Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Study Predicts Frack Fluids Can Migrate To Aquifers Within Years
OPB News ^ | 1 May 2012 | Abrahm Lustgarten

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antifracking; environment; environmentalists; fracking; marcellus; marcellusshale; naturalgas; science4sale; shale
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: The_Victor
Yes, these are the same MODELS they have tried to use to persuade us about global warming. You show me some conclusive laboratory analysis confirmation/ evidence of impact of the fracking injection compounds in the underlying aquifers as a result of this and I will believe it.
21 posted on 05/02/2012 7:08:00 AM PDT by ecsmceo (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

FIRST: Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid used.

There are 7.5 gallons of fluid in a cubic foot. That means 4,000,000 gallons is about 533,333 cubic feet. That is an area 80 feet by 80 feet by 80 feet of fracturing fluid, 98% of which is water anyway.

More importantly, most fracking involves 1,000,000 gallons of fracturing fluid or less and remember, 98% of the fracturing fluid is water. No doubt this article wanted to raise the hype 4 fold.


22 posted on 05/02/2012 7:11:12 AM PDT by dewawi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Whore-Science will always find the results that it is paid to find, and the truth be damned.
23 posted on 05/02/2012 7:11:27 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

But the study, using computer modeling, ...

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.

Good point. I think that the patient (model predictions) has the flashlight firmly implanted in the nether regions of reality. The same crap (pun intended) happens with “climate models” where the conclusions are assumed in the premises, i.e., circular reasoning. The conclusions here are highly speculative, another example of bad science. Bad mathematicians become physicists, bad physicists become meteorologists, bad meteorologists become climate scientists.

-Frank


24 posted on 05/02/2012 7:12:34 AM PDT by thepoodlebites (and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

That’s nothing. Around here (Southern Michigan) they’re trying to tell people that water pumped into injection wells will flash over to steam and cause explosions.

Never mind the fact that the rock at the 2500 foot depth that they’re talking about is in the 70 degree range in this area.


25 posted on 05/02/2012 7:17:25 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
...concluding that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could migrate toward drinking water supplies far more quickly than experts have previously predicted.

...exacerbated by the effects of fracking itself, could allow chemicals to reach the surface...

..."Fluids could move from most any injection process."

Yep, that thar is some gud science!

26 posted on 05/02/2012 7:24:16 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
If you've ever done a percolation test for a septic system, in areas with a high water table, you see water seeping up into the holes all the time....DEFYING GRAVITY.....It's least resistant that rules not gravity....

No, that is pressure exceeding the force of gravity.

But, my original post accounts for that as hydraulic fracturing creates pathways of least resistance into the borehole.

So your post is pointless.

27 posted on 05/02/2012 7:30:29 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Hmmm...

Natural gas, lighter than air - it stays put

Water and other liquids, heavier than air - they go up.

Makes sense to me!


28 posted on 05/02/2012 7:32:20 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

More lies from the ‘crucify the Turks’ EPA Thugs.


29 posted on 05/02/2012 7:38:28 AM PDT by bboop (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I’ve done many percolation tests.

The water is not ‘wicking’ up in the soil. Simple gravity is actually at play.

Here are the usual ingredients, for having a shallow water table:

1. You are in a low area - i.e., there are adjacent areas, which are at least slightly higher.

2. Shallow rock ledge

Some of the rainwater in the area goes down into the soil, as per usual. However, it can’t get past the rock ledge, and becomes ‘perched’ on the rock. The water will eventually migrate to the lowest point on this rock ledge, which is usually the lowest point on the top surface.

The water can even come out of the ground, if the elevation difference is enough (think mountain spring).

As an example, if my per test is at elevation 100, and there is nearby ground at elevation 110, and the rock is 10 feet deep at 100, I would expect groundwater on my lot to be immediately below the surface. When I dig the perc hole, and see the water fill the hole, it is actually seeping in from the sides...essentially ‘falling into’ to hole. And, it may bubble up from the bottom, due the the energy gradient between the perched water and the hole. But the energy gradient is due to gravity (think hose level), and certainly not defying it.

Liquids can ‘wick’ and defy gravity. But, the weight of the water in the aquifer would actually push groundwater down any cracks in the rock, inhibiting any wick action. Also, somebody smarter about fracking than me may have info on the surface tension of fracking fluid, and whether or not wicking is probably.


30 posted on 05/02/2012 7:46:37 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
These must be the same ‘computer models’ written by the Global Warmist schemers.

Fracturing releases gas that is already under pressure. If that pressure was not great enough to force it to the surface, how could less pressure force a substantially heavier substance upwards, against the force of gravity?

Morons!

31 posted on 05/02/2012 7:48:56 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

This has happened in Texas. Also, we have had natural gas leak into water supplies.


32 posted on 05/02/2012 7:56:01 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Excellent reply. The water is actually seeking it’s level in the pit rather than flowing up.

An area near me that routinely fails perk tests has a layer of clay under the top soil. The ground holds a tremendous amount of water in the top soil that is blocked from further percolation because of the layer of clay below it. Dig a pit and that surface water flows into it like a bowl.


33 posted on 05/02/2012 8:20:44 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (Liberalism: Carrying adolescent values and behavior into adult life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

New Study Predicts Monkeys Will Fly Out Of My Butt


34 posted on 05/02/2012 8:22:11 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac

But...But...what if gravity fails! Then there will be no power. Why waste money on something so unproven and tempermental when we have solar and green bio fuels?! (end hippy channeling)


35 posted on 05/02/2012 9:11:06 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
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.

And the "study" gave them exactly the outcome they wanted to hear. I'm shocked. /s

36 posted on 05/02/2012 10:42:53 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
With no sampling or case history, it's not a study. It's a computer model where in garbage in = garbage out and, worse, it happened to be paid for by anti-fracking groups. It's worthless.

Funny how "studies" funded by industry or investors are tainted but those funded by activists are Real Scientific Fact™.

37 posted on 05/02/2012 10:48:02 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Let's see what "Major Tom" has to say...

@Review of DRAFT: Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion Wyoming Prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ada OK

I'm off to read it myself. Just wanted to get the link up first.

38 posted on 05/02/2012 10:57:22 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
This has happened in Texas. Also, we have had natural gas leak into water supplies.

No, fracturing fluid has not migrated into aquifers from underground.....from surface spills---yes.....but not from underground.

Also, I bet it was not natural gas, but methane in water. There is a difference.

39 posted on 05/02/2012 11:09:22 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Well it appears that some substantial prior reading is necessary...

@Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming

@The EPA Draft Report of Groundwater Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming: Main Findings and Stakeholder Responses
This is interesting...

The EPA Draft Report does not discuss the shallow groundwater contamination in much detail, and it does not indicate that the source of the contaminants in shallow groundwater is anything other than the surface pits. Reactions to the report and commentary by stakeholders also have not focused on the shallow groundwater issues, or on the surface pits as likely sources of contaminants. The focus of the EPA Draft Report and the issues raised by proponents of natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing concern the detection and source of contaminants in the deeper portions of the aquifer. Domestic water wells in the Pavillion area generally use groundwater from the shallower portions of the aquifer.

This comment in Tom's review is interesting as well...

This review discusses in detail the appropriateness of the study design, methodology, execution, results, and interpretation and the reasonableness of the conclusions. It specifically follows and considers the EPA’s “lines of reasoning” approach used to reach its conclusion.

Back to reading.

40 posted on 05/02/2012 11:16:31 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson