Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom

[n2doc]

By Mark Fischetti

In Pennsylvania, the closer you live to a well used to hydraulically fracture underground shale for natural gas, the more likely it is that your drinking water is contaminated with methane. This conclusion, in a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in July, is a first step in determining whether fracking in the Marcellus Shale underlying much of Pennsylvania is responsible for tainted drinking water in that region.

Robert Jackson, a chemical engineer at Duke University, found methane in 115 of 141 shallow, residential drinking-water wells. The methane concentration in homes less than one mile from a fracking well was six times higher than the concentration in homes farther away. Isotopes and traces of ethane in the methane indicated that the gas was not created by microorganisms living in groundwater but by heat and pressure thousands of feet down in the Marcellus Shale, which is where companies fracture rock to release gas that rises up a well shaft.

Most groundwater supplies are only a few hundred feet deep, but if the protective metal casing and concrete around a fracking well are leaky, methane can escape into them. The study does not prove that fracking has contaminated specific drinking-water wells, however. “I have no agenda to stop fracking,” Jackson says. He notes that drilling companies often construct wells properly. But by denying even the possibility that some wells may leak, the drilling companies have undermined their own credibility.

The next step in proving whether or not fracking has contaminated specific drinking-water wells would be to figure out whether methane in those wells came from the Marcellus Shale or other deposits. Energy companies claim that the gas can rise naturally from deep formations through rock fissures and that determining a source is therefore problematic. Yet some scientists maintain that chemical analysis of the gas can reveal whether it slowly bubbled up through thousands of feet of rock or zipped up a leaky well. Jackson is now analyzing methane samples in that way.

more

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=groundwater-contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom

[Champion Jack]

1. The gas companies claim that there are no reported cases of water contamination

right....because they move quick to pay people off and make them sign NDA's
In some cases even putting gag rules on 7 and 10 year old kids

[calimary]

2. Dear God, it BETTER!

[kristopher]

3. I think the headline is over-reach

The more likely outcome is a policy requirement for well-quality standards and hopefully, inspections.

And under present political realities, that might be stretching it. BAU is a lot easier for gridlock to produce.

But some sort of policy that will stop fracking? Not likely.

[FBaggins]

4. Yep.

And beyond that... the study doesn't go far enough to establish causation. There's no way that this study (or half a dozen like it) influence policy enough to end fracking in the face of low gas prices, an impending export boom, etc.

[joshcryer]

13. Did you read the paper? They analyze geochemistry.

It's not a correlation equals causation thing, they actually did chemical tests to test the correlation.

Average δ13C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (-37 ± 7‰ and -54 ± 11‰, respectively; P < 0.0001). These δ13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and δ2H-CH4 values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby.

Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172

I agree that this will not influence policy, but that's because the frackers have immunity from the Clean Water Act and that will not change any time soon. You'd need a massive town killing event for this to happen (not literally killing a town, but rendering a towns groundwater supplies undrinkable; thus rendering a town unlivable).

[joshcryer]

12. As if the industry will acknowledge contamination.

They will continue to claim that it is a natural part of water wells in areas with shale just as they did before. At most well methane vents will be installed but it won't be a federal level requirement, states already require venting of methane for wells. It's more that these sites don't have vents because they didn't, before fracking, need them. So you can expect at most rule changes and perhaps a subsidy from the state (not directly tied to the fracking industry) to install these vents.

Everyone wins.

The water supply continues to risk major fracking fluid contamination.

[DFW]

5. I see it the other way around

I fear that the fracking boom will end our supply of uncontaminated ground water.

[groundloop]

6. ^^^^ +1 ^^^^

[yellowcanine]

7. I work on education about wells and groundwater. I have no iron in the fracking fire.

But your fears are not well founded. There are lots of aquifers which are nowhere near fracking operations. And where they are, it is quite possible to frack with no impact on groundwater. Pennsylvania has been irresponsible in its regulation of the fracking industry. They need to impose some well head royalties to pay for a regulatory process with some teeth. The biggest danger to aquifers from fracking is not methane contamination, but depletion of groundwater resources to supply fracking water.

[DFW]

9. You just stated why my fears are indeed well-founded

It's not so much the technology at its working best that worries me, although the statement that some aquifers are nowhere near fracking operations is hardly comforting if other aquifers have to take up the slack when some get ruined. Clean fresh water is not exactly becoming more abundant as time goes on and the population grows.

My problem with fracking is the same as with offshore drilling. When everything works perfectly and all safeguards are in place, sure, all will probably be well and good. However, we are not talking about some benevolent publicly owned undertaking here. Fracking is being performed by for-profit companies with human decision-makers. Cutting costs to make budgets, cutting corners to make deadlines, all these cannot be excluded when there are careers on the line with the only motive being profit. When there is, as you put it, "irresponsible regulation of the fracking industry," then a lot of people get poisoned, earthquakes and sinkholes can occur, etc. The same thing went for Deepwater Horizon in 2010. Had BP and Halliburton acted responsibly, the spill would probably not have happened. But both Halliburton and BP cut corners, and are still trying to wash their hands of further obligations to the millions they affected.

If all possible safeguards are put in place, responsibly monitored, and huge personal liabilities mandatory for those who would look the other way when they shouldn't, then I'd feel a lot better about fracking, as well as offshore drilling. As it is, I don't think the fracking industry has the right to ask anyone to take "oops" for an answer.

[yellowcanine]

10. "I fear that the fracking boom will end our supply of uncontaminated ground water."

That fear is unfounded. "End our supply" is way overstating the dangers of fracking. Sorry, but I don't think it helps to exaggerate the danger - in fact it hurts, kind of like "crying wolf." When there is a real danger, people no longer are listening because of the exaggerations.

[DFW]

11. If the supply cannot keep up with demand for something so vital as water

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:52 AM - Edit history (1)

...then that supply is effectively ended as a "given" resource. The Middle East is virtually a turf war over water. The Colorado River is heading the same way. Anything so dangerous as fracking unregulated (or "regulated," where the regulation is compromised through corruption) depletes the water supply. Warnings of the safety risks of deepwater ocean drilling dangers were "overstated" until Deepwater Horizon happened. Experts reassure(d) us of the safety of regulated nuclear power and genetically modified grain. Surprise, surprise, Fukushima was inspected and declared safe. Its safeguards were deemed state of the art. A higher one was needed, but who knew? Monsanto said there would be no crossover of GM grain, and something as innocuous as wind gusts gave the lie to that one. To say that fracking is entirely safe is to endorse its proliferation. Until it does prove entirely safe--as practiced under current regulation, or lack thereof, as well as in theory--unrestricted proliferation does risk heading in the direction of "end our supply" of uncontaminated ground water. If there is enough fresh water to maintain a population of 175 million and the population is 350 million, our continuous supply of what we need to survive is effectively ended. What then? Rationing? Do we forcibly annex Canada?

Critics of unrestricted nuclear power, unrestricted ocean oil drilling and GM food were considered to be crying wolf until they weren't. I'll agree with you on one thing: people heard the warnings for so long that when real disaster occurred, they were no longer listening--until, that is, many wished that they had. Like Joschka Fischer told Donald Rumsfeld about Saddam's WMD when Rumsfeld tried to talk him into invading Iraq with us, "you haven't convinced me." Germany wisely stayed away from the invasion because our "experts" were feeding Europe inadequate information. My opinion is that corruption, corner cutting, and bribery to induce inadequate oversight are dangers not sufficiently guarded against to justify fracking. I see a huge danger in that--one to be addressed before a major mishap, not by damage control subsequent to one. If you consider that to be an exaggeration, so be it.

On edit: here's a comment, admittedly anti-fracking (reasons included), by Mike Papantonio, hosted by Thom Hartmann, on the situation in the Western part of my state: http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/08/papantonio-texas-a-fracking-dustbowl-video/

[yellowcanine]

14. But when you focus on fracking, the main problems with water are ignored.

And the main problem of course is population and uncontrolled growth and development which ignores the need for protecting both groundwater AND surface water. No fracking and this is still a crisis situation. Focusing on fracking ignores the forest for the trees.

[DFW]

15. When I focus on water, it's fracking that can't be ignored

Just like when people focus on energy, nuclear power and coal can't be ignored.

Until fracking is done ("can be done" won't cut it as long as cutting corners, legally or illegally, is an option) with complete safety to ground water, it is a danger, and one I don't want to contend with. There is a reason the CEOs of nuclear energy concerns don't live next door to their nuclear power plants, and I'm betting the CEOs of fracking conglomerates don't drink water from wells in the vicinity of their fracking operations, either. I sure as hell wouldn't in their shoes. If I ever get transferred back Stateside, I will make sure it is to an area with no fracking within 300 miles at least. Cape Cod, or Hawai'i, someplace where I won't have to even ask the question. France has forbidden it, and they haven't started in Germany, Switzerland or Belgium as far as I know, so for now, I'm safe.

[leftyohiolib]

8. brought to you by those who wish to SELL bottled water