Special anniversary edition: Top 30 infographics on water and fracking issues illustrated.

Please allow 15 seconds to load
Click on headings to open infographics:

So you want to save water:

Top of page

Gulf of Mexico oil spill:

Ten facts about bottled water:

Why you should stop drinking bottled water:

Stop drinking bottled water:

Life of a water bottle:

Bottle water facts:

Bottle water scam:

Water contamination news – fracking

Disputes over environmental impact of ‘fracking’ obscure its future.

Best viewed using Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari web browsers.
Save the Water™ / Water Research / Water Education / Global Water News ©2013

Dairy farmer Carol French holds a jar of water taken in July 2012 from the tap in her home in Sheshequin Township, Pa. French says her water first turned cloudy in March 2011, not long after natural gas companies began conducting hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, nearby.

BRADFORD COUNTY, Pa. — Carol French still has the canning jar full of cloudy and gelatinous water that came out of her well right before her daughter got sick and some of her 40 milk cows developed a rash. She agrees that this jar, by itself, proves nothing about the environmental impact of “fracking,” the drilling technology largely responsible for America’s boom in oil and gas production. You can’t determine the environmental effects of drilling and fracking from one person’s Mason jar full of water.

“I can’t say it’s definitely from the drilling, but there’s strong circumstantial evidence,” French said, referring to nearby natural gas drilling using fracking.

Making that direct connection often isn’t possible even with 1,100 jars. That’s how many examples are on a “list of the harmed,” people who have offered personal stories of harm from fracking, as tallied by the advocacy group Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air.

Beyond such anecdotes, many facts about fracking’s impact on the environment remain hotly contested. Consequences like water contamination have been established, but often it is not clear if they were directly caused by fracking or the result of sloppy drilling practices.

Meanwhile, the scientific studies that do exist suggest there are inconvenient truths for both sides of the fracking debate to confront.

The biggest hurdle for the pro-industry side: The rapid expansion of fracking over the last five years has resulted in confirmed cases of drinking water contamination, a house explosion, and air pollution.

But for those who oppose fracking, there is this: Burning the natural gas produced by fracking may be much better for the environment and public health, over the long run, than burning coal.

As detailed in the first three installments of Power Shift, an NBC News/CNBC special report, the United States is experiencing an energy boom created by new drilling technologies that have unlocked vast domestic oil and natural gas reserves. Proponents of fracking praise its economic benefits, while many foreign policy experts say this developing energy independence may give the U.S. new leverage in world affairs.

Many experts say that concern about the environmental consequences of fracking and other new drilling technologies may be the biggest obstacle to the continued growth of this newfound domestic energy supply.

The future of the industry may depend on whether more cases of environmental damage are documented, and whether they are regarded as unlikely accidents or the inevitable consequence of this expanding search for energy resources. That could, in turn, lead to stricter regulation that could slow or halt new drilling.

For now, your view of the energy boom may depend on whether drilling and fracking are happening in your back yard, as they have been in Carol French’s back yard in northeast Pennsylvania since 2008. Bradford County is the busiest fracking county in the state. Just across the border, in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is considering whether or not to allow fracking, which he says would take place only under “toughest-in-the-nation” environmental regulations. Much of the countryside in both states sits above the Marcellus Shale, the gas-rich band of rock that stretches to Ohio and West Virginia.

Water issues are in dispute
To get the natural gas out of crevices deep underground, companies must pump in vast quantities of water and sand, under enough pressure to fracture rock and release the gas trapped inside. Also in the slurry that comes back up as waste water: toxic chemicals, including some that cause cancer, damage the nervous system, disrupt hormones and mutate genes. And those are just the ones we know about. Oil and gas companies in some states haven’t been compelled to say what’s in their brew, so some don’t.

The companies say the health risks are minimal. As of August 2011, oil and gas companies still said there had never been a documented case of drinking water contaminated by fracking. (The industry claim may still technically be true, using the industry definition of “fracking” to refer only to the process that happens after the drill hole is dug, not the drilling activities necessary before the fracking can occur.)

The first blemish on the industry’s clean record came in a New York Times article documenting such a case from the 1980s. (Demonstration projects for hydraulic fracking began decades earlier in the U.S., though it didn’t become common until the early 2000s.) Then came the most-publicized case of well-water contamination near fracking operations, in Dimock Township, Pa., just east of Bradford County; the federal Environmental Protection Agency said in 2012 that preliminary results found the water was safe to drink, though it did contain chemicals as well as explosive methane. Those results have been debated. The nonprofit investigative news organization Pro Publica has reported numerous confirmed health and safety problems related to drilling and fracking, including a house explosion near Cleveland, Ohio, after gas leaked into the home’s water well.

Fracking is now regulated almost entirely by the states, though the EPA is slowly moving toward federal regulation. In the meantime, government has only lightly tapped the brakes to tighten regulation of the industry.

Drinking water contamination has been the biggest public relations problem for the industry. But the contaminants can come from several sources: from the hydraulic fracturing process itself, from the waste water, from the pits where drilling chemicals are stored, or from transporting chemicals and wastewater. The industry says that examples of contamination are very rare. Lisa Jackson, who was then then the EPA administrator, echoed the industry position that problems aren’t systemic to fracking. “If you get a bad operator in there, somebody who’s not responsible, who’s not seeing how important it is to get this right, they can contaminate an aquifer,” she said in a June 2011 talk. Environmentalists argue that pollution is an unavoidable part of the drilling process, not the result of shoddy practices.

It’s theoretically possible, though unproven, that some of the tainted water and dangerous gases might travel through deep underground crevices to unexpected places, such as the aquifers used for private wells and community water supplies. A July 2012 study by researchers at Duke University and California State Polytechnic University at Pomona found that salty water from deep underground could make its way into drinking water near the surface.

World Water Day 2013 in 15 seconds

Top of page

Water contamination news: Fracking

Fracking defined by Wikipedia®

To view hydraulic fracturing infograghics click on toggles.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer by a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally certain veins or dikes are examples—and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracing, fraccing, or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas, and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction. This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.

What is fracking?

Top of page

The first use of hydraulic fracturing was in 1947. However, it was only in 1998 that modern fracturing technology, referred to as horizontal slickwater fracturing, made possible the economical extraction of shale gas; this new technology was first used in the Barnett Shale in Texas. The energy from the injection of a highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluid creates new channels in the rock, which can increase the extraction rates and ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons.

Drilling for natural gas.

Top of page

Proponents of hydraulic fracturing point to the economic benefits from vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract. Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or banning it.

Fracking at Gates Ranch 3D.

Top of page

History

Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s. It was applied by oil producers in the US states of Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia by using liquid and later also solidified nitroglycerin. Later, the same method was applied to water and gas wells. The idea to use acid as a nonexplosive fluid for well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Due to acid etching, fractures would not close completely and therefore productivity was enhanced. The same phenomenon was discovered with water injection and squeeze cementing operations.

Going a mile below.

Top of page

The relationship between well performance and treatment pressures was studied by Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation. This study became a basis of the first hydraulic fracturing experiment, which was conducted in 1947 at the Hugoton gas field in Grant County of southwestern Kansas by Stanolind. For the well treatment 1,000 US gallons (3,800 l; 830 imp gal) of gelled gasoline and sand from the Arkansas River was injected into the gas-producing limestone formation at 2,400 feet (730 m).

The impact of fracking.

Top of page

The experiment was not very successful as deliverability of the well did not change appreciably. The process was further described by J.B. Clark of Stanolind in his paper published in 1948. A patent on this process was issued in 1949 and an exclusive license was granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company. On March 17, 1949, Halliburton performed the first two commercial hydraulic fracturing treatments in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Archer County, Texas.[15] Since then, hydraulic fracturing has been used to stimulate approximately a million oil and gas wells.

Hydraulic fracturing site 3D.

Top of page

In the Soviet Union, the first hydraulic proppant fracturing was carried out in 1952. In Western Europe in 1977–1985, hydraulic fracturing was conducted at Rotliegend and Carboniferous gas-bearing sandstones in Germany, Netherlands onshore and offshore gas fields, and the United Kingdoms sector of the North Sea. Other countries in Europe and Northern Africa included Norway, the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Tunisia, and Algeria.

Going deep into the shale.

Top of page

Due to shale’s high porosity and low permeability, technology research, development and demonstration were necessary before hydraulic fracturing could be commercially applied to shale gas deposits. In the 1970s the United States government initiated the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydraulic fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

EPA illustrates hydraulic fracturing.

Top of page

In 1977, the Department of Energy pioneered massive hydraulic fracturing in tight sandstone formations. In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources, now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Mitchell Energy, now part of Devon Energy, developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as “slickwater fracturing” which involves adding chemicals to water to increase the fluid flow, that made the shale gas extraction economical.

Fracturing fluid being pumped.

Top of page

Method A hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping the fracturing fluid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure downhole to exceed that of the fracture gradient (pressure gradient) of the rock. The fracture gradient is defined as the pressure increase per unit of the depth due to its density and it is usually measured in pounds per square inch per foot or bars per meter. The rock cracks and the fracture fluid continues further into the rock, extending the crack still further, and so on.

Hydraulic fracturing water loop.

Top of page

Operators typically try to maintain “fracture width”, or slow its decline, following treatment by introducing into the injected fluid a proppant – a material such as grains of sand, ceramic, or other particulates, that prevent the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped and the pressure of the fluid is reduced. Consideration of proppant strengths and prevention of proppant failure becomes more important at greater depths where pressure and stresses on fractures are higher. The propped fracture is permeable enough to allow the flow of formation fluids to the well. Formation fluids include gas, oil, salt water, fresh water and fluids introduced to the formation during completion of the well during fracturing.

Fracking wastewater.

Top of page

During the process fracturing fluid leakoff, loss of fracturing fluid from the fracture channel into the surrounding permeable rock occurs. If not controlled properly, it can exceed 70% of the injected volume. This may result in formation matrix damage, adverse formation fluid interactions, or altered fracture geometry and thereby decreased production efficiency.

Cracked or absent well casing.

Top of page

The location of one or more fractures along the length of the borehole is strictly controlled by various methods that create or seal off holes in the side of the wellbore. Typically, hydraulic fracturing is performed in cased wellbores and the zones to be fractured are accessed by perforating the casing at those locations.

Hydraulic fracturing overview.

Top of page

Hydraulic-fracturing equipment used in oil and natural gas fields usually consists of a slurry blender, one or more high-pressure, high-volume fracturing pumps (typically powerful triplex or quintuplex pumps) and a monitoring unit. Associated equipment includes fracturing tanks, one or more units for storage and handling of proppant, high-pressure treating iron, a chemical additive unit (used to accurately monitor chemical addition), low-pressure flexible hoses, and many gauges and meters for flow rate, fluid density, and treating pressure. Fracturing equipment operates over a range of pressures and injection rates, and can reach up to 100 megapascals (15,000 psi) and 265 litres per second (9.4 cu ft/s) (100 barrels per minute).

Fracturing fluids.

Proppants and fracking fluids and List of additives for hydraulic fracturing

High-pressure fracture fluid is injected into the wellbore, with the pressure above the fracture gradient of the rock. The two main purposes of fracturing fluid is to extend fractures and to carry proppant into the formation, the purpose of which is to stay there without damaging the formation or production of the well. Two methods of transporting the proppant in the fluid are used – high-rate and high-viscosity. High-viscosity fracturing tends to cause large dominant fractures, while high-rate (slickwater) fracturing causes small spread-out micro-fractures.

Fracturing well detailed.

Top of page

This fracture fluid contains water-soluble gelling agents (such as guar gum) which increase viscosity and efficiently deliver the proppant into the formation.

The fluid injected into the rock is typically a slurry of water, proppants, and chemical  additives. Additionally, gels, foams, and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air can be injected. Typically, of the fracturing fluid 90% is water and 9.5% is sand with the chemical additives accounting to about 0.5%.

Hydraulic fracturing trouble brewing.

Top of page

A proppant is a material that will keep an induced hydraulic fracture open, during or following a fracturing treatment, and can be gel, foam, or slickwater-based. Fluids make tradeoffs in such material properties as viscosity, where more viscous fluids can carry more concentrated proppant; the energy or pressure demands to maintain a certain flux pump rate (flow velocity) that will conduct the proppant appropriately; pH, various rheological factors, among others. Types of proppant include silica sand, resin-coated sand, and man-made ceramics.

Fracking toxic chemicals.

Top of page

These vary depending on the type of permeability or grain strength needed. The most commonly used proppant is silica sand, though proppants of uniform size and shape, such as a ceramic proppant, is believed to be more effective. Due to a higher porosity within the fracture, a greater amount of oil and natural gas is liberated.

Dangers of fracking.

Top of page

The fracturing fluid varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, the conditions of the specific well being fractured, and the water characteristics. A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12 additive chemicals. Although there may be unconventional fracturing fluids, the typical used chemical additives are:

•Acids—hydrochloric acid (usually 28%-5%), or acetic acid is used in the pre-fracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.

•Sodium chloride (salt)—delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.

•Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers—minimizes the friction between fluid and pipe, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface. Polyacrylamide are good suspension agents ensuring the proppant does not fall out.

• Ethylene glycol—prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.

•Borate salts—used for maintaining fluid viscosity during the temperature increase.

•Sodium and potassium carbonates—used for maintaining effectiveness of crosslinkers.

•Glutaraldehyde—used as disinfectant of the water (bacteria elimination).

•Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents—increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.

•Citric acid—used for corrosion prevention.

•Isopropanol—increases the viscosity of the fracture fluid.

The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.

Typical fluid types.

• Conventional linear gels. These gels are cellulose derivatives (carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl hydroxyl ethyl cellulose), guar or its derivatives (hydroxypropyl guar, carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar) based, with other chemicals providing the necessary chemistry for the desired results.

•Borate-crosslinked fluids. These are guar-based fluids cross-linked with boron ions (from aqueous borax/boric acid solution). These gels have higher viscosity at pH 9 onwards and are used to carry proppants. After the fracturing job the pH is reduced to 3–4 so that the cross-links are broken and the gel is less viscous and can be pumped out.

•Organometallic-crosslinked fluids zirconium, chromium, antimony, titanium salts are known to crosslink the guar based gels. The crosslinking mechanism is not reversible. So once the proppant is pumped down along with the cross-linked gel, the fracturing part is done. The gels are broken down with appropriate breakers.

•Aluminium phosphate-ester oil gels. Aluminium phosphate and ester oils are slurried to form cross-linked gel. These are one of the first known gelling systems.

Fracking contamination of water.

Top of page

For slickwater it is common to include sweeps or a reduction in the proppant concentration temporarily to ensure the well is not overwhelmed with proppant causing a screen-off. As the fracturing process proceeds, viscosity reducing agents such as oxidizers and enzyme breakers are sometimes then added to the fracturing fluid to deactivate the gelling agents and encourage flowback. The oxidizer reacts with the gel to break it down, reducing the fluid’s viscosity and ensuring that no proppant is pulled from the formation.

Fracking: not enough water.

Top of page

An enzyme acts as a catalyst for the breaking down of the gel. Sometimes pH modifiers are used to break down the crosslink at the end of a hydraulic fracturing job, since many require a pH buffer system to stay viscous.  At the end of the job the well is commonly flushed with water (sometimes blended with a friction reducing chemical) under pressure.

Fracking farmland.

Top of page

Injected fluid is to some degree recovered and is managed by several methods, such as underground injection control, treatment and discharge, recycling, or temporary storage in pits or containers while new technology is being continually being developed and improved to better handle waste water and improve re-usability.

Fracking fact: One job – water usage.

Top of page

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Water issues illustrated with infographics

Please allow 15 seconds to load
Click on headings to open infographics:

So you want to save water:

Top of page

Gulf of Mexico oil spill:

Ten facts about bottled water:

Why you should stop drinking bottled water:

Life of a water bottle:

Bottle water facts:

Contaminated water news: Fracking

Fracking waste could go to N.C. coastal towns if ban is lifted.

Anne Blythe | The News & Observer/McClatchy Washington Bureau / Tue, Mar. 05, 2013

Water health and education news: Fracking

Hazardous fracking solution shuts down Loop 1604.

SAN ANTONIO — A truck hauling 3,000 gallons of a hazardous material shut down Loop 1604 for several hours on Monday after overturning in the southbound lane.

San Antonio firefighters responded to Loop 1604 near I-10 East around 7:30 a.m.

SAFD spokesperson Christian Bove said the 18-wheeler was carrying a dozen 250-gallon totes of a solution used for fracking. More specifically, the solution is a mixture of borate salts and crystalline silica.

Fewer than 100 gallons leaked through vent holes and was mostly contained inside the trailer, Bove explained.

a hazardous materials crew removed the diesel fuel from the truck. Bove said a private company was called to remove the solution.

The HazMat crew is expected to then decontaminate the truck and have it cleared from the roadway by 3:30 p.m.

Scientists from the University of Michigan will be speaking before Michigan officials and politicians Tuesday in Lansing on a hydraulic fracturing impact study they’re conducting.

The study will evaluate the potential effects on people and the environment that the controversial practice could have in Michigan.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an industry practice used to extract fossil fuels from the ground. A classified mix of chemicals, sand and water is pumped deep into the ground at high pressures to fracture thin barriers of rock in between pockets of natural gas or oil.

Invited to attend are the members of the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives, state officials, industry representatives, researchers and individuals from non-governmental organizations. Though the public cannot attend the 1:30 p.m. briefing, which will be at the Radisson Hotel Lansing, a live stream of the event is accessible online. Pre-registration for the live stream is required.

The two-year research project was announced in November, when Gov. Rick Snyder said the state would be partnering with the U-M researchers on the study. Findings of technical reports in the study will be announced in June, and the final draft of the research project will be presented publicly in mid-2014.

In 2012 alone there were 1,600,000 newly diagnosed cancer discoveries in the United States. Some 1,500 people die of cancer every day, according to the American Cancer Society. It is the second leading cause of death in the United States — accounting for one of every four deaths.

Is this the time to proceed with the massive introduction of fracking into our society?

One in every three fracking operations in the US use known cancer-causing agents — this according to voluntary reporting by the natural gas industry itself. The three most common carcinogens, according to the industry, are naphthalene, benzyl chloride, and formaldehyde.

In fact, nobody knows exactly which chemicals, or how much, are used in hydraulic fracturing operations. The industry fights hard to keep specific ingredients used in the process secret; there exists no uniform national disclosure law for fracking and, in one of the more extreme travesties of transgenerational justice in world, the process is exempt from most environmental oversight due to the 2004 “Haliburton Loophole” enacted under the administration of President George W. Bush.

Further, the industry has lobbied, successfully, to ban doctors from discussing with their patients the links between symptoms and the chemicals used in fracking. The State of Pennsylvania forbids doctors from warning the community of water and air contaminants linked to fracking chemicals; indeed, The New England Journal of Medicine last year cited the fracking industry as “infringing on the patient-physician relationship”.

No less of a tree-hugging, liberal extremist group as Bloomberg Business News reported that “fracking secrets by the thousands keep US clueless on wells.”

To be fair, the industry does provide — on a voluntary basis — some information about the ingredients it uses to blow up the Earth’s bedrock formations hundreds of feet underground. It probably is quite happy, of course, that nobody ever hears about it — drowned out, certainly, by the noise made from its multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns and political contributions.

Still, a study of the SkyTruthFrackingChemicalDataBase (a voluntary industry self-reporting system) found 11,586 separate instances of recognized carcinogens used in hydraulic fracturing operations during the 20 months the database covers. Three known carcinogens were reported most frequently: naphthalene, benzyl chloride and formaldehyde.

Other known carcinogens found in the fracking process include Toluene, Benzene, Lead, Crystalline Silica and Sulfuric Acid — and many more.

Studies which document the health hazards of fracking are increasing. One report, by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, predicts that ‘hundreds of tons’ of toxic chemicals from the fracking process would ‘likely’ be dispersed into the water supply.

Another recent study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSHA) found high levels of silica dust used in fracking operations. The study documented dangerously high levels of silica dust at 79% of all fracking sites tested.

Silica dust has plagued miners and construction workers throughout history. It causes silcosis — an incurable lung disease. Once contracted, people “can live a few years or a few months“, according to the American Lung Association.

The study led OSHA to issue, in June 2012, an official “Hazard Alert” for workers at fracking sites.

The alert seen here

The alert — seen here – provides clear information about the dangers of silicon dust in fracking, yet also reflects a continued hands-off, industry-friendly approach of the federal government towards the fracking industry. The alert offers suggestions for workers and industry to ’minimize risks’ (including using alternative chemicals “when possible”) — while making no mention whatsoever of any potential regulatory action to either limit or restrict the use of this highly toxic substance in the first place.

This should come as no surprise, as the report and subsequent hazard alert were both produced in partnership with oil and gas industry leaders and trade associations.

Fracking has been associated with severe water contamination, toxic air pollution and, due to the methane involved, as an important contributor to climate change. In an era of public health so consumed by cancer (annual cost is currently estimated at $200 billion), fracking’s relationship to cancer ought to be given greater public scrutiny in the ongoing debate.

Thomas Paine said “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly“. Fracking has already obtained significant wealth — and thus, some esteem — all very lightly, while the predictable leukemias, lymphomas, and lung cancers merit barely a whisper beyond a toothless alert penned in part by the very industry in question.

In today’s Age of Cancer, the Age of Reason merits another look.

Authors Note – the author, in addition to journalism, is a surgical technologist on the intra-operative nursing staff at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York.

About Don Lieber

Don Lieber’s writing and research has has published by the United Nations, The Associated Press, The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, E-The Environmental Magazine and others. He contributes environmental writing regularly to PlanetSave.com. He lives in New York with his girlfriend, his daughter, his bass, and his cat.

Read more at http://planetsave.com/2013/03/05/fracking-in-the-age-of-cancer/#uTSR2XwcKx7x97Vk.99

Read more Top of page

Water news archives – 600 articles-March 2012~Feb 2013: updated daily – click here   Support Save the Water™ click here.

Supporting the water research and education programs of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed today.

Water News

Fracking must wait for year in New York.

Drilling Delayed as Regulators Put Off Decision on Gas.

By Reuters / Published February 14, 2013. / forward.com

The fracking debate in New York state is hitting new heights as regulators delay a final decision on the controversial natural gas production method, but it looks increasingly clear that it will be a year – if ever – before drilling begins again.

Governor Andrew Cuomo missed a Wednesday deadline for completing a report on the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, that was to form the basis for new drilling rules.

As a result, a now-four year moratorium on shale gas drilling in the Empire State could extend into 2014 forcing companies such as Chesapeake Energy and a host of smaller independents to sit on their idle land leases and wait.

Over the last decade, U.S. energy companies have advanced hydraulic fracturing techniques, unlocking vast quantities of natural gas and oil trapped in shale rock. But drilling in New York’s portion of the Marcellus shale deposit, one of the biggest in the country, has been halted since 2008 amid concerns that fracking, which involves pumping chemical-laced water and sand deep below the surface, can contaminate water supplies.

Fracking has become a hugely divisive issue in New York where communities are weighing the economic benefits of allowing energy development against the environmental concerns.

However, even if the drilling is allowed to proceed in the coming months, legal battles could hold up well permits, potentially delaying energy production for another year, according to lawyers representing both sides.

“I don’t think we’ll see a drill bit in the ground until early 2014,” said Tom West, an attorney at the West Firm, which represents oil and gas companies in the state. “The outcome remains uncertain, as it has done for the last four and a half years, and we are very disappointed,” he said of Wednesday’s missed deadline.

The delay has pitched an increasingly vocal environmental lobby, many of whom want no more wells drilled in the New York, against energy companies invested in the state and frustrated by the pause. Both sides point to neighboring Pennsylvania, also home to the Marcellus, which has experienced a drilling boom and attracted huge investment over the past five years, but which has also experienced a number of drilling-related accidents.

New York’s environmental impact statement was held back this week after the Department of Health requested more time to complete a parallel health impact study that the state wants completed before any decision on drilling is taken.

The decision to delay, announced by the Department of Environmental Conservation on Tuesday, prompted cheers from the celebrity-studded environmental lobby, including New York state resident and anti fracking activist Yoko Ono, who said “We love you, Governor,” in a public email.

But behind the scenes, both sides are bracing for legal entanglements.

The Joint Landowners Coalition, a pro-fracking group, is planning to sue the New York Department of Environmental Conservation after Wednesday’s deadline was missed, on the grounds that delaying drilling was a “de facto taking of property rights,” according to the group’s attorney Scott Kurkoski.

And if regulations are written up and drilling is allowed to go ahead, experts expect anti-fracking groups to also jump in.

“The courts will get a lot of lawsuits and people are going to want to intervene on each side,” said Kate Sinding, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York.

In the meantime, stays on drilling permits are likely, some attorneys said. And even if the state passes the drilling permits, more than 150 New York cities and towns have their own fracking bans, a fact which is already prompting lawsuits.

“This could be tied up in the courts for well over a year. I think it is likely that it will be 2014 before we see any permits,” Sinding said. Read more:

Fracking in New York? – Not for another year – if ever.

The fracking debate in New York state is hitting new heights as regulators delay a final decision on the controversial natural gas production method, but it looks increasingly clear that it will be a year – if ever – before drilling begins again.

By Edward McAllister /www.scientificamerican.com

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The fracking debate in New York state is hitting new heights as regulators delay a final decision on the controversial natural gas production method, but it looks increasingly clear that it will be a year – if ever – before drilling begins again.

Governor Andrew Cuomo missed a Wednesday deadline for completing a report on the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, that was to form the basis for new drilling rules.

As a result, a now-four year moratorium on shale gas drilling in the Empire State could extend into 2014 forcing companies such as Chesapeake Energy and a host of smaller independents to sit on their idle land leases and wait.

Over the last decade, U.S. energy companies have advanced hydraulic fracturing techniques, unlocking vast quantities of natural gas and oil trapped in shale rock. But drilling in New York’s portion of the Marcellus shale deposit, one of the biggest in the country, has been halted since 2008 amid concerns that fracking, which involves pumping chemical-laced water and sand deep below the surface, can contaminate water supplies.

Fracking has become a hugely divisive issue in New York where communities are weighing the economic benefits of allowing energy development against the environmental concerns.

However, even if the drilling is allowed to proceed in the coming months, legal battles could hold up well permits, potentially delaying energy production for another year, according to lawyers representing both sides.

“I don’t think we’ll see a drill bit in the ground until early 2014,” said Tom West, an attorney at the West Firm, which represents oil and gas companies in the state. “The outcome remains uncertain, as it has done for the last four and a half years, and we are very disappointed,” he said of Wednesday’s missed deadline.

The delay has pitched an increasingly vocal environmental lobby, many of whom want no more wells drilled in the New York, against energy companies invested in the state and frustrated by the pause. Both sides point to neighboring Pennsylvania, also home to the Marcellus, which has experienced a drilling boom and attracted huge investment over the past five years, but which has also experienced a number of drilling-related accidents.

Water contamination education news – fracking

Professor looks at contamination, environmental impact of fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing provides method to extract gas from rocks, could potentially harm people

By Paul Solin / Contributing Writer/ dailytargum / Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:00 am

Best viewed using Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari web browsers (not Internet Explorer).

To view pictures enlarged right click on image.

Although the demand for energy resources is high, methodologies used to extract these resources could potentially be harmful to both people and the environment.

About 50 people attended the “Hydraulic Fracturing of Shale and Water Quality” lecture sponsored by the Rutgers Energy Institute yesterday at the Wright-Rieman Auditorium on Busch Campus to listen to a seminar by Pennsylvania State University Professor Susan L. Brantley about her research on hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing is a mining technique energy companies have used since the ’40s to extract natural gas from rocks, and is utilized especially in places like Pennsylvania where Brantley said she has done most of her work.

Pennsylvania has utilized newer high-pressure techniques since 2004, she said.

Methane is the natural gas that companies mine for energy. Methane is created when organic matter is trapped and processed underground between rocks over the span of 260 to 389 million years, she said.

The United States Energy Information Administration estimates a total of 2,119 trillion cubic feet of recoverable methane in th

e U.S., Brantley said. Sixty percent of it is located in low permeable rock formations, which are hard substances that are difficult to drill through.

The biggest of these is the Marcellus formation, found throughout New York and Pennsylvania, she said. Gas found at these sites could satisfy U.S. energy demands for 20 years.

Companies drill thousands of feet into the ground and pour cement into a well so that gas does not escape into the water supply. But Brantley said the drilling alone could also cause complications.

A mixture of roughly 94 percent water, five percent sand, and less than one percent of chemicals and other additives are used in the fracturing process to separate rock layers of varying depth below the earth’s surface, she said.

Each company uses a different proprietary mix of these “frack fluids” to draw the gas up from the wells, which include ingredients such as walnut shells and coffee grounds, she said.

Sometimes gas and water in the rocks overflow and are pumped to surface, Brantley said. Saltwater flows back up through rock fractures as a result of the mining.

The number of wells in development has grown rapidly in the past decade, including new areas where people are not used to seeing these kinds of operations, she said. Public pushback has been significant — about 3,000 reports of land spills over the past decade.

The number of violations reported has scaled down compared to the number of new sites created in recent years, she said.

Many communities and environmentalists also expressed concern about water contamination from the chemicals and other environmental detriments. Fracking caused a stir of controversy last December, when a tractor-trailer driving through Salladsburg, Pa. spilled fracking fluid into a nearby watershed, she said.

John Reinfelder, a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, said he is concerned about fracking’s effect on the environment.

“We’re creating a situation where we’re trading cleaning up air pollution with creating water pollution,” he said.

The government only filed two official cases of contamination created by fracking. The first was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1987 but was later dismissed as inaccurate, Brantley said. Another case concerning a site in Pavillion, Wyo. is ongoing, Brantley said.

Penn State researchers have published studies on fracking and discovered that 23 percent of private wells had contaminants before drilling, she said, but a separate study suggested the number could be as high as 85 percent.

The statistical gap is probably the result of the United State’s diversity of topographies, varying enough to make a general assumption about the flow of contaminants inconclusive, she said.

Brantley said she and other researchers have teamed up with government agencies such as the National Science Foundation to build the Shale Network, a database that shares information about ground water quality in affected communities.

Ben Jellen, a School of Environmental and Biological Sciences graduate student, said University students should be concerned about this issue as well.

“This is obviously a national issue about energy,” he said. “We really can’t say no to everything — fracking, the keystone pipeline … we’ve got to say yes to something.”

Water contamination news: Fracking

Mansfield lawmaker fights against injection well drilling.

Best viewed using Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari web browsers (not Internet Explorer).
wkyc.com / 8:07 PM, Feb 11, 2013 | Russ Mitchell

MANSFIELD — The implication of drilling and fracking in Ohio hit home in Mansfield for Law Director John Spon.

“We’re not afraid of new technology, but we have an absolute duty to protect our city,” he explains. At issue are injection wells, which house the brine water leftover from fracking. A Texas company, Preferred Fluids Management, wanted to drill two of them in Mansfield but, before ground could be broken, Spon raised a red flag.

“No one has ever done a study that determines the long-term affects of injecting millions and millions of barrels of toxic fluid into the ground within a defined area,” he says. “What we do know, from past history, is that that toxic fluid will migrate and it can migrate vertically, and it can migrate to our water source, our drinking water source. So, that alone says there’s little room for mistake because, without water, that’s the end of the community.”

Spon drafted a historically unprecedented chemical trespass ordinance that would hold companies accountable if toxic fluid migrated into drinking water.

“Any company that really wants to responsibly move forward with their industry, then they need to be a shining example of what can be done when you work hand in hand with both their legitimate interest to make profit as well as the legitimate interest to protect the environment,” he says.

“I am very confident that somewhere along the road, in an age of technology, that we can find a middle ground, but we aren’t there because the industry so far does not want to spend those monies to do anything except maximize their profits for their short-term gains.”

The Texas company eventually cut their losses and backed off from drilling injection wells in Mansfield.

Spon continues to fight for his city’s best interests.

“A city like Mansfield makes nothing from [deep injection wells], and we’re left with the residual problem, which could jeopardize our community for generations to come.”

STW™ Note: A Penn State University study from December 17, 2012 has found the chemical makeup of flow back water from fracking wells in the Marcellus Shale Region of Pennsylvania, concluding that the radio active materials picked up by the fracking water are from brines formed 4 millions years ago during the Paleozoic era. The water contained barium and radium which are radioactive materials found naturally 8,000 feet below the surface of the earth.

Analysis of Marcellus flowback finds high levels of ancient brines.

Monday, December 17, 2012 / The Pennsylvania State University © 2002-2013

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Brine water that flows back from gas wells in the Marcellus Shale region after hydraulic fracturing is many times more salty than seawater, with high contents of various elements, including radium and barium. The chemistry is consistent with brines formed during the Paleozoic era, a study by an undergraduate-student and two professors in Penn State’s Department of Geosciences found.

The study indicates that the brine flowback elements found in high levels in the late stages of hydraulic fracturing come from the ancient brines rather than from salts dissolved by the water and chemicals used as part of the fracking process. The paper by Lara O. Haluszczak, a Penn State student who has since graduated; professor emeritus Arthur W. Rose; and Lee R. Kump, professor and head of the Department of Geosciences; detailing those findings has been accepted for publication in Applied Geochemistry, the journal of the International Association of Geochemistry, and is available online.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data primarily from four sources: a report on brines from 40 conventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania; data on flowback waters from 22 Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania that the state Bureau of Oil and Gas Management had collected; flowback waters from two Marcellus gas wells from a previous study; and an industry study by the Marcellus Shale Coalition on flowback samples from eight horizontal wells that was reported in a Gas Technology Inst report.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process used to release natural gas from the shale formations deep underground. The process involves drilling down thousands of feet and, in the case of horizontal wells, sideways, then injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to release the gas. The paper notes that about a quarter of the volume of fluid used for fracking returns to the surface but with the brine as a major component.

The paper looked at fluids that flowed back within 90 days of fracking. The samples analyzed in the study come from wells in Pennsylvania, along with two from northern Virginia.

The analysis shows that the brine flowback had extremely high salinity that does not match the chemical composition of the solution put into the wells during the fracking process. Instead, the elements being released are similar to those deposited during the Paleozoic era, hundreds of millions of years ago. Rose said the naturally occurring radioactive materials being brought to the surface after having been 8,000 feet deep were deposited with formations in that era.

Rose said while much attention has been focused on the chemicals that are injected into the shale formation during the fracking process, also of concern is the release of elements such as barium and radium that have been in the ground for millions of years. “Even if it’s diluted quite a bit, it’s still going to be above the drinking water limits,”he said. “There’s been very little research into this.”

Pennsylvania does have regulations on the disposal of fracking fluids. Rose said the findings highlight the importance of re-use and proper disposal of fracking fluids, including those from the later stages of drilling.

“Improper disposal of the flowback can lead to unsafe levels of these and other constituents in water, biota and sediment from wells and streams,” the researchers noted.

“The high salinity and toxicity of these waters must be a key criterion in the technology for disposal of both the flowback waters and the continuing outflow of the production waters,” the paper concluded.

Injection well

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image on right: Deep injection well for disposal of hazardous, industrial and municipal wastewater

An injection well is a vertical pipe in the ground into which water, other liquids, or gases are pumped or allowed to flow.

Applications

Injection wells are used for many purposes.

Waste disposal

One application is waste water disposal, in which treated waste water is injected into the ground between impermeable layers of rocks to avoid polluting fresh water supplies or adversely affecting quality of receiving waters. Injection wells are usually constructed of solid walled pipe to a deep elevation in order to prevent injectate from mixing with the surrounding environment.^[1]

Injection wells are widely considered to be the best method for disposal of treated waste water.^{[citation needed]} Unlike outfalls or other direct disposal techniques, injection wells utilize the earth as a filter to further clean the treated wastewater before it reaches the receiving water. This method of waste water disposal also serves to spread the injectate over a wide area, further decreasing environmental impacts.

Critics of waste water injection wells cite concerns relating to the injectate polluting receiving waters. Most environmental engineering professionals, however, consider waste water treatment followed by disposal through injection wells to be the most cost effective and environmentally responsible method of waste water treatment.^{[citation needed]} The only known alternatives to injection wells are direct discharge of treated waste water to receiving waters or utilization of the treated water for irrigation. Direct discharge does not disperse the water over a wide area; the environmental impact is focused on a particular segment of a river and its downstream reaches, or on a coastal waterbody. Extensive irrigation is often prohibitively expensive and requires ongoing maintenance and large electricity usage.^{[citation needed]}

Oil and gas production

Oil and gas production

Another use of injection wells is in petroleum production. Steam, carbon dioxide, water, and other substances can be injected into an oil-producing unit in order to maintain reservoir pressure, heat the oil or lower its viscosity, allowing it to flow to a producing well nearby.^[2] See also Enhanced oil recovery.

Waste site remediation

Yet another use for injection wells is in environmental remediation, for cleanup of either soil or groundwater contamination. Injection wells can insert clean water into an aquifer, thereby changing the direction and speed of groundwater flow, perhaps towards extraction wells downgradient, which could then more speedily and efficiently remove the contaminated groundwater. Injection wells can also be used in cleanup of soil contamination, for example by use of an ozonation system. Complex hydrocarbons and other contaminants trapped in soil and otherwise inaccessible can be broken down by ozone, a highly reactive gas, often with greater cost-effectiveness than could be had by digging out the affected area. Such systems are particularly useful in built-up urban environments where digging may be impractical due to overlying buildings.^[3]

Aquifer recharge

Recently the option of refilling natural aquifers with injection or percolation has become more important, particularly in the driest region of the world, the MENA region.^[4]

Surface runoff can also be recharged into dry wells, or simply barren wells that have been modified to functions as cisterns.^[5] These hybrid stormwater management systems called recharge wells have the advantage of aquifer recharge and instantaneous supply of potable water at the same time. They can utilize existing infrastructure and require very little effort for the modification and operation. The activation can be as simple as inserting a polymer cover (foil) into the well shaft. Vertical pipes for conduction of the overflow to the bottom can enhance performance. The area around the well acts as funnel. If this area is maintained well the water will require little purification before it enters the cistern.^[6]

Regulatory requirements

In the United States, injection well activity is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state governments under the Safe Drinking Water Act.^[1] EPA has issued Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations in order to protect drinking water sources.^[7][8] The EPA has six classes of injection wells. Class I wells are used for the injection of municipal and industrial wastes beneath underground sources of drinking water. Class II wells are used for the injection of fluids associated with oil and gas production. Class III wells are used for the injection of fluids used in mineral solution mining beneath underground sources of drinking water. Class IV wells, like Class I wells, are used for the injection of hazardous wastes but inject waste into or above underground sources of drinking water instead of below. Class V wells are used for all injections that are not covered by Classes I-IV. Finally, Class VI wells are used for the injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for sequestration, or long term storage. Currently, there are no Class VI wells but 6-10 wells are expected to be in use by 2016.^[9]

Notes

1. ^ ^{a b} U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Washington, DC. “Basic Information about Injection Wells.” Updated 2010-01-22.
2. ^ EPA. Washington, DC. “Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells (Class II).” Updated 2010-01-22.
3. ^ EPA. New York, NY (2003-04-17). “EPA Announces Cleanup Plan for Contaminated Soil and Ground Water at Central Islip Superfund Site.” Example of use of ozonation wells for remediation in situ.
4. ^ H2O magazine (2010-10-16). “Strategic reserve” by Anoop K Menon
5. ^ H2O magazine (2011-05-03). “Recharging dry wells.” by Nicol-André Berdellé
6. ^ Prototype-Creation (2011-04-20). “Recharge wells and ASR.” by Nicol-André Berdellé
7. ^ EPA. Washington, DC. “Underground Injection Control Program: Regulations.” Updated 2010-01-22.
8. ^ EPA. Washington, DC (July 2001). “Technical Program Overview: Underground Injection Control Regulations.” Document no. EPA 816-R-02-025.
9. ^ EPA. “Underground Injection Control: Classes of Wells.” Updated 2012-03-06.

References

• US Army Environmental Center. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (2002). “Deep Well Injection.” Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. 4th ed. Report no. SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-97053.

External links

• EPA – Underground Injection Control Program

This page was last modified on 22 January 2013 at 02:04. / Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. / Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Top of page

Water news archives – 600 articles-March 2012~Feb 2013: updated daily – click here Support Save the Water™ click here.

Supporting the water research and education programs of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed today.

Contaminated water news: Fracking USA

Forum speakers warn: Yes – fracking is dangerous.

By Jim Phillips / Athens News / Wednesday, February 6,2013

Photo Credits: Joel Prince for The Athens NEWS
Photo Caption: Dr. Deborah Cowden, speaks to an audience at the Ohio Environmental Council’s Shale Gas Drilling & Injection Well Forum Tuesday.

Sources in the oil-and-gas industry and government regulators have both been quoted repeatedly as saying that “fracking” for oil and gas is a relatively safe process, which when properly regulated, should pose minimal hazards to public health and safety.

Speakers at a public forum in Athens Tuesday, however, begged to differ in a big way.

Deborah Cowden, a Dayton-area physician practicing family medicine, warned an audience of about 40 people that recent scientific studies of the air pollution from horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations indicate it may pose extremely serious health risks to people living within a mile-and-a-half of such sites.

Cowden said studies of the amounts of organic compounds that typically come out of a fracking site suggest that these risks have been “vastly understated” in earlier literature, and include increased likelihoods of cancer, respiratory problems, immune system dysfunction, and interference with child development.

At a forum in Athens sponsored by the Ohio Environmental Council, a statewide non-profit group, Cowden focused on a major study by the University of Colorado’s School of Public Health. In that study, she said, researchers took 163 samples of the air near a fracking operation in Colorado on a regular basis from January 2008 to November 2010.

What they found was some 78 different volatile organic chemicals being released into the air, many of them serious known toxins. She said these chemicals appear to have come from multiple sources including the drilling operation itself, leakage, deliberate flaring or venting of gas, engines used to power the drilling, condensation tanks, compressor stations and diesel trucks.

They included benzene, toluene and different forms of xylene, of which Cowden noted, “no one argues that these are (not) terribly toxic chemicals.” She also pointed out that some of the worst chemicals, such as these three, were found in 100 percent of the samples taken in the study.

Benzene, she said, is linked to blood cancers such as leukemia, as well as to disruption of the human immune system.

Cowden also warned that past studies looking at the impacts of such chemicals on human health have largely been based on exposures in the workplace – which means that the human subjects were being exposed to the chemicals only while on the job, and their bodies had a chance to detoxify during their off hours. For someone living within a mile of a fracking site, however, she said, exposure might be nearly round-the-clock, meaning the health impacts could be much more serious.

“This is experimenting on a population without your consent,” she said.

Cowden blasted a recently enacted Ohio law that limits physicians’ ability to share the ingredients of a fracking fluid – which are considered to be a company’s trade secret – with others. For example, she said, she is not allowed to share this information with firefighters or emergency medical personnel who may show up to a leak or explosion at a fracking site, or with the neighbors of a patient who she believes may be suffering from exposure to chemicals from a well site.

Under the so-called “gag order” on physicians including in Ohio Senate Bill 315, Cowden said, companies have 60 days from the start of oil-and-gas production to reveal the contents of the fracking fluid they use to shatter underground shale beds. In the meantime, she asked, “how are we going to know what chemicals are there if there’s no data?”

Cowden argued that it’s ludicrous to suggest a physician would be interested in obtaining proprietary information on fracking fluid in order to start his or her own drilling operation and compete in the oil-and-gas market. As for a company’s actual competitors in the industry, she said, they can find out the formula for a fracking fluid simply by ordering a barrel of it and having it analyzed in a lab. She said this raises the question of whom, exactly, SB 315 is trying to keep in the dark about the chemical content of these fluids.

“It’s not the competitors, and it’s not the doctors,” Cowden said. “Who are they afraid of? Think about this.”

Shawn Bennett, a spokesperson for group Energy in Depth in Ohio, said he believes the University of Colorado report is flawed in multiple ways. Bennett said the sampling was done “about a mile downwind of I-70,” and that much of the VOC volume found could have been coming from auto exhausts.

He also noted that Colorado passed more stringent regulations on VOCs in 2010, so that the data from the study may already be obsolete.

Energy in Depth describes itself on its website as “a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other ‘tight’ reservoirs across the country.”

ANOTHER SPEAKER AT the forum focused on what she called the massive impacts fracking will have on a finite, non-renewable, and crucially important resource – fresh water.

Orianna Carter, an associate professor of biological science at Ohio University’s Southern Campus in Ironton, noted that the earth has undergone some very serious droughts in the past few years, and that 2012 was the hottest year on record in a century of record-keeping.

In some parts of the United States in recent years, Carter said, “waters are sizzling,” fish are dying, and water levels are dropping.

She alleged that none of the serious issues associated with enormous water use have been addressed by the oil-and-gas industry. Carter expressed the most concern about the large Ogallala aquifer in the western United States, which she said has enabled the historically bountiful crop production in that part of the country. Inevitably, she suggested, the huge amounts of water needed for horizontal fracking, which requires millions of gallons for each well, will have to be drawn from the limited supply of fresh water needed for agriculture, human consumption and other uses.

“We’re draining our aquifers,” she warned. “This is important, because there’s going to be a day when there’s not going to be enough water for everybody.”

Carter gently mocked the pronouncements from industry sources and government regulators, in which she said fracking “sounds pretty safe altogether.” But even setting aside pollution concerns, she said, the sheer volume of fresh water required for the process should be alarming.

“My concern is, do we have that much water to spare?” she asked.

Bennett of Energy in Depth responded by noting that when a natural gas such as methane is burned, one of the products is water, which replenishes the water cycle.

“When you burn methane, you are creating H₂0,” he said.

How to navigate STW ™ postings:
Monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed: see bottom index of page.
Explanation of Index:
This Months Postings: Calendar displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your name and e-mail address a confirmation will be sent to you.