Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 13, 2014

A Republican state senator in Colorado justified the practice of hydraulic fracturing -- commonly known as "fracking" -- by saying that the presence of burnable amounts of methane gas in drinking water is a perfectly natural phenomenon. "They talk about methane in the water and this, that, and the other," state Sen. Randy Baumgardner said, "but if you go back in history and look at how the Indians traveled, they traveled to the 'burning waters.' And that was methane in the waters and that was for warmth in the wintertime."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

TrueBlue

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Hmmm, maybe it will be the fuel of the 21st Century.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-12 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Make bath time funner

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-12 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hot water heater? NOt any more. Just light it on fire in the shower.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-12 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Couple thoughts to consider:
1. How that's going to work out when a town's lawn sprinklers turn on?
2. What's the local fire department going to use to put out fires?

#4 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-12 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are a lot of natural sources of surface methane gas, but this guy is still an idiot.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-12 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's hard to imagine that this fellow dresses and feeds himself.

#6 | Posted by morris at 2014-08-13 03:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4 | Newsworthy 1

Someone should bring this knob a bottle of methane water and ask him to drink it.

Ten bucks says he won't.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-13 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

I knew those Indians were Fraking.

#8 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-08-13 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.hpcfire.com

I installed that a couple years ago. Just think if I had methane water I could have avoided running the gas line!

#9 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-08-13 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

At least it makes doing a Lisa left eye Lopez easier.

#10 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-13 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

From what I can gather some Indians did enjoy geo-therrmal water in winter time.

They did now however have modern medical knowledge.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-13 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The party of STUPID just love to keep proving it.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-13 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

For some reason I flashed back to the plumbing scene in History Of the World.

"It's astounding..It's Amazing. Get on the bandwagon... pipe the ___ right out of your house. Plumbing!."

#13 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-08-13 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wait, so let me get this straight. Some guy relays historical fact and confirmed science and that makes him stupid?

Sorry but anyone who knows anything about wells knows about methane. That is why it was always a joke when people would connect it to fracking. It's normal in a lot of areas and the slightest knowledge or experience would remove the hysteria but that would not sell as well so i guess we are stuck with absurd sensationalism and uneducated masses believing it.

#14 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-13 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Wait, so let me get this straight. Some guy relays historical fact and confirmed science and that makes him stupid?

#14 | Posted by salamandagator

The man isn't stupid - he's taking a possible historical fact, and using it to convince stupid people that fracking isn't bad.

He's actually clever. The people who think this is a good pro-fracking argument are STUPID.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-13 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

The people who think this is a good pro-fracking argument are STUPID."

It's not a pro fracking argument it is dispelling an absurd myth.

#16 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-13 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not a pro fracking argument it is dispelling an absurd myth.

#16 | Posted by salamandagator

What myth? That fracking puts methane into drinking water? That's FACT.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-13 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

OH! So THAT is why they called it Fire Water!

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What myth? That fracking puts methane into drinking water? That's FACT."

No investigation has found fracking to harm drinking water. No problems with the water aside from a couple of chemicals spills have ever been found. No accredited investigation has fond any evidence to substantiate your claim. So as far as fact goes, you have a very lax definition of it.

#19 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-13 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

This was the complaint some claimed proved it. As you can see any such claim is unfounded.

www.scribd.com

#20 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-13 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Flag:

This was the complaint some claimed proved it. As you can see any such claim is unfounded.

www.scribd.com

#20 | Posted by salamandagator

Sure. You link to a study by THE STATE OF TEXAS (aka fossil fuel's bitch), and I'll link to one from the National Academy of sciences.

www.economist.com

"New research just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Robert Jackson, from Duke University, and his colleagues will add fuel to the controversy. Dr Jackson studied water samples from 141 private drinking-water wells in an area home to 5,000 or so drilling sites sitting atop the Marcellus shale, a gas-rich geological formation stretching from northeastern Pennsylvania to southeastern New York. He found that four out of five wells contained methane. In some homes within 1km (0.6 miles) from the nearest drill site the gas had a chemical signature suggesting that it originated from the Marcellus, rather than being the product of biological processes closer to the surface.

Concentrations of the gas in such homes were also six times higher than for those farther away. Levels of ethane and propane, other ingredients of natural gas, were higher, too. All were well above the levels the Department of Interior considers safe. The relationship cannot be put down to gasmen's penchant for plonking their drills in spots where natural gas is most abundant in the first place. In the absence of drilling the gas, being trapped in the shale beds 1,500-2,500 metres beneath the countryside, would stay put; concentrations nearer to the surface would remain unaffected."

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-13 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was shown here in PA that the idea of methane caused by fracking was made up. The wells had methane before fracking started.

#22 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-08-13 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was shown here in PA that the idea of methane caused by fracking was made up. The wells had methane before fracking started.

#22 | Posted by rearendhat

Then you need to read the link in the post above yours.

And then remember that for 40 years, tobacco had "scientific studies" saying smoking wasn't bad for you.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-13 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

No investigation has found fracking to harm drinking water. No problems with the water aside from a couple of chemicals spills have ever been found.
#19 | Posted by salamandagator

If the chemical spills were part of a fracking operation, then fracking harmed the drinking water.

Even a six year old could figure it out.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-13 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even a six year old could figure it out.

#24 | Posted by snoofy

Give Sal another six months..

#25 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-13 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

Then you need to read the link in the post above yours.

Perhaps you should try the study at that link. It doesn't seem to support the breathless spin of that article.

...we propose that a subset of homeowners has drinking water contaminated by drilling operations, likely through poor well construction. Future research and greater data disclosure could improve understanding of these issues in several ways. More research is needed across the Marcellus and other shale gas plays where the geological characteristics differ. For instance, a new study by Duke University and the US Geological Survey showed no evidence of drinking water contamination in a part of the Fayetteville Shale with a less fractured or tectonically deformed geology than the Marcellus and good confining layers above and below the drinking water layers. (emphasis added)

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-13 11:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

When a conservative is proven wrong they go silent. Can't admit when they are wrong.

#27 | Posted by klifferd at 2014-08-14 02:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27 Well they can't use the "both sides do it" cop out in this case.

#28 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-14 07:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is true I have had gas in my well since the 60s long before fracking.

#29 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-14 07:48 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"For instance, a new study by Duke University and the US Geological Survey showed no evidence of drinking water contamination in a part of the Fayetteville Shale with a less fractured or tectonically deformed geology than the Marcellus and good confining layers above and below the drinking water layers. (emphasis added)"

Wow. They actually found "a part" of that area which had not contamination. Great! Wonder how long it took to find that "part."

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-14 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#22 True. A buddy of mine grew up around Scranton and he knew a lot of people that could torch their kitchen faucets because of the methane (including his family), and that was in the 60's and 70's. He said the worst mistake any of the natural gas companies made was not asking the residents about that before they started drilling. Once they started drilling, the residents found they could make money by claiming it was a new phenomenon.

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-14 08:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Firewater very good.

#32 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-08-14 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-14 08:32 AM"

It's true that methane has historically been found in some water wells #and no one here stated otherwise#.

However, citing some anecdotal cases does not negate the following:

"Robert Jackson, a chemical engineer at Duke University, found methane in 115 of 141 shallow, residential drinking-water wells. The methane concentration in homes less than one mile from a fracking well was six times higher than the concentration in homes farther away. Isotopes and traces of ethane in the methane indicated that the gas was not created by microorganisms living in groundwater but by heat and pressure thousands of feet down in the Marcellus Shale, which is where companies fracture rock to release gas that rises up a well shaft."

www.scientificamerican.com

#33 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is this guy a friggin' idiot or what?

#34 | Posted by bsulli4207 at 2014-08-14 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the chemical spills were part of a fracking operation, then fracking harmed the drinking water."

They were trucks that spilled on their way, no different then a gas tanker .
It's not part of the operation unless you call the logistics actual fracking.

#35 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"However, citing some anecdotal cases does not negate the following:"

But what does is that shale can release methane upwards without fracking. This is a way they find it.

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And then remember that for 40 years, tobacco had "scientific studies" saying smoking wasn't bad for you."

Ah so, close your eyes and cover your ears if it's not something that you want to hear. wrap that tinfoil a bit tighter, it's the two scientists that are correct and the rest are shills, its just all a big conspiracy.

#37 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But what does is that shale can release methane upwards without fracking. This is a way they find it.
#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 11:52 AM"

Of course, methane can reach the surface without fracking. This study did mention that there are higher concentrations of methane in water wells from areas near the fracking.

From the same link provided:
"The next step in proving whether or not fracking has contaminated specific drinking-water wells would be to figure out whether methane in those wells came from the Marcellus Shale or other deposits. Energy companies claim that the gas can rise naturally from deep formations through rock fissures and that determining a source is therefore problematic. Yet some scientists maintain that chemical analysis of the gas can reveal whether it slowly bubbled up through thousands of feet of rock or zipped up a leaky well. Jackson is now analyzing methane samples in that way.

Another way to link a leaky fracking well to a tainted water well is to show that the earth between them provides pathways for the gas to flow. Leaky wells have to be identified first, however. Anthony Ingraffea, a fracking expert at Cornell University, is combing through the inspection reports for most of the 41,311 gas wells drilled in Pennsylvania since January 2000. Thus far, he says, it appears that "a higher percentage" of Marcellus Shale fracking wells are leaking than conventional oil and gas wells drilled into other formations. Stay tuned."

www.scientificamerican.com

Possibly the methane is sentient and is selecting just those fissures near ("picking on") the water wells near the fracking!

#38 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps you should try the study at that link. It doesn't seem to support the breathless spin of that article.

#26 | Posted by et_al

Did you happen to read the REST of the study that said fracking was increasing methane in drinking water in 4 out of 5 places? Or did you just focus on the one part of the study that said it didn't seem to increase it in one place?

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-14 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Flag:

"And then remember that for 40 years, tobacco had "scientific studies" saying smoking wasn't bad for you."

Ah so, close your eyes and cover your ears if it's not something that you want to hear. wrap that tinfoil a bit tighter, it's the two scientists that are correct and the rest are shills, its just all a big conspiracy.

#37 | Posted by salamandagator

Tinfoil hat? You need to learn the difference between conspiracy theory and history.

conspiracy theory is something that has no evidence.

History is something that is documented to have actually happened, like tobacco companies releasing studies saying smoking isn't bad for you.

It's not a conspiracy theory that businesses will release bogus studies to protect their profit sources. It's FACT, and HISTORY.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-14 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Thus far, he says, it appears that "a higher percentage" of Marcellus Shale fracking wells are leaking than conventional oil and gas wells drilled into other formations. "

Causality.
The very nature of shale deposits lends to upwards percolation. Just because an area has higher concentrations does not prove that it is a leaking well. Many many studies had investigations have been done and there has boon nothing even remotely proving that it is due to fracking wells. In fact each one has shown that it is natural.

Then you have a report from the ground water protection council that found that between .03 and 0.01 percent of wells actually leak methane. Note, that is leak not just have positive casing pressure which is often cited by anti-fracking activists as a leak.
fracfocus.org

So, sure a fraction of a percent might possibly leak and if the situation is perfect it could leak into an aqua-fir. But who cares, methane is not toxic and does not hurt anyone. People have been dealing with methane in wells for as long as wells have existed. There is no danger as it dissipated very quickly and worse case scenario you vent your casing and you are fine. So what you end up with is a very remote possibility of something that is basically harmless. A possibility that has never been proven to have actually occurred. Again, look to people who have experience with wells, no one cares about it because it is a non-issue. And as there has not been one confirmed case its a moot point anyway.

#41 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"conspiracy theory is something that has no evidence."

Or something that has manufactured "evidence" like your statements.

"It's not a conspiracy theory that businesses will release bogus studies to protect their profit sources. It's FACT, and HISTORY."

It is exactly a conspiracy theory if you deny science because you think some conglomerate is out to harm you with nothing to back it up, as you are doing.

Like i said, tinfoil stuff.

#42 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is exactly a conspiracy theory if you deny science because you think some conglomerate is out to harm you with nothing to back it up, as you are doing.

Like i said, tinfoil stuff.

#42 | Posted by salamandagator

That IS my point. The tobacco companies were releasing their own "science" proving tobacco wasn't bad for you. Just like the frackers are doing today.

Some of us learn from history, others don't.

You bring us report results from the "groundwater protection council"
Thanks. Nice to know you're so easily fooled:

www.un-naturalgas.org
"But just who is the Ground Water Protection Council? In fact, they're really not about groundwater protection; they're a front & lobbying group composed of industries that have an interest in maintaining the current legal and permissive status – a status they take credit for engineering - of the underground injection method of toxic waste disposal – a method that is implicated in causing groundwater contamination"

You are exactly like the people who ate up the tobacco industry's "studies" 40 years ago, yet you think you're some sort of informed thinker.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-14 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks. Nice to know you're so easily fooled:
www.un-naturalgas.org
"But just who is the Ground Water Protection Council? In fact, they're really not about groundwater protection; they're a front & lobbying group composed of industries that have an interest in maintaining the current legal and permissive status – a status they take credit for engineering - of the underground injection method of toxic waste disposal – a method that is implicated in causing groundwater contamination""

Please tell me you are joking.
Seriously you get some enviro crazies site that just claims because they don't like what they said they must be lobbyists and i am the one easily fools?

Any proof, any evidence? No just baseless claims. But i am the one easily fooled. That's rich. But i guess a sucker is born every second so you and your ilk are not alone.

Here i have another link for you that meets your factual standards.
www.aliens-everything-you-
want-to-know.com

#44 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#41 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-14 01:32 PM"

The issue may just be that you're 'behind the news', as this report is from 2011 (and presumably is working from data more than three years old). Disregarding the obvious (i.e., "it is nearly impossible to prove that the hydraulic fracturing is NOT causing the contamination observed"), it is telling that what contamination that is observed is due to already-regulated practices. Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the industry. It is telling that BOTH states were in the process of having new regulations implemented.

From your link:
"In addition to contamination caused by legacy practices and orphaned sites, Ohio and Texas investigators have identified groundwater contamination caused by a wide range of regulated industry practices. Appropriately, Ohio and Texas have focused regulatory attention on those activities that have caused the majority of groundwater contamination incidents. In recent years, the national debate on natural gas E&P has been focused nearly exclusively on a single, brief, yet essential activity, hydraulic fracturing. Neither state has identified hydraulic fracturing as the cause of a single documented groundwater contamination incident. However, it has become increasingly apparent that in much of the popular literature, the term "hydraulic fracturing" has become synonymous with any and every E&P activity that can impact groundwater. When developing public policy, it is critical to differentiate activities that can contribute to groundwater contamination in order to accurately target and prioritize reforms. As in the practice of medicine, the physician must accurately diagnose the specific cause of an ailment, in order to prescribe the appropriate remedy. Although many states, including Ohio and Texas, have implemented or are considering new regulations that significantly improve documentation of hydraulic fracturing operations, including public disclosure of chemical additives in fracturing fluids, it is critical that states maintain an appropriate focus on activities and practices that are actually found to cause groundwater contamination."

fracfocus.org

Now for something more recent:

www.usatoday.com

A for methane being "basically harmless", I'd disagree (but that topic is for another thread). I suspect you would be 'unhappy' if methane were in your drinking water.

#45 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. They actually found "a part" of that area which had not contamination. Great! Wonder how long it took to find that "part."

I see you failed the context component of reading comprehension.

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-14 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now for something more recent:
www.usatoday.com"

Did you read what the complaints were? Many of them were diminished water flow. Then of the contaminated wells(which by the way were not restricted to drilling contamination but bacterial and mineral as well) There were a handful in each state a year. No causation just raw numbers. My house is fed by a well. It would not have passed the contamination tests but apparently the drilling company that put it in tested the water after filter. It has way, way too much iron in it. The point is that just finding contaminated wells does not mean anything.

In fact your article even states that a 2011 penn state study found that 40 percent of existing wells did not meet standards before any drilling occurred.

#47 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A for methane being "basically harmless", I'd disagree "

Is it toxic? No.
Is it lighter then air so not a particular worry as an asphyxiant? yes
It is quickly dissipated out of water? Yes, just like air.

Drinking it will not harm you but to drink it you would have to do so under pressure or very very quickly as it will be gone is seconds.

I would not care if i had some in my well. I might vent the casing to prevent a fire hazard but that is true of any well and has nothing to do with fracking.

#48 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The state of Pennsylvania alone has confirmed over 100 cases of water contamination from fracking. The companies themselves have settled with many individuals who brought lawsuits for the same thing.

To say there have been no confirmed cases and there is no evidence of water contamination is just plain wrong.

#49 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

, it is telling that what contamination that is observed is due to already-regulated practices. Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the industry."

Any production or manufacturing can have spills. It's not good and everything that can be done to stop it should be but perfection is not really a possibility. There will be trucks on roads, there will be weather issues, there will be earthquakes, there will be material defects, its just part of life, nothing is perfect so do your best to make it as good as you can. But i am not loosing confidence because a fraction of fraction of a percent of the times humans or equipment are not perfect in that industry.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you happen to read the REST of the study that said fracking was increasing methane in drinking water in 4 out of 5 places?

First it was not the conclusion of the study that "fracking was increasing methane in water in 4 out of 5 places." If that is what you took away from reading it you should join Danni in a remedial comprehension class.

And yes, I saw that part where methane was found in 82% of the 141 samples. If was followed two sentences later with

[o]f 12 [of 141 samples] houses where CH 4 concentrations were greater than 28 mg/L (the threshold for immediate remediation set by the US Department of the Interior), 11 houses were within 1-km distance of an active shale gas well (Fig. 1). The only exception was a home with a value of 32 mg CH 4 /L at 1.4-km distance.

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-14 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have to give Sal one thing, he's awfully strong to keep moving them goalposts....

#52 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any proof, any evidence? No just baseless claims. But i am the one easily fooled. That's rich. But i guess a sucker is born every second so you and your ilk are not alone.

#44 | Posted by salamandagator

Yeah. I posted a link to actual scientific studies from the national academy of sciences:
www.economist.com

You posted a link from fracking lobbyists.

Those pollution profiteers know that if they create some front group and name it "the clean groundwater sparkle fairies" to write papers saying fracking is fine, casual idiots will find it in google searches and accept it as proof without ever checking the source.

You ARE the sucker.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-14 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The state of Pennsylvania alone has confirmed over 100 cases of water contamination from fracking."

That is not true. 106 total cases over the period where fracking has been a thing. That's 106 for all contamination. Bacterial, mineral and chemical. No state has confirmed fracking itself to be the cause.

#54 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You posted a link from fracking lobbyists."

Yes, yes mr tinfoil we know anyone who disagrees with you is part of a giant conspiracy. We have all hear it before.

"I posted a link to actual scientific studies from the national academy of sciences:"
No you posted to an article that had links to an abstract and a report neither of which backed you up but you would know that if you would have read them as pointed out by et al.

"You ARE the sucker."

Sure thing there buddy, Reynolds wrap thanks you for your very frequent patronage.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's not pretend you're interested in discussing this honestly.

You started out by saying there is not even any evidence of contamination from fracking, which you knwew is complete BS when you said it.

The settlements indicates that fracking contaminates wells. People who never had any issues previously have had issues after fracking was introduced to their area. That is indicative of a relationship between fracking and contamination.

You'd have to be near retarded to think you can pour millions of gallons of tainted water into the Earth without it getting into everything.

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the way the AP has reported it, the contamination in PA has been confirmed as being caused by drilling.

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In fact your article even states that a 2011 penn state study found that 40 percent of existing wells did not meet standards before any drilling occurred.#47 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-14 02:38 PM"

Who cares. Again, not disputed and is (at best) a distraction from the topic being discussed.

It appears you're not contesting that there were some cases of contamination (even if 'a handful'). The number of cases reported is, of course, a direct result of how many cases are investigated. It's not an unbiased statistical sample. At a minimum, the number of cases is strongly influenced by the curiosity/willingness/finances of the owner/user of the well. A cursory glance of how many wells were tested compared to the total number of wells will support what I just stated. Causation is more difficult to prove given the (then/now) state of information reporting requirements. And, as always, it's difficult to prove a negative.

Meanwhile, so you really want to drag in the methane danger?

avogadro.chem.iastate.edu

It seems to only be a problem if it's released in a confined space with potential ignition sources (like a home), so no danger at all (LOL!).

#58 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You started out by saying there is not even any evidence of contamination from fracking, which you knwew is complete BS when you said it."

There has been no confirmed case where actual fracking has caused contamination.

"The settlements indicates that fracking contaminates wells. "
No it does not. First because sometimes settlemt is cheaper then fighting and also because contamination is not limited to fracking operations but includes the logistics and development of the sites.

"That is indicative of a relationship between fracking and contamination."
Relationship, maybe, there are roads that need to be traveled and people, equipment and chemicals that need to be moved. But the act of fracking itself has not been proven to cause any contaminated well.

"You'd have to be near retarded to think you can pour millions of gallons of tainted water into the Earth without it getting into everything."

Yes, yes butterfly in Botswana flapping it's wings.

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And the way the AP has reported it, the contamination in PA has been confirmed as being caused by drilling."


Ohio
"Department of Natural Resources spokesman Mark Bruce said in an email. None of the six confirmed cases of contamination was related to fracking, Bruce said."

No cause even implied
"Pennsylvania has confirmed at least 106 water-well contamination cases since 2005, out of more than 5,000 new wells."

"West Virginia"
"over the past four years, and in four cases the evidence was strong enough that the driller agreed to take corrective action, officials said."
No restriction to only fracking nor that it was drilling itself. But that comes the closest there just is not enough information to even come close to saying it is fracking.

"Texas regulators haven't confirmed a single case of drilling-related water-well contamination in the past 10 years, she said."

So no the AP article does not find a link between fracking and well water contamination. Some possible drilling but not fracking itself.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There has been no confirmed case where actual fracking has caused contamination."

Take it up with the AP.

#61 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It seems to only be a problem if it's released in a confined space with potential ignition sources (like a home), so no danger at all (LOL!)."

Like i said flammability is the only problem and that is in 5-15% conditions. Methane in water is easily noticed and concentrations needed are beyond rare.
But to understand some of that you need to know how a well works. When dealing with wells you always open the seal and give it a few minuets before inducing anything that could give a spark. Methane is lighter then air and separates from water when there is not pressure that restricts it. In a well the water percolates into the casing and is drawn or pushed up by a pump. It sits in a non pressurized casing until needed. This is why a vent fixes methane problems. If water is drawn fast enough that dissipation is not complete then low concentrations can come through the tap. Also if the wellhead is not vented it is possible to build up pressure that will leave some in the water. But again this is very rare and something that people with wells have had to deal with forever. Note how many occurrences of a home burning down or exploding due to methane from a well there have been. It's a non issue.

#62 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No it does not. First because sometimes settlemt is cheaper then fighting and also because contamination is not limited to fracking operations but includes the logistics and development of the sites."

Yes it is. They wouldn't be settling if they were as sure as you are that their process is clean.

#63 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Take it up with the AP."

I just showed you what the AP said about it, they did not make the claim that fracking was the cause. You are missing that point, they are not agreeing with you.

#64 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But the act of fracking itself has not been proven to cause any contaminated well."

Nobody honestly interested in the impact of fracking would make this nonsensical distinction. You're desperate.

#65 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"I just showed you what the AP said about it, they did not make the claim that fracking was the cause."

No you didn't.

#66 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You'd have to be near retarded to think you can pour millions of gallons of tainted water into the Earth without it getting into everything."

Yes, yes butterfly in Botswana flapping it's wings.

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'd have to be retarded to think this comparison is at all valid.

#67 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Like i said flammability is the only problem and that is in 5-15% conditions.
#62 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-14 03:20 PM"

It's 5%. That said, it's not inconceivable for methane concentration to be a problem in a small confined space with high water usage and potential ignition source (e.g., a bathroom shower with a light switch comes to mind). In a related matter: I wonder how many home explosions are mis-identified as due to a 'gas leak'. After all, "natural gas" has an odor mixed in to assist in alerting one to gas leaks, while methane has no such odor.

FWIW: I've lived in several different homes with wells for years and have worked on drill rigs in several states at depths over 1000' (altho' NOT drilling for water). I'm not 'unfamiliar' with technology involving drilling, drilling fluid, water wells, cisterns, jet pumps, etc.

Meanwhile, before you claim there are no known cases of fracking contamination, consider this:

www2.epa.gov

#68 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Meanwhile, before you claim there are no known cases of fracking contamination, consider this:"

That was a long read.
Unfortunately as noted there were no baseline readings. In conclusions the report also listed the possible alternatives that the chemicals present were naturally occurring due to the proximity of the gas fields.
But it did lint one instance where there was a problem with the vertical fracking well due to intentional misuse and use of know faulty casing resulting in a leak and fire in a house. So there is one case.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes it is. They wouldn't be settling if they were as sure as you are that their process is clean. "

Really, you think they would spend tons of money on legal fees to avoid much smaller settlements?

Come on, you know better.

#70 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No you didn't."

Well it's not my fault if you cannot comprehend the article. But i did point it out so my job is done.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But it did lint one instance where there was a problem with the vertical fracking well due to intentional misuse and use of know faulty casing resulting in a leak and fire in a house. So there is one case.
#69 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-14 04:17 PM"

Progress!

BTW, this item was discovered via an exceedingly brief excursion onto Google. I'd caution anyone against thinking there is just "one case".

#72 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't minimize the effect that only 'a handful' of cases can have. A contaminated aquifer is essentially destroyed and the rate of aquifer generation is incredibly low.

#73 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really, you think they would spend tons of money on legal fees to avoid much smaller settlements?

Come on, you know better.

#70 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think they would want to establish that their process doesn't cause well water pollution in order to save themselves from countless settlements moving forward. If they weren't worried about losing, they would fight this tooth and nail.

You're position is premised on the notion that once they settle they are done. When it reality, once they settle they can expect more and more claims against them.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"BTW, this item was discovered via an exceedingly brief excursion onto Google. I'd caution anyone against thinking there is just "one case"."

The EPA lists one case where gas or chemicals have breached the casing and leaked. That is the one mentioned.

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think they would want to establish that their process doesn't cause well water pollution in order to save themselves from countless settlements moving forward. If they weren't worried about losing, they would fight this tooth and nail. "

That's not the way it works. The suing party will do all they can to make it as painful as possible. There is no taking back some of the things that would be said. The public is far more likely to latch on to accusations then to change their opinion afterword if they are proven wrong. So you avoid it. It's cheaper and better PR in the long run. Why do you think bonding agents and insurance companies almost always settle?

#76 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The EPA lists one case where gas or chemicals have breached the casing and leaked. That is the one mentioned.
#75 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-14 04:36 PM"

Date of the report I linked was 2011.

There was no mention of future cases.

#77 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's not the way it works. The suing party will do all they can to make it as painful as possible. There is no taking back some of the things that would be said. The public is far more likely to latch on to accusations then to change their opinion afterword if they are proven wrong. So you avoid it. It's cheaper and better PR in the long run. Why do you think bonding agents and insurance companies almost always settle?

#76 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nobody always settles especially if a claim is baseless. And the idea that a homeowner can make things more painful than the driller is ridiculous. Our legal system is set up to favor the deeper pockets and this is common knowledge.

#78 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Nobody always settles especially if a claim is baseless."

That is patently untrue. In my industry, construction, it happens all the time. It is cheaper to settle then fight.

" And the idea that a homeowner can make things more painful than the driller is ridiculous."

Really so PR is just not a thing to you?
You don't think there would not be tons of eco-nuts who would pound out the propaganda?
Come on there is no reason for you to be that disingenuous.

"Our legal system is set up to favor the deeper pockets and this is common knowledge."

The legal system is not the worry, it would not matter if they were found to be without fault the damage would already have been done to them.

#79 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There was no mention of future cases."

That is true but with the use of the googles on the interwebs nothing more but that one instance pops up with any factual findings from an actual investigation.

#80 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

This Salman guy sure bloviates a lot of propaganda for the petroleum industry.

#81 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-14 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That is patently untrue. In my industry, construction, it happens all the time. It is cheaper to settle then fight."

My uncle is in construction and he's in court all the time. My parents and their neighbors started to file suit against their builder - who clearly failed to live up to his contractual obligations - and the guy just outlasted them with deep pockets.

I can't speak to your experience, but I know you can't speak to mine either.

#82 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Really so PR is just not a thing to you?
You don't think there would not be tons of eco-nuts who would pound out the propaganda?
Come on there is no reason for you to be that disingenuous."

Why would they be worried about PR if they could prove they've done nothing wrong? Settling lawsuits is not stopping people from making public claims against fracking so this entire premise doesn't make any sense.

Look, if they can account for every drop of tainted water they put into the ground, then they can say definitely that they aren't polluting. But they can't. That is why they won't even tell the public what chems they are using. You think they want to admit to putting benzine ito the Earth and leaving it there so that it eventually ends up God-knows-where?

If the they can't account for what they pour into the ground, then logically they have no right to say they have any idea where it eventually ends up. All the alleged precautions they take are a distraction. In reality, they are pouring toxic sludge into the Earth and leaving most of it there and anyone who thinks that isn't a problem has to be crazy.

#83 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

This Salman guy sure bloviates a lot of propaganda for the petroleum industry."

If actual science is propaganda then i guess i am guilty. I'm much happier to be accused of that then the uneducated eco-nuts lunacy.

#84 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the uneducated eco-nuts lunacy."

Sorry, dude, but we eco-nuts are much more educated in science than corporate hacks.

#85 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-14 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

" but we eco-nuts are much more educated in science than corporate hacks."

Bwahahaha, That's funny.

#86 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why would they be worried about PR if they could prove they've done nothing wrong?"

It's easy to slander, not so easy to combat it.

"Look, if they can account for every drop of tainted water they put into the ground, then they can say definitely that they aren't polluting."

You pollute, i pollute, Neither of us can account for everything we use. But they are far more regulated then you and me and they do have to make an accounting. Chemicals that are pumped down and do not return as part of the fracking processes are heavier and will tend to stay or percolate downwards if there is that ability. Yes, it's a bit like a landfill, it's waste that is just going to sit.

#87 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the they can't account for what they pour into the ground, then logically they have no right to say they have any idea where it eventually ends up."

You cannot use the term logically there. I cannot account for what i put in the garbage but if i put it in a landfill then logical i do know where it will end up with virtual certainty.

" You think they want to admit to putting benzine ito the Earth and leaving it there so that it eventually ends up God-knows-where?"

You of course realize that Benzene is natural and organic and they are basically putting it back where they found it right?

#88 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But they are far more regulated then you and me"

You try to pour millions of gallons of chemical slurry into the ground while maintaining that you need not tell anyone what is in it and see what happens.

"it's waste that is just going to sit."

What evidence is such an assumption based on?

#89 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-14 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What evidence is such an assumption based on?"

It's geology. It's physics.

Remember we drill to gain access to liquids trapped below the surface.

#90 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You of course realize that Benzene is natural and organic"

lol. You do realize that it's toxic and cancer-causing?

#91 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-14 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You try to pour millions of gallons of chemical slurry into the ground while maintaining that you need not tell anyone what is in it and see what happens."

13 states force disclosure of the compounds used. But much of it is trade secret. The basic ingredients have always been known and anyone can get a hold of them. The specific formula used for each location is based off research and it is ridiculous to think that they should have to disclose their formula. But the chemicals used are well known.
You can see them here
fracfocus.org

#92 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You do realize that it's toxic and cancer-causing?"

Yes, what is your point?
Is it more dangerous to put it back were we found it and it was not bothering anything or to play with it up here?

Arsenic is also natural would you care if we put rocks containing it back in the ground where we found them?

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-14 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

" 'There was no mention of future cases.'
That is true but with the use of the googles on the interwebs nothing more but that one instance pops up with any factual findings from an actual investigation.
#80 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-14 04:52 PM"

Looks like you could use some help with 'the googles'.
I usually charge for this, but consider this a public service:

www.nytimes.com

www.washingtonpost.com

www.latimes.com

www.salon.com

cce.cornell.edu

www.sourcewatch.org

Meanwhile, the EPA has been conducting a multi-year investigation into the question of ground water contamination due to fracking:

yosemite.epa.gov!OpenDocument

Unfortunately, the preliminary progress report only details the methodology used in their investigation. In fact, it explicitly states that no conlusion is to be drawn YET. The final report is due in late 2014. I guess we'll see.

#94 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-14 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

What the hell are we debating??!!

If your water catches fire, the situation is out of control.

#95 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-08-15 04:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Looks like you could use some help with 'the googles'.
I usually charge for this, but consider this a public service:"

Lets see the first link, from 1987, nothing to do with fracking.

Second link
This is right in it
"The report does not present evidence that the chemicals shot underground leaked into shallower wells, a possibility that scientists and industry representatives say is much less likely.

The report "is a preliminary evaluation that requires additional assessment in order to ascertain its quality and validity," Alisha Johnson, an EPA spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. "The data and conclusions have not been peer-reviewed and do not in any way reflect an official agency position.""

Third,
There is some comedy gold here.
The main guy the quote to support the contamination actually says methane does not occur naturally in water sources. While the EPA officials conducted investigations and found nothing. While other regulatory agencies conducted investigations and found nothing. The guy who thinks methane does not exist naturally in wells says there is something. You can't make this stuff up.

The cornell link.
Again nothing to do with fracking only a list of some of the chemicals that can be used saying that some of them can be bad for you. Nothing about leaking wells. The one instance they referenced was not a fracking well.

Sorewatch link just referenced the AP stuff which we have already gone through.

So it look like my googling abilities are just fine. We are still at a grand total of one. Pay attention to your links, just because they come up in a search does not mean they are relevant.

#96 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Conclusion: methane is natural and non-toxic and SallyManDerp would love to have some in his well water.

It would be great to be able to impress his friends and neighbors with his burning water trick. Plus he would get free methane!

Win-win!

Remember folks...Big Oil is our friend! They would never lie to us or do anything to harm us in their pursuit of profit.

Now enjoy your free methane!

#97 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-15 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"methane is natural and non-toxic and SallyManDerp would love to have some in his well water. "

You think that's bad did you know that hydric acid is also popping up in drinking wells around fracking sites? That one causes more deaths then any other compound.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

They were trucks that spilled on their way, no different then a gas tanker .
It's not part of the operation unless you call the logistics actual fracking.
#35 | Posted by salamandagator

Since when are logistics not part of the operation?
No logistics, no operation.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No logistics, no operation."

So a UPS truck hits somebody while carrying your new shower curtain from amazon. YOUR SHOWER KILLS!!!

#100 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

So a UPS truck hits somebody while carrying your new shower curtain from amazon. YOUR SHOWER KILLS!!!
#100 | Posted by salamandagator

Equating residential last-mile shipment of small goods with industrial supply chain logistics is a sign of desperation.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Equating residential last-mile shipment of small goods with industrial supply chain logistics is a sign of desperation."

No just showcasing a lack of logic with your statement.

#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

When your logic necessitates equating a three dollar shower curtain with a billion dollar energy industry, it should be evident why nobody takes you seriously.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Salaam and A Gator,

Would the fracking chemicals be spilling if there wasn't any fracking going on?

A "yes" or "no" will suffice.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Equating residential last-mile shipment of small goods with industrial supply chain logistics is a sign of desperation."

No, what is your point?

There are spills of all sorts of chemicals all the time. It's logistics. Does a truck spill or train derailment make the process itself unsafe?

Not in the least bit. claiming so is just stupid.

#105 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"When your logic necessitates equating a three dollar shower curtain with a billion dollar energy industry, it should be evident why nobody takes you seriously."

Logic is not dictated by the quantification of your rationalization. If 2+2=4 then 200,000,000,000+200,000,000,00
0=400,000,000,000. Any statement otherwise is not logical. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

#106 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does a truck spill or train derailment make the process itself unsafe?

You're erecting an artificial ideological barrier between "the process itself" and all the activities needed to support the process.

Importantly, those activities wouldn't be happening were it not for "the process itself." You'd like to pretend that's not the case.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#96 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-15 12:54 PM"

OK, so maybe the issue is reading abilities.

From the first link (WV):
"The E.P.A. concludes that hydraulic fracturing can lead to pollution of groundwater supplies. Further, the agency cites an example from West Virginia in which fracturing fluid migrated from a natural gas well to a water well owned by James Parsons, making it unfit to drink. They include comments from the American Petroleum Institute, which says that problems with the water well resulted from a malfunction in the fracturing process and that such malfunctions would also harm oil and gas production."

From the second link (PA):
"Drilling for natural gas caused "significant damage" to drinking-water aquifers in a Pennsylvania town at the center of a fight over the safety of hydraulic fracturing, according to a report prepared by a federal official.

The previously unreleased document from an employee at the Environmental Protection Agency's regional office found that drilling or fracking, in which water, sand and chemicals are shot underground to free trapped gas, caused methane to leak into domestic water wells in Dimock, Pa. The findings contradict Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., which drilled in the town and said the explosive methane gas was naturally occurring."
:
:
"The U.S. government does not set a limit on methane levels in water, as the agency says methane does not impair the smell or taste of water. The gas can, however, be explosive."

From the third link (WY, TX, and [mostly PA):
"In an internal EPA PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Tribune/Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau, staff members warned their superiors that several wells had been contaminated with methane and substances such as manganese and arsenic, most likely because of local natural gas production.

The presentation, based on data collected over 4 1/2 years at 11 wells around Dimock, concluded that "methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality." The presentation also concluded that "methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking [hydraulic fracturing] and other gas well work."

Critics say the decision in July 2012 by EPA headquarters in Washington to curtail its investigation at Dimock over the objection of its on-site staff fits a troubling pattern at a time when the Obama administration has used the sharp increase in natural gas production to rebut claims that it is opposed to fossil fuels."

#108 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-15 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

From the fourth link (a side/related issue regarding the REPORTING of contamination in PA):
"If you live in Pennsylvania and would like to be informed of when and where fracking leaks are contaminating the groundwater, well, good luck. The Department of Environmental Protection doesn't bother to inform the public, or make any record at all, when those violations affect private water wells.
:
:
"The DEP is required to notify the public when PUBLIC wells are contaminated, but the brief argues that leaving out private settlements puts everyone's safety at risk: It cites statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau showing that more than 3 million Pennsylvania residents rely on private well water. And private well water isn't faring too well lately: The DEP reports that 98 private water supplies in the state have been contaminated by shale gas drilling between 2008 and 2013."

*** There's no requirement to notify users of PRIVATE wells! ***

From the fifth link (cornell.edu):
I won't go into the listing of (eleven!) recommendations by the authors of this study, but will will simply state that your simplistic dismissal of their analysis seems quite contrary to their recommendation #11:
"The injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act."

The final (sixth) link is a compendium of the most of the same sites mentioned above, but with more detail and a few additions. In fairness, this compendium does lump both problems with fracking along with cases of problems with just natural gas drilling. The references cited (over 50!) at end of the article can be used to help differentiate.

Bottom line:
Each link provided does not necessarily indicate a single, specific example and often contain multiple cases. Some of the links address the hazards of the fracking fluid chemicals that are ARE (not just CAN) be used. If one is willing to examine each link thoroughly (i.e., not limit one's reading only to what is directly written in the article, but also follow the links referenced within an article), it becomes apparent there is more than ONE instance of fracking-caused contamination. This particularly surprising given the lack of regulatory oversight (at best) and the propensity of regulating agencies to take a laissez faire attitude in enforcing the weak regulations that are already in place.

#109 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-15 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're erecting an artificial ideological barrier between "the process itself" and all the activities needed to support the process"

No, a universal requirement for anything is not attributable to its specific use. Anyone should be able to see that. Is food also a part of fracking, you can't have it without food for the workers?

Yes, it is just that asinine. Let it go or think about it. Because you are just making a fool of yourself yet again.

#110 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Salam, Peace Be Upon Your Gator:

A breach of a containment pond is a product of "the fracking process."
Because the pond is part of the process.
Just like stream degradation in West Virginia is a product of "the mountaintop removal coal mining process."
Because the removed mountaintop has to end up somewhere.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, a universal requirement for anything is not attributable to its specific use.

There is no universal requirement for fracking fluid. It is specific to fracking.

If people were going and sabotaging fracking operations you might have a point. But they're not, and you don't.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

You might as well be arguing that the disaster at Fukushima had nothing to do with nuclear power.

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"From the first link (WV):"

You are correct, i did not get into the body as i dismissed it to time frame.
So i looked at the rest, Briefly as its 900 pages long
He temporarily ended up with bentonite in his well. Note bentonite is used in all drilling, even for drinking wells and as the lawsuit noted it cleared up with a flush.
The well was above the normal in manganese and iron and fluoride. None of which are fracking chemicals.

So there is a possibility of sodium bentonite, also a naturally occurring.
You can also note on page 150 that the EPA conclusions contradict the findings of their own lab p375-380.

Note also that bentonite being found was not the work of the EPA their lab did not specify and neither did the EPA. That was independent. They liked to use the term gel or fluid. The industry name is aquagel. Funny.

So again if a naturally occurring substance that was most likely used to drill their well and went away after a cleaning is the bar you set for contamination by fracking then good luck finding any wells in this country that don't fit that.

#114 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A breach of a containment pond is a product of "the fracking process.""

Then a leaching landfill is a product of your household waste.

Seriously think about it, don't just spew stupidity.

#115 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You might as well be arguing that the disaster at Fukushima had nothing to do with nuclear power."

Seriously dude i am done with you. You obviously have no ability to enter a conversation with any sort or reason or logic.

So i will be ignoring you until you have something that proves you are more sentient then a pile of rotting leaves.

#116 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

My household waste? More like an entire community's. And likely to contain more than just household waste.

Are containment ponds being used by the entire community, or just by the people doing the fracking?

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess when coal miners die in a mine collapse, it has nothing to do with coal mining.

And when the land your house is subsides because of the coal mine below, that also has noting to do with coal mining.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"From the second link (PA):"

Again, the EPA themselves even said there has been no peer review and that all it warrants is a legitimate look.
Also note that it did bring on a more thorough investigation and it found it had nothing to do with fracking.
yosemite.epa.gov!opendocument

Third link
See above link, they investigated and concluded drilling was not to blame.

"From the fifth link (cornell.edu):"
It was dismissed because it had nothing to do with fracking and nothing to offer as far as possibility of leak. It is as relevant as the ingredients of a twinky that is thrown in the garbage without eating it.
Each site uses a different combination of chemicals, not all of them or even close. I would also state that if you look you will find many of those same chemicals in everyday products.
So that is why it is not relevant to the discussion.

Bottom line.
It is easy to assume that all instances are real and that correlation is causation. But each one looked into paints a different picture. We still have a grand total of one well that was contaminated. I do not include the parsons well even though the EPA said it was due to the reasons i stated. But even if you do you have two. Putting a bunch of cases together to make it look like a problem does not make it a problem. As mentioned most of the cited cases do not even involve fracking. It is very important to get the whole picture before coming to conclusions.
Personally i dislike fracking because it is not very efficient. There are far better sources of energy. But claims like they are destroying aqua-firs are not reasonable. I understand that every once in a great while something bad might happen, nothing is perfect and i respect you position that just because the cases are very few does not mean that it should be ignored. That i agree with but, i look at it saying that response should be tempered by scope.

#119 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-15 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you see any difference between these plane crashes?
MH17 was shot down by a missile.
AS261 was brought down when the aircraft failed due to improper maintenance.

You can reasonably argue that MH17 was not a problem of the airline's making.
Such a claim cannot be made for AS261.

Unless people are actively sabotaging fracking operations, accidents and incidents pursuant to fracking operations are the responsibility of the fracking industry.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Importantly, whether the accidents are occurring at the specific moment of "the fracking process" or elsewhere within the operations of a fracking project is immaterial.

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-15 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bottom line.
It is easy to assume that all instances are real and that correlation is causation. But each one looked into paints a different picture. We still have a grand total of one well that was contaminated. I do not include the parsons well even though the EPA said it was due to the reasons i stated. But even if you do you have two. Putting a bunch of cases together to make it look like a problem does not make it a problem. As mentioned most of the cited cases do not even involve fracking. It is very important to get the whole picture before coming to conclusions.
Personally i dislike fracking because it is not very efficient. There are far better sources of energy. But claims like they are destroying aqua-firs are not reasonable. I understand that every once in a great while something bad might happen, nothing is perfect and i respect you position that just because the cases are very few does not mean that it should be ignored. That i agree with but, i look at it saying that response should be tempered by scope.
#119 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-15 05:59 PM"

Yes, it is easy to assume ALL instances are real, but no one here is making that claim. The evidence does indicate some are real and, given the lack of evidence (mostly due to the current non-requirement for the industry to obtain and/or report that evidence), it is surprising that there are ANY reported problems.

Some of those problems might be due to the practices used in "normal" gas drilling; some might be unique to fracking. I suspect that distinction matters little to the user of a water well. Either way, this just diminishes the confidence the public in the results/conclusions the industry (that has a vested interest) is willing to report.

This isn't an instance of confusing correlation with causation. It's not realistic to dismiss evidence as simple correlation when water wells near a fracking operation BEGIN to show increased levels of contaminants chemicals AFTER that fracking operation has begun. The fact that some of the contaminants are "natural" is a distraction and not pertinent. What is pertinent is the contaminant (whether injected, or simply released from the geology) has changed the quality of the water in an aquifer.

I'm glad you can appreciate the seriousness of even a few cases. I find it difficult to imagine how one would "clean up" an aquifer once it is contaminated. Injecting chemicals and/or releasing resident chemicals that can ultimately find their way into an aquifer (again, it's immaterial whether that is due to natural faults, fracking, poor drilling practices, substandard materials, etc.) seems like a highly risky practice for comparatively minimal gain. I suspect the industry's non-concern about (and even aggressive opposition to) regulating these operations is that they'd rather reap the immediate economic benefits than safeguard the public's well-being (now or in the future).

#122 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-16 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort