Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 10, 2011 at 16:21

The author of the Forbes article sees this as a game changer - maybe not in a good way.  He has 2 links to other reports that are worth browsing.

.

I agree with the Forbes writer that it really points out what should not be done in fracking, not that all fracking is bad.  It ridiculous to think that fracking is going to be safe everywhere - or dangerous everywhere. However, it will be regulated everywhere.

.

Here are the links - the first one is excellent and puts the epa report into layman's language

.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/how-the-epa-linked-frac...

.

http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on December 10, 2011 at 17:14

HANG-

Its a game changer in terms of the public debate, but if policy were driven by the scientists and engineers, it would change little, if anything.  

Everyone needs to realize that the aquifer in the area is also a coal bed methane system.  Yes, it appears that chemicals from surface pits may have contaminated drinking water wells, although that is not conclusive.  

In the areas were chemicals consistent with fracing fluids were discovered - these were deeper monitoring wells, essentially drilled as twin off-sets to gas wells that had been fraced, in the same formation that had been fraced.  If they hadn't found fracing chemicals, the service company didn't do its job.  

Kind like testing asphalt and discovering it contains hydrocarbons, or testing swimming pool water and finding chlorine.  Next they'll find bacteria living on my toilet seat!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 10, 2011 at 19:22

BINGO!!

.

dbob, to tell the truth I left out that tidbit about the coal bed methane and those chemicals - this well was also constructed poorly. That's why the report is best read for how NOT to do fracking. There will be places where for various reasons fracking should not happen.

.

but, how many people will read past the headline?  and, how many people will come to check the bacteria on your toilet seat?

.

hummm ... that reminds me, the wife wants me to change the toilet seat before Xmas guests come :)

.

This science is fairly new and I expect some false starts and problems before it's worked out.  But, the worse thing we could do is quit - we yanked the tax credits from solar and wind 30 years ago and we could have been a lot further down the road of alternatives today.  It would be a crime to our grandchildren to allow ourselves to be afraid to pursue natural gas. But, we cannot do it recklessly either - or the public will put the brakes on all fracking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on December 11, 2011 at 3:39

Guys, sorry, this one is a bit of a soap box for me - I like HANGs comment that this is a poster child for how fracing should not be done.  to further that, my understanding is that this is a poster child for how fracing was done in CBM prior to 2004-2005.  

I think it would help to get more articles like this out there to help folks understand the disconnect between fracing depth and the aquifer in shale development:

http://www.halliburton.com/public/pe/contents/Papers_and_Articles/w...

Personally, If an area wants to ban fracking, more power to them, so long as I can cut off natural gas, gasoline,  and oil delivery to them, as well as electricity derived from petroleum products.  

It's almost like folks waking up one day and realizing that beef comes from cows, not all cows live a happy and stress free life, and deciding they don't want ranching in their area, but are happy to eat a hamburger from meat made in another state or country.  

Purely from a sustainability standpoint, we need to connect people where their resources come from, be it from cattle fattened on a feedlot, natural gas, or something else.  Continuing to consume the same product produced out of sight, out of mind,  while protesting its development close to home is a slippery slope.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 12, 2011 at 11:25

Sesport (II):

 

Not so much in the 'smack the author in the head' genre, but as to industry's reservations in the reported interpretation of the results:

 

Energy in Depth: Six Questions for EPA on Pavillion

 

Enjoy!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 12, 2011 at 11:44

Thanks for posting this Dion.  I found their specific objections interesting and posted them below ... But, the full article is very worth reading! Plus, EID included FOOTNOTES, I love footnotes to see where their data came from.

.

It's no wonder that the general public is confused. It's easy to pull out both a pro and an anti fracking headline from the report - but, there are many, many more negative reports in the media.  No one reads the details ...

.

1) Why the huge difference between what EPA found in its monitoring wells and what was detected in private wells from which people actually get their water?

• Contrary to what was reported yesterday, the compounds of greatest concern detected by EPA in Pavillion weren’t found in water wells that actually supply residents their water – they were detected by two “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outside of town.

• After several rounds of EPA testing of domestic drinking water wells in town, only one organic compound (bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found to exceed state or federal drinking water standards – an additive in plastics and one of the most commonly detected organic compounds in water. According to EPA: “Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards.”

• Bruce Hinchey, president of Petroleum Association of Wyoming: “Let me be clear, the EPA’s findings indicate that there is no connection between oil and natural gas operations and impacts to domestic water wells.” (PAW press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

• In contrast, EPA found “a wide variety of organic chemicals” in its two monitoring wells, with greater concentrations found in the deeper of the two. The only problem? EPA drilled its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Think it’s possible that could explain the presence of hydrocarbons?

• According to governor of Wyoming: “The study released today from EPA was based on data from two test wells drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells. The data from the test wells was not available to the rest of the working group until a month ago.” (Gov. Mead press release, issued Dec. 8, 2011)

2) After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”? (video available here)

• Of note, Administrator Jackson offered those comments to a reporter from energyNOW! a full week after Region 8 publicly released its final batch of Pavillion data. In that interview, Jackson indicates that she personally analyzed the findings of the report, and was personally involved in conversations and consultations with staff, local officials, environmental groups, the state and the operator.

• After reviewing all that information, and conducting all those interviews, if the administrator believed that test results from EPA’s monitoring wells posed a danger to the community, why would she say the opposite of that on television?

• And if she believed that the state of Wyoming had failed to do its job, why would she – in that same interview – tell energyNOW! that “you can’t start to talk about a federal role [in regulating fracturing] without acknowledging the very strong state role.” (2:46) A week later, why did she choose to double-down on those comments in an interview with Rachel Maddow, telling the cable host that “states are stepping up and doing a good job”? (9:01, aired Nov. 21, 2011)

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to drill its monitoring wells affect the results?

• Diethanolamine? Anionic polyacrylamide? Trydymite? Bentonite? Contrary to conventional wisdom, chemicals are needed to drill wells, not just fracture them – even when the purpose of those wells has nothing to do with oil or natural gas development.

• In this case, however, EPA’s decision to use “dense soda ash” as part of the process for drilling its monitoring wells could have proved a bad one.

• One of the main justifications EPA uses to implicate hydraulic fracturing as a source of potential contamination is the high pH readings it says it found in its monitoring wells. But dense soda ash has a recorded pH (11.5) very similar to the level found in the deep wells, creating the possibility that the high pH recorded by EPA could have been caused by the very chemicals it used to drill its own wells.

• According to Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “More sampling is needed to rule out surface contamination or the process of building these test wells as the source of the concerning results.” (as quoted in governor’s press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

4) Why is the author so confident that fracturing is to blame when most of his actual report focuses on potential issues with casing, cement and legacy pits?

• The report singles-out old legacy pits (which the operator had already voluntarily placed in a state remediation program prior to EPA’s investigation) as the most obvious source of potential contamination. These decades-old pits, which are obviously no longer used, have nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing.

• From the report (page xi): “Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water samples from shallow monitoring wells near pits indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground water contamination in the area of investigation. Pits were used for disposal of drilling cuttings, flowback, and produced water. There are at least 33 pits in the area of investigation.“

• From the report’s concluding paragraph: “[T]his investigation supports recommendations made by the U.S. Department of Energy Panel on … greater emphasis on well construction and integrity requirements and testing. As stated by the panel, implementation of these recommendations would decrease the likelihood of impact to ground water and increase public confidence in the technology.” (p. 39)

5) 2-BE or not 2-BE? That is the question.

• EPA indicates that it found tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate in a few domestic water wells. What the agency doesn’t mention is that this chemical is a common fire retardant found in plastics and plastic components used in drinking water wells. It’s not 2-BE, which, although also a common material, is sometimes associated with the completions process.

• According to EPA, in one of the eight samples collected, a small amount of 2-BE was detected. Interestingly, two other EPA labs that measured for the same exact compound reported not being able to detect it in the duplicate samples they were given.

• According to Wyo. governor Mead: “Members of the [Pavillion] working group also have questions about the compound 2-BE, which was found in 1 sample … while other labs tested the exact same water sample and did not find it.” (Mead press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

6) Is EPA getting enough potassium?

• Several times in its report, EPA notes that potassium and chloride levels were found to be elevated in its monitoring wells. But just because you have potassium and chloride doesn’t mean you’ve got potassium chloride, a different chemical entirely and one that’s sometimes associated with fracturing solutions. Nowhere in its report does EPA suggest that potassium chloride was detected.

• According to several USGS studies of groundwater quality in the area, variable — and in some cases, high — concentrations of potassium and chloride have been detected in Pavillion-area groundwater for more than 20 years. (USGS 1991, 1992)

Interestingly, the potassium levels detected in EPA’s first monitoring well declined by more than 50 percent from October 2010 to April 2011, while the potassium level in EPA’s second monitoring well increased during that same period. Only natural variations in groundwater flow and/or composition could have accounted for this"

http://www.energyindepth.org/six-questions-for-epa-on-pavillion/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on December 13, 2011 at 5:33

In general, I agree that EPA tends to be alarmist, but, regarding potassium chloride EID doesn't seem to understand basic chemistry. When potassium chloride dissolves in water, it separates into potassium ions and chloride ions, so saying potassium chloride is a "different chemical entirely" from potassium and chloride is pure hogwash.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 13, 2011 at 6:09

Obed:

I think the idea that EID was posing was that just because you find K+ and Cl- doesn't necessarily mean that it came from KCl.  K+ could have just as easily come from KOH / K2CO3 present in caustic ash with solvated chlorides already present (from naturally occurring NaCl brines for instance).  The EPA report doesn't really get into what the source(s) of these ions are.  High levels of potassium and chloride are linked to produced water as well as from well treatments and not necessarily just from frac contamination.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on December 13, 2011 at 8:08

Yes, I guess it would depend on the relative concentrations of the various positive ions and negative ions. If K+ and Cl- were present in about equal concentration and at a higher concentration than other ions, that might be good evidence that potassium chloride was the source, but even then it wouldn't prove the potassium chloride came from frac contamination.

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 13, 2011 at 15:58

I like the tracer in fracking fluid idea. That would provide more accountability by being able to trace fluids.

.

This is now a bill before the Texas legislature.  Is there any reason why this would not be a good idea???

.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB00772I.htm

.

• ▶ Reply