Gas-Fracking Chemicals Found in WY Aquifer

[questionmark]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said for the first time it found chemicals used in extracting natural gas through hydraulic fracturing in a drinking-water aquifer in west-central Wyoming.

Samples taken from two deep water-monitoring wells near a gas field in Pavillion, Wyoming, showed synthetic chemicals such as glycols and alcohols "consistent with gas production and hydraulic-fracturing fluids," the agency said today in an e- mailed statement.

Read more...

[__Kratos__]

So? People don't like that their water is now flammable?!

It's stories like this that make me rage when I see commercials like from Chevron with teachers or college kids talking about how clean and great natural gas is for our country and environment.

[Rafterman]

So? People don't like that their water is now flammable?!

Drama much?

I guess I missed the part about the water being flammable. Could you point it out to me?

Because all I'm reading is that the EPA might have found a couple of chemicals that might have been used during the fracking process in this area. What about the thousands of other wells where nothing has been found?

[questionmark]

Drama much?

I guess I missed the part about the water being flammable. Could you point it out to me?

Because all I'm reading is that the EPA might have found a couple of chemicals that might have been used during the fracking process in this area. What about the thousands of other wells where nothing has been found?

Water has the bad habit of slowly seeping into greater areas. Just a question of time and concentration.

[+HerNibs]

Colorado's experience with "water on fire".

Nibs

[lightly]

... A decent explanation of fracking methods .. and a list of chemicals used.

http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

Toxic Chemicals

In addition to large volumes of water, a variety of chemicals are used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The oil and gas industry and trade groups are quick to point out that chemicals typically make up just 0.5 and 2.0% of the total volume of the fracturing fluid. When millions of gallons of water are being used, however, the amount of chemicals per fracking operation is very large. For example, a four million gallon fracturing operation would use from 80 to 330 tons of chemicals.

◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°◊°

Some studies have shown that anywhere from 20-85% of fracking fluids may remain underground. Used fracturing fluids that return to the surface are often referred to as flowback, and these wastes are typically stored in open pits or tanks at the well site prior to disposal.

IDIOTIC.

Edited December 9, 2011 by lightly

[Rafterman]

Water has the bad habit of slowly seeping into greater areas. Just a question of time and concentration.

Do you have an indication that this is happening based an article that says they might have found some chemicals that might have been used in fracking in this area?

Because I missed that too. Was it in the paragraph about the flaming water?

[Rafterman]

Colorado's experience with "water on fire".

Nibs

Gasland - a perfect example of why one shouldn't believe propaganda and do their own research.

Gas contamination in water wells is not all that uncommon in areas with high levels of natural gas in the ground - why do you think companies want to drill there? Because there's GAS - uncanny, I know.

All one has to do is install a fairly simple venting system that removes the gas from the water before it enters the home.

As for the guy in Gasland, it was later determined that his water well was drilled DIRECLTY INTO a shallow pocket of natural gas.

And as I've said before, do your own research. Don't believe the Gasland types and don't believe the gas industry. Find your own facts.

Here's a good start: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275

Synopsis: There is currently no evidence that fracking is any more or less dangerous than other forms of energy production. Just like any other industry, strong regulation and monitoring is required.

[The Silver Thong]

Synopsis: There is currently no evidence that fracking is any more or less dangerous than other forms of energy production. Just like any other industry, strong regulation and monitoring is required.

So oil companies regulate themselves and vote in folks that they bought and paid for. Umm ok nothing to see here folks lol.

[questionmark]

Do you have an indication that this is happening based an article that says they might have found some chemicals that might have been used in fracking in this area?

Because I missed that too. Was it in the paragraph about the flaming water?

How long have they been fracking in Wyoming? 5 years? And they have already managed to pollute the Wind River Range and several aquifers. I have the strong suspicion that here somebody is doing that very neocapitalistic thing of socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.

[lightly]

There are three gas wells, and a huge gas/water separator! within a mile of our land. We get our water from our own water well. I'm concerned .

[Guest]

There are three gas wells, and a huge gas/water separator! within a mile of our land. We get our water from our own water well. I'm concerned .

You should be - very !!

I would say get yourself a large tank and start collecting rain water.

Br Cornelius

[lightly]

You should be - very !!

I would say get yourself a large tank and start collecting rain water.

Br Cornelius

Thanks Br Cornelius, appreciate the thought, i remember that you collect rainwater.. i would do that for drinking.. but snow instead of rain for about four months a year would complicate things.

I suppose i really should get our water tested soon.. It still tastes fine.. here in clearwater township .

If they ruin my water maybe i can $ue.

[Rafterman]

So oil companies regulate themselves and vote in folks that they bought and paid for. Umm ok nothing to see here folks lol.

Really has nothing to do with the issue at hand, now does it?

[Rafterman]

How long have they been fracking in Wyoming? 5 years? And they have already managed to pollute the Wind River Range and several aquifers. I have the strong suspicion that here somebody is doing that very neocapitalistic thing of socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.

I don't really understand how you can make this claim given that the findings in question aren't even definitive.

[Guest]

I don't really understand how you can make this claim given that the findings in question aren't even definitive.

The finding are only the first time that the companies and the EPA have fessed up to contamination.

There are literally 100's of anecdotal accounts from people who have not got the resources to pay for testing of their water, and then the ones which the gas companies have paid for new water supplies on the condition of none disclosure.

There has been immense political pressure to roll this out, and as an EPA whistle blower stated - the reason they have not found any contamination - is because they were specifically instructed not to look for any.

Br Cornelius

[Rafterman]

The finding are only the first time that the companies and the EPA have fessed up to contamination.

There are literally 100's of anecdotal accounts from people who have not got the resources to pay for testing of their water, and then the ones which the gas companies have paid for new water supplies on the condition of none disclosure.

There has been immense political pressure to roll this out, and as an EPA whistle blower stated - the reason they have not found any contamination - is because they were specifically instructed not to look for any.

Br Cornelius

And your comments area exactly why I decided to do my own research and form my own opinions about this - all I see from the anti-frackers is anedotes, sensational claims (flaming water), jumping to conclusions (this article is a prime example), and claims crossing the line into conspiratorial nonsense.

Me, I'll stick with the science and if that science begins to prove that fracking is causing all of this damage, then I will oppose it. But until then....

[Guest]

And your comments area exactly why I decided to do my own research and form my own opinions about this - all I see from the anti-frackers is anedotes, sensational claims (flaming water), jumping to conclusions (this article is a prime example), and claims crossing the line into conspiratorial nonsense.

Me, I'll stick with the science and if that science begins to prove that fracking is causing all of this damage, then I will oppose it. But until then....

I have spent the last 6months looking into the science of Fracking since they are proposing to roll it out into the area in which I live in N.Ireland.

There is almost no verifiable evidence to go on - because of industry pressure and Government collusion. Only now is the sort of comprehensive study been carried out which should have been conducted a decade ago when the Haliberton exemptions were been passed to avoid them taking place. The comprehensive report will be out in year or so's time. Until then you have absolutely no justification in claiming that the industry is safe - because you are basing that claim on zero evidence.

Until the real evidence is produced I will accept peoples anecotal claims of flaming water and contaminated aquifers with as much seriousness as your claims that its all just tickty boo.

Br Cornelius

[Karlis]

I have spent the last 6months looking into the science of Fracking since they are proposing to roll it out into the area in which I live in N.Ireland.

There is almost no verifiable evidence to go on - because of industry pressure and Government collusion. Only now is the sort of comprehensive study been carried out which should have been conducted a decade ago when the Haliberton exemptions were been passed to avoid them taking place. The comprehensive report will be out in year or so's time. Until then you have absolutely no justification in claiming that the industry is safe - because you are basing that claim on zero evidence.

Until the real evidence is produced I will accept peoples anecotal claims of flaming water and contaminated aquifers with as much seriousness as your claims that its all just tickty boo.

Br Cornelius

Here in Australia, mining companies have lodged enormous number of drilling "rights", covering huge rural areas,and even encroaching into urban areas. By lobbying various politicians, all attempts to have an "hold embargo" placed on these test-drills have been unsuccessful ... until very recently, when some Newspaper editorials and Radio Jocks made lots of noise about this.

Hopefully public pressure on our politicians will now gain some fair and unbiased reviews on fracking and all that it implies for the future. Only time will tell.

[Omnaka]

Cant the Epa Tag the fluids going in, so we/ They would Know who is responsible when it comes out in the aquifers?

I heard they have tags so small that they put it in ammonium nitrate so they can trace Bombs back to their orders. Then Erin Brokovich can sit at home. It would be a no brainer and the companies would pay up with no argument, plus they would have to halt drilling.

Just an Idea.

Love Omnaka

Edited December 12, 2011 by Omnaka

[Guest]

Cant the Epa Tag the fluids going in, so we/ They would Know who is responsible when it comes out in the aquifers?

I heard they have tags so small that they put it in ammonium nitrate so they can trace Bombs back to their orders. Then Erin Brokovich can sit at home. It would be a no brainer and the companies would pay up with no argument, plus they would have to halt drilling.

Just an Idea.

Love Omnaka

Once the damage is done its fairly much damaged for ever. Far better to apply the precautionary principle and prevent the damage in the first place.

Br Cornelius

[+HerNibs]

And your comments area exactly why I decided to do my own research and form my own opinions about this - all I see from the anti-frackers is anedotes, sensational claims (flaming water), jumping to conclusions (this article is a prime example), and claims crossing the line into conspiratorial nonsense.

Me, I'll stick with the science and if that science begins to prove that fracking is causing all of this damage, then I will oppose it. But until then....

Just for the record, I don't oppose fracking. My son (now out of the Navy) works for Baker Hughes in North Dakota doing it right now.

My post was just a point for discussion.

Sorry for the confusion.

Nibs

[Rafterman]

I have spent the last 6months looking into the science of Fracking since they are proposing to roll it out into the area in which I live in N.Ireland.

There is almost no verifiable evidence to go on - because of industry pressure and Government collusion. Only now is the sort of comprehensive study been carried out which should have been conducted a decade ago when the Haliberton exemptions were been passed to avoid them taking place. The comprehensive report will be out in year or so's time. Until then you have absolutely no justification in claiming that the industry is safe - because you are basing that claim on zero evidence.

Until the real evidence is produced I will accept peoples anecotal claims of flaming water and contaminated aquifers with as much seriousness as your claims that its all just tickty boo.

Br Cornelius

Define "safe".

I believe I said that fracking is no more or less safe than any other forms of energy production.

And when you start talking about government/industry collusion, you once again cross the line into conspiracy theories. If you're so convinced of such collusion, how is this comprehensive report going to be any different?

Can you honestly say that you will be fully onboard with fracking if this report shows no evidence of the types of contamination many claim?

[Rafterman]

Cant the Epa Tag the fluids going in, so we/ They would Know who is responsible when it comes out in the aquifers?

I heard they have tags so small that they put it in ammonium nitrate so they can trace Bombs back to their orders. Then Erin Brokovich can sit at home. It would be a no brainer and the companies would pay up with no argument, plus they would have to halt drilling.

Just an Idea.

Love Omnaka

There are websites that provide the full menu by drilling site of what is in the fracking fluid being used. So if a certain chemical is showing up in the water supply and that chemical isn't being used in any of the wells in that area, the contamination must be coming from elsewhere.

[Guest]

Define "safe".

I believe I said that fracking is no more or less safe than any other forms of energy production.

And when you start talking about government/industry collusion, you once again cross the line into conspiracy theories. If you're so convinced of such collusion, how is this comprehensive report going to be any different?

Can you honestly say that you will be fully onboard with fracking if this report shows no evidence of the types of contamination many claim?

There are no guarantees, but the methodology outlined should produce an adequate result.

Ultimately Fracking is a rather expensive distraction from developing sustainable energy infrastructure. It is dirty and it leaves behind a damaged environment after the drillers move on (it continues to slow release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, for many decades after the commercial reserves have been exausted). It releases methane at all stages of the production cycle. This tells the lie to the claim that it is a green transition fuel.

Even at current commercial prices for gas it is uneconomic and quite a number of operators have gone to the wall recently. Industry insiders have described it as a glorified ponzy scheme.

Its a dying industry looking for one last fix before the curtains come down on fossil fuels.

Br Cornelius