Skip to comments.New Study Predicts Frack Fluids Can Migrate To Aquifers Within Years
Posted on 05/02/2012 6:30:45 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
A new study has raised fresh concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, concluding that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could migrate toward drinking water supplies far more quickly than experts have previously predicted.
More than 5,000 wells were drilled in the Marcellus between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to the study, which was published in the journal Ground Water two weeks ago. Operators inject up to 4 million gallons of fluid, under more than 10,000 pounds of pressure, to drill and frack each well.
Scientists have theorized that impermeable layers of rock would keep the fluid, which contains benzene and other dangerous chemicals, safely locked nearly a mile below water supplies. This view of the earth's underground geology is a cornerstone of the industry's argument that fracking poses minimal threats to the environment.
But the study, using computer modeling, concluded that natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus, exacerbated by the effects of fracking itself, could allow chemicals to reach the surface in as little as "just a few years."
"Simply put, [the rock layers] are not impermeable," said the study's author, Tom Myers, an independent hydrogeologist whose clients include the federal government and environmental groups.
"The Marcellus shale is being fracked into a very high permeability," he said. "Fluids could move from most any injection process."
The research for the study was paid for by Catskill Mountainkeeper and the Park Foundation, two upstate New York organizations that have opposed gas drilling and fracking in the Marcellus.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.opb.org ...
Second, I would like to ask the esteemed geologist how fluid is going to defy gravity and flow upwards (toward the aquifers) when the purpose of fracturing is the creation of open pathways into the borehole?
This is more lies from anti-hydrocarbon liberals.
That's exactly how we got phony global warming.
Exactly. Same shiite, different day.
Third, I would like to ask the paid hack geologist how many impermiable shale formations are between the Marcellus and near-surface aquifer formations?
Hint - several.
P.S. I am pro-fracking
A volcano is a BIG fissure.
Until the model is verified with real data, it's nothing but a guess. Any proctologist with a flashlight can provide numbers that have the same bearing in reality.
What they also don't say is that most of the water comes back out and is recycled.
In other news demand for water truck drivers in oil field areas nation wide has dramatically increased.
"Having in a CDL "A" class is like having the golden token from Wille Wonka" ...said one driver contemplating his 6 figure annual income.
They aren’t anti-hydrocarbon, they’re anti-energy (for the masses), and as a consequence, anti-freedom and anti-life.
They only support renewables because they AREN’T viable.
If they ever did become viable and cheap, they’d oppose those as well.
Don't waste time trying blame the computer, the software, or the process of modeling per se. They're fine.
The faulty premises and bogus mathematical/geological models -- or more precisely, the assumptions that underlie the models -- are what give garbage results.
And those are the creations of PEOPLE, not of computers.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Fracking occurs so much deeper than the aquifers that it is ludicrous to say that it is going to affect them, unless your agenda is not the truth but to shut down energy production.
You are absolutely correct - water runs downhill. In this case downhill is toward the center of the Earth not the surface.
This dumbass didn’t explain how the fluids will migrate through steel pipe.
There have been zero documented cases in which hydraulic fracturing has influenced a water table. There have been a little more than 44,000 wells hydraulically fractured in the United States, and not one documented case where a hydraulically fractured well bore has influenced the water table. We are working thousands of feet below aquifers that are used for residential and agricultural [water supply].
“They only support renewables because they ARENT viable.
If they ever did become viable and cheap, theyd oppose those as well”
Exactly! almost everywhere hydro power is considered a renewable energy supply; except in Washington State because there is an abundance of hydro power, therefore it is not considered part of of a shift to a renewable energy source.
Drilling unconventional wells is using up all of our fresh water. Answer: False.
The hydraulic fracturing industry uses in one day what New York City uses in 12 hours. In one day, we use the same amount of water that irrigates less than one percent of the entire U.S. corn crop. It amounts to about 20 percent of golf-course watering for one day.
Now lets talk about alternative energies and their consumption of water: For shale gas development, for every million BTUs produced we use 2.3 gallons of water. For coal, its five gallons of water. For nuclear, its 11 gallons of water. For biofuels, its 2,500 gallons of water thats used to create 1 million BTUs of natural gas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.