REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

States Confirm Well-Water Contamination From Oil And Gas Drilling

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 21:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1457
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, January 6, 2014 11:26 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In at least four states that have nurtured the nation's energy boom, hundreds of complaints have been made about well-water contamination from oil or gas drilling, and pollution was confirmed in a number of them, according to a review that casts doubt on industry suggestions that such problems rarely happen.

The Associated Press requested data on drilling-related complaints in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas and found major differences in how the states report such problems. Texas provided the most detail, while the other states provided only general outlines. And while the confirmed problems represent only a tiny portion of the thousands of oil and gas wells drilled each year in the U.S., the lack of detail in some state reports could help fuel public confusion and mistrust.

The AP found that Pennsylvania received 398 complaints in 2013 alleging that oil or natural gas drilling polluted or otherwise affected private water wells, compared with 499 in 2012. The Pennsylvania complaints can include allegations of short-term diminished water flow, as well as pollution from stray gas or other substances. More than 100 cases of pollution were confirmed over the past five years.

Just hearing the total number of complaints shocked Heather McMicken, an eastern Pennsylvania homeowner who complained about water-well contamination that state officials eventually confirmed.

"Wow, I'm very surprised," said McMicken, recalling that she and her husband never knew how many other people made similar complaints, since the main source of information "was just through the grapevine."

The McMickens were one of three families that eventually reached a $1.6 million settlement with a drilling company. Heather McMicken said the state should be forthcoming with details.

Over the past 10 years, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has led to a boom in oil and natural gas production around the nation. It has reduced imports and led to hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for companies and landowners, but also created pollution fears.

Extracting fuel from shale formations requires pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break apart rock and free the gas. Some of that water, along with large quantities of existing underground water, returns to the surface, and it can contain high levels of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals and naturally occurring low-level radiation.

But some conventional oil and gas wells are still drilled, so the complaints about water contamination can come from them, too. Experts say the most common type of pollution involves methane, not chemicals from the drilling process.

Some people who rely on well water near drilling operations have complained about pollution, but there's been considerable confusion over how widespread such problems are. For example, starting in 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection aggressively fought efforts by the AP and other news organizations to obtain information about complaints related to drilling. The department has argued in court filings that it does not count how many contamination "determination letters" it issues or track where they are kept in its files.

Steve Forde, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the leading industry group in Pennsylvania, said in a statement that "transparency and making data available to the public is critical to getting this historic opportunity right and maintaining the public's trust."

When the state Environmental Department determines natural gas development has caused problems, Forde said, "our member companies work collaboratively with the homeowner and regulators to find a speedy resolution."

Among the findings in the AP's review:

— Pennsylvania has confirmed at least 106 water-well contamination cases since 2005, out of more than 5,000 new wells. There were five confirmed cases of water-well contamination in the first nine months of 2012, 18 in all of 2011 and 29 in 2010. The Environmental Department said more complete data may be available in several months.

— Ohio had 37 complaints in 2010 and no confirmed contamination of water supplies; 54 complaints in 2011 and two confirmed cases of contamination; 59 complaints in 2012 and two confirmed contaminations; and 40 complaints for the first 11 months of 2013, with two confirmed contaminations and 14 still under investigation, Department of Natural Resources spokesman Mark Bruce said in an email. None of the six confirmed cases of contamination was related to fracking, Bruce said.

— West Virginia has had about 122 complaints that drilling contaminated water wells over the past four years, and in four cases the evidence was strong enough that the driller agreed to take corrective action, officials said.

— A Texas spreadsheet contains more than 2,000 complaints, and 62 of those allege possible well-water contamination from oil and gas activity, said Ramona Nye, a spokeswoman for the Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees drilling. Texas regulators haven't confirmed a single case of drilling-related water-well contamination in the past 10 years, she said.

In Pennsylvania, the number of confirmed instances of water pollution in the eastern part of the state "dropped quite substantially" in 2013, compared with previous years, Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman Lisa Kasianowitz wrote in an email. Two instances of drilling affecting water wells were confirmed there last year, she said, and a final decision hasn't been made in three other cases. But she couldn't say how many of the other statewide complaints have been resolved or were found to be from natural causes.

Releasing comprehensive information about gas drilling problems is important because the debate is no longer about just science but trust, said Irina Feygina, a social psychologist who studies environmental policy issues. Losing public trust is "a surefire way to harm" the reputation of any business, Feygina said.

Experts and regulators agree that investigating complaints of water-well contamination is particularly difficult, in part because some regions also have natural methane gas pollution or other problems unrelated to drilling. A 2011 Penn State study found that about 40% of water wells tested prior to gas drilling failed at least one federal drinking water standard. Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that don't have private water-well construction standards.

But other experts say people who are trying to understand the benefits and harms from the drilling boom need comprehensive details about complaints, even if some cases are from natural causes.

In Pennsylvania, the raw number of complaints "doesn't tell you anything," said Rob Jackson, a Duke University scientist who has studied gas drilling and water contamination issues. Jackson said he doesn't think providing more details is asking for too much.

"Right or wrong, many people in the public feel like DEP is stonewalling some of these investigations," Jackson said of the situation in Pennsylvania.

In contrast with the limited information provided by Pennsylvania, Texas officials supplied a detailed 94-page spreadsheet almost immediately, listing all types of oil and gas related complaints over much of the past two years. The Texas data include the date of the complaint, the landowner, the drilling company and a brief summary of the alleged problems. Many complaints involve other issues, such as odors or abandoned equipment.

Scott Anderson, an expert on oil and gas drilling with the Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonprofit based in Austin, notes that Texas regulators started keeping more data on complaints in the 1980s. New legislation in 2011 and 2013 led to more detailed reports and provided funds for a new information technology system, he said.

Anderson agreed that a lack of transparency fuels mistrust.

"If the industry has nothing to hide, then they should be willing to let the facts speaks for themselves," he said. "The same goes for regulatory agencies." http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-co
nfirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 6, 2014 11:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Here's the kicker: fracked wells only produce for about 5 years. Production drops off 90% by then.

After 20 years, 50% of wells leak.

So, the gain lasts for five years, but the pain.... in terms of wasted water and ruined aquifers... lives forever.

Smooth move, Exlax!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 6, 2014 11:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx, Sig, I didn't know that...there's so much information about fracking, some of what I manage to absorb of it goes away in a few months, so it's good to be reminded.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 6, 2014 12:39 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Here's the kicker: fracked wells only produce for about 5 years. Production drops off 90% by then.

After 20 years, 50% of wells leak.

So, the gain lasts for five years, but the pain.... in terms of wasted water and ruined aquifers... lives forever.

Smooth move, Exlax!







The good thing is the water from these wells can be filtered and the aquifers can recover.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


M52, as a witness to many aquifer-cleanups here in LA-LA land, I gotta tell you... damn expensive. Energy-intensive. Not really effective.

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20100702/water-pollution-spreadi
ng-in-the-valley



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


...but damned lucrative for those who make money off it.

They did a Superfund on Crissy Field when the military gave it up...had to haul out all the dirt, I dunno how deep...but pretty deep because they made a lagoon out of half of it. Took years, bicycled right by it every morning and evening for a few of them. Massive undertaking.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:47 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
M52, as a witness to many aquifer-cleanups here in LA-LA land, I gotta tell you... damn expensive. Energy-intensive. Not really effective.

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20100702/water-pollution-spreadi
ng-in-the-valley





I know, this stuff ends up costing everyone. Treating the water for drinking is not going to be cheap nether, but at least it can be done. It is a least a small silver lining that we did not screw ourselfs totaly...yet.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


But of course first you have to prove the water's bad (remember Erin Brokovich?), then convince them to treat it...and how many die/suffer first?

And when it comes to fracking, combining that with the water problems many places already are experiencing, it just worsens THAT, too...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 10:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
M52, as a witness to many aquifer-cleanups here in LA-LA land, I gotta tell you... damn expensive. Energy-intensive. Not really effective.



I would second this.

I'm assuming the chemical contamination is petroleum products, with maybe trace amounts of solvent-type chemicals that they would use for lubricating the drill parts.

The chemicals are mostly either soluable (the solvents) or LNAPL (petroleum) that floats on (fresh) water instead of sinks. But we're generally talking about confined aquifers here between 100 to 5,000 feet deep. The industry tends to claim that their wells are very deep in order to argue that it's so deep it won't affect drinking water aquifers that tend to be less deep, but studies have shown particularly in the Marcellus Shale that the industry does not often drill as deep as they claim they normally are.

Only some of the contamination is going to be dissolved (we're talking a lot of petroleum compounds here, meaning non-polar). The rest is going to be free product, either sorbed onto the soil or at the top of water in the aquifer. A filter doesn't work well over a wide area, and doesn't work well if the contamination is at depth, so you would have to bring up the water to put it through the filter which would not be cheap. And the filter itself would also cost money, so there are less expensive and more effective methods than using a filter, which will have to be periodically decontaminated itself during the process as it separates the oil and water.

These chemicals are organic, and so they can bio-attenuate over time - or you can deliberately introduce bacteria that will do this - but this tends to work more at shallow depth as this is mostly an oxidative process.

You can pump and treat deep wells, which involves extracting the contaminated water, storing it, and air sparging it, which allows the volatile compounds to naturally vaporize. But residents tend to dislike carcinogenic compounds being released into the air as much as they dislike it being released into the water.

You can draw down the groundwater and allow the residue left in the desaturated material to off gas then use soil vapor extraction, but this doesn't work well in either deep conditions or in layers with poor transmissivity (shale) or high fracturing (fractured shale). And again, soil vapor extraction systems tend to just release the vapors into the air.

You can dig down to the contaminated layer and expose/remove the area and treat the water in place, but that's only financially viable for VERY shallow contamination less than ten or twenty feet deep.

And that's not getting into the sheer volume that they're injecting into these wells, which when the well leaks, translates into a large volumes of contaminated water in the wild.

Basically because of the depths you either have to leave the contaminated water in place in place and treat it through a well, or pump the contaminated water out of the well then treat it, but because of the volumes/area and the conditions it WILL be expensive, it won't be efficient, and you probably won't get it all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:15 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx Byte, that's a lot of detailed information I never knew. All in all, I'm glad I live in good old Environmental-freako Marin, where fracking will never happen and we get most of our water from our own lakes. Tho' now we're in the third drought year in a row, we're starting to feel the pinch. Still, better than so many other places, for which I'm much grateful.

Given the understanding you appear to have, do you have any thoughts on how the lower water levels now being experienced throughout the Southwest impact all that, if they do?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 3:03 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Given the understanding you appear to have, do you have any thoughts on how the lower water levels now being experienced throughout the Southwest impact all that, if they do?


You mean how drought impacts groundwater petroleum and solvent contamination?

Well, the most immediate concern with a drop in water levels is it leads to the off-gasing scenario that I described in the draw down and SVE option. There's always seasonal flux in the water table, so you get a little of that naturally even in normal years. More wells will also probably be drawing from groundwater in a dry year, which means those wells will both drawdown the water table more and could draw pollution to them.

If you mean in general if drought effects water quality, drought doesn't really affect groundwater quality so much as as it does surface water quality. Mineralization of groundwater depends more on how long the groundwater has been in transit through the aquifer system (which can be anywhere from ten years to thousands of years) than the quantity of the groundwater moving through that system. Surface water however will become more mineralized as evaporation from surface water bodies will exceed the input of water from runoff into those bodies, and minerals already present in those water bodies will therefore become more concentrated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:05 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

You mean how drought impacts groundwater petroleum and solvent contamination?


Yeah, that. What you wrote makes sense, and doesn't sound good. Damn.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL