Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE 3: EPA's FRACKED UP REPORT - See Interactive Map to View EACH Fracking Well Info (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you. Corrected dosimeter (0+ / 0-)

    What I find interesting in the Bloomberg report is that the methane showing up in drinking water within fracking areas is identical to the methane in the Marcellus Shale area.

    Was/is the methane showing up prior to and/or outside fracking areas the same methane?

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:52:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Generally, no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      War on Error

      And I state that not because I've seen its isotopic signature -- I haven't. It's just that the methane that occurs naturally occurs, in some instances, hundreds or thousands of miles away from the limits of the Marcellus Shale Formation.

      Also keep in mind that problems with methane in well water has been around for a long time, long before hydraulic fracturing activities mushroomed after the 1996 SDWA amendments.  

      One last thing for now -- the report you referenced in Bloomberg didn't indicate an "identical" isotopic signature.  What it indicated was that gas producer Cabot Oil & Shale Corp. had documented a range of isotopic signatures, and the methane observed in two Pennsylvania water wells fell within that range.

      It's not identical, but it's within the reported range.  It's good information, and I hope it gets supplemented so we can start to draw some defensible scientific conclusions that can help re-regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Underground Injection Control provisions of the SDWA.

      •  Sadly, EPAs final report won't be released (0+ / 0-)

        until 2014.  Too late, imo.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:14:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's actually pretty fast (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error

          Believe it or not.  I don't think it will be "too late" especially if it leads to regulations requiring corrective action.

          •  What could the corrective action be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marina

            for radionuclide contamination of soil, wells, and waste waters?

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:30:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It depends on the radionuclide (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              War on Error

              Soil treatment options might include stabilization, excavation and disposal, soil washing, or natural attenuation.

              Wells can be overdrilled and properly sealed.

              Wastewater can be treated, with resulting sludge stabilized to prevent release of radioactivity to the environment.  

              And all of this, should it be necessary, should be funded by the companies that caused the contamination in the first place.

              •  How would sludge be stabilized? Cement? (0+ / 0-)

                And it's beyond my comprehensive how radionuclides could be removed from water completely.

                And the scope.  Literally millions of gallons of water are used for each well.  There are more than 25,000 wells, most of which were drilled from 2009 to present.

                Funding.  Both the companies and the land owners leasing to the companies are profitting and the states/counties allowed the fracking.  IF, big if, liability were determined, would it be shared, perhaps even by the the FEDS who have also allowed fracking to forge forward with little stated understanding of its negative impact potentials?

                So many questions.  That said, regardless of liability and treatment, just how much drinking water will be compromised in the johnny come lately oversight.

                I am dismayed at the inability of those who know better to apply foresight instead of hindsight.

                It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                by War on Error on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:04:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Fast? The EPA report (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            mentions the 25,000 plus wells already in operation.  I'd say the report will be hindsight.

            $Money trumps the environment again.

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:31:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are a huge number of drinking water aquifers (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              War on Error

              Only a small fraction of them are threatened by this practice.  

              Building a legally defensible scientific case takes time.  Seasonality needs to be accounted for.  Trends need to be identified, measured, and corrected for. Data needs to validated, and interim results need to be critically reviewed with new data needs identified.  At the same time, budget priorities present real challenges to regulatory agencies.  

              2014, in my opinion and experience, is pretty darn fast.

      •  Just added some pics to the intro (0+ / 0-)

        See how close to the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea fracking wells are in North Dakota

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:41:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site