Skip to comments.EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer
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 ...
And people want to allow fracking under the Great Lakes? No thanks.
So you believe the EPA?
I don’t exactly trust the EPA either with all their uber libs on staff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not any further than I could throw them.
“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.
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.
“I guess we are all going to die. “
2-butoxy ethanol is used in the deadly White Board Cleaner!
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.
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.
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.
The EPAs agenda is NO use of energy. They obviously want to stop all drilling in the US.
The questions are where did it come from and how did it get there?............
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.
“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.
What is your evidence for this, besides environmental wacko talking points?
And why aren't there two or two hundred fracking chemical signatures? Did just one chemical escape?
And all the other chemicals used in fracking were absent?
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.
Children that have to stay late after school for misbehaving and teachers hit the hardest.
20 seconds. You beat me by 20 stinkin’ seconds...
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.
Even worse, I heard the aquifer was full of dihydrogen monoxide, that stuff can kill you.
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.
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.
—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
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.
Sounds like someone is wanting a grant from the EPA to thoroughly “study” this aquifer.
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.
>It is stated that it is largely financed by “foundations”.>
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”.
I wouldn’t put anything past a supremely politicized EPA.
For disciples of Saul Alinksy, there are no lies, only tactics.
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.
And the fluid looks pretty safe.
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?
over exposure to it is one of the leading killers of children here in AZ
That’s been the problem with these results....No pre-testing. Fracking has been around for years.
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.
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.