Fracking fluids found in 3 PA water wells...

[Sysop]

Three Pennsylvania wells likely contaminated by fracking | Ars Technica

This stuff gets talked about a lot in a lot of other threads. I figured I'd post this and see who all will find the nearest stump. :stirthepot:

 

[davesl708]

When the title starts with "most likely" or "likely" or "could" "maybe" you know there are no facts to back it up.

Fracking takes place and 5000ft or more below the surface. Ground water is within the first 1000' or less. The material used in fracking is the mostly the same water and material pulled from the wells to begin with. The fluid is not manufactured and shipped to the site it is mixed onsite and re-injected into the well under pressure.

Maybe someday hard facts will be know and then decisions can be made.

 

[Sysop]

Gotta read a little beyond the title... Judge all books by their covers?

The article explains there was an issue with the installation of the seals on some of those wells and could have happened even with a traditional well (not fracked). It also says there was a surface pit that could have been the source.

The article is very careful NOT to point any fingers at any single root issue, mainly due to the fact there are no "hard facts" to be known. There are quite simply too many variables at play...

 

[davesl708]

Gotta read a little beyond the title... Judge all books by their covers?

The article explains there was an issue with the installation of the seals on some of those wells and could have happened even with a traditional well (not fracked). It also says there was a surface pit that could have been the source.

The article is very careful NOT to point any fingers at any single root issue, mainly due to the fact there are no "hard facts" to be known. There are quite simply too many variables at play...

If that is the case then why the title "..likely contaminated by fracking? And your title "Fracking fluids found in 3 PA water wells..."

 

[chuck172]

One would think this issue should have been resolved by now. Some say fracking is bad, others say it's harmless. I'd like to know the real answer. I'm afraid that big bucks do the thinking.

 

[RedNeckRacin]

I suspect it was from a surface source. Most likely an impoundment on site that had leaked and not the well itself. Way to throw gasoline on a fire and run though.

 

[The Suburban Farmer]

I'm afraid that big bucks do the thinking.

This +1

I don't know enough to have a truly INFORMED opinion either way on the topic, but I find it hard to believe that injecting high-pressure chemicals into the ground is EVER a good thing. That alone makes we question why we risk doing it. Having lived in Coal Mine country for a big part of my life, I have seen firsthand how supposedly "safe" mining and remediation practices can result in an entire community being destroyed or contaminated. However, the big companies skate by with almost no punishment. They found after examination of one bad spill in WV that the company had been cited over 100 TIMES for various violations preceding the breach (some minor, some not) AND THAT PARTICULAR COAL COMPANY WAS ALSO ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE RESEARCH THAT SAID THERE WAS LITTLE-TO-NO RISK from the remediation practices they were utilizing. I hate to lump everyone into the same camp, but coal companies and frackers are the same in my opinion -- they will do what they need to do to make a profit, and will try their best to hide evidence that suggests they are causing a problem, or sponsor research that says "it's all OK... just trust us."

France, Germany and Scotland have all banned it. In 2014, Governor Cuomo in New York issued a ban due to potential risks to human health and the environment. I'm usually not one to side with the Yankees and the Europeans, but I think there's enough concern to really question this practice.

End of rant.

 

[Sysop]

If that is the case then why the title "..likely contaminated by fracking? And your title "Fracking fluids found in 3 PA water wells..."

Because the chemicals used in fracking in that area were tested for and found (the stuff that caused the foaming they describe). Also (to a lesser degree) because of the Smiley/Emoticon used at the end of my OP.

I'm of the opinion it is a pot that needs stirred. The more ya can get "the sides" to argue about such things, the more chance there is of all the normal people in the middle gaining a clue about what the extremes at both ends of the spectrum are really all about...

I think the entire situation is filled with utterly clueless folk that each have a tiny piece of data that they use to justify an opinion and swear it is as good as gospel... Fact is, their tiny piece of data is totally overwhelming useless due to the magnitude of variables that are never considered or realized. As long as there is money in it, it will remain this way.

 

[williaty]

To sort of summarize what a couple of other posters have hinted at:

There's absolutely no question that the drilling operation contaminated the surrounding drinking water wells because the chemicals contaminating the drinking water match the chemicals being used in the drilling operation.

There is some uncertainty if the contamination resulted solely because of the fracking technique used or if it was because the drilling operation was so shoddy that it would have happened no matter what. At the moment, it looks like the chemicals in question migrated far enough that it couldn't have happened without the fracking component of the operation, but it's not impossible for it to have happened by other means.

 

[Sysop]

That's really my point on much of the various energy debates as a whole, there is always some uncertainty. If they can't track down what's leaking where at near-surface levels, whether it is drilling operations or a holding area or what, it really makes me believe they understand a lot less of what's going on thousands of feet below that... I don't care what their studies say, the smallest of unconceived variables can throw their entire line of reasoning out the window. They're clueless.

I'm not for or against fracking, solar, wind, or anything else of the sort. I am against anyone that is either for or against it; because to be either for or against it, you either have to have some sort of agenda of your own, or are just blindly parroting those that do have an agenda. There is big money in just the promotion of the agendas (a.k.a. propaganda), generally that money comes from bad places and goes to even worse places... I don't want on either "side" of that fence, nor in the middle where folk get into all these heated debates about things they want to be facts. I'll set on the sidelines and try to wake up the spectators that have fallen asleep, because it is something we should be paying attention to before anything gets too awful...

What I am for is conservation. There is no such thing as "energy independence". That is a pipe dream some try to sell folk on. Energy must come from someplace, and some sort of change needs to occur to create said energy. There is no independent source of energy that just simply exists as energy waiting to be used. Our goals should be to use what best suits the needs from a conservation standpoint. Piping power here and there whether in pipe or in wires or in trucks on the roads is not a solution, and no one solution is going to work equally everywhere.

People who don't have a truly 'better idea' should simply SHUSH and listen until someone does have a truly better idea. Anyone can complain, it takes a unique individual to come up with a REAL plan...

A lot of what gets said and done reminds me of a Ben Franklin quote:
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

He was a pretty smart fella...