. Your comments on the Cabot Well were of interest. I'm not familiar with the details, only the broad outline of the facts. Cabot was shut down there, and fined in the 6 figure range- if they could have proved that they were not at fault, why wouldn't they have? For a well that was uncontaminated before drilling, then becoming contaminated after drilling seems to me to be one heck of a coincidence if your position is that they weren't connected. Your reference to fracing chemicals used being found in concentration in our kitchen cabinets is staggering! I was under the impression that the composition of that fracing fluid was a closely held secret by the drilling companies involved. Apparently I was misinformed. Which chemicals are you referring to?

Comment by Girdon E. Buck on January 21, 2010 at 7:03am

Dear Dan - Re Aquifers ! ! ! At a recent conference, Syracuse U's geologist
related that all water at levels 600' below ground level and lower is so
naturally salty (salinated) and containing other mineral contaminates that it
could never serve as a fresh water source. (Some of the known large aquifers
would be exceptions, however there are almost none of those in our
shale areas). He also addressed the radon issue - the background radon
reading in our conference room at the time was higher than those reported
from the recovered "FRAC WATERS" ! ! !
My understanding of the 'gas fingerprint" in the Cabot Well - so-called
failure - is that the fingerprint of the gas present in the surface explosion
and still escaping, is sufficiently different from the deep gas fingerprint
that it could not be directly related to the deep drilling process or product.
Girdon Buck, Susquehanna, Pa
Therefore the hyped fears about fracturing our mostly unreasonable when
normal safety procedures are followed, also, some 96% of the chemicals used
in "Fracing" are sitting in our kitchen cabinets right now, and in much higher
concentrations than used in the Fracing fluid ! ! !

Comment by daniel cohen on January 20, 2010 at 7:23am

Dear Shane, Very interesting stuff. I wasn't aware of that technology at all. Many thanks for sharing that. I was aware of two approaches used, that of establishing a waste water plant to clean the contaminated water, and of a company that uses oxygen to bubble through the contaminated water to cause the contaminants to precipitate out. The resulting water is then returned to the operator for reuse. Since each wellhead uses between 3-8 million gallons of water for its operation, reusing cleaned water is of value. There is another technique preferred by the companies-that of deep well injection- which is very cost effective from their point of view, but filled with the same issues and concerns that we are exploring here. Bottom line- they will prefer to do what is cost effective, unless we can hold them to be more environmentally concerned for our properties and to take our concerns into consideration. The technologies do exist to deal with our issues and to avoid contamination- but the will to do so on the part of the companies involved is woefully lacking. I recently read of Cabot Oil being shut down at one site and sued for exactly what we are talking about here.

Comment by daniel cohen on January 20, 2010 at 4:45am

Dear Terry, I wish that that were true. Apparently the casing & cementing have failed a number of times, so that the reliability of that procedure is chancey at best. The aquifer goes to approx. 600 feet down, as you say, and the drilling depth is approx. at the 5,000 foot depth. The problem is with the migration through any slip/fault areas deep underground and the movement of both gas and the lubricating concoction upwards. In speaking to the guys who are up from Texas and involved in the drilling process, they've given me to understand that in Texas they have many millionaires who need to truck in water-since they've contaminated the aquifer and can no longer safely drink from their own wells. The same companies that did the drilling there, are now in our backyard. They are not evil minded, but they are driven by economics. I believe we need to be very careful about who looks after our own best interests. Personally, I believe that we need to be the ones to look after our own health, and to protect that which we are custodians for. I welcome the opportunity to share in good fortune, and wish all of us great returns, yet I strongly believe that we need to be alert to the environmental impact. Sadly, the government agencies supposed to do that for us are not doing it. Back to us and our own intelligence to protect what we hold dear.

Comment by terry hazlett on January 20, 2010 at 3:31am

If the well is drilled, cased & cemented properly, there should be little chance of contamination, there is a pretty good distance between the water aquafier ( 50' to 300 or 400') to the depth of the marcellus( 4500' to 6000'. we need to keep an eye on the og companies, but if everything is done right, contamination from fracking should'nt be a problem, gas migration thru the fractures would be more of a concern for me!

Comment by daniel cohen on January 19, 2010 at 10:12am

From somewhere on this site. I don't recall the exact spot, but poke around.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page