More Earthquakes in Loppersum, the Netherlands – NYTimes.com
March 27, 2013
More Earthquakes in Loppersum, the Netherlands – NYTimes.com.
USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5282: Hydrogeology of the Susquehanna River Valley-Fill Aquifer System and Adjacent Areas in Eastern Broome and Southeastern Chenango Counties, New York
March 16, 2013
Prepared in cooperation with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Hydrogeology of the Susquehanna River Valley-Fill Aquifer System and Adjacent Areas in Eastern Broome and Southeastern Chenango Counties, New York
By Paul M. Heisig
|
First posted February 20, 2013
For additional information contact: |
COMMENTS
What the USGS are saying is that these three regions/locations are prime for “developers” (AKA drillers) to sink MAJOR water wells to supply frack operations. This paper relates to what I heard a Senior SRBS scientist present last year, that SRBC was quite concerned that as gas drilling moved North from PA it would be getting to the “headwaters regions (low water volume) of the Susq and other rivers and thus they anticipated more emphasis by the drillers to use groundwater for their fracking uses.
This directly goes to the issue of impacts on water quantity of residential and public water wells; that is what will a big mother of a “comercial” well by a driller do to the QUANTITY of water available from your private well. In other words, will your water well dry up?
This is an issue that is NOT adressed at all in NYS draft regs OR the rdSGEIS – only pre-drill baseline testing of wells near(1000ft) a proposed well pad need be tested by the driller for QUALITY.
The potential impact on private property values is clear; mitigation by drilling a private well deeper would probably work, although I dont know enoug hydrology to float a boat, so to speak.
————————————
“Unconfined aquifers with thick saturated coarse-grained deposits are the most favorable settings for water-resource development, and three several-mile-long sections of valley were identified (mostly in Broome County) as potentially favorable: (1) the southernmost valley section, which extends from the New York–Pennsylvania border to about 1 mile north of South Windsor, (2) the valley section that rounds the west side of the umlaufberg (an isolated bedrock hill within a valley) north of Windsor, and (3) the east–west valley section at the Broome County–Chenango County border from Nineveh to East of Bettsburg (including the lower reach of the Cornell Brook valley).”
————————————
Finally, this water source/quantity issue will apply equally to regions further north of the NY/PA border, and one hope USGS is studying such; remember, drilling a bit north likely wont be marcellus but rather the deeper Utica Shale.
S
Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY, 607-669-4683
Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place in New York. Rachel Treichler
Fracking Has the USGS Been Co-opted?
October 18, 2012
RWMA Newsletter – Fracking Special Edition 2012.
Fracking
Has the USGS Been Co-opted?
Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania
July 10, 2012
1121181109.full.pdf (application/pdf Object).
Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania
The debate surrounding the safety of shale gas development in the
Appalachian Basin has generated increased awareness of drinking
water quality in rural communities. Concerns include the potential
for migration of stray gas, metal-rich formation brines, and hydraulic
fracturing and/or flowback fluids to drinking water aquifers.
A critical question common to these environmental risks is the
hydraulic connectivity between the shale gas formations and the
overlying shallow drinking water aquifers. We present geochemical
evidence from northeastern Pennsylvania showing that pathways,
unrelated to recent drilling activities, exist in some locations
between deep underlying formations and shallow drinking water
aquifers. Integration of chemical data (Br, Cl, Na, Ba, Sr, and Li) and
isotopic ratios (87Sr∕86Sr, 2H∕H, 18O∕16O, and 228Ra∕226Ra) from
this and previous studies in 426 shallow groundwater samples and
83 northern Appalachian brine samples suggest that mixing relationships
between shallow ground water and a deep formation
brine causes groundwater salinization in some locations. The
strong geochemical fingerprint in the salinized (Cl > 20 mg∕L)
groundwater sampled from the Alluvium, Catskill, and Lock Haven
aquifers suggests possible migration of Marcellus brine through
naturally occurring pathways. The occurrences of saline water do
not correlate with the location of shale-gas wells and are consistent
with reported data before rapid shale-gas development in the region;
however, the presence of these fluids suggests conductive
pathways and specific geostructural and/or hydrodynamic regimes
in northeastern Pennsylvania that are at increased risk for contamination
of shallow drinking water resources, particularly by fugitive
gases, because of natural hydraulic connections to deeper
COMMENTS
It’s hard to believe that the following two headlines are about the same study:
1) New Duke research shows no fracking contamination in PA
2) Pennsylvania Fracking Can Put Water at Risk, Study Finds
But that is exactly the case about the Duke study that was reported yesterday and circulated on various lists. I have included links plus the first few lines of each story below.
Winston-Salem Journal (North Carolina) (via AP)
New Duke research shows no fracking contamination in PA
“New research on Marcellus Shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania may only add fuel to the debate over whether the industry poses long-term threats to drinking water.
A paper published on Monday by Duke University researchers found that gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania did not contaminate nearby drinking water wells with salty water, which is a byproduct of the drilling.
“These results reinforce our earlier work showing no evidence of brine contamination from shale gas exploration,………”
Bloomberg Businessweek
Pennsylvania Fracking Can Put Water at Risk, Study Finds
“Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in Pennsylvania may contaminate drinking-water supplies, a study by Duke University professors concluded……..”
Obviously, for many people the headline will be the predominant message. Here is the message the authors of the study chose for their paper:
Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/03/1121181109.full.pdf
Clearly the second (Bloomberg) headline represents the authors’ intended message more accurately. In fact, the paper covers both topics – the migration of deep brines into shallow aquifers as well as the absence of evidence that these findings show a direct connection to gas drilling. However, the potential for migration is certainly indicated, which refutes the industry claim that nothing can ever move up through the thousands of feet of “impermeable” rock. The authors also point out the that the time scale for brine migration is not known but that migration of methane would be much faster, and that more investigation is necessary to understand the process.
For those interested, this was the story on yesterdays All Things Considered.
NPR News
Rising Shale Water Complicates Fracking Debate
I would say this was a “balanced” story. I know that there is a lot of outrage (which I share) about “balanced stories” because of bogus counter claims by industry shills raising a “debate”, (best exemplified by climate change deniers). But in this case the authors themselves point out the limitations of their study and proper reporting should present this.
The coverage of this story (an abbreviated form of the AP story) on local NPR station WSKG was so truncated that it, in my mind, left the listener with little understanding of the study.
Jim Weiss
|
|
|||
Yup;
Gives a window into how confused many citizens (and politicians) must be at this point (in time).
Also shows, I believe the ENORMOUS influence of the industry on the media – sorta like: no evidence that smoking causes cancer but probably even higher stakes.
GDACC 
