Federal Agency Blames ‘Complete Breakdown of Safety at Enbridge’ for 2010 Oil Spill | InsideClimate News
July 15, 2012
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.
Pacific Institute: Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction
June 23, 2012
Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has generated growing controversy in the past few years. New research from the Pacific Institute finds the real issues around its impacts on water are shared by stakeholders from government to industry to environmental groups – and point to the need for better and more transparent information in order to clearly assess the key water-related risks and develop sound policies to minimize those risks.
Much of the public attention on hydraulic fracturing has centered on the use of chemicals in the fracturing fluids and the risk of groundwater contamination. But the new study finds that while chemical disclosure can be useful for tracking contamination, risks associated with fracking chemicals are not the only issues that must be addressed. The massive water requirements for fracking and the potential conflicts with other water needs, including for agriculture and for ecosystems, pose major challenges. Methane contamination of drinking water wells is also a concern according to some field studies, as are the serious challenges associated with storing, transporting, treating, and disposing of wastewater.
The report Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction is a detailed assessment and synthesis of existing research on fracking as well as the results of interviews with representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, academia, environmental groups, and community-based organizations from across the United States. Interviewees identified a broad set of social, economic, and environmental concerns, foremost among which are impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the availability and quality of water resources.
“Despite the diversity of viewpoints among the stakeholders interviewed, there was surprising agreement about the range of concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing. Among the most commonly cited were concerns about spills and leaks, wastewater management, and water withdrawals,” said Heather Cooley, co-director of the Pacific Institute Water Program. “In addition to concerns about impacts on water resources, social and economic concerns were identified as well, such as worker health and safety and community impacts associated with rapidly industrializing rural environments.”
Hydraulic fracturing refers to the process by which fluid is injected into wells under high pressure to create cracks and fissures in rock formations that improve the production of these wells. Energy analysts, including the Energy Information Administration (EIA), project that the United States will become increasingly reliant on natural gas, with production projected to increase by nearly 30% over the next 25 years.
The growth in natural gas production is driven by a dramatic increase in domestic shale gas production, and by 2021, the United States is projected to be a net exporter of natural gas ( U.S. EIA 2012). The rapid development of unconventional natural gas resources – such as shale – has been largely facilitated through the use of directional (horizontal) drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
Hailed by some as a game-changer that promises increased energy independence, job creation, and lower energy prices, fracking has led others to call for a temporary moratorium or a complete ban due to concern over potential environmental, social, and public health impacts. The research finds that the lack of credible and comprehensive data and information is a major impediment to a robust analysis of the real concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing.
“Much of what has been written about the interaction of hydraulic fracturing and water resources is either industry or advocacy reports that have not been peer-reviewed, and the discourse around the issue to date has been marked by opinion and obfuscation,” said Cooley. “More and better research is needed to clearly assess the key water-related risks associated with hydraulic fracturing and develop sound policies to minimize those risks.”
Based in Oakland, California, the Pacific Institute is a nonpartisan research institute that works to create a healthier planet and sustainable communities. Through interdisciplinary research and partnering with stakeholders, the Institute produces solutions that advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity – in the West, nationally, and internationally. www.pacinst.org.
Download the full report.
Download the Executive Summary.
Download the press release.
GDACC 
