Is Fracking contaminating ground water? Making it flammable?

[Lobster Johnson]

I've been reading a lot about fracking in the UK recently and have been a little worried about the environmental impacts of such an activity. Now I can see that there may well be a long term issue due to the quantity of invasive tampering which is required but recently I have come across this which appears to be a little more immediate.



The video shows people setting fire to the gas present it their water supply. To me it looks a bit of a stretch as surely the heat source would be negated by the running water but I'm by no means an expert. Wondering if anyone has any more information on this?

 

[Mick West]

The video shows people setting fire to the gas present it their water supply. To me it looks a bit of a stretch as surely the heat source would be negated by the running water but I'm by no means an expert. Wondering if anyone has any more information on this?

The water is not set on fire. There's gas escaping from the water, and that is what is burning.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

That's what I assumed. So, it's essentially coming out of the tap along with the water? I was just wondering as it looked a bit set up to me.

 

[Mick West]

It's real. Probably not from fracking though.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

So it's aliens right?....

 

[David Fraser]

So it's aliens right?....

The US don't have the same water supply infrastructure as the UK. Many are supplied through direct boreholes or wells. Methane can natural enter a supply and is often present in groundwater and can sometimes accumulate

Here is a survey of methane in UK groundwater

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/groundwater/quality/methane_groundwater.html

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Quite interesting really. Can see why this kind of thing taken out of context can worry people. Thanks for the link.

 

[Oxymoron]

http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/challenge-on-gas-fracking

The water companies' main concern about fracking is that the process could cause contamination of the drinking water aquifers that overlie shale gas reserves byallowing gases such as methane to permeate into drinking water sources from rocks where it was previously confined. Contamination can also be caused by chemicals used in the fracking process entering drinking water aquifers through fractures caused by the process or, potentially, by poor handling of wastewater on the surface.

The fracturing process uses water to pressurise the shale strata and the demand will have a significant impact on local water resources. This demand may be met from the public water supply or from direct abstraction, but may have to come from water tankers brought in by road.

Water companies may be asked to accept and treat discharges of contaminated water recovered from the fracking process. This may not be possible in all areas because some water companies may not have a suitable site near enough to carry out the required treatment.

Finally, even if a supply of water is available, there may not be enough existing pipework to deliver it to the fracking site, and the infrastructure that is in place could also be at risk from seismic activity induced by the fracturing process.

 

[Cairenn]

I can't watch videos, but is that one from one of the Gasland fearamentries?

Let's discuss one issue at a time---methane in the water.


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/...wasnt-big-enough-were-going-full-garden-hose/

Fox's new film, Gasland Part II, features a powerful scene showing a Texas landowner lighting the contents of a garden hose on fire. The incident is presented as evidence of water contamination from a nearby hydraulic fracturing operation.

According to a Texas court, the scene was actually a hoax devised by a Texas environmental activist engaged in a prolonged battle with a local gas company to falsely inflate the supposed dangers of the oil and gas extraction technique, also known as fracking. …

Texas' 43rd Judicial District Court found in February 2012 that Steven Lipsky, "under the advice or direction" of Texas environmental activist Alisa Rich, "intentionally attach[ed] a garden hose to a gas vent—not a water line" and lit its contents on fire.

"This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning," the court found in response to a defamation complaint brought by Range Resources, the company conducting hydraulic fracturing operations in the area, against Lipsky and his wife.

Methane can enter a water well from sources other than a fracked gas well.


http://extension.psu.edu/natural-re...-and-its-removal-from-wells-in-pennsylvania-1

Methane gas is the main component in natural gas. It occurs naturally in some shallow rock layers that are penetrated by water wells. Methane can be dissolved in the groundwater in private water wells at various concentrations as a natural condition.

Methane may occur in a water well due to natural conditions or it may enter a well due to human activities including coal mining, gas well drilling, pipeline leaks and from landfills. Methane is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and combustible gas.
...
Methane gas alone is not toxic and does not cause health problems in drinking water but at elevated concentrations it can escape quickly from water causing an explosive hazard in poorly ventilated or confined areas. Escaping gas may seep into confined areas of your home, where it may reach dangerous concentrations. There have been cases in Pennsylvania where houses, camps, or wells have exploded due to methane accumulation.

The prevalence of methane in water wells in Pennsylvania is not well defined. A 2011 Penn State study of 233 water wells throughout the Marcellus region of Pennsylvania found detectable methane concentrations in 24% of the water wells before drilling began at adjacent gas well sites. However, most dissolved methane concentrations were very low with only 2% of water wells containing dissolved methane above 10 mg/L and less than 1% were above 28 mg/L. A 2012 report from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) summarized dissolved methane results from 239 water wells throughout New York state and found detectable methane concentrations in 53% of the water wells prior to any drilling of unconventional gas wells. In this study, 9% exceeded 10 mg/L and 2% were above 28 mg/L.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3619

A total of seven of the 20 wells tested contained dissolved methane. The rock formation or sediment unit that is the source of the gas was not determined and was not a part of this study. None of the wells tested were located near currently producing natural gas wells. All of the well owners were notified of the results.

http://www.watersystemscouncil.org/VAiWebDocs/WSCDocs/Methane_Gas_and_Groundwater_Revised_0311.pdf


http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/methane_drinking_water_whats_rumpus-115728

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/a-base-line-for-methane-in-water-supplies/?_r=0

Measurements in recent years of naturally occurring methane in New York State wells could serve as a base line for assuring the quality of water supplies if and when fracking for natural gas gets under way in the state, the United States Geological Survey reported this week.

The agency said that 9 percent of groundwater samples taken from more than 200 wells between 1999 and 2011 showed levels of methane that were high enough to warrant further monitoring or concrete steps "to avoid possible explosive conditions."

A poster there had an interesting post.

In the 1960's as a college student I worked summers for a small plumbing contractor in rural west central Minnesota. One day we were assigned a job in a barn, to add some (cattle) watering cups.
As we walked through the barn door I was surprised to see how brightly it was illuminated inside. There were about a dozen gas mantle lamps glowing brightly.
The farmer advised, when his father had built the barn in 1936, they drilled a water well at the same time. The water was excellent but it had methane in it. A gas/water separator was built and had been providing gas to the lamps 24 hours a day a since.....
The nearest oil well must have been in Pennsylvania or Oklahoma in those days.....
Having natural gas in a water well is not uncommon.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/06/theres-methane-in-your-drinking-water-so-what.html




http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593-8#slide-8

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...ard-nominee-gasland-33228.html?pagewanted=all


http://freebeacon.com/fact-checking-gasland-part-ii/

http://www.truthlandmovie.com/

http://energyindepth.org/gasland-ii-debunked/

http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Debunking-Gasland.pdf

I will admit that some of the sites I listed are biased, they are from the gas industry.

 

[Landru]

http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/challenge-on-gas-fracking

The water companies' main concern about fracking is that the process could cause contamination of the drinking water aquifers that overlie shale gas reserves byallowing gases such as methane to permeate into drinking water sources from rocks where it was previously confined. Contamination can also be caused by chemicals used in the fracking process entering drinking water aquifers through fractures caused by the process or, potentially, by poor handling of wastewater on the surface.

The fracturing process uses water to pressurise the shale strata and the demand will have a significant impact on local water resources. This demand may be met from the public water supply or from direct abstraction, but may have to come from water tankers brought in by road.

Water companies may be asked to accept and treat discharges of contaminated water recovered from the fracking process. This may not be possible in all areas because some water companies may not have a suitable site near enough to carry out the required treatment.

Finally, even if a supply of water is available, there may not be enough existing pipework to deliver it to the fracking site, and the infrastructure that is in place could also be at risk from seismic activity induced by the fracturing process.

There is usually a great distance between the ground water and where the fracking is happening beneath the surface.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread

Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface at the gas well bore but weren't detected in a monitoring zone at a depth of 5,000 feet. The researchers also tracked the maximum extent of the man-made fractures, and all were at least 6,000 feet below the surface.

That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from surface drinking water supplies, which are usually at depths of less than 500 feet.

The link refers to a preliminary study. Is there any evidence where fracking has been proven to cause groundwater contamination?

 

[Alchemist]

That's about right. Corporations own the government and can do as they please.

 

[Landru]

So you don't have any evidence?

 

[M Bornong]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread

Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface at the gas well bore but weren't detected in a monitoring zone at a depth of 5,000 feet. The researchers also tracked the maximum extent of the man-made fractures, and all were at least 6,000 feet below the surface.

That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from surface drinking water supplies, which are usually at depths of less than 500 feet.

The link refers to a preliminary study. Is there any evidence where fracking has been proven to cause groundwater contamination?

There is usually a great distance between the ground water and where the fracking is happening beneath the surface.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread

Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface at the gas well bore but weren't detected in a monitoring zone at a depth of 5,000 feet. The researchers also tracked the maximum extent of the man-made fractures, and all were at least 6,000 feet below the surface.

That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from surface drinking water supplies, which are usually at depths of less than 500 feet.

The link refers to a preliminary study. Is there any evidence where fracking has been proven to cause groundwater contamination?

Kern County CA has been fracking about as long as anyplace. Thus far, the oil companies have won every law suit concerning ground water contamination

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Finally, even if a supply of water is available, there may not be enough existing pipework to deliver it to the fracking site, and the infrastructure that is in place could also be at risk from seismic activity induced by the fracturing process.

They truck the water in, or drill a water well to get the water they need for fracturing. It gives lots of work for truckers, a whole lot of work. I've seen this in central Arkansas where no one EVER thought would produce anything but timber or cattle. The drilling phase did cause a lot more truck traffic I noticed as I drove through frequently.

 

[Cairenn]

One thing I understand they are doing is using underground brine water for some it.

 

[David Fraser]

The link Oxymoron provides is from a site that represents all the UK water companies. They are concerned as they have nit been included in the consultancy as such. However they are clear as to were their concerns are.

Firstly their concerns over contamination lay within poor well management and disposal of the slurry.
Secondly they are unclear as to where water will be abstracted or disposed of and how it will be transported, and especially how much burden cost they will suffer.
I have to be honest and for the water resources we have we are piss poor at managing it in some areas. Some parts of the country, especially in the South, seem to be in a constant state of having drought notification and restrictions on water use. Rightly so the water companies have some cause for concern.

The other issue is the publics concerns. Fracking is new to the UK and there has been little happening. There was a drilling site in the North West but drilling was suspended after a couple of earthquakes which have been linked to fracking. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk.html

However the government are really pushing fracking as a panacea and claiming it is totally without safety issues. Mind you they seem to favour drilling in the North of England which some have described as desolate areas. The more cynical minded, like me, suspect that a push to fracking has very little to do with energy security and more to do with the potential independance of Scotland and the loss of a great deal of North Sea oil revenue.

 

[muttkat]

That's about right. Corporations own the government and can do as they please.

Did you watch that documentary Gaslands II on HBO last month? It was a very good show. As far as corporations owning the govt, that is true. Kiing Obama has been praising drilling for gas to slow our dependence on foreign oil but what he doesn't state how it pollutes the peoples groundwater and all the methane fumes you can see at the fracking sites. It shows this man who just built a 12,000 sq ft house with pool, natural pond in Dish, Tx. He goes outside to lawn hose and gets a lighter and lights the water and he has flames coming out of his lawn hose. I think the whole town is moving, even the mayor.

And the thing that sucks is the homeowners whose family is getting sick...MOVE and cut your losses, sometimes. With all this gas production which is suppose to lower our utilities is getting sent to the Asian countries because of the high demand and especially more $$$$$ than from American markets. It's all about greed and $$$$ and screw the landowners.

It also shows the EPA in DC having their meeting with whoever which is suppose to be public but they arrest the guy who made the documentary because they want no journalists there. Of course, the EPA has been telling various families their groundwater is fine...NOT. Reminds me on 911 when the EPA told responders the air was fine at Ground Zero..just another lie.

About 6 years ago I got approached for fracking and I went for it and they had 3 years to do it and didn't, thank God. I didn't know much about it then but if they were to approach me again, I would tell them no now. Anyway I had someone who worked in the oil fields and they stated I was getting screwed on my contract.

 

[muttkat]

There is usually a great distance between the ground water and where the fracking is happening beneath the surface.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread

Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface at the gas well bore but weren't detected in a monitoring zone at a depth of 5,000 feet. The researchers also tracked the maximum extent of the man-made fractures, and all were at least 6,000 feet below the surface.

That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from surface drinking water supplies, which are usually at depths of less than 500 feet.

The link refers to a preliminary study. Is there any evidence where fracking has been proven to cause groundwater contamination?

If you get a chance watch the documentary Gaslands II. It was on HBO about a month or 2 ago. In some study, it stated the cement casings failed like 40,50 % of the time, somewhere in there and caused groundwater contamination. Various homeowners had to get truckloads of water to use and feed their livestock.

 

[Cairenn]

I do not have HBO and Gaslands II is nothing more than a fearamentry. Fox even staged parts of it , like the burning water from a hose. Why don't check out some of the links I posted? Fox is fear monger and a liar.

Do you have a link to proof of this ground water contamination.

The facts on his arrest are a lot different.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...house-hearing/2012/02/01/gIQA2fKmiQ_blog.html

The Oscar-nominated activist-director of the documentary "Gasland" was arrested on Capitol Hill for trying to film a hearing without proper media credentials. Staffers say Fox declined an order by House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee chairman Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) to turn off his camera.
...
Committee Republicans issued a statement to AP saying that Fox had failed to get credentials from the House Radio and TV Gallery — but some Democrats said they didn't have a problem with him being there. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told our colleague Aaron Leitko he motioned to allow Fox to keep filming, "provided there was space and that it was not disruptive," but the measure was defeated. Harris's office did not get back to us for comment.

The subcommittee's proceedings are viewable on the Web, but Miller — who said he hasn't seen "Gasland" — understood why a filmmaker might want his footage. "There's more latitude to show who you want to show."

Charged with unlawful entry, Fox has a hearing scheduled for Feb. 15


I live in N Texas area, the first area where fracking was used a lot. When there is reported case, we will hear the full story, when hype is gone. no contamination.

 

[scombrid]

Did you watch that documentary Gaslands II on HBO last month? He goes outside to lawn hose and gets a lighter and lights the water and he has flames coming out of his lawn hose.

Videographer hoaxed that scene.

With all this gas production which is suppose to lower our utilities is getting sent to the Asian countries because of the high demand and especially more $$$$$ than from American markets.

I lived next door to a power plant that was converted from oil to gas turbine. The gas was a lot cleaner. My rates were pretty good too. Apparently the gas is supplying our markets as well.

 

[Oxymoron]

Fracking is not going down well with some in Dorset, although the Daily Mail does not agree with the protesters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...England.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Dave makes an excellent point about water mismanagement in the U.K. Whilst we have an abundance of rainfall, let it stop for a little while and hose pipe bans are quickly scheduled and people are castigated for showering too long or taking baths.

It is largely due to lack of maintenance of old water pipes and lack of investment in new pipes and infrastructure. The water companies being more intent on making huge profits rather than investing in the future.

Having said that, wind farms are attracting protests as well.

http://www.thisisdorset.co.uk/Dorse...tory-17828034-detail/story.html#axzz2bx1S88pI

 

[Rafterman]

Natural gas in water wells is nothing new. In fact it's one of the things exploration companies look for when deciding if an area has recoverable gas. You typically want to drill in areas with natural gas in the ground. I know, crazy right?

There are also readily available devices that will bleed the natural gas out of your water well. They are inexpensive and easy to install. In some cases you can even recover the gas for your own use.

I don't have it handy, but I have seen a copy of the Colorado environmental agencies report on the well featured in the first Gasland documentary and it clearly states the gas is naturally occurring.

 

[Grieves]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-fracking-groundwater-pollution?newsfeed=true
http://www2.epa.gov/region8/pavillion
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/fra...ze-study-blaming-fracking-for-water-pollution
http://thecanadian.org/item/2152-je...g-report-on-water-contamination-from-fracking
in regard to contamination.

As to the seismic issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-a-massive-increase-in-30-earthquakes/255568/

A new United States Geological Survey study has found that middle America between Alabama and Montana is experiencing an "unprecedented" and "almost certainly manmade" increase in earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater. In 2011, there were 134 events of that size. That's six times more than were normally seen during the 20th century.

"A naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region," the scientists write.

The conclusion that at least one environmental group has drawn from this data is that fracking, in one way or another, has caused these earthquakes. The Environmental Working Group notes that more than 400,000 wells were drilled between 2001 and 2010, a 65% increase over the previous ten-year period. They also note that the new extraction techniques require vast amounts of water to be injected into the ground: major producer Chesapeake estimates that it uses about 5 million gallons of water per well. Lots of wells plus lots of water injected underground could change the subterranean conditions and lead to more earthquakes.

 

[Rafterman]

Lo and behold, this just popped up in my Facebook feed:

http://energyindepth.org/national/the-continuing-fraud-of-gasland/

It discusses both "flaming water" incidents and links to the various investigatory documents (including the Colorado one I mentioned above) which prove that both incidents were poppy cock.

Just another example of how when addressing these highly polarizing issues that we'd all be better served to argue real facts instead of immediately going to the 'shock' arguments that are so easily disproved. Frankly I'm of the opinion that in the long run, stuff like this hurts the anti-fracking movement and just gives more ammunition to the pro-side.

 

[Grieves]

Sensationalism aside, the risk of water contamination is real, and obviously so, given the nature of the process itself. The seismic issue is to me somewhat more debatable, but it's by no means 'conspiracy theorists' solely espousing it, as the links above confirm.... and again, it's hardly an unbelievable premise given the nature of fracking. Turning large swaths of relatively solid and stable subterranean rock into a brittle network shifting cracks and fissures is a process that could very understandably fuck with the geology of a landscape in unpredicted ways.

 

[Cairenn]

Grieves solid rock is not as solid as non geologists think it is. I think that much of the misinformation about fracking is grounded in the lack of a knowledge of geology.

The basic bedrock for Dallas is the Austin Chalk formation. Under it is the Eagle Ford shale. The formations here are at laid down at about a 30 degree angle, so the chalk layer gets 'thinner' as you go west and ends around Grand Prairie (DFW airport is on the Eagle Ford formation).

The chalk is great for building the foundations for skyscrapers. Many years ago, when One Main Place was built, they did relied on the seismic work done for a building cattycorner to it. They had to excavate about 100 feet down. They got to around 70-80 ft and ran into the Eagle Ford shale. By the time they had the entire 100 feet excavated, they discovered that they had a major problem---the shale rock had expanded when weight of the overburden rock was removed and the bottom of the pit (a square block). The 'solid rock' expanded by around 3-4 inches. However, when the building was completed, it's weight would re compress the rock and then the building and the parking garage would not align up. They had to hold off building the parking garage, until 2/3rds of the tower was built. This left the excavation open. Early one morning, the side of it, along where an ancient fault intersected it, collapsed and the one of the major streets in downtown Dallas fell into the hole. The fault, was exposed and rainwater had 'lubricated' it. The vibrations from the building and from the street caused it to give way. Sorry I can't find a link for this, it happened in the late 60s, and my source was a local geology professor, who has since passed away.

The point of that story is that 'solid rock' is not solid.

Fracking produces microcracks that are held 'open' by particles of sand. The fracking itself is not causing the minor quakes. The disposal of used fracking fluid is. The wells may end up near ancient, frozen faults and the water 'lubricates' it enough it can move a tiny bit. It is not that unusual for things to trigger minor quakes. Dams and their reservoirs will also cause them. This does not mean that these faults are going to 'wake up' and become active.


Several of your links revolve around the work of an environmental activist, Jessica Ernst. I did a quick look for hare 'reports' and didn't find them. Found a lot of her promoting herself and her views.

I am aware of the Dimrock 'issue'. It wasn't one.

There has been some minor contamination from the well bore not being cased properly. It was local and limited and proper drilling would have prevented it. There is a concern in the Marcellus shale about possibility of pollution being able to use old, lost and improperly sealed wells (from the 1800s early 1900s) as a conduit to groundwater.

 

[Cairenn]

Another interesting place to look for some answers is Quora. The answers are not vetted however, but they can lead to some interesting links.


http://www.quora.com/Hydraulic-Fracturing/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-fracking


http://www.quora.com/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Does-fracking-harm-the-environment

To date, there have been no confirmed, peer-reviewed instances of hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water.

[ex[During a Q&A about his film, GASLAND, Josh Fox admitted to knowing that people could light their water on fire many, many years before hydraulic fracturing. He decided not to include the information in his film because "it isn't relevant."[/ex]


http://www.spilmanlaw.com/Resources...ay/Hydraulic-Fracturing---Studies-Without-End


One thing that has come up, is a 'conspiracy theory' about the funding of anti fracking groups

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-and-shale-gas-2012-10

 

[Grieves]

Think you overlooked my links, Cairenn.

 

[Cairenn]

No I didn't. [...] I do not have the time to search through a ton of her propaganda to find here 'reports'. Why don't you post a simple link to them--I would like to see how she conducted her studies.

 

[Grieves]

No I didn't. [...] I do not have the time to search through a ton of her propaganda to find here 'reports'. Why don't you post a simple link to them--I would like to see how she conducted her studies.

http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-...ane-migration-and-hydraulic-fracturing-v4.pdf

Here's the full report. Didn't have to read through a 'ton of propaganda' to get it, had to scroll to the bottom of the very brief article I posted and click the link entitled 'download the full report'.

I was actually however referring to this:

Grieves solid rock is not as solid as non geologists think it is. I think that much of the misinformation about fracking is grounded in the lack of a knowledge of geology.

which was seemingly a response to the link I provided in regard to the theory fracking causes earthquakes. Thing is, it's not my theory,it's a theory composed by government geologists. That kind of refutes this statement pretty soundly.

 

[Landru]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-fracking-groundwater-pollution?newsfeed=true
http://www2.epa.gov/region8/pavillion
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/fra...ze-study-blaming-fracking-for-water-pollution
http://thecanadian.org/item/2152-je...g-report-on-water-contamination-from-fracking
in regard to contamination.

As to the seismic issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-a-massive-increase-in-30-earthquakes/255568/

The second link you post is all you really needed to post. The EPA is studying the possibility of fracking causing contamination to ground water in Wyoming. Their preliminary reports seem to suggest that and their full report will be out in 2014. I also agree that this is not a conspiracy theory.

 

[Cairenn]

And Grieves, [...] since the link you posted didn't conclude that the earthquakes were caused by fracking ! The 'Environmental Working Group' is not government geologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group

They are still circulating the nonsense about cell phone radiation also.

The conclusion that at least one environmental group has drawn from this data is that fracking, in one way or another, has caused these earthquakes. The Environmental Working Group notes that more than 400,000 wells were drilled between 2001 and 2010, a 65% increase over the previous ten-year period. They also note that the new extraction techniques require vast amounts of water to be injected into the ground: major producer Chesapeake estimates that it uses about 5 million gallons of water per well. Lots of wells plus lots of water injected underground could change the subterranean conditions and lead to more earthquakes. ...

The USGS scientists aren't willing to draw the causal connection between fracking and earthquakes. "While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production," they conclude.

From the abstract

While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.

Now to the 'report' 93 pages of it. Ok, about 20 pages of that nonsense is all I can take. She is including old wells with contamination from the bore hole and coal seam methane production and anything else that is slightly related. I am leaving my link to her paper up, let me know where she shows contamination to ground water from the fracking, not the well bore.

 

[Landru]

And Grieves, [...] since the link you posted didn't conclude that the earthquakes were caused by fracking ! The 'Environmental Working Group' is not government geologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group

They are still circulating the nonsense about cell phone radiation also.

The conclusion that at least one environmental group has drawn from this data is that fracking, in one way or another, has caused these earthquakes. The Environmental Working Group notes that more than 400,000 wells were drilled between 2001 and 2010, a 65% increase over the previous ten-year period. They also note that the new extraction techniques require vast amounts of water to be injected into the ground: major producer Chesapeake estimates that it uses about 5 million gallons of water per well. Lots of wells plus lots of water injected underground could change the subterranean conditions and lead to more earthquakes. ...

The USGS scientists aren't willing to draw the causal connection between fracking and earthquakes. "While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production," they conclude.

From the abstract

While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.

Now to the 'report' 93 pages of it. Ok, about 20 pages of that nonsense is all I can take. She is including old wells with contamination from the bore hole and coal seam methane production and anything else that is slightly related. I am leaving my link to her paper up, let me know where she shows contamination to ground water from the fracking, not the well bore.

There is a study published in Science by a William Ellsworth, Earthquake Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA, that seems to suggest some of the processes associated with Fracking are causing earthquakes.

From the abstract:

Microearthquakes (that is, those with magnitudes below 2) are routinely produced as part of the hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") process used to stimulate the production of oil, but the process as currently practiced appears to pose a low risk of inducing destructive earthquakes. More than 100,000 wells have been subjected to fracking in recent years, and the largest induced earthquake was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk. Yet, wastewater disposal by injection into deep wells poses a higher risk, because this practice can induce larger earthquakes. For example, several of the largest earthquakes in the U.S. midcontinent in 2011 and 2012 may have been triggered by nearby disposal wells. The largest of these was a magnitude 5.6 event in central Oklahoma that destroyed 14 homes and injured two people. The mechanism responsible for inducing these events appears to be the well-understood process of weakening a preexisting fault by elevating the fluid pressure. However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults.

 

[Cairenn]

Thanks Landru, it is the waste water injection wells that are the problem, not the micro quakes. And only a few of those.

Using injection wells is a known problem,


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php

n 1961, a 12,000-foot well was drilled at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, northeast of Denver, for disposing of waste fluids from Arsenal operations. Injection was commenced March 1962, and an unusual series of earthquakes erupted in the area shortly after.

It was 32 minutes after 4 a.m. on April 24 when the first shock of the Denver series was recorded at the Cecil H. Green Geophysical Observatory at Bergen Park, Colorado. Rated magnitude 1.5, it was not strong enough to be felt by area residents. By the end of December 1962, 190 earthquakes had occurred. Several were felt, but none caused damage until the window breaker that surprised Dupont and Irondale on the night of December 4. The shock shuffled furniture around in homes, and left electrical wall outlets hanging by their wires at Irondale. ...

The second largest earthquake in the Denver series occurred on November 26, 1967. The magnitude 5.2 event caused widespread minor damage in the suburban areas of northeast Denver. Many residents reported it was the strongest earthquake they had ever experienced. It was felt at Laramie, Wyoming, to the northwest, east to Goodland, Kansas, and south to Pueblo, Colorado. At Commerce City merchandise fell in several supermarkets and walls cracked in larger buildings. Several persons scurried into the streets when buildings started shaking back and forth.

During 1968, ten slight shocks were felt in Colorado. Only one, on July 15, caused minor damage at Commerce City. In September of that year, the Army began removing fluid from the Arsenal well at a very slow rate, in hope that earthquake activity would lessen. The program consisted of four tests between September 3 and October 26. Many slight shocks occurred near the well during this period.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/08/denver_earthquakes_40_years_ago_uncle_sam.php

The injected fluids had very little potential for reaching the surface or useable groundwater supply since the injection point had 11,900 feet of rock above it and was sealed at the opening. The Army discontinued use of the well in Feb. 1966 because of the possibility that the fluid injection was triggering earthquakes in the area. The well remained unused for nearly 20 years.

In 1985 the Army permanently sealed the disposal well in stages. First, the well casing was tested to evaluate its integrity. Any detected voids behind the casing were cemented to prevent possible contamination of other formations. Next, the injection zone at the bottom 70 feet of the well was closed by plugging with cement. Additional cement barriers were placed inside the casing across zones that could access water-bearing formations (aquifers). The final step was adding Bentonite, a heavy clay mud that later solidified, to close the rest of the hole up to the ground surface.

 

[David Fraser]

There is a study published in Science by a William Ellsworth, Earthquake Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA, that seems to suggest some of the processes associated with Fracking are causing earthquakes.

From the abstract:

Microearthquakes (that is, those with magnitudes below 2) are routinely produced as part of the hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") process used to stimulate the production of oil, but the process as currently practiced appears to pose a low risk of inducing destructive earthquakes. More than 100,000 wells have been subjected to fracking in recent years, and the largest induced earthquake was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk. Yet, wastewater disposal by injection into deep wells poses a higher risk, because this practice can induce larger earthquakes. For example, several of the largest earthquakes in the U.S. midcontinent in 2011 and 2012 may have been triggered by nearby disposal wells. The largest of these was a magnitude 5.6 event in central Oklahoma that destroyed 14 homes and injured two people. The mechanism responsible for inducing these events appears to be the well-understood process of weakening a preexisting fault by elevating the fluid pressure. However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults.

I was just going to post a synopsis of that study

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

It is clear that processes around fracking can cause earthquakes, however rare. In relation to the OP in the UK we were told there was no danger and then 2 occurred over a short span. Then add in possible contamination links to water due to poor well management I think is definitely cause for concern.

 

[Joe]

I do not have HBO and Gaslands II is nothing more than a fearamentry. Fox even staged parts of it , like the burning water from a hose. Why don't check out some of the links I posted? Fox is fear monger and a liar.

Do you have a link to proof of this ground water contamination.

The facts on his arrest are a lot different.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...house-hearing/2012/02/01/gIQA2fKmiQ_blog.html

The Oscar-nominated activist-director of the documentary "Gasland" was arrested on Capitol Hill for trying to film a hearing without proper media credentials. Staffers say Fox declined an order by House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee chairman Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) to turn off his camera.
...
Committee Republicans issued a statement to AP saying that Fox had failed to get credentials from the House Radio and TV Gallery — but some Democrats said they didn't have a problem with him being there. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told our colleague Aaron Leitko he motioned to allow Fox to keep filming, "provided there was space and that it was not disruptive," but the measure was defeated. Harris's office did not get back to us for comment.

The subcommittee's proceedings are viewable on the Web, but Miller — who said he hasn't seen "Gasland" — understood why a filmmaker might want his footage. "There's more latitude to show who you want to show."

Charged with unlawful entry, Fox has a hearing scheduled for Feb. 15


I live in N Texas area, the first area where fracking was used a lot. When there is reported case, we will hear the full story, when hype is gone. no contamination.

Dam I hate to agree with you but its all fear-mongering . Need to watch Fracknation which exposes the lies from Gaslands . Of course its all political . I think Natural gas is a cleaner fuel . http://www.humanevents.com/2012/03/06/soros-others-set-to-cash-in-on-natural-gas-act-payday/

 

[Cairenn]

Fracknation is good.

Natural gas is cleaner and it will become a major bridge fuel until greener forms are available.

 

[Joe]

Fracknation is good.

Natural gas is cleaner and it will become a major bridge fuel until greener forms are available.

Environmentalist filmmaker Josh Fox grew frustrated during a recent public radio interview when asked about apparent falsehoods in his Oscar-nominated 2010 documentary Gasland. http://therightscoop.com/wow-gaslan...record-when-confronted-by-npr-over-falsehood/

 

[Cairenn]

You should read some the fear mongering that his mom, Deborah Dupre posts on the Examiner. Real nonsense.

 

[Joe]

You should read some the fear mongering that his mom, Deborah Dupre posts on the Examiner. Real nonsense.

Iv seen enough from Dutchsinse antifracking earthquakes etc . Every time there was a earthquake he'd find a fracking well nearby and blame it on that ?