Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems once again the knee jerk reaction by the environmentalists was wrong yet again...
Quote:
The hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to develop natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study released Feb. 16 by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin
University researchers also concluded that many reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling, rather than from hydraulic fracturing, Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director, said in a statement.
“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.
No evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing
operations, and observed no leakage from hydraulic fracturing at depth.
But then move on to:
• Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g., failure of
well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
So they do happen......hmmm
Then to the most likely (we don't know but):
• Methane found in water wells within some shale gas areas (e.g., Marcellus) can most likely
be traced to natural sources, and likely was present before the onset of shale gas operations.
Then on to the, things do happen with the process, but not what the focus is on:
• Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater sources than from
hydraulic fracturing itself.
• Blowouts — uncontrolled fluid releases during construction or operation — are a rare occurrence,
but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.
While they mention surface spills in the summaries (above) further in the report they state "Little information is available on the short- or long-term consequences of surface spills." Ground vegetation was found to suffer extensive damage very quickly followed by premature leaf drop from trees in about 10 days. Over two years the mortality rate for the trees was high – greater than 50% of one species. Available data indicate that the high salinity of
the flowback water was responsible for the underbrush and tree mortality.
Then on houses blowing up "Other cases of methane explosions in homes and wellhouses have been investigated in Colorado,
Pennsylvania, and Texas. In some of these cases, the explosions were found caused by gas
migration from hydraulically fractured wells".
Another item is the amount of water being pulled for the process, from local sources, and whether the water usage is sustainable over time.
And further down in the report is "Continued progress in the detailed disclosure of chemicals present in hydraulic
fracturing fluid additives will enable a more complete analysis to be made of their
potential impact and will help address public concern over their risk to water
resources"
So they still don't know everything
They also state that "The primary concern for health effects of shale gas development are benzene and
other VOC compounds, primarily as air emissions and from liquid sources such as
flowback and produced water. Much research remains to be done on the toxicity,
transport, exposure, and response of receptors to shale gas VOC emissions to verify
claims of impacts on health, such as cancer, headaches, nosebleeds, and other
symptoms."
I've only read a bit of the report, but it is not as hunky dory as the headlines. (The summary is 60 pages)
But in conclusion they say "The data on violations noted by agencies, and enforcement actions taken in response to certain
violations suggest that many of the environmental effects of shale gas development arise from the drilling process itself. Fracturing increases certain risks, such as surface spills of fracturing fluid, and can increase the severity of certain environmental effects (by adding new and sometimes toxic substances to the process, for example). But developing a well that is eventually fractured requires a number of other stages, including site construction and well
drilling, that appear to cause the majority of environmental violations.
Agencies and the media should recognize that as fracturing has enabled tight sands and shale gas development, oil and
gas activity as a whole (not just fracturing) has increased. With more activity comes more potential for environmental impacts at all stages of the development process, thus necessitating responses such as better casing standards to ensure proper construction of wells, improved spill
prevention programs and pit construction requirements, and other controls that can reduce the impact of expanding production"
So, in general, any drilling in shale can cause issues.
I still feel the process is more harmful then good over then long term. I wouldn't want it done near my cottage or home. Would you?
The wacko's want us to return to the days of no electricity, and heat our homes with only fire places. And they would prefer we don't use automobiles.
And you get that from what?
Some folks wanting to have safe water to drink, land that is sustainable (can grow food on), and not having our homes blow up. Yup, those are wacko ideas.
LoL, another complete waste of time. The story pretty much disproves the headline off the bat, and the research isn't this super sunny thumbs up of fracking either. I also love how it takes 6 posts to start into the global warming conspiracy rantings. What a joke.
The University of Texas doing a study on the oil and gas business?
Isn't that a bit like letting the University of Pennslvania tell us how healthy Hershey's chocolate is?
Their documentation is excellent (as far as I've read). It's just what lines are selected to push a agenda. (or which headlines are written, since there is a lot more to the study then just a headline)
I wonder how many would be celebrating their efforts on converting "Sunlight to Fuel" and the millions spent so far in the research.
Their documentation is excellent (as far as I've read). It's just what lines are selected to push a agenda. (or which headlines are written, since there is a lot more to the study then just a headline)
I wonder how many would be celebrating their efforts on converting "Sunlight to Fuel" and the millions spent so far in the research.
I think they have a term for that.."cherry picking".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
