Guest post by David Middleton
This is the promised sequel to More Frac’ing Lies from the EPA.
The EPA’s new report on frac’ing can be downloaded here:
Most of this report deals with everything other than frac’ing.
The only section directly relevant to frac’ing is “Well Injection.”
The report supposedly supports this statement:
“There are instances when hyrdofracking has impacted drinking water resources. That’s an important conclusion, an important consideration for moving forward,” said Thomas Burke, a deputy assistant administrator and science adviser at the EPA, on a call with reporters Tuesday.
What evidence does the EPA present to support this pack of lies?
Let’s go to Chapter 6 of the EPA report, “Well Injection”…
Page 6-3:
Production wells are sited and designed primarily to optimize production of oil or gas, which requires isolating water-bearing formations from hydrocarbon-bearing formations in order to prevent the water from diluting the hydrocarbons and to protect drinking water resources.4 However, problems with the well’s components or improperly sited, designed, or executed hydraulic fracturing operations (or combinations of these) could adversely impact the quality of drinking water resources. (Note that, due to the subsurface nature of activities in the well injection stage, the drinking water resources that may be directly impacted are groundwater resources; see Chapter 2 for additional information about groundwater.5)
“Production wells are sited and designed primarily to optimize production of oil or gas, which requires isolating water-bearing formations from hydrocarbon-bearing formations in order to prevent the water from diluting the hydrocarbons to protect drinking water resources”… No schist, Sherlock.
“However, problems with the well’s components or improperly sited, designed, or executed hydraulic fracturing operations (or combinations of these) could adversely impact the quality of drinking water resources.”
Yes… Problems *could* cause all manner of bad things.
What follows is about 65 pages of dissertations on well casing, cement jobs, how fluids can migrate through the subsurface, microseismicity, examples of frac’ed wells being in pressure communication with one another and a lot of blather about how these things *could* affect groundwater.
It’s not until section 6.4 that we get anything truly relevant.
Page 6-70:
6.4 Synthesis
In the injection stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle, operators inject hydraulic fracturing fluids into a well under pressure that is high enough to fracture the production zone. These fluids flow through the well and then out into the surrounding formation, where they create fractures in the rock, allowing hydrocarbons to flow through the fractures, to the well, and then up the production string.
The production well and the surrounding geologic features function as a system that is often designed with multiple elements that can isolate hydrocarbon-bearing zones and water-bearing zones, including groundwater resources, from each other. This physical isolation optimizes oil and gas production and can protect drinking water resources via isolation within the well (by the casing and cement) and/or through the presence of multiple layers of subsurface rock between the target formations where hydraulic fracturing occurs and drinking water aquifers.
6.4.1 Summary of Findings
In this chapter, we consider impacts to drinking water resources to occur if hydraulic fracturing fluids or other subsurface fluids affected by hydraulic fracturing enter and adversely impact the quality of groundwater resources. Potential pathways for fluid movement to drinking water resources may be linked to one or more components of the well and/or features of the subsurface geologic system. If present, these potential pathways can, in combination with the high pressures under which fluids are injected and pressure changes within the subsurface due to hydraulic fracturing, result in the subsurface movement of fluids to drinking water resources.
The potential for these pathways to exist or form has been investigated through modeling studies that simulate subsurface responses to hydraulic fracturing, and demonstrated via case studies and other monitoring efforts.
[…]
Finally! On page 70 of Chapter 6,page 346 of 666 pages… “demonstrated via case studies and other monitoring efforts”… Observations!!!
Page 6-71:
6.4.1.3 Impacts to Drinking Water Resources
We identified some example cases in the literature where the pathways associated with hydraulic fracturing resulted in an impact on the quality of drinking water resources.
One of these cases took place in Bainbridge Township, Ohio, in 2007. Failure to cement over-pressured formations through which a production well passed—and proceeding with the hydraulic fracturing operation without adequate cement and an extended period during which the well was shut in—led to a buildup of natural gas within the well annulus and high pressures within the well. This ultimately resulted in movement of gas from the production zone into local drinking water aquifers (Section 6.2.2.2). Twenty-six domestic drinking water wells were taken off-line and the houses were connected to a public water system after the incident due to elevated methane levels.
“Failure to cement over-pressured formations through which a production well passed… resulted in movement of gas from the production zone into local drinking water aquifers.” Failed cement job. Not caused by frac’ing. Not an example of frac fluid polluting groundwater.
Page 6-72:
Casings at a production well near Killdeer, North Dakota, ruptured in 2010 following a pressure spike during hydraulic fracturing, allowing fluids to escape to the surface. Brine and tert-butyl alcohol were detected in two nearby monitoring wells. Following an analysis of potential sources, the only source consistent with the conditions observed in the two impacted water wells was the well that ruptured during hydraulic fracturing. There is also evidence that out-of-zone fracturing occurred at the well (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.3.2.2).
“Casings at a production well near Killdeer, North Dakota, ruptured… allowing fluids to escape to the surface. Brine and tert-butyl alcohol were detected in two nearby monitoring wells.” Casing failure. Not caused by frac’ing. Not an example of frac fluid polluting groundwater.
Page 6-72:
There are other cases where contamination of or changes to the quality of drinking water resources near hydraulic fracturing operations were identified. Hydraulic fracturing remains a potential contributing cause in these cases.
That’s it? Really? Are you frac’ing kidding me? Oh wait… There’s more…
Page 6-72:
There are other cases in which production wells associated with hydraulic fracturing are alleged to have caused contamination of drinking water resources. Data limitations in most of those cases (including the unavailability of information in litigation settlements resulting in sealed documents) make it difficult to assess whether or not hydraulic fracturing was a cause of the contamination.
Page 6-75:
6.4.3 Uncertainties
Generally, less is known about the occurrence of (or potential for) impacts of injection-related pathways in the subsurface than for other components of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle, which tend to be easier to observe and measure. Furthermore, while there is a large amount of information available on production wells in general, there is little information that is both specific to hydraulic fracturing operations and readily accessible across the states to form a national picture.
Good frac’ing grief!!! Since they don’t know much about how the actual frac’ing operation could impact groundwater, they just expand frac’ing to include “hydraulic fracturing water cycle” in their definition of frac’ing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Something not mentioned when reporting the two instances of failures that appear to have been frack related, there are some 1.7million currently active o&g wells in the US and even conventional wells have been fractured since the beginning of the industry. The idea was the invention of a US Civil War veteran in the 1860s using gun powder to stimulate…. water wells of all things! Further development led to use of nitro glycerine and a number of workers were killed in the early days. This was followed up by ‘torpedoing’ of wells right up to the late 1960s at least. The first frack was done on a gas well in the Hugoton gas field in Kansas in1947. Development continued until fair results began to be achieved in the Barnet Shale in Texas in 1982. It was only after the advent of horizontal drilling did hydraulic fracturing become big time and most hydraulic frac jobs were done after 2002.
So, somehow, it took 150yrs. of formation fracturing before it got noticed! The hype and angst was developed only when the anti democratic, new world order totalitarian elites mobilized their useful fools when it was clear that peak oil and gas hadn’t occurred and they weren’t done with fossil fuels after all. Masters of fake news, they generated all the ills of the technology. They had already been enlisting peak oil as a reason for promoting Luddite tech to replace them.
After reading a lot about fracking and Pavilion Wy, I made several observations:
Land surface has been washed by rainfall for hundreds of millions of years. Living things have adapted to the “chemicals” that are normally found in surface runoff and in the water that drains into shallow aquifers. Anytime we extraction fossil fuels or metal ores from the ground, we bring material to the surface to which we may not be adapted – most notoriously mine tailings. One of the best things about fracking is that relatively little waste material is brought to the surface. However, the water in fracked wells is a concern – probably not from the “toxicity” of additives in fracking fluids, but the organic chemicals that leech from the fracked rock.
One vulnerable spot is the casing where wells pass through drinking water aquifers. Unfortunately, we have been drilling wells through aquifers for about a century in hydrocarbon rich regions (the Pavilion area has many old wells) without always being careful at this point of vulnerability. I’m more worried about the threat past drilling operations (and resulting surface contamination and improper waste disposal) pose to drinking water than modern fracked wells. A fracking operation causes nearby wells to be tested and problems discovered – and most likely those are existing problems. It seems absurd for contamination to travel a significant distance underground to a nearby well within a few months of fracking. Traveling from an old well over a few decades makes far more sense. The fracking industry should be testing all nearby wells before beginning operations, because their owners will be testing afterwards. Perhaps this is routine now, but it wasn’t in Pavilion.
Aquifers are an critical resource that produce value for local residents “forever”. Extraction of fossil fuels produces benefits (mostly to outsiders) for a short period of time.
Following a frac, the first action is to flow the well back; retrieving much of the fluid used in the frac. In the case of a gas well, once the well cleans up enough to meet pipeline requirements (reduced water, sand and possibly CO2) it is switched to sales.. The gas production companies are not allowed to sell gas until the gas meets pipeline quality standards and the production companies required to flare the produced gas until it does meet these strict standards.
The environmentalists are always complaining about the amount of gas flared by production companies but it is the pipeline company standards that must be met before putting a well to sales. These standards are in place to ensure the safety of the pipeline from corrosion and scale. Production companies want to minimize their flaring and put the well on production ASAP to start generating income but pipeline safety comes first.
Frank, to your point. From the time the frac is flowed back until the well is plugged and abandoned, the bottom hole pressure is reduced and no fluid moves away from the well, only to the well. Only in cases such as a conversion to a water injection well for reasons of secondary recovery will the bottom hole pressure be increased. The only place frac fluids can be recovered is from the well that is fraced.
As for Pavilion Wyoming, in subsequent testing no contamination could be found. The Federal EPA finally gave up trying to find contamination and passed the testing to the Wyoming state EPA. I don’t believe any new issues have popped up in Pavillion for some time and that production continues.
Sorry, but I call B.S.
You do the classic environmentalist trick of pretending chemicals (gas, oil saltwater, fracking fluids) are “infinitely” hazardous, or in “infinite” supply. Even the most screwed up oil and gas well can only impact a limited area due to hydrology and dilution factors. Yes, I suppose, you can find or invent a scenario where it could, or has happened. Don’t waste your time posting it – the 99th percentile situation is not actually all that relevant to the discussion.
Aquifers will be theoretically used “forever”. However, oil, gas, and other potential contaminants cannot contaminate an aquifer “forever”. This is not a point of contention – this is chemistry and physics. Chemicals break down, or dilute, after a finite period of time.
So you are projecting out this aura of infinite risk to irreplaceable resources, when there is no such thing. We are discussing finite risks to finite resources, and how best to mitigate those risks.
Any one who’d want to drink water from a hydrocarbon formation is an idiot.
Why would I want to spend a million or more dollars and and not insure it is going into the formation to produce the most oil and gas.
Yes, a key point. It is not in the operators interests to pollute local groundwater, because that would mean they are losing valuable product and money. People who do that will get fired, before the EPA becomes involved.
As one living here in the heart of Evil Marcellus Shale country there is no ground water contamination from fracking. The only ground water contamination so far documented by EPA and PADEP is from fuel spills at work sites. And spare me Dimock PA, the water in that region has been known to have high methane content from the very first settlers to establish there.
I believe that I shall coin a new term. (label if you prefer to be honest, unlike the media) COULDAPHOBIA. Another item in the Phobia family. Couldaphobiacs are afraid of any news that contains the word, “could”. This “could” happen, or something else – even worse – could happen if you don’t…(fill in the appropriate blank but be sure to insinuate the requirement for donations to defeat the enemy-du-jour.) So, if a couldaphobiac near you, should suddenly require a “safe space”, be sure not to agree with anything they say and get the heck out of there. In my humble opinion (well, not so humble, today 😉
Couldaphobia. I like it!
I have taste water filled with gas in a rural area, years ago. The people who lived there (pre-bottled water era) would leave the water settle out to allow the gas to escape. The taste is always there though and the people who lived there adjusted. True story. I made several visits and drank their tea. I’m still here, decades later, FYI.
And the microbes in your colon also produce far more methane than you could ever ingest by drinking such water. It’s called flatulence, and several other words.
Basis biochemistry which Greenpeace doesn’t like to explain to the people they dupe out of money.
I have tasted water that came from underground in London. Very highly contaminated with calcium carbonate. In fact, the rest of Croydon had a different extraction point, and the water was so highly contaminated that the Water Authority had to extract much of the contaminant to make the water saleable. They had a mountain of white stuff which had been removed from the water.
The water was put into pressure bottles – glass contained within a stainless steel mesh – and then was injected with high pressure carbon dioxide. This was quite drinkable, in spite of the rubbery taste, which I think came from the rubber seals. However the rubbery taste was, I believe, not noticeable when the water was mixed with ethyl alcohol, and a host of minor carbohydrates and minerals.
You will have read about this process in many books of the Victorian era, where people drank it. They called it a “Whisky and Soda”. No known addition of sodium, however.
Also known as the EPA’s new report on who to fire in January….
The report supposedly supports this statement:
“There are instances when hyrdofracking has impacted drinking water resources. That’s an important conclusion, an important consideration for moving forward,” said Thomas Burke, a deputy assistant administrator and science adviser at the EPA, on a call with reporters Tuesday.
– they’ve already said ‘having no clue’ !
What has been found so far is water contamination by fuel spills on work sites. EPA and PADEP have both had to admit in front of a judge that they have only found fuel spill contamination and no contamination from “hydraulic fracturing” here in PA. Have not seen any proof that fracking has been found to be responsible for water contamination anywhere else, either. Oh, EPA was caught falsifying test data in several cases out west. There is that, I guess.