Fracking and the Environment: Exploration licenses granted to search for shale gas in Lough Allen area

[New Vision]

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/09/conf...g_can_pollute/

and the full report here

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/03/1121181109

Seemingly the same study:

New Study: Fluids From Marcellus Shale Likely Seeping Into PA Drinking Water

[New Vision]

Health Risk Assessment of Natural Gas Drilling in Colorado

[Sam Lord]

The Amish in Minnesota are being pushed aside by frac sand mining.

http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/...a4bcf887a.html

[New Vision]

Seemingly the same study:

New Study: Fluids From Marcellus Shale Likely Seeping Into PA Drinking Water

Don’t Drink the Water: Fracking Fluid Likely in PA Drinking Water Supply

by Tara Holmes
July 11, 2012
9:30 am

21 comments



Live in Pennsylvania? Live near a fracking well? If so, the chances of finding fracking fluid seeping into your drinking water — a major concern that’s been touted by environmental groups and independent researchers for years — may be more likely than previously thought.

Scientists at Duke University and California State Polytechnic University at Pomona found that water from wells and aquifers in Northeastern Pennsylvania contained traces of brine from the Marcellus Shale, the shale deposit found in the northern Appalachian region of North America and the deposit popularly cited for domestic fracking operations. Brine, a naturally occurring substance, is acting as an indicator to a disturbing fact: previously thought to be “contained” underground chemicals may not be so contained after all. In fact, these same chemicals could be seeping toward the surface and into our drinking water supply much more easily and frequently then predicted.

While no specific fracking chemicals were detected in this study, the mere thought that chemicals can move freely through underground rock layers more so than previously believed is very alarming. The findings also contradict the notion typically upheld by vested interests, predominately composed of oil and gas companies, that rock formations deep within the Earth will securely seal in material injected thousands of feet underground, whether through underground disposal or drilling. However, matter can’t just disappear and will inevitably end up somewhere down the line.

The joint Duke/California State University study isn’t the only one discovering a connection between injecting chemicals deep underground and local drinking water ramifications. In 2011, Duke researchers also found that “methane gas was far more likely to leak into water supplies in places adjacent to drilling.” In addition, in April of this year, Ground Water published a paper that predicted fracking fluid contaminants could “reach the surface within 100 years – or fewer if the ground is fracked.”

The oil and gas industry is not happy to hear this news, immediately questioning the legitimacy of the findings, citing “researchers do not know how long it may have taken for the brine to leak.” However, the question isn’t about how long it will take for chemicals to make their way to the surface of the Earth; the simple fact that brine can travel to the surface, therefore entering groundwater systems, is enough evidence to raise serious concern. Whether this process takes 10, 50 or 100 years shouldn’t matter. What should matter most is preventing any fracking chemicals from ever entering our water and our land, period.

Related Stories:

Accidental Vote Legalizes Fracking in North Carolina

Vermont First State to Ban Fracking

Ohio Fracking Wastewater Test Reveals Toxic Mess

[New Vision]

Love Leitrim: Brave run for antifracking cause

[Count Bobulescu]

Just to confirm I’m not afraid to post something that runs counter to my own evolving opinions. Here’s a debate that took place in early July, and I think is set to be broadcast on TV July 18. I believe NV denigrated NPR up thread as an unreliable or some-such, media outlet. Maybe we’ll get a flip-flop on that now. The audio is 50 minutes. Full transcript also available.

The United States is in the midst of a natural gas boom — about 200,000 gas wells have been drilled in the past decade. The boom has been fueled by the use of hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — which involves pumping a mixture of water and chemicals into the ground to get access to the gas.
The rush to extract natural gas has helped the economy pick up in places like Pennsylvania, but it also has raised questions that scientists can't yet answer about potential health and environmental problems.

Some argue that the benefits of the natural gas boom outweigh the risks, but others say no fracking way. A group of experts took on that dispute in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, held at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. They faced off two against two in an Oxford-style debate on the motion: "The Natural Gas Boom Is Doing More Harm Than Good."

Before the debate, 38 percent of the audience supported that motion and 38 percent opposed it, with 24 percent undecided. Afterward, 53 percent agreed that "The Natural Gas Boom Is Doing More Harm Than Good" and 42 percent disagreed — making those arguing for the motion the winners.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/02/156158...harm-than-good

[Count Bobulescu]

Why European Shale is totally "Fracked".

When we discuss European shale, the typical questions that tend to crop up are which markets, how much can be had, and how fast? All perfectly valid thoughts, but they rarely bother to ask the broader international question; does it actually matter? That’s the single most important question for the EU to ponder, precisely because the downside risks to developing European shale remain more formidable than anywhere else on earth. Simply put, shale gas isn’t going to be a serious prospect on Charlemagne’s turf any time soon. Europe needs global gas fundamentals to go its way elsewhere, or it risks ending up back at square one, bent over a Russian pipeline.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...tally-fracked/

[morticia]

Given that the European population nears 500 million in a relatively small area, while Russia has a declining population of 100 million and a much larger area, perhaps letting the Russians frack away and export might be safer for world food security, if not energy security. Just a thought. Given pollution concerns.

[Count Bobulescu]

Given that the European population nears 500 million in a relatively small area, while Russia has a declining population of 100 million and a much larger area, perhaps letting the Russians frack away and export might be safer for world food security, if not energy security. Just a thought. Given pollution concerns.

I think the Russians will be happy to frack away to their heart’s content, irrespective of what anyone else thinks. Unlike the US, Russia’s gas price is pegged to the price of oil, so, it’s much more profitable for them.

[Count Bobulescu]

Because there is no national policy (and there have been calls for one), the rules for fracking vary greatly by state. Here’s a closer look.



Here, for instance, is a look at which states require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in drilling. (Fracking is exempt from federal disclosure rules under the Safe Water Drinking Act.) Some states, like Pennsylvania — which sits above the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation — now require a full disclosure of chemicals. By contrast, Kansas, which is just beginning to see widespread fracking activity, is further behind:


Meanwhile, the map below details how different states treat the “venting” or release of excess gas into the air. Just 22 of the 31 gas states have restrictions on this process, which can release both heat-trapping methane into the atmosphere as well as “volatile organic compounds” such as benzene that can produce smog and trigger health problems. Some states ban this practice entirely; others restrict it to emergencies or require that operators not harm public health:


Read more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cking-in-maps/

[New Vision]

Because there is no national policy (and there have been calls for one), the rules for fracking vary greatly by state. Here’s a closer look.



Here, for instance, is a look at which states require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in drilling. (Fracking is exempt from federal disclosure rules under the Safe Water Drinking Act.) Some states, like Pennsylvania — which sits above the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation — now require a full disclosure of chemicals. By contrast, Kansas, which is just beginning to see widespread fracking activity, is further behind:


Meanwhile, the map below details how different states treat the “venting” or release of excess gas into the air. Just 22 of the 31 gas states have restrictions on this process, which can release both heat-trapping methane into the atmosphere as well as “volatile organic compounds” such as benzene that can produce smog and trigger health problems. Some states ban this practice entirely; others restrict it to emergencies or require that operators not harm public health:


Read more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cking-in-maps/

Well here is the "closer look" to Ireland...



Keep in mind that Tamboran wants to recover 2.2 trillion cubic meters of gas in Ireland



Any more to say?

(But thanks for keeping us informed)

[New Vision]

I think the Russians will be happy to frack away to their heart’s content, irrespective of what anyone else thinks. Unlike the US, Russia’s gas price is pegged to the price of oil, so, it’s much more profitable for them.

"Shale gas seen as unlikely bet for Russia" (Financial Times) ... => https://sites.google.com/site/fracki...-boom-and-bust

Of course not, because US Gas prices are - due to that shale gas hype - often below production costs. The European gas/oil prices are much more sustaind on contracts and regulations.

[New Vision]

Just to confirm I’m not afraid to post something that runs counter to my own evolving opinions. Here’s a debate that took place in early July, and I think is set to be broadcast on TV July 18. I believe NV denigrated NPR up thread as an unreliable or some-such, media outlet. Maybe we’ll get a flip-flop on that now. The audio is 50 minutes. Full transcript also available.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/02/156158...harm-than-good

We're not afraid, we're "only" concerned, CB...

Maybe this Forbes article can tell you Why European Shale Is Totally 'Fracked', and risking the good reputation for our stunning performance in farming produce just for a wee hype is anything but a healthy option for our country.

Not for the short, and also not for the long run.

[Count Bobulescu]

Just to reiterate, the science is far from settled on many of the issues related to fracking. The Salon piece cited at # 645 above has now been questioned as jumping to unwarranted conclusions. See quotes but read the full piece.

Abrahm Lustgarten of ProPublica led with the researchers’ hypothesis that these natural conduits for deep fluids might add to drilling risks, but he noted the authors’ concession that it was unclear whether the natural mixing of deep and shallow fuids occurred over many millenniums or a few years. Christopher Joyce’s report for NPR notes how the study provides fodder for everyone in the fracking fight, raising — as is the case with much science — more questions than it answers.

On Tuesday, Engelder’s concerns about overheated news coverage were manifested in pieces that he and Robert Jackson both said went well beyond the study findings. One example Engelder cited is this piece from Salon: “Confirmed: Fracking can pollute” — which jumps from an initial finding and related (untested) hypothesis about drilling risk to a definitive statement (talk about “single-study syndrome“).

| Related | I encourage you to read the latest Shale Gas Review posts by Tom Wilber, the author of “Under the Surface,” an invaluable resource in gauging fracking disputes – “Does ‘Gasland’ controversy reflect reporting in 21st Century” and “Fracking in NY — Step on the gas or slam on the breaks? Health, environmental officials far apart on impacts.”
3:17 p.m. | Updated |
* I originally wrote that the study should “end concerns” about brine contamination of water supplies coming from drilling. That was far too definitive, as Abrahm Lustgarten pointed out to me in an e-mail exchange this afternoon.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...drilling-risk/

[New Vision]

Fracking well pad:



Wyoming:



TEDX — Chemicals in Natural Gas Operations

What you need to know about fracking

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXHI2jSg5pM"]TEDX — Chemicals in Natural Gas Operations - YouTube[/ame]