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

Skip to comments.

EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/earthquake-natural-gas-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/11/10/2011/id/37872?camp=syndication&medium=portals&from=yahoo ^

Posted on 11/11/2011 8:12:03 AM PST by chessplayer

As the country awaits results from a nationwide safety study on the natural gas drilling process of fracking, a separate government investigation into contamination in a place where residents have long complained that drilling fouled their water has turned up alarming levels of underground pollution.

A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing,

(Excerpt) Read more at minyanville.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fracking; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-147 next last
Yeah, lets close down the EPA. Then people won't know just how poisoned their water may be.
1 posted on 11/11/2011 8:12:04 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

And people want to allow fracking under the Great Lakes? No thanks.


2 posted on 11/11/2011 8:14:48 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

So you believe the EPA?


3 posted on 11/11/2011 8:15:52 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I don’t exactly trust the EPA either with all their uber libs on staff.


4 posted on 11/11/2011 8:16:22 AM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
From Wikipedia: 2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent in paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Other products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, and photographic strip solutions. Other products containing 2-butoxyethanol as a primary ingredient include some whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, and latex paints.

2-Butoxyethanol is frequently found in popular cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions.

I guess we are all going to die.

5 posted on 11/11/2011 8:16:42 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

On the other hand, it’s the EPA. Myself, I’d kind of like to have a second opinion from someone without an agenda and at least some credibility.


6 posted on 11/11/2011 8:17:53 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Stop Government Greed Now!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Yes, clearly this kind of geological science is not possible at the state level. Federal lawyers are the only answer to local technical pollution issues.


7 posted on 11/11/2011 8:18:02 AM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing,

If ONE chemical came from hydraulic fracturing where did the other cancer-causing compounds come from?

We had an incident near here several years ago in which a man’s well got polluted with desel fuel. After lots of recrimintions and finger pointing it was found he had polluted his own well in an attempt to get the city to run a rural water line to his place.

His polluting his own well caused another neighbor to get desel in his well by underground flow.


8 posted on 11/11/2011 8:18:24 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Not any further than I could throw them.


9 posted on 11/11/2011 8:18:35 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.” What total nonsense. Deep methane is the same as shallow methane, CH4..This looks like another witch hunt.


10 posted on 11/11/2011 8:19:16 AM PST by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing,

So where did it come from? Is it natural?

Didn't bother to ask those questions before your little heart started pitter pattering like a hummingbird did you?
11 posted on 11/11/2011 8:19:58 AM PST by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Yeah,, thank god we have an even handed, honest agency like the EPA, not on a mission for the environmentalist movement to stop drilling. Fracking is the only industry hiring in our country.


12 posted on 11/11/2011 8:19:58 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

PING!!


13 posted on 11/11/2011 8:20:48 AM PST by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

“I guess we are all going to die. “

2-butoxy ethanol is used in the deadly White Board Cleaner!


14 posted on 11/11/2011 8:21:17 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
"and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing"

So? This does not say that it came from Fracking, at all. The chemical could come from multitudes of sources, and if they want to prove the Fracking is doing it, then have the Fracking operation use a dye or traceable chemical unique to the operation, and see where it shows up (if at all).

Remember the Alar Scare? That's what these people do for a living: try to scare the crap out of the un-informed to keep their jobs and Agenda alive.

15 posted on 11/11/2011 8:21:44 AM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Does anyone have a compare from before the fracking activities? Without such a compare, there is no way to know what caused the current concerns, whether current activities are to blame, or what portion of the current findings were already existing prior to any subsequent activity.


16 posted on 11/11/2011 8:21:50 AM PST by RetiredNavy ("Only accurate firearms are interesting")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor
You can use geochemical biomarkers to differentiate different hydrocarbons. In a way, it is like DNA analysis for hydrocarbons. You look for rare compounds in the gas and compare the concentrations.
17 posted on 11/11/2011 8:22:13 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Indeed. There are serious questions regarding the state of this technology, and until it can be shown to be safe, it’s use should be limited. You can’t unring the bell.


18 posted on 11/11/2011 8:22:42 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

The EPAs agenda is NO use of energy. They obviously want to stop all drilling in the US.


19 posted on 11/11/2011 8:23:35 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The questions are where did it come from and how did it get there?............


20 posted on 11/11/2011 8:23:54 AM PST by Red Badger (Obama's number one economics advisor must be a Magic Eight Ball.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
So tell us oh wise hype-master. How deep does fracking take place? What are the safe guards that drilling regulations and practices take to prevent surface water contamination?

And more importantly, how well do you understand hydraulics and geological formation strata?

My guess will be “None of the above”. In fact, you have no clue what you are advocating, much like the wacko Leftist morons who back this stupidity.

21 posted on 11/11/2011 8:24:01 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer”

What nitwit with half a brain believes this statement by the EPA? The corrupt EPA has been lying, trying to destroy America for yrs.


22 posted on 11/11/2011 8:24:11 AM PST by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Indeed. There are serious questions regarding the state of this technology, and until it can be shown to be safe, it’s use should be limited. You can’t unring the bell.

What is your evidence for this, besides environmental wacko talking points?

23 posted on 11/11/2011 8:24:54 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
If ONE chemical came from hydraulic fracturing where did the other cancer-causing compounds come from?

And why aren't there two or two hundred fracking chemical signatures? Did just one chemical escape?

Silly stuff.

24 posted on 11/11/2011 8:25:51 AM PST by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
If ONE chemical came from hydraulic fracturing where did the other cancer-causing compounds come from?

And all the other chemicals used in fracking were absent?

25 posted on 11/11/2011 8:26:11 AM PST by null and void (MSGT Dean Hopkins USMC (ret) WWII-Korea-Vietnam 11/9/1925-10/22/2011 My hero, my Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Since I’m no expert in this I could be wrong but you would think that a non-toxic compound could be found for this with a little effort.


26 posted on 11/11/2011 8:26:33 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923187


27 posted on 11/11/2011 8:26:39 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
2-butoxy ethanol is used in the deadly White Board Cleaner!

Children that have to stay late after school for misbehaving and teachers hit the hardest.

28 posted on 11/11/2011 8:27:29 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

20 seconds. You beat me by 20 stinkin’ seconds...


29 posted on 11/11/2011 8:28:50 AM PST by null and void (MSGT Dean Hopkins USMC (ret) WWII-Korea-Vietnam 11/9/1925-10/22/2011 My hero, my Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stormer
No, not that this substance is harmful. Where is your evidence that fracing is screwing up the world's water supplies?
30 posted on 11/11/2011 8:30:23 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

They must be faking or exaggerating the data, and that must be the default position when the data is coming from a Marxist organization like the EPA and parroted by the Leftist media. Marxists are almost always liars, that’s a fact.


31 posted on 11/11/2011 8:30:29 AM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

Even worse, I heard the aquifer was full of dihydrogen monoxide, that stuff can kill you.


32 posted on 11/11/2011 8:30:31 AM PST by dfwgator (I stand with Herman Cain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

The carbon isotope mixture typically differs between deep and shallow methane. Shallow methane has “fresher” carbon in it.

Still, methane is much more mobile than the stuff used to frack it. By itself it carries little harm unless present in quantities sufficient to asphyxiate or be flammable.


33 posted on 11/11/2011 8:31:15 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (ya don't tug on Superman's cape/ya don't spit into the wind--and ya don't speak well of Mitt to Jim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

I guess when you have to ventilate your house while taking a shower and the company doing the operation is supplying you with drinking water I’m going to jump to a few conclusions.


34 posted on 11/11/2011 8:31:30 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

—A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing,—

So, they found at least two things:
1. cancer-causing compounds
2. one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing

Those are two separate things, right.

And I wonder if that chemical is called dihydrogen monoxide. :-D


35 posted on 11/11/2011 8:32:09 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

Mercury can be detected in my well water. Its an extremely low level but it can be detected. Arsenic can be detected in wells elsewhere as can uranium and virtually every other naturally occurring substance known to man.


36 posted on 11/11/2011 8:32:12 AM PST by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Sounds like someone is wanting a grant from the EPA to thoroughly “study” this aquifer.


37 posted on 11/11/2011 8:33:26 AM PST by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Subsidence is very apparent in areas where “mining” water has taken place over a decade leaving behind unstable and for development purposes unusable land. Fracking is not mining it is far more destructive - somewhere down the line relieving all that pressure from underground will have its effect....we just really don’t know what it might be.


38 posted on 11/11/2011 8:33:40 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The Source

ProPublica.org >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica

>It is stated that it is largely financed by “foundations”.>

Criticism

Dave Kopel, a policy analyst for the Libertarian-oriented Cato Institute and a former columnist for the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News, criticized a ProPublica report on hydraulic fracturing as a “one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view”. He argued that a common theme in ProPublica’s work is that “the government is not doing a good enough job in controlling things, particularly things involving big business”.


39 posted on 11/11/2011 8:34:36 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; tx_eggman
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
40 posted on 11/11/2011 8:34:46 AM PST by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
The Left is scared of and deathly opposed to fracking because fracking may be the technological breakthrough that would allow the American people to continue their energy-consuming lifestyle instead of transforming into a Utopian Gore-like (do as I say, not as I do) Amish lifestyle. The Left does not want energy independence or abundant, cheap energy. Instead, they want Americans to use a lot less energy.
41 posted on 11/11/2011 8:35:26 AM PST by Stingray51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I wouldn’t put anything past a supremely politicized EPA.

For disciples of Saul Alinksy, there are no lies, only tactics.


42 posted on 11/11/2011 8:35:39 AM PST by denydenydeny (The moment you step into a world of facts, you step into a world of limits. --Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Name the “you,” name the company, name the locale, name the “have to” for the ventilation. And name some other recognized authority than EPA supporting these assertions.


43 posted on 11/11/2011 8:35:45 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (ya don't tug on Superman's cape/ya don't spit into the wind--and ya don't speak well of Mitt to Jim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
I'm no rocket scientist but I have a hard time understanding how fracking can pollute the water supply.

And the fluid looks pretty safe.


44 posted on 11/11/2011 8:36:06 AM PST by McGruff (Hold the House, take the Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Your post reminds me of another aspect of this. If there was no human underground activity whatsoever, would those cancer causing chimicals (CCC) still show up? Is there any evidence to the contrary?


45 posted on 11/11/2011 8:36:55 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Unparsable


46 posted on 11/11/2011 8:36:59 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (ya don't tug on Superman's cape/ya don't spit into the wind--and ya don't speak well of Mitt to Jim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
Who said anything about “the world's water supplies”? In this circumstance it appears that there is some issue with the application of the technology associated with this type of extraction. The evidence for this are chemical compounds found in groundwater that would apparently be otherwise absent. I hesitate to point out that technology sometimes fails to operate as intended, and when it does, the consequences can be very serious.
47 posted on 11/11/2011 8:37:26 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

over exposure to it is one of the leading killers of children here in AZ


48 posted on 11/11/2011 8:37:56 AM PST by Jeff Vader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RetiredNavy

That’s been the problem with these results....No pre-testing. Fracking has been around for years.


49 posted on 11/11/2011 8:38:49 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Stingray51

Typically where people have complained about well problems near fracking, the frackers either repair the wells or pipe in clean water. Stormer sounds like it would kvetch no matter what they did to try to keep things right.


50 posted on 11/11/2011 8:39:18 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (ya don't tug on Superman's cape/ya don't spit into the wind--and ya don't speak well of Mitt to Jim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-147 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