Fracking For Oil And Gas Doesn't Taint Drinking-Water Supplies With Toxic Chemicals

Then they should look at real research. I've not looked into Science Now but will. Knowing This Groat person will tell how realistic the finding are. I don't believe them for an instant. Seen the problem first hand.

Don Overton I share your wise skepticism, so I did some checking on Dr. Charles Groat and found out that in addition to heading the University of Texas Energy and Mineral resources graduate program, he also serves on the board of directors at POGO Producing Co. which is an explorer/producer of natural gas, both domestically and foreign offshore sites. The company was established in 1970 as part of the Pennzoil Company, under the control of William C. Liedtke Jr. and John Hugh Liedtke. Interestingly in the 1950's the Liedtke brothers, in partnership with George Bush and John Overby founded the Zappata Drilling Co. in Midland Texas and in 1963 acquired control of Pennzoil. They were all co-founders of Pennzoil products Co. and POGO Producing. POGO is an acronym for "Pennzoil Offshore Gas Operators" and indicates the earliest focus of the company.

source: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Pogo-Producing-company-company-History.html

The above facts with Dr. Charles Groats very close historical ties and interests with the natural gas industry is in and of itself enough to seriously raise a question of a possible conflict of interest by Groat's findings that fracking is safe and poses no threat to water supplies. It seems to me that it is another example of an industry contracting or funding a scientist with clear ties to them submitting a report that would be favorable to the natural gas industry. While I could be wrong in assuming my doubts, whenever I see a close relationship between a scientist and a particular industry, and then preparing a report for submission, I can't help but view it's accuracy and truthfulness with a high amount of skepticism.

Charles Groat insists that the funding for the report was independent from the gas industry and that $380,000 was conducted solely by university funds. Yeah, right ! Want to get some idea of how much money is donated every year to the the University from the Oil and Gas industries, especially when many of the major companies have their headquarters located in the oil state of Texas ? In 2007 alone, T. Boone Pickens donated $5 million. This year, as of Feb.20,2012 Shell Oil Co. will invest $4 million in the university, and Haliburton Company subsidiary Landmark Graphics along with other software manufacturers that design computer applications for oil and gas companies have donated software the the University of Texas totaling over $208 million.

it seems to me that the University of Texas is so flush with money from the Oil and Gas Industry that is could be considered to be the University of Oil and Gas. If this study was to truly be independent from the Oil and Gas Industry then it should have been conducted as far away from them as possible. A study done by a former board member of a Gas producer, regardless of his credentials, and in a University that appears to be predominantly funded by the Oil and Gas industry does not fulfill the criteria of being independent in my opinion.

Keep in mind that Hydraulic Fracking by the oil industry is being vigorously opposed worldwide with much counter evidence to support that it does indeed contaminate ground water and the industry is desperate for all of the good PR they can get, so now they tout a "scientific" independent study that supposedly proves that fracking is safe.

Whaddya think, can we believe them ? An un-biased report ?

I don't know about that. I don't want my neighbors destroying the ground water next to my property either.

Methane leaching in to ground water can occur naturally as well..... or can come from your local garbage dump.

cg68doc, peoples homes can also get struck by lightning and burn down, that doesnt mean we should let corps burn peoples homes down just because it can occur naturally as well.

So when you drill holes into the ground in some places you get natural gas (methane)

and sometimes when you drill holes in those same areas for well water you get methane in your water?

Wow. Must be a conspiracy by Big Oil.

Something that's easily fixed with a vent on the well.

The high number of good paying jobs and the increase in property values sure aren't hurting those people. And neither is the methane which is a tasteless colorless odorless gas that immediately evaporates out of water so it poses no health problem.

so it poses no health problem.

lol. Right, that's why we have established levels of methane in drinking water that are considered acceptable. Why would they even establish the level if it was completely harmless? Did you even read the report? They found methane levels that were 17 times the acceptable limits in wells situated near gas wells.

And neither is the methane which is a tasteless colorless odorless gas that immediately evaporates out of water

You realize how flammable methane is right? Do you want methane evaporating out of your drinking water and collecting in your kitchen?

No health problem? I don't believe it for a minute. I don't understand why some people are so quick to believe reports that come from those with a vested interest.

Methane is not a health problem it could be a problem if your well isn't vented and a flammable gas builds up you know explosions and such. But again this has happened in well water long before fracking was ever used. It occurs in areas that have natural gas (which is mostly methane) and is why it is reported in areas where natural gas is being fracked. Causation does not imply correlation.

Strike that. Should read correlation does not imply causation

Ok let us say yes methane is found in wells naturally. But NOT at these levels.

Methane is found in some wells that is naturally occurring. I think the point is that these wells did NOT contain methane in them until after the fracking occurred.

When we used to drill for water wells, we sometimes ran into methane in the formations. It is not always odorless, either, but smells pretty awful, also naturally. No matter what, we shut the rig DOWN, and ran as fast and as far as our legs would carry us, up wind. Methane can be very dangerous, even in fairly low levels. There are methane detectors on every water well drilling rig of any note, just in case.

There are areas in the country, (Gas City, Indiana), comes to mind, where natural gas may be found in fairly shallow formations. The point I'm making is that the wells are not always perfectly sealed throughout the formations, and that open holes can leak fluids and gases into formations that do not normally contain those fluids and gases, especially when subjected to the high pressures introduced into the formations during fracking.

Not mention that natural fractures, or lineaments occur in rocks. Most oil companies could care less about the natural fractures and lineaments that occur in bedrock. However, I have personally, sited over 200 mi2 of fractures and lineaments from areal photography, and ground-truthed the lineaments for water well drilling purposes. :-)

Just about anything occurs in nature. That doesn't mean that all the things that occur around fracking sites is natural.

Just about anything occurs in nature. That doesn't mean that all the things that occur around fracking sites is natural.

!

The high number of good paying jobs and the increase in property values sure aren't hurting those people. And neither is the methane which is a tasteless colorless odorless gas that immediately evaporates out of water so it poses no health problem.

It's always about the money isn't it. I can introduce you to some people who would disagree with you about those property values. Once the water is contaminated you can't sell your property, the value is now $0. As far as Methane posing no health problem, the dead buffalo in Yellowstone might disagree with you.

I think you need to do a little more research on this subject. You might start with the documentary Gasland. Those are real people in the movie, not actors, and the health problems are real, not made up for your entertainment. Maybe you should take a walk in the real world.....you might actually learn something.

I think it would be common to find methane (natural gas) in water wells in areas where they are drilling for natural gas. Liquids and gases since they are less dense than solids will go into a hole thats dug in the ground because of the pressure of the earth pushing down on them. It doesn't matter if that hole was dug to get water or oil.

Methane is a gas (as in the three states of matter liquid solid and gas) which evaporates out of water immediately so it does not contaminating drinking water. But because it is a gas (in the same way that CO2 is a gas) it can be trapped causing it to be a safety hazard (its flammable) not a health hazard.

But for the sake of argument lets pretend that your mere speculation and assumptions are correct and that fracking is putting methane in water wells. A more pragmatic solution would be to have the oil companies pay people to install a very cheap vent in their well so it can escape to the air outside. I dont think its a huge problem because the anti-fracking people haven't said anything about any homes blowing up. \

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has said that " U.S. counties with a significant number of jobs in the energy sector have seen a rise in home prices that is unusual in this recession." and "Home prices in counties with the higher energy employment outperformed the other counties in every state but Oklahoma. Here, high-energy counties saw home price gains of 4.8 percent while the other counties saw better gains of 5.3 percent."

So while most people have lost about a quarter of the value of their home, the people in oil drilling areas have seen their home values increase during a recession caused by a collapse in the housing market. Not decrease as the "well informed" gramora has suggested.

You do realize, of course that oxygen, (a gas), is dissolved in groundwater, as is carbon dioxide, CO2, (a gas), as is chloroform, (a gas), and yes, even methane, benzene, etc. Only when the pressure is released, or the temperature increases, is the gas released from the groundwater.

Dowser you are talking science to people that believed T-Rex walked around with the lambs and the sun revolves around the earth.

And CO2 is put in to water to make seltzer(or soda or beer)... it's non-toxic and at atmospheric pressure it makes your soda fizz... Chloroform at atmospheric pressure is a liquid, and is used to make Teflon... Methane is a gas at atmospheric pressure and is colorless, tasteless and is non-toxic. It is explosive at concentrations above 5-15%. Benzene is a colorless liquid at atmospheric pressure. It has a sweet smell and is a highly flamable liquid consituent of gasoline.

yeah, you want to drink chloroform and benzene? Both are highly volatile substances that vaporize quickly. Both cause neurological damage to humans. If so, have at it.

The clue is they are highly voliltile substancs that evaporate quickly. If you are concerned about your water, boil it. Off gas the benzene and chloroform. Some folks call that distilled water. How much of the organic compounds can be removed by a simple carbon filter?

Organic compounds have been in drinking water for centuries.... long before fracking came along. Your attempts to blame the problem on fracking are just pandering to the emotional side of the issue.

Oh golly. Have you ever had to drink contaminated water? Water contaminated with salts, even high iron? Have you ever drunk water from a carbon filter that tastes like pesticides? UGH, I have.

Simple carbon filters don't always work. It may remove Some of the volatiles, but not all of them, even when brand new. Distilled water, or ionized water, or water treated by osmosis, is about their only choice and it is very expensive to purchase and maintain. Plus, you don't get that much water, either.

Most homes average use is about 4000-5000 gallons of water per month. Most home filtration system yield about 5 gallons of pure water, (when new and in great shape), per day. (1500 gallons per month) It is enough to cook with and drink, but not to bathe in, or wash your clothes. You have to plumb your house so that water leaving your in-home filter also fills your refrigerator cubes, etc. But, you're still bathing in contaminated water... Watering your plants with it. Watering your vegetable gardens, your lawn, etc.

But that doesn't include the water that a lot of people have to use for their livestock, their crops, etc. Fracking takes place out in the middle of nowhere, usually, where city water isn't available, and the area is farmland. You can buy a cistern and install it in your basement and have water delivered, but in many areas that costs a fortune, too. Running lines from a city pipeline to your home can cost thousands of dollars, even if the pipeline is right in front of your home.

It's a mess, for those people who have problems, whether the mess is caused by fracking, mining, etc. I've done this for a long time, and while I've tried to find an in-home system that will yield 4000-5000 gallons of clean drinking water at low cost per month, it isn't out there, yet.

Actually, I have a well and in the area I live Hydrogen sulfide is a normal component to this area's water. and I have a whole house filter. so I guess I can say that yes I drink "contaminated" water.... oh... and I use that "contaminated" water to feed my livestock and water my garden.

Making your own water distiller isn't that hard... copper pipe and a pressure cooker.... but then you run into federal regulation.... you have to have a permit from the feds to run a still....

If you live in an area with a well, why are you wasting your water on your lawn????

People, including you and me, want to use their water as they see fit. I didn't say that well water wasn't plentiful, I'm just saying that it may be contaminated.

Hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous in high concentrations-- most cities take care of it by aerating the water before the treatment process begins. It has the added benefit of increasing the oxygen in the water, too, so that iron dissolved in the water can be oxidized and removed before it goes in the pipes. Hydrogen sulfide can be a by-product of weathering from rocks that are high in sulfates, like gypsum.

I'm never saying that natural ingredients can't be hazardous to your health-- nor am I saying that you are drinking contaminated water. But, for your own sake, don't be so sure that your whole house filter is perfectly safe, either.

You have a well-- so, take a look around your property-- what's nearby? If you live in a farming area, your well may be contaminated from pesticides, (herbicides, inseciticides, fungicides), and other treatments used to produce crops. If you live ina subdivision-- how many people use a professional lawn care service that treats their lawns with chemicals? Do you treat your lawn with chemicals? Do you use a herbicide/fertilizer mix on your yard? Is your subdivision on septic systems, or city sewers? Does anyone in your neighborhood change the oil in their driveway and dump the oil in the yard? Do they salt the road in front of your house in winter?

Most homeowners would benefit by running an e.coli test on their well water-- and most health departments will collect and test the samples for free. You can also collect and sample the water from your well for secondary drinking water standards-- nothing exotic, just basic constituents that may indicate if your well water is contaminated from any of the activities above. Elevated levels of arsenic, antimony, and a few other constituents indicate some form of contamination from farming activities or lawn care chemicals. The tests should cost about $200-$300 dollars. If you are interested, tell me your general area and I'll try to find a certified lab near you...

If these constituents indicate there may be a problem, you may want to run the gamut of testing for VOC's, SOC's, etc. It costs about $3000-$5000, and are the tests that are run each and every day for a municipal water supply.

I don't know what kind of in-home treatment system you have, but softeners are pretty common- they add salt to the water to counteract the effects of calcium and manganese. Some are able to remove iron, in amounts so that they aren't a problem to you. (Iron is not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, because it is considered to be an aesthetic kind of thing in the water, not a contaminant, unless it grossly exceeds the recommended amount.)

Good luck!

So while most people have lost about a quarter of the value of their home, the people in oil drilling areas have seen their home values increase during a recession caused by a collapse in the housing market. Not decrease as the "well informed" gramora has suggested

Of course they have increased! Why? Because people who already live in an area that is about to be developed for oil and gas know that the oil field workers will need a place to live, so prices are based on a sure bet that people will be looking for homes and they can make some money. What they didn't say, was that after a few years, those same workers will be moving on to the next developing site. Most oil and gas jobs are very transient. Once all the wells are drilled there is no need for all those workers. Its an artificial inflation.

Good point, gramora! :-)

Umm the study on housing prices that was done by the Federal Housing Finance Agency I was referring to was done from the years 2006-2011, so no these just weren't just jobs where people showed up to drill a hole in the ground and leave. So sorry no cigar "oh fountain of knowledge" gramora.

So sorry no cigar

That's ok, I don't smoke.

"oh fountain of knowledge" gramora.

See, your getting smarter already!

I'm sorry if you think this article holds any form of truth. I have never read anything so biased and poorly reported in my life, and this is Investors.com, a site people go to for guidance about their investing! OMG! There is very little real information in it and it's obvious that who ever wrote the article has less knowledge of this subject than you do. Maybe that's why you understod it so well.

What they call the truth has more twists in it than your undershorts!

Once again your assignment is go watch the documentary Gasland! (If you need to watch it more than once I will understand.)

Having been in the oilfield equipment biz, we used an industrial standard known as PPM. That is, parts per million. No, I'm not talking about particulate density, as determined by logging and sensing tools, but as in the FAIL RATE of equipment, or tools, or materials. ISO standards, along with statistical process controls, help to eliminate fail rates down to that ratio. So if it is as your source claims, and fracking is 99.5% safe, the concern of all right minded people of caution is NOT the 99.5, but the .5. So out of 1000 drill sites, 5 will fail to meet the objective of safe and assured procedures. You may glibly right off that .5% as being unimportant. But if it was YOUR water, YOUR orchard, YOUR cows, YOUR kids, would you be so glib? I hope to god not. You seem less concerned for others, than we are for you.

Proffi

So are you suggesting that we should only do things that are 100% safe? We shouldn't do something because we might make a mistake?

Did you drive a car today? Take a shower? Not 100% safe.

I'd also like to point out that the article didn't say fracking was 99.5% safe, only that 99.5% of the material used in fracking was water and sand. This does not mean that there is a .5% risk of polluting people's water.

And, Gee, when using 9000 lbs of pressure/in2 to inject the toxic chemicals into the ground, you don't think that may be able to migrate from where they want it to go? Nor are they under the Clean Water Act, meaning that they can dump it at will.

I trust Haliburton so very well, when it comes to completely sealing off the formations around a well... (aka BP spill in the Gulf).

But then that wouldn't be from that friggin fracking! No that would be the earth just letting a big big ground fart!

BS... there is some truth to what you say....

and the concern is what? If fracking isn't contaminating water tables, how are the isotopes a concern 5K feet below the surface of the ground? If it's the radiation exposure you are worried about, you get more from sunbathing, or a medical x-ray, or smoking a cigarette.

"If fracking isn't contaminating water tables"

It is. Lots of complaints.

"The EPA last month said it had found compounds associated with chemicals used in the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the groundwater beneath Pavillion. Many residents say their well water has reeked of chemicals since the drilling began there and first complained to the EPA in 2008."

" If it's the radiation exposure you are worried about, you get more from sunbathing, or a medical x-ray, or smoking a cigarette."

X-rays are quite a bit of radiation...but on what are you basing this sentence on?

I guess it depends on what xray you get... but a routine chest xray is about the same dose of radiation as 10 days of exposure to naturally occuring radiation, which is different depending on where you live. Denver has a higher natural background radiation level than, say New Orleans because of the altitude.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm095505.htm

Apparently you missed the question about what your concern was.

As for the Pavillion Wy. EPA study, see #14.2.. If the EPA hadn't have drilled their test well to within 100 feet of the natural gas zone they wouldn't have found hydrocarbons in the water.

well, was the water within 100 feet of a gas drilling zone? Like I said, people have been complaining.

And they're still using diesel.

If they are getting water from a well drilled within 100 feet of the gas zone, isn't that kind of a given??

Additionally according to the article in Forbes, the USGS has had reports of bad water in that are since the late 1800's...... so is the bad water that the EPA found really from the fracking or just a natural occurance?

"so is the bad water that the EPA found really from the fracking or just a natural occurance?"

well the key find was fracking chemicals found, not natural gas.

Encana also notes the curiosity of EPA detecting man-made chemicals in the “blank” quality control water samples. These blanks are supposed to contain only ultra-purifed water. Finding chemicals in blanks “suggest a more likely connection to what it found is due to the problems associated with EPA methodology int he drilling and sampling of these two wells.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/encana-calls-b-s-on-epas-wyoming-gas-fracking-study/

Apparently they botched the test wells.... the QA test came back with chemicals in them... which says they screwed the pooch on the test wells. The test well QA analysis should no chemicals at all. If your QA is hosed, you can't rely on the test data.

Here is a better article that clearly shows the EPA hosed the tests....

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/epa-report-pavillion-water-samples-improperly-tested/article_99512ef4-6d23-5c9b-9038-c676eedd33c2.html

The EPA says it launched the study in response to complaints "regarding objectionable taste and odor problems in well water." What it doesn't say is that the U.S. Geological Survey has detected organic chemicals in the well water in Pavillion (population 175) for at least 50 years—long before fracking was employed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387490158.html

Well, that's beyond my ability to argue I suppose.

cg68doc, the wells are not 5K deep, in many cases. They are from 1500-2000 feet deep and 3500-3000 feet long, if not longer. And there is more than one well per wellhead, so, from a bird's-eye view, it looks like a spider.

You can live a mile from a well fracking set up at the wellhead and still have problems in your groundwater.

AND, just because the USGS noted that there were organics in the water before fracking doesn't mean that fracking didn't add to the amount of organics in the groundwater.

If the oraganic compounds were in the water before teh fracking occured, how can you conclusively prove than the fracking caused the methane (an organic compound) in the water? You can't. You claim it, because it gets people emotionally charged, but you can't conclusively prove that the fracking was the cause of the organic compounds in the water. The fact that the EPAs QA well tests were contaminated shows that the EPA screwed up the well tests and are making claims on questionable data.

In the areas that I'm thinking of, there were no methane or other organic components in the groundwater prior to fracking. In Gas City, Indiana, the example I mentioned above, they aren't fracking, to my knowledge. The formations are too shallow. Gas City has had a history of methane gas in the wells since the 1920s.

In some of the areas where fracking is occurring, there is chemical quality data from the past 50 years. Not all of that can be wrong.

And, just because there was methane in the wells before the fracking, does not prove that increased levels of methane and other organic chemicals weren't caused by fracking...

Fracking is occurring in very specific areas, each with a unique geology. You have to really know the geology of a specific area to understand how fracking may affect the groundwater of that specific area.

There are areas of Kentucky where fracking wells would be insane-- there are karst formations there, etc. Other, highly fractured areas, (those areas that are high in lineament features), would be more predisposed to contamination from fracking. The Rough Creek Fault System would likely be a very bad place for fracking, as there are many faults that are unseen at the surface, and fracking fluids could travel a long distance before surfacing somewhere. There are also approximately 150,000 abandoned and unmarked oil and gas wells in the state. Anything pumped down there today can migrate up the open holes of the old wells and reach the formations above.

You've got to know your area...

How much electricity was needed for you to type out your concern for the environment? Drive a car today? Watch TV, or listen to the radio? You want the companies to be concerned for the environment, yet you continue to use products that require the production of energy and the use of natural resources for you to live your daily life. So who, really is at fault? The company for producing the products the you demand or the consumer that continuously increases their demands for products that require natural resources to provide?

Go Solar! :-)

No I did not drive a car yesterday or the day before,I have no car. I understand the need for power but I also want a clean world to live in. Why is it the you have to rape the country and pollute everything? Where I live our power for the most part comes from a renewable source for heating and lights but even then I try to be frugal. I renew, reuse, compost and recycle. I am doing my part what is wrong for the oil company to do the same? Seems the oil industry proved just how little they care about lives or enviroment when they continued drilling when it was coming apart and w/o the one thing that could of stopped this BP disaster. Might want to look up how they hide leaks. What I want is a company not to rape the land. That is not too much to ask. And no matter how much oil you find it is not "our" it goes on the world market. It is our biggest export. If they cared why not keep it here?????

((((((((((((((Sharon))))))))))))) <------ that's a hug.

Lives lost?

I haven't even seen a report of someone getting so much as a headache from fracking.

Perhaps you can show me a single example of an health/death incident directly connected to contaminated water from fracking?

Again, watch the documentary Gasland and you can meet some people who would be happy to raise your awareness about this issue. I have an article about a nurse who was working in the ER who ended up in intensive care because she handled the clothing from a man who had been injured at the well site and had fracking fluid on him. She had a little more than a headache...

I can't fault you for being ignorant.....unless you choose to stay that way.

Troll alert.

He knows full well the truth about fracking. He's here to get you off course. While you're looking up links to prove him wrong, he's posting this crap in another forum.

he's not going to read your response, nor care what it says.

Just move along.

he can join the other pedophile conservatives and do some more little boys. It's what conservatives do.

Mr. Jones78

Lives lost?

I haven't even seen a report of someone getting so much as a headache from fracking

Perhaps you can show me a single example of an health/death incident directly connected to contaminated water from fracking?

Simple question really, yet no answers, no facts, just insults.

Anyone mature adults willing to give me an evidence based response?

(chirp, chirp)

Anyone?

I have an article about a nurse who was working in the ER who ended up in intensive care because she handled the clothing from a man who had been injured at the well site and had fracking fluid on him. She had a little more than a headache...

Do I really need to explain the difference between an industrial accident and someone getting sick from drinking contaminated groundwater?

Please enlighten me with your brilliant mind by actually answering the question.

Here's a link, Mr. Jones.

Sorry I'm so late, I've been out of town for a meeting today, discussing fracking problems in KY.

Lets try this again...

The fracking fluid that was on the mans clothing is the same fracking fluid that they put down the hole to frack the well. It consists of toxic chemicals that are mixed with the "water and sand" that goes down the hole under pressure and fractures the ground. The fact that the oil and gas companys will not disclose what these chemicals are, (because they are protected "secrets"), prevents doctors from knowing how to treat someone who has this fluid on them. They have to know what the chemicals are in order to know what treatment to use.

This well is not just a straight hole in the ground. Once they get to a certain depth they can go out horizontally to the sides in either direction for thousands of feet, so there is a tremendous amount of area that is fractured. These fractures not only allow the gas to flow out of the rock but it also allows the fracking fluid to flow in to all of the fissures and breaks in the ground. This fracking process is like a man made earthquake, it breaks the earth apart and in the process, rearranges the ground structures. It opens up the rock. Arkansas stopped fracking last year because of all the cluster earthquakes it was causing and Ohio has been having the same problem this year.

Only half of this toxic water used in fracking comes back to the surface. We are talking millions of gallons of toxic water used each time they frack and each well can be fracked multiple times. The rest is left in the ground and they have no idea where it is going. They have no control over it. It is flowing thru the fractured rock formations and into peoples wells and aquifers and poisioning their drinking water. Its not just the Methane that is the problem, it is the toxic chemicals that stays in the water and cannot be removed or treated.

I have been trying to give you examples of the health problems connected to fracking , but you seem to dismiss any information people are trying to give you.

Once again I am asking you to watch Gasland. This show covers your questions and more. It interviews REAL people who are living this nightmare. It also gives you a first hand look at how these wells are done and how wide spread these problems are.

Water is not the only thing that is contaminated it is also the air. Last year the air quality in Pinedale, Wy. was 3X the highest limit set by the EPA for air quality. People were told to stay indoors. Pinedale is the site of a huge oil field and their water is also contaminated from the fracking.

Dowser, what a great article! I will use it in my work here in Wy. I am working with the Wyoming Outdoor Council to try and stop a well near my town. Its their 45 anniversary this year and they have asked me to speak about our situation and what we are doing to prevent our town from having the same problems as Pavillion, Wy. which is only 40 miles from here.

People don't realize that a large amount of those tasty steaks and burgers they enjoy are raised on ranches here in Wy. and Texas and that some of these cattle are drinking the water from these fracking areas because that's all they have to drink!

I wonder how many health problems in people are indirectly linked back to fracking even though they are not living in an area where fracking is taking place?

The VERY best of luck to you! I loved Wyoming when I was there, gee, almost 40 years ago. It is a beautiful state with a very fragile ecosystem. Where will the get the water? Water rights in your neck of the woods are critical!

I don't know, I think they're studying it, still. You can find the effects of specific chemicals that are monitored daily for a municipal water supply by looking up the Drinking Water Standards. There are all kinds of links there, so if you have some idea of the chemical you'd like to check, you can find out what it can do to people.

Also, the effects of a contaminant depends on the toxicity of the contaminant, the dose received, the duration of the dose, the size and weight of the person or animal that got the dose, and their general health. Something that might make you sick, could kill me, and animals smaller than I am, would have a 100% mortality rate.

Since we really don't know what is in all those fracking fluids, (EPA is working on that), it is pretty hard to test the effects...

Take care and I will keep your efforts to protect Wyoming's drinking water in my thoughts and prayers.

Yes, water rights are a prime issue here and people are always at odds with each other over it. I am really not sure where they get all of this clean water to use in fracking in other areas. That would be a good question to do more research on.

As far as the well they want to drill near our town, they are going to buy the water from our town! Sure the revenue would be helpful to our small town, but I think we would be taking a big risk in supplying them. Our town has 3 wells where we draw our water from, and if this initial gas well is successful, there will be many more. That is a lot of water! I am skeptical as to whether these 3 wells can support the water usage in our town AND the water usage of the oil field. The initial EA report the BLM put out did not include any information on the down hole water assesment, and this is what we are asking for before they start to drill. The more I look into this the more questions I come up with!

I found it very interesting that, just as this issue of the gas well was being brought to light, our town received a grant for a huge new water storage tank. Usually you have to apply for these grants and most of them require matching funds from the town, but not this one. Gee, do you think this is a coincidence?? NOT!

Keep up the good work and keep me posted on your findings!

Well, I'm not there, so I can't begin to give you any technical answers to your questions. However, it may behoove you to hire a hydrogeologist to look into the areas of recharge for the existing wells, their pumping rates, mechanical efficiencies, and to really examine the formations that supply the public water supply. Your city well field should have a Wellhead Protection Plan, which is mandated by the EPA. If it isn't a good one, then they need to beef it up to protect the water supply.

There are all kinds of options that you can use to protect the city's water supply. If you need me to do so, I will look up some of the references and send you the information via email...

I would start with a hydrogeologic analysis of the wellfield, the Wellhead Protection Plan, AND get the townspeople active in protecting their water supply. One thing you need to be very aware of-- it isn't just the exceptional water use, it isn't just the fracking process, it is also the disposal of the chemicals used in the fracking process. And oil well companies are currently exempt from the Clean Water Act. That makes it much harder to protect the city's supply.

However, you can sign on land owners who may own the properties around the wells and come up with an overlay agreement, whereby those property owners don't allow contaminants on their property. The trouble is that the oil wells are drilled using directional drilling techniques, and they may extend up to 2 miles in radius from the wellhead. So, the effort will be tremendous, but it will be worth it. You'll need to have an overlay that is at least 2 miles in radius from the city's well field, if not larger.

Is your relationship with the city's municipal government good? Is the waste water treatment plant capable of handling the extra load of the chemicals that it may have to accept for treatment?

One thing they may say is that fracking only uses a million gallons over a period of time to complete the fracking process-- and that is true, for the most part-- it is a one time use sort of thing. It does not continually use large amounts of water over a period of years. But the contamination is a long term thing, even if the basic fracking process doesn't last that long.

I hope this helps!

here is one reference that I've used quite a bit. I'd print it up and look into what your city has as a plan.

Here is an EPA web site that is a start on the Wellhead Protection Plan-- it sort of explains what it is, what it is designed to do, and how its done. It also lists references.

Here is the site for the Wyoming Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protection... I'd certainly call them for help in developing overlays or whatever you decide needs to be done.

I wish I were there to help. This is what I do for a living... :-)

And who, pray tell, signs their paycheck? :-)

I am speaking of Wellhead Protection-- an EPA program that is managed by the states designed to protect public drinking water supplies. I am speaking of waste disposal techniques, in addition to the actual fracking process.

Yesterday, I attended a meeting of many of the hydrogeologists in my state-- all of whom are worried about fracking, because WE are the ones that are trying to help with the technicalities of protecting drinking water supplies. I am not alone in my beliefs, by any means.

Got a degree in Geology? I do. I've practiced in my field of hydrogeology for 30 years. I am concerned, because I understand the many mechanisms of contaminant transport. I am concerned, because my current employment is dedicated to protecting a drinking water supply for over a million people.

Quote whomever you wish-- I have 30 years experience in locating drinking water supplies in the midwest, AND 30 years experience discovering the specific modes of contamination and designing recovery systems.

Dowser

I have 30 years experience in locating drinking water supplies in the midwest, AND 30 years experience discovering the specific modes of contamination and designing recovery systems

I've been reading your posts. They have been very informative and eye-opening. When it comes to your profession, I find you unquestionably credible and passionate about the work you do.

Thanks. Your comments are highly valued by me.

Thank you very very much, onefan. I have always loved my job-- and am passionate about protecting drinking water supplies.

We can all live without oil and gas, but none of us can live without water.

You mean this EPA report that raises more questions than it answers?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/09/questions-emerge-on-epas-wyoming-fracking-study/

Some of Encana’s criticisms of the EPA’s approach are downright funny in their suggestion that the agency bungled not just its testing approach, but the test samples themselves.

The company notes that it “is an entirely expected result” for the EPA to find “components of natural gas” upon drilling two monitoring wells 900 feet down into a natural gas reservoir. At that depth, the monitoring wells go far deeper than the level of water wells used by people in the area (typically 300 feet down) and enter into the gas reservoir zone. So it’s no wonder they found gas. “Natural gas developers didn’t put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA’s deep monitoring wells, nature did,” writes Encana.

Encana also notes the curiosity of EPA detecting man-made chemicals in the “blank” quality control water samples. These blanks are supposed to contain only ultra-purifed water. Finding chemicals in blanks “suggest a more likely connection to what it found is due to the problems associated with EPA methodology int he drilling and sampling of these two wells.”

Encana rejects the idea that the poor water quality in the area has to do with recent fracking. It cites U.S. Geological Survey reports from as far back as the 1880s that documented poor water quality in Pavilion. Other USGS reports since 1959 have found the high levels of naturally occurring sulfate and dissolved solids as unsatisfactory for domestic use

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/encana-calls-b-s-on-epas-wyoming-gas-fracking-study/

Maybe the EPA shouldn't have drilled their test wells 600 feet deeper than the local water well, and only 100 feet from the gas source......

Forbes? Yeah great source. Do they also own Forbes Travel? Oh that's right they are owned by Mobile Corporation. Used to be owned by Exon. Anyways, it is a, we shall see issue. I'm happy I'm not a resident of the area. Fracking in shale will be proven to be the more risky area to do this for water contamination anyway they look at it.

Forbes is a better source than some. True, I could have gone to the HuffPo... oh wait, maybe not.... they wouldn't post an article that has anything negative to say about the EPA or positive to say about oil in general. It wouldn't fit their image...

Something I didn't put into consideration on my last post, was how concentrated these .5% of chemicals are.

Oops, wrong article. but comments are still factual.