From Duke University , something sure to irritate people like Josh Fox, Joe Romm, and Bill McKibben who are certain that fracking is terrible.
DURHAM, N.C. — A new study by scientists at Duke University and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) finds no evidence of groundwater contamination from shale gas production in Arkansas.
“Our results show no discernible impairment of groundwater quality in areas associated with natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing in this region,” said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.
The scientists sampled 127 shallow drinking water wells in areas overlying Fayetteville Shale gas production in north-central Arkansas. They analyzed the samples for major and trace elements and hydrocarbons, and used isotopic tracers to identify the sources of possible contaminants. The researchers compared the chemical composition of the contaminants to those found in water and gas samples from nearby shale gas drilling sites.
“Only a fraction of the groundwater samples we collected contained dissolved methane, mostly in low concentrations, and the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon in the methane in our samples was different from the carbon in deep shale gas in all but two cases,” Vengosh said. This indicates that the methane was produced primarily by biological activity in the region’s shallow aquifers and not from shale gas contamination, he said.
“These findings demonstrate that shale gas development, at least in this area, has been done without negatively impacting drinking water resources,” said Nathaniel R. Warner, a PhD student at Duke and lead author of the study.
Robert Jackson, a professor of environmental sciences at Duke, added, “Overall, homeowners typically had good water quality, regardless of whether they were near shale gas development.”
Vengosh, Warner, Jackson and their colleagues published their peer-reviewed findings in the online edition of the journal Applied Geochemistry.
Hydraulic fracturing, also called hydrofracking or fracking, involves pumping water, sand and chemicals deep underground into horizontal gas wells at high pressure to crack open hydrocarbon-rich shale and extract natural gas. Accelerated shale gas drilling and hydrofracking in recent years has fueled concerns about water contamination by methane, fracking fluids and wastewater from the operations.
Previous peer-reviewed studies by Duke scientists found direct evidence of methane contamination in drinking water wells near shale-gas drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale basin of northeastern Pennsylvania, as well as possible connectivity between deep brines and shallow aquifers, but no evidence of contamination from fracking fluids.
“The hydrogeology of Arkansas’s Fayetteville Shale basin is very different from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” Vengosh noted. Far from contradicting the earlier studies, the Arkansas study “suggests that variations in local and regional geology play major roles in determining the possible risk of groundwater impacts from shale gas development. As such, they must be taken into consideration before drilling begins.”
Human factors — such as the drilling techniques used and the integrity of the wellbores – also likely play a role in preventing, or allowing, gas leakage from drilling sites to shallow aquifers, Vengosh said.
“The take-home message is that regardless of the location, systematic monitoring of geochemical and isotopic tracers is necessary for assessing possible groundwater contamination,” he said. “Our findings in Arkansas are important, but we are still only beginning to evaluate and understand the environmental risks of shale gas development. Much more research is needed.”
Vengosh, Warner and Jackson’s coauthors on the new study were Timothy M. Kresse and Phillip D. Hays of the USGS, and Adrian Down and Jonathan D. Karr of Duke.
Funding for the study was provided by Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and the Duke Center on Global Change. Field sampling activities were funded by Shirley Community Development Corporation; Faulkner County, Ark.; the University of Arkansas; the Arkansas Water Resource Center; and the USGS Arkansas Water Science Center.
CITATION: “Geochemical and Isotopic Variations in Shallow Groundwater in Areas of the Fayetteville Shale Development, North-Central Arkansas,” Nathaniel R. Warner, Timothy M. Kresse, Phillip D. Hays, Adrian Down, Jonathan D. Karr, Robert B. Jackson, Avner Vengosh. Applied Geochemistry, May 15, 2013.
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2013.04.013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pennsylvania, where the oil and gas can SEEP OUT OF THE GROUND and to the surface naturally. Compare North Dakota, where the minimum starting depth in the Bakken is 6000′ (Lots of “cap rock” on top of the shale.) NO COMPARISON! The “anti’s” use BOGUS THINKING and “historical non-connected precedent” to make their case. Shallow, simplistic thinking at work! (But then again, that describes 98% of the AWG crowd to begin with!)
Here in Kansas, we have been fracking for nearly 70 years (since 1947). We are a major natural gas producer in the US. No apparent problems in that time. But yes, there are some who have methane in their water–it exists in any and every sedimentary deposit, so you will never get rid of it if your well is in those deposits.
This really is becoming an exercise in impossible. There is no evidence of any damage, yet they still have to run test and test, study after study to disprove what has never been proven.
The difference between Fracking and Climate Alarmism is at least Obama is not running science yet. So the Alarmists still have to PROVE their case (but of course we saw with his twits that he is trying to reverse science as well).
Johnsonas says:
May 15, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Fracking is dangerous, sorry man
Fracking is only dangerous to the Anti-capitalist green movement.
While there are very, VERY isolated cases of wells contaminating ground water, virtually all are caused by poor casing/ cementing jobs done by the drillers. Still there have been 100,000’s of wells drilled through fresh water aquifiers, properly cased and sealed that have resulted in no contamination.
Another element of fracking fluids, some companies are using food grade additives and oils to eliminate the possibility of contamination in event of a spill.
Fracking is like any industrial process, if done properly, there is no harm only the benefit of increased productivity from the oil/ gas bearing formation.
Matthew R. Epp P.E.
Dr. Bill Chameides, (aka The Green Grok) will not be amused at these findings…
Speaking of ground water….
http://theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/Canadian-mine-yeilds-worlds-oldest-free-flowing-water-new-research/article11938571/
This article is an interesting post topic and is wrong on multiple levels, to be discussed on that pending thread….meanwhile….
Mostly….we see what we….or ‘they’….want us to see….
Mostly….we do NOT see….what we are NOT looking for….
Mostly….is now over….for many are discovering greater Truth….
Every epiphany is permanent….find and share Truth.
“I thought the fracking fluids were brines – or at least a byproduct of the fracking procedures – and thus contamination.”
Little known fact, apparently: Once you get past about 900′ under the surface (with some local variations and excepting a few unique geological conditions in some areas) ALL fluids trapped in the earth are brines. (except for the part that’s oil; gas is sometimes dry but more typically in solution with either brine or oil) So when someone says “brine” is contamination, well yeah, it’s the same type of “contamination” as 97.5% of the water on this planet. That’s why it’s not really doing much to put this water away about 10K feet down – you’re just adding brine to brine. If there was some pathway to the surface, the high pressure brine that is ALREADY THERE and has been there for millions of years would have already found a way up.
for real geology buffs, almost all sedimentary rocks (the only kinds capable of holding and producing fluids) were laid down in ancient ocean environments. The brines in them are remnants of those ancient oceans, after they’ve been cooked and pressurized for several million years. (qualifier “almost” because I know there are some wind-driven dune formations and a few very rare and limited lake deposits that exist)
One of the things which annoyed me about Josh Fox and Gasland was the fact that i was earlier taken in by some of the movie’s claims. But a little research later shows that much of it varies from misinformation, deception and downright lies.
People claim that it contaminates the drinking supply whilst nobody is learning some basic facts like the water aquifer’s for drinking water and the gas shale zones are separated by thousands of feet of bedrock. It’s nonsense and immoral.
If your readers have not seen Phelim McAleer’s documentary ‘Fracknation’ then I urge that they do so. Apologies that this is a poor quality 4:3 ratio video taped of the aired episode in January but it’s the only full length version i can find.
http://youtu.be/VLTgUQD3W7c
Preservation of freshwater aquifers from pollution by oil and gas production has been mandatory in the regulations for about a hundred years, more or less. This is done by “surface casing” which does the job well enough. Every well drilled will set the casing to a point below the deepest freshwater aquifer. Freshwater aquifers in petroleum producing regions sometimes have methane associated with the water, but methane naturally occurs within shallow sediments (shales, lignites, etc.) and contiguous to FW aquifers. The alarms about FW contamination by fracking are just more screeching by rabid global warmers who, if queried, show a complete ignorance of the issues.
Opto says:
May 15, 2013 at 10:50 pm
============================
Any link to that story ….. I am sure in Canada if he reported it, it must have made the news. Unless “Big Oil” somehow covered it up.
Years ago I read an alarmist article online and I became concerned enough that I was ready to champion the cause. Not being one to go off spouting off about one thing I read online I went back and started researching. It’s wise to gain knowledge before yelling the sky is falling. As I went along I noticed this one phrase that kept cropping up in each of the alarming stories I was reading. I saw it enough to get me wondering if it wasn’t so much about the world having a fever but more about this one thing. The phrase was “Much more research is needed”. That got me thinking that maybe it was more about the grant gravy train than it was about a true problem. Now I see it in this story. That’s unfortunate because to me the entire story just became suspect.
You are absolutely correct. The list of other dangerous things includes: everything!
I do have to tell you that fracking is a great deal less dangerous than freezing in the dark.
Everyone who believes that fracking should be regulated by government should keep in mind that there is no one in either the federal or state governments that knows enough about fracking to establish appropriate criteria and procedures for regulation. Moreover, those in government with some knowledge and comprehension about fracking are typically biased against the exploitation and production of fossil fuels. Nothing good can come from government regulation under current circumstances.
I’m skeptical. All science funded by government is corrupted by political motives, not just the global warming scam.
Thanks! I’d never seen that film. Nice to see counterbalance to factually challenged propaganda like “Gasland” though it appears Fracknation may have also elided full disclosure in a few minor spots… http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/21/fracknation-documentary-attacks-critics/1851609/
“The scientists sampled 127 shallow drinking water wells in areas overlying Fayetteville Shale gas production in north-central Arkansas.”
I’m curious why they did not also test deep drinking water wells. Shallow wells tend to run dry during droughts and must be replaced with deep wells. Deep wells are more expensive, but when homeowners tire of having to haul drinking water to there houses every few days they tend to have deep drinking water wells drilled. It seems to me that contamination would first show up in deep wells.
What is methane contamination? What are the negative effects and at what levels?
One of the most important questions to ask in evaluating any study is to ask, “So what?”
Actually the phrase you really have to worry about is: “The science is settled.”
The phrase, “More research is needed”, is almost always true. The statements of trustworthy experts will be full of ‘ifs’, ‘ands’, ‘buts’ and “more research is needed”. It means they are looking at all sides of an issue. The folks who will give you a simple, straight story are probably no more accurate than a “dart playing monkey”.
Check out the work of Philip Tetlock. http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/pf/experts_Tetlock.moneymag/index.htm
Johnsonas says:
May 15, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Fracking is dangerous, sorry man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spoken without thought or research. The usual Protest for the sake of Protesting because it is for the benefit of humans.
Fracking has been around since shortly after the Civil War (the War between the States)
Civil War veteran Col. Edward A.L. Roberts, took out the first patent on fracking on April 25, 1865. He was awarded U.S. Patent (No. 59,936) in November 1866 for what would become known as the Roberts Torpedo.
Large areas of this country have coal beds much closer to the surface than the petroleum deposits. These coal beds often have methane in them which, in addition to being a hazard to miners, often migrates into even shallow water wells. One of my uncles bought an abandoned country school (frame construction-2000 sq ft) and converted it into a house. The water from his well was unpleasant to drink until it had been allowed to set in an open crock for a day or so. He was finally motivated to solve the problem after one day when he lowered himself into a nice hot bath while smoking a cigarette. No harm was done except for minor loss of body hair including eyebrows and a significant reduction in his complacency about smelly water. Investigation the next day revealed that the wellhead was sealed in compliance with federal regulations for the former school. He removed the seal and the water was soon fit to drink right out of the tap. I doubt that he even considered whether he should have inquired about the legal ramification of removing the seal.
A google search for “sulfur springs” gets about 4 1/2 millions hits. I do not know if any towns received a similar name after hydraulic fracturing was developed.
Some coal producers (including Peabody) are looking heavily into horizontal drilling into coal beds to allow removal of the gases before mining the coal as a safety precaution which might produce enough salable gas to offset the costs.
I know that if I lived above a coal bed, I would be delighted for any progress on removing the gases before they leaked to the overburden.
Donald Mitchell
Jason Miller asks at 0936 on May 16, 2013, “I’m curious why they did not also test deep drinking water wells. … It seems to me that contamination would first show up in deep wells.”
I hope someone who knows answers your question, Mr. Miller.
I must say, though, that it seems to me more likely that natural contamination would show up in deep wells.
Johnsonas says:
May 15, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Fracking is dangerous, sorry man.
————————————————————————
Getting out of bed in the morning is dangerous, sorry man.
Driving to work is dangerous, sorry man.
The list goes on and on.
It’s all about risk verses reward. Sorry man.
“OK, so who’s most likely to be secretly funding the anti-fracking rent-a-crowd? The evil coal industry or the evil nukular/military guys?” Sorry Pied Piper….wrong and wrong,at least here in Canuckville. It’s the FruitFly Dr Suzuki,the Tides Foundation(Soros).Greenpeace,etc. And in the USofA,Warren Buffet,who is all ready benefiting greatly with his coal trains.So I guess the first one isn’t that wrong.
Oh boy! People like Josh Fox, Joe Romm, and Bill McKibben who are certain that fracking is so terrible do burn and also use other energy from the natural gas anyway.
That is such a perfect example of a hypocrite. Seems if they would instead just drop out of society, move somewhere they can cut down forests for all of their fuel, never hear from them again… you know, I just might think they must have been serious.