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.
Everything you wanted to know about fracking: This whole Fracking scare came about due to a dumb reporter. She was reporting on the new shale gas drilling and reported on the “new” technology of “fracking”. She glommed on to the “sexy” industry jargon of “fracking”. But, fracking has been done since the 50s. We have fracked over 1 million wells since that time. However, we were fracking vertical wells with maybe 40 ft. of perforations. Along came horizontal drilling. The problems was you had 1-2 miles of productive zone due to the horizontal bore. However, you can’t frack 1-2 miles as you’ll lose pressure once one zone fractures. So there was new technology. The new technology was the ability to do multi-zonal fracking. One such procedure is ball-and-sleeve fracking. THAT was the new tech, not fracking itself. So when the reported wrote her article, all the eco-freaks came out whining about “big oil” experimenting on ground water. Totally bogus.
A few comments on water wells containing methane. First, oil and gas oftentimes naturally seep to the surface. That is how you used to find the oil and gas, look for surface seeps. In fact, companies sell “methane separators” for homeowners to use on their well water. Long before shale gas these were sold. Second, if there is a problem from a gas well, 99.9% of the time it is due to a bad cement job. Nothing to do with fracking.
Finally, I work in the Bakken oil fields. The brine up there is many times saltier than the ocean. It can’t be used for anything so it is pumped back down into the formation it came from.
Yeah, out here in California we have the La Brea Tar Pits. Talk about surface seeps! You walk around that fancy neighborhood and there’s been oil coming to the surface for tens of thousands of years. (Hence the Spanish name La Brea.) Still seeps into all the underground parking garages too. No big deal. Put an orange cone on the space until it gets cleaned up. My understanding is we’ve been fracking extensively out here in California for about sixty years without much problem.
I’ve encountered some startling articles which do not agree with the tone of this post at all. Characterizing people as eco-freaks is not helpful in evaluating reports – though I certainly agree there is a false eco agenda. You report on it routinely : the climate caper.
We do not hear about water pollution from the scrubbers ash coming out of coal plants or often appreciate the devastation of mountaintop strip mining. Energy politics are convoluted and the truth is not obvious. Still : http://www.youtube.com/homeproject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/DrinkingWaterAtRisk.pdf
http://www.register-herald.com/marcellus/x962029419/Fracking-chemicals
http://current.com/1gjhp4c http://www.earthworksaction.org/fracturingearthquakes.cfm http://www.ewg.org/drillingaroundthelaw/pressrelease
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/washington/story/67753.html
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_waste
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2008/11/dick-cheney-and-halliburton-fing-in.html http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/3/fracking_and_the_environment_natural_gas http://www.propublica.org/feature/natural-gas-drilling-what-we-dont-know-1231 http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracpage.htm
Source file : http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/p/yann-arthus-bertrand.html
REPLY: They don’t agree, so what? It doesn’t change this research, it only illustrates that you value FUD over science. – Anthony
Hey, James D., thanks for the helpful information from an informed, intelligent, source. Hope all is well with you out there and you have good housing, etc… .
Talking with a clerk as I checked out at a local grocery store this afternoon, she said that her fiancé was home again after tiring of the on-again-off-again work schedule. Apparently, the Fantasy Science Club keeps shutting things down in ND. She said, “There’s a lot of politics out there.” I replied, “It’s those enviro-n–z–s… fantasy science… .” I think one was standing behind me in line. She stiffened noticeably. She said nothing, however. Rats. I was ready to fire the truth at her with both barrels.
Hang in there, James!
“Yeah, out here in California … .” [Ashby at 7:16PM]
Brings to mind the parallel situation along the California coast where natural oil slicks have appeared on the Pacific Ocean and its beaches for centuries (if you want, I’ll look up the history on it — not going to bother for now!) and the Fantasy Science Club has used that to frighten people off of oil drilling [and MILES off shore — so, not an aesthetic issue either].
Holy Man! I can’t stand by and allow disinformation on this august site. I am a fracer. That is, I supervise hydraulic fracturing as a completions supervisor for various oil and gas companies. I know of what I speak.
1) Frac fluid (water) is NOT brine. Some companies are EXPERIMENTING with using brine water for fracing but this is likely less than 1% of all fracs currently taking place. “Frac fluid” is typically fresh water or a specialty fluid such as “Frac oil” which is essentially a mixture of diesel fuel and an aromatic solvent such as xylene. Once the fresh water is pumped into the formation 3000+ feet below surface, it mixes with formation salts and becomes brine. The best way to “remediate” any “waste-water”, in my highly knowledgeable view, is to simply put it into a pit and let it evaporate.
2) Fracing, particularly in Alberta, is highly regulated. Prior to fracing a well, we establish an “envelope” based upon subsurface pressure and geo-phone sensing equipment, determine the likely radial and lateral spread of our planned frac, then look at a survey map of the adjacent area and establish all of the other wells that are within our “envelope”. We then install surface gauges on all of those wells (including any fresh water wells) and monitor for a pressure response, in real time, during the fracturing operations. If ANY pressure response is notes on an adjacent well, the frac is stopped immediately.
So there.
Holy Cow, Alan Clark, thanks for more useful information from an informed, intelligent, source. That you can’t stand by and just say nothing shows why you must do very well at that supervisor job.
Go, Big O’!
I bet Alan will be invited to make entries soon. Good info!
In Australia the anti-gas lobby are full on. But conditions in the sub rock levels differ from place to place. I lived on a small 100 acre hobby farm and we drilled for water. We stopped at 205 ft as if we had gone deeper we would have needed a submersible pump that cost thousands. We had it tested and it wasn’t too bad for stock, but heavy in iron. It was yellowish and children were not advised to drink it. It tasted lousy anyway. But the driller told me that in the outback drilling for either water or oil, 3,000 ft down, the water comes out hot. And is often sulphur and methane is present that will settle on standing. Anyway, I find it obnoxious when they show scenes from CSI ‘Fracked’ episodes, and people lighting a match to create a flame from a tap when they don’t come from Australia! Deep underground water or wells is not the best to drink and surface water from natural springs often becomes contaminated from insecticides, herbicides and some nitrite fertilizers, that should worry farmers. Give me rain water or at best chlorinated tap water as many water born diseases can kill or make people very sick.