Fracking: A Major Threat to Drinking Water?

There are many stories about fracking destroying the drinkability of family wells. While I am not against the process (because we need the gas) I believe the gas companies should be required to purchase adjacent farmland so as to maintain a minimum distance from drinking water supplies. That minimum distance should be scientifically determined by those not under the employ or influence of the fracking gas companies.

Don't work that way. Ground water flows. So what they would need to do is buy all land in the direction of the flow. Eventually it ends up in streams and rivers then out to sea.

The government has said that the fluids are not a heath issue. The fact that they do not disclose as to what the fluids are leads me to believe there is more then just a possibility of hazards. Wouldn't be the first time someone in government turned a blind eye to big corporations. Especially with the need of the public for power.

There has been no real research on long term consumption of these chemicals. Or the long term environment damage they my cause. Even if man can handle moderate levels of these chemicals. Whats is the effect of them on zoo plankton.

There have been many chemicals taken off the market because of over time we have recognized there hazards. Those products we were not dumping into our oceans where it will be a task to clean them up.

We need the Gas ?

Then why did the Engery Department in 2004 offer Japan all the Natural Gas they wanted at cut rates prices. In the memo the offical states they needed to sell of the excess to keep the prices up in the USA.

That was the same guy who was having and affair woth the Oil Company Lobyist.

One concern that has been discussed and has not had a lot of press in our local or regional papers is in western PA we have radon gas and fracking these wells may disturb or cause the gas to mitigate or migrate to homes which have not had radon gas present previously.

Here in New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation (ENCON) has slapped down a moratorium on "Fracking". The companies that frack have not been forthcoming in regard disclosing the chemicals used in he process, hence the action by the state, which I feel may be warranted form what I have read on the subject so far. ENCON is conducting research and gathering information from other states where fracking has been seriously considered as a reason for aquifer contamination. There have been many reported incidences of this.

Even though I am not an expert on the subject, personally as a Environmental Engineer I firmly believe that research done so far by state governments, universities and research institutions has provided ample enough solid evidence that fracking is the culprit. In many of the cases reported so far, where once good quality water has historically been the norm chemical contamination of the aquifers occurred shortly after fracking had occurred in the aquifer area.

No doubt in my mind that Big Oil, their PACs, and some politicians in the pockets of Big Oil have stymied the USEPA from investigating the contamination incidences reported so far. I can see this really happening in the historically oil rich/producing states.

This is my opinion, since after all the OP asked for our thoughts. And I'm sure I'll hear some raspberries from some of the Big Oil supporters within the forum membership.....I fully expect it, especially from Anonymous Posters and Gangland groupies.....whenever someone opins on a controversial subject thy al jump right in and attack like a pack of Jackels....or is that Hyenas? LOL

[ASIDE: Hey, what's up with this spell check as it is missing a whole lot of misspellings? Ditto with the emotion-cons not working properly. It's been an ongoing problem with both for months now! Did someone screw with the "coding"?????????]

I think we are going to end up having to distill / RO etc etc all drinking water. What level of contamination is acceptable for stock watering & irrigation will also need to be determined. Esp. considering most stock & crop products are for human consumption ultimately.

I have seen posting of people who clain to be engineers saying that the Fracking Liquids they use are the same one people use in their homes, like cooking oils. lol so funny

A campaign of Misdirection and Misinformation is underway.

What you say is true if everything goes right. The incident in the gulf is one that is an example of things going wrong. There we saw immediate consequences of the mishap.

In fracking it may take years to show up a leak as the fluid will have to run to a point to do damage. When injecting these fluids in the weld how do you determine if their leaking or not. Where their leaking at. And if so at several thousand feet who is going to dig down to fix it? Note that the disturbed soils around the drilled hole even with strings of casing which is cemented in is a direct path to the surface and to the ground water.

You totally right about one thing misinformation. The missing information of what the fact those fracking fluids are. So that's why so much misunderstanding. No one can make a sound judgement when facts are missing. So all they can do is jump up and down and be heard. Sooner or later with enough people jumping up and down some thing will be done.

The generation of don't give sh** for greed is gone. Some people want a safe environment to live in and leave to the children.

I think it would be prudent to read the following article (Part 3 of 3) that first appeared in the NY Times regarding hydraulic fracking:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/egoldstein/new_york_times_expose_on_frack.html

Count me also as one who tries to keep an open mind, but is concerned about the secrecy of the chemicals. Attempts to assure me, like that I already have some of the same chemicals in my house do not: I don't pour those chemicals into my well.

I am concerned to about the urgency that this is being ram-rodded through. The gas that's in there today should still be in there in 20 more years, and probably more valuable then than today ... so what's the hurry?

Last - how will *I* be compensated if gas below *my* property is harvested?

I think I read that Texas has stopped hydrofracking until the names of the chemicals are divulged, which surprised me. I don't think of Tx as being friendly to environmentalist type laws or people.

Here's the Australian fracking story:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110221/gas/

Oils aint oils and fracking aint Fracking!!

Shale fracking and coal fracking are two very differnt processes that just happen to share a process name. Shale gas/oil etc are embedded into tiny spaces in the shale and fracking enables the release and flow of those for extraction, coal gas (obtained in this manner) is chemically bonded (Due to presence of PRESSURE and WATER) and is released when the pressure is reduced.

Shale is fracked from as shallow as 300 feet and the fracking cracks propagate sort of radially from the fracture point (Direction determined by Techtonic pressures) while coal fracking propagates through the coal seam since it's much softer than the intervening sandstone.

Chemicals used are different in coal. Shale fracking would cause me VERY SERIOUS concern. Chemicals necessary, relative depth, water outcomes and so on.

There's another very recent concern raised from US studies. The process is bringing radioactive contaminants to the surface in the water and then concentrating them in the evaporation ponds. Radon is one that's received a little focus but the studies are so "young" that nothing definitive can be derived from them.

Ultimately, the historical evidence suggests that both industries need control, appropriate to the levels of risk and issues potentially present. The reluctance to reveal fracking fluids goes well beyond "Commercial in confidence" issues and must be regarded as the evidence that there is something of significant concern even tot eh industry.

Remember the Asbestos industry of the past (and Tobacco) and how they hid evidence of the potential and actual damage they were causing to prolong profit. This seems even more suspicious.

I'm an engineer currently consulting for my former company, a major utility. We are doing water sampling at a coal fired plant (800mw). Interesting enough, one of the labe technicians told me that she has a house with a well close to where they are drilling (WV, Marcellus Shale). she noticed her hair after washing being brittle etc. She brought some of that water into the FGD lab a week after they they started +/-. the PH of the water was 11! That is much higher than any process coming off the coal plant. She noticed a white type of foam in it as well. The company claims that anything beyond 500 ft from the well site could not be caused by them. I guess that magic line underground is going to keep us safe.

I have heard of this technique before but it still bewilders me. What exactly is fracking and why is it so harmful to the enviroment?

I think the reason for opposition is quite clear - after air, water is what people absolutely need just to survive. And the idea of tainting possibly hundreds of millions of gallons of water with toxic chemicals - not to mention petroleum products - just wont' sit well with the public.

Natural gas remains abundant, and there are plenty of less harmful ways to extract without causing water pollution...

Claudius Jaeger

Jaeger Aeration, wastewater diffuser experts

Most of the one million gallons of drinking water they add the chemicals to and that gets pumped down into the old oil well bed stays there and is not recoverable.

It displaces the gas, pushes the gas to a sub-strata level where it is recoverable.

All the drinking water stays deep in the ground which is probably good because if they brought it back out, the whole area would sink, much like what is happening in Ohio with all the small earthquakes now believed to be caused by the fracking process.