Skip to main content

View Diary: Another Spill in PA Town Where Fracking Just Resumed in April After 200,000+ Gallon Spill in March (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The graphic from Gasland is a good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, 6412093

    example of communication of a conflation -- something that isn't true -- when in comes to the physical description of what is being depicted.  For example, there isn't any credible evidence that the kind of water transport shown as depicted in that graphic actually occurs in practice.

    •  "Water transport" (4+ / 0-)

      Big trucks do carry water for fracking to the site, and other big trucks haul away the water returned from the well. ("Produced water," I think it's caused.) If I understand correctly, it is then returned underground via injection wells, left in pits to evaporate, dealt with surreptitiously (sprayed on gravel roads, for example, if what one observer says is accurate).

      The trucks have done more costly damage to the roads they use in Arkansas than the frackers pay in severance. Injection wells are prohibited here since a 4.x earthquake, connecting and enlarging the two faults at the epicenter where the well was located. I understand it's now hauled to Oklahoma.

      What am I missing?

      "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

      by cotterperson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:52:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I recently prepared comments for submission (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        to a federal agency, against the export of natural gas.  My comments included everything bad I could find,  related to fracking for natural gas, since the more gas that's exported the more fracking will take place.

        I searched high and low for good examples of where natural gas fracking chemicals caused contamination of drinking water.

        I  found so few examples, essentially the one in Pavilion, Wyoming, that the attorneys wouldn't even let me raise the issue.  Later, a couple of Pennsylvania cases of methane in groundwater turned up, and there was a 2013 spill in Colorado.

        The natural gas industry is fracking thousands of wells on hundreds of thousands of square miles of land, but they are actually causing very little  impact on drinking water.  Essentially there are just a handful of proved-up instances.

        If you want to hate fracking, and condemn its massive water usage, and deplore the earthquakes from injection of its waste water, fine. I don't like those features either.

        But I can't bring myself to scream bloody murder about fracking ruining drinking water, until I have more examples than what's found already.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:19:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Considering the companies are the only ones who (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, 6412093, julesrules39

          are tasked to report the "incidents", what could possibly account for so few accident reports on file? Maybe you heard about the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico ... only one reason that got reported outside the industry. It blew up spectacularly and killed 14 people. Hard to keep that quiet.
          Maybe you should talk to the workers and residents around these thousands of wells and find out what THEY have to say about the incidence of fracking accidents.

          Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

          by fourthcornerman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:28:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I appreciate your thoughts on this (0+ / 0-)

            unfortunately workers' and residents' testimony does carry the weight it deserves in a government hearing.

            I won't bore you with war stories from past confrontations with industries.

            Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

            by 6412093 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:46:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I hear ya, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          6412093

          but as long as what's added to the water is a "proprietary" business secret, there will be a long delay in finding it, at least. (Delay = continued profits.) Carcinogens take up to 20 years to identify in affected populations.

          Frackers need to identify what's in the fracking water before it can be tracked. The fact that some are unwilling to do that is at least bad science, and at the most takes unnecessary risks with human health.

          .02

          "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

          by cotterperson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:21:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you very much for your response (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cotterperson

            that crossed my mind too, if you are testing for just 16 metals, you might miss  the other 40 chemicals.  I am thinking of some broader water quality tests, for instance for the mere presence of "total" volatile organic compounds of any type.

            Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

            by 6412093 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:50:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  by 'water transport' I mean physical (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        paths of transport from rock strata 5000+ ft where hydraulic fracturing takes place to water tables above any upper groundwater zone above the upper confining layer.

        The only real potential issue to address from a geology standpoint is whether hydraulic fracturing fluids or produced gas can escape from uncemented portions of the bore hole to near and/or adjacent porous rock formations......but nothing about the graphic from Gasland tells any truth or valid analysis about such a physical water transport pathway.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site