Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on October 17, 2011 at 20:10

Radioactive school bleachers??  I've heard everything now.  Gives a whole new meaning to "hot seat".

 

So, the radioactivity comes from deep inside the ground?  When the water injected is returned up with it?

 

Dueling Studies .... thanks to you both for the links.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on October 17, 2011 at 21:55

i'm not sure how any of these studies could duel, they're not even in the same zip code.  not only is the drill pipe thing totally and completely irrelevant, the op's link is a blurb concerning current information about frac fluid contamination in the fayetteville, while the rambling SA article is primarily concerning radioactive contamination in the marcellus.  this is apples and oranges.  or i should say, apples and disingenuous oranges?

 

the main thrust of the SA article is to slime shale gas as much as possible, but in reality if they're so deeply concerned about radiation and other really bad stuff resulting from the production of energy they should be writing more articles about coal.  also, the study that the article is built around says that water taken right out of a flowback from the formation had a good chance of picking up some radioactivity?  this is news?  not hardly.  they also cite some arbitrary and unknown "standard" for "discharging into the environment" which the worst water sample exceeded by some exponential figure.  first of all, this implies that the industry is just flushing this frac water, which is patently false despite being reported as truth numerous times, and secondly, i suspect if they actually told us a real measurement you could probably take a bath in the stuff and get less radiation than from a chest x-ray.  i would like to know.

 

this meme built and built, helped along in no small part by borderline hysterical op/eds and articles in the old grey lady NYT.  i stopped paying that much attention to the issue a while back when the pennsylvania american water company published test results  http://www.amwater.com/alerts/alert15474.html   of their source water, which found absolutely no drilling contamination, radioactive or otherwise.  this is the first time in a while i've even seen the radioactivity subject broached, here or elsewhere.  but, it does remain a fact that often these types of stories go uncorrected by their originators.

 

anyway, in honor of such an old article, here's some relevant excerpts from an even older one:  Public Misinformation about Marcellus Shale, by: L. Zane Shuck, Ph.D., P. E. http://www.uppermon.org/Marcellus_Shale/Marcellus_Shale_Misinformat...

 

"The public is being misinformed about the Marcellus Shale since the recent increase in drilling activity in PA and WV. Much of the misinformation is either from extremists with personal agenda, or people uninformed of the facts..."

 

"The entire issue of various forms of contaminated water, brines and drill cuttings entering streams and rivers shows a complete lack of knowledge, if not total ignorance, of the oil and gas industry, and how operations are actually performed, in addition to how it is regulated now compared to 40 years ago. All drilling cuttings and water coming back out of wells either when they are drilled, or later as they are produced, are collected either in a large plastic lined pit or huge tanks and either treated for recycling or hauled to government regulated waste disposal well sites. It is ironic that 1,000's of tons of salt and other particulates spread on highways every year that actually wash into streams and rivers is never mentioned, while no driller has been accused of polluting streams directly through the discharge of brine from gas wells! Such false and misinformation is counterproductive for both serious environmental improvement and energy development."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on October 18, 2011 at 13:01

we could talk about him and his work if you want to start another thread, or if les is ok with it, but in the meantime here's a hint: got anything about arkansas?  dig deep, i know you can.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ghawker on October 19, 2011 at 7:28

No suprise here--this is the same publication that devoted an entire issue to slamming Bjorn Lumborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist".  That's the last time I ever bought that rag, same goes for National Geographic after they criticized gas drilling at Jonah field in Wyoming, and I had been suscribed for over 35 years.

• ▶ Reply