Add a Comment

Comment by jffree1 on August 22, 2009 at 10:43

"There has never been any study anywhere that confirmed a link between hydraulic fracturing and contamination of drinking water." Not once in 60 years and thousands and thousands of fraced wells.

OK, here's a rebuttal to this statement:

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/09-08-20/news-wells.html

Frack Chemical Contamination

EPA investigates 11 polluted wells

By FRITZ MAYER

PAVILLION, WY — Gas-drilling supporters often make the claim that there has never been a documented case where fracking fluids, used in a deep-drilling operation, have contaminated water wells. Industry critics say that’s not true and explain that most instances of possible contamination go unreported because residents can’t afford adequate testing. Also, because the contents of the fluid are kept secret, residents don’t know what chemicals to test for.

Now, however, industry watchdogs say the contamination of about 40 wells in Wyoming, being investigated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, may provide solid evidence that chemicals used in the fracking process can end up in drinking wells.

The EPA informed concerned residents on August 10 that 11 of 39 wells, tested in an area around Pavillion, were contaminated with various substances connected with gas drilling, and three were contaminated with 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), a substance known to be used in fracking fluids...

Comment by jffree1 on June 14, 2009 at 8:12

Page 25

"A series of federal laws governs most environmental aspects of shale gas development. For
example, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates surface discharges of water associated with shale
gas drilling and production, as well as storm water runoff from production sites. The Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) regulates the underground injection of fluids from shale gas activities. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) limits air emissions from engines, gas processing equipment, and other sources
associated with drilling and production. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires
that exploration and production on federal lands be thoroughly analyzed for environmental
impacts."

Makes you think they have all bases covered... until you get into the hyd. frac. issue. Strictly speaking that is injection. I understand that most of the fluids are recovered in flowback. However, there have been instances where flowback has been a much smaller volume than expected. Did the stuff stay in the formation, maybe trapped in a void (can you prove that?) or did it escape to parts unknown? And, if it's (the frac fluids) still down there, can it go somewhere it's not supposed to? Perplexing questions...

Comment by Les Bamburg on June 14, 2009 at 7:09

Jffree, knowing the DOE I would think they started work on this report in 3rd or 4th Qtr 2008. This would probably have meant the agency started considering this as a potential work project in 1st or 2nd Qtr of 2008 - around the time attention on shale gas as a significant energy supply started to heat up.

Comment by jffree1 on June 14, 2009 at 7:02

I am aware of the publication date, Les. My question was "How long has this report been in the works?" Would you hazard a guess at the lenth of time that went into preparation? It seems to be a response to public interest on the subject (read "hysteria"). Is it just coincidence that it came out when it did? I am not searching for a "conspiracy" here. But I do tend to question... just about everything.

Comment by Les Bamburg on June 14, 2009 at 5:03

Jffree, actually this report has been out since April. You know it takes government agencies a while to generate a report of this nature.

Comment by jffree1 on June 14, 2009 at 4:29

I was struck by the timing. This report appears just as (before, actually) the Bill hits the fan re: SWDA loophole... ? How long did they have to put this together? Maybe "Guest Columnist" could answer that question. His blog series has been excerpts from this same report...