No Fracking Way!

[cougjunkie]

Our cousin is drilling up in the Dakotas right now. Mom says he's making gobs of money.

My BIL runs a crew up there and on top of his base pay every few months he is bringing home 20-30k bonus checks.

[Surfah]

My BIL runs a crew up there and on top of his base pay every few months he is bringing home 20-30k bonus checks.

I am not sure my cousin made more than $10 an hour before working the oil fields.

[RobinFinderson]

So apparently these contaminants can grow in clean water, if left on a shelf for too long?

The protocol exists for a reason, so if the EPA needs to retest, in order to follow its own professional standards, then they should hurry and get that ball rolling. In the mean time, they should explain why they are still standing by their findings in light of these revelations. Moreover, it would be good to know WHY this mistake happened. Presumably the maintenance had been scheduled, and would have been a known issue. We need our government agencies to perform professionally, and if they can't, we need to figure out how to fix them.

I'm not sure how this is a vindication for supporters of fracking. Nothing here suggests that the water was actually clean of fracking chemicals. The results may very well have been correct, albeit poorly conducted. So they need to go back and do the job again.

[landpoke]

So apparently these contaminants can grow in clean water, if left on a shelf for too long?

The protocol exists for a reason, so if the EPA needs to retest, in order to follow its own professional standards, then they should hurry and get that ball rolling. In the mean time, they should explain why they are still standing by their findings in light of these revelations. Moreover, it would be good to know WHY this mistake happened. Presumably the maintenance had been scheduled, and would have been a known issue. We need our government agencies to perform professionally, and if they can't, we need to figure out how to fix them.

I'm not sure how this is a vindication for supporters of fracking. Nothing here suggests that the water was actually clean of fracking chemicals. The results may very well have been correct, albeit poorly conducted. So they need to go back and do the job again.

1) Control samples of clean, distilled water tested positive for the compounds they were looking for.

2) The water used to flush the wells prior to sampling was not tested.

The question raised by the second point is what type of truck was the water hauled in? If it was a truck routinely used to haul flowback from fracking operations chances are it was contaminated. If it was contaminated then the compounds found most likely came from the flushing water and not from formation water.

[RobinFinderson]

1) Control samples of clean, distilled water tested positive for the compounds they were looking for.

2) The water used to flush the wells prior to sampling was not tested.

The question raised by the second point is what type of truck was the water hauled in? If it was a truck routinely used to haul flowback from fracking operations chances are it was contaminated. If it was contaminated then the compounds found most likely came from the flushing water and not from formation water.

The article doesn't say that the distilled water samples were contaminated with the SAME compounds they were looking for. It says:

Also, several samples of distilled water placed with the well water samples showed some contamination — contamination that shouldn’t be in the samples and could indicate the well samples are marred, Clarey said.

I don't really understand what that means, since the article doesn't explain what is meant by 'placed with the well water samples.' The article also fails to explain why contamination in the distilled water would indicate that the well samples could also be marred.

So, they didn't flush the well properly, and that sounds like a serious problem. So they need to flush the well and retest. Fair enough, but fracking chemicals WERE found in samples coming from the well. If they drilled the well with water carried by a truck that had carried fracking chemicals in the past, and then failed to flush the well, then someone's head needs to roll. But that shouldn't prevent them from performing a proper flush, and then they can retest. Problem solved.

[pellegrino]

So apparently these contaminants can grow in clean water, if left on a shelf for too long?

The protocol exists for a reason, so if the EPA needs to retest, in order to follow its own professional standards, then they should hurry and get that ball rolling. In the mean time, they should explain why they are still standing by their findings in light of these revelations. Moreover, it would be good to know WHY this mistake happened. Presumably the maintenance had been scheduled, and would have been a known issue. We need our government agencies to perform professionally, and if they can't, we need to figure out how to fix them.

I'm not sure how this is a vindication for supporters of fracking. Nothing here suggests that the water was actually clean of fracking chemicals. The results may very well have been correct, albeit poorly conducted. So they need to go back and do the job again.

I don't think it vindicates anything, which is precisely the problem. Not following protocols and advancing dubious conclusions from flawed evidence undermines the EPA's position and really is a disservice to all involved.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't think it vindicates anything, which is precisely the problem. Not following protocols and advancing dubious conclusions from flawed evidence undermines the EPA's position and really is a disservice to all involved.

True, but it is worth noting that testing water samples isn't the search for cold fusion or the Higgs boson. The testers were sloppy and unprofessional, but they are still standing by their results, and there may be a good reason for that. If the testers are certain of their results, in spite of sloppy work, then they need to hurry and retest.

[Goatnapper'96]

True, but it is worth noting that testing water samples isn't the search for cold fusion or the Higgs boson. The testers were sloppy and unprofessional, but they are still standing by their results, and there may be a good reason for that. If the testers are certain of their results, in spite of sloppy work, then they need to hurry and retest.

Or their conclusions are driven by something other than the results of the test.

[Pheidippides]

True, but it is worth noting that testing water samples isn't the search for cold fusion or the Higgs boson. The testers were sloppy and unprofessional, but they are still standing by their results, and there may be a good reason for that. If the testers are certain of their results, in spite of sloppy work, then they need to hurry and retest.

The good reason could be an agenda. In fact, the sloppy testing and results could very strongly suggest an agenda and belief driving the tests. I'm not saying that's the case, but I wouldn't call anybody who thought that a conspiracy theorist.

[Goatnapper'96]

The good reason could be an agenda. In fact, the sloppy testing and results could very strongly suggest an agenda and belief driving the tests. I'm not saying that's the case, but I wouldn't call anybody who thought that a conspiracy theorist.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I would go so far as to categorize it as a "no-brainer." The President needs support. The US is experiencing a boom in fossil fuel development. If he is going to deny the Keith Stone pipeline he is likely to really piss off a great deal of independents and further alienate the former Democrat core constituency of white redneck labor, he really needs to embolden the Greenies to his cause. What better way than the low hanging fruit of fracking? The public is obviosly a wee bit nervous about the methodology to begin with and Greenies were moist with anticipation for any "report" determining it a threat to mankind. It is a low hanging fruit that might also draw attention away from the Smooth Pipeline. But alas the admin no comprende the invisible hand and the unseemly fortunes folks in this industry are making. When they come to this gun fight, best not to show up with butter knives - such as this "scientific report."

[RobinFinderson]

Or their conclusions are driven by something other than the results of the test.

The good reason could be an agenda. In fact, the sloppy testing and results could very strongly suggest an agenda and belief driving the tests. I'm not saying that's the case, but I wouldn't call anybody who thought that a conspiracy theorist.

Sure, but the EPA has to work in the open, documenting their every move, and submitting their work to public scrutiny. If this is about an anti-corporate agenda, the jig will be up soon enough, because the next round of tests will be negative. I'm not sure what these workers stand to gain by doubling down on falsified tests when retesting will surely expose them.

[Pelado]

Sure, but the EPA has to work in the open, documenting their every move, and submitting their work to public scrutiny. If this is about an anti-corporate agenda, the jig will be up soon enough, because the next round of tests will be negative. I'm not sure what these workers stand to gain by doubling down on falsified tests when retesting will surely expose them.

Time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This has been a fascinating thread thus far. Some the reactions have been more passionate and less objective than I would have guessed from this crowd. First of all, why is this news such a big shocker? I am convinced that fracking is typically safe, but it seems completely unreasonable to believe that fracking would NEVER result in some level of groundwater contamination. It is inevitable that it would happen somewhere. A better question is what is the appropriate response, if this turns out to be connected (and if it didn't happen here, it will happen somewhere)?

I am also surprised at how many of you seem firmly convinced that the EPA is part of some elaborate conspiracy (paging Roger!). If so, they are pretty lousy at conspiracies. Cases like this involve scientific data that can easily be investigated, re-sampled, and re-tested. They may have gotten sloppy in their testing protocol, but I have seen zero evidence of any kind of conspiracy.

There are some interesting points in the Casper newspaper article, but some of the points are rather weak. First of all, the reason that samples need to be tested quickly after sampling is that many of the chemicals being tested are volatile and are present in very small concentrations. Over time the chemicals volatilize and the concentrations go down. Thus, the typical result from late sampling is lower concentrations, not higher concentrations. The positive readings from the control samples is a real head scratcher, but the article doesn't provide a lot of background on that issue so I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that.

To properly test such water wells, they must be first purged three times to make sure fresh water from the surrounding formation flows in for testing, Clarey said.
“We ‘re not sure they produced out all the water that may have seeped out of the formation during the drilling process or well development,” Clarey said. “So we’re not even sure they’re getting an accurate formation sample.”

Purging is a process where you pump out 3-5 well volumes (volume of water inside the well string) prior to taking your sample so that you are testing water from the formation rather than water that has been in contact with the well string, since the well string may have some residual chemicals from the drilling and installation process or because the water in the well is exposed to the atmosphere and may have volatilized some of the chemicals. The fact that they may have purged less than the standard amount does not necessarily prove that the samples were flawed. In fact, it may be that the chemicals they are looking for are extremely unlikely to be present in the well string anyway so additional purging might not make a big difference. Either way, it is a simple matter to take more samples and re-test.

Clarey also pointed out a photo in the draft report that shows a water truck that provided water for drilling the well. The report doesn’t indicate if the truck was tested for any contaminants before its water was used.

This is the most laughable part of the article. That is proof of nothing.


In short, this guy sounds like a typical expert witness hired with an agenda in mind and is looking for anything he can think of to cast doubt on the EPA's draft conclusions. I agree with him that higher sampling frequency would be better (when is that not the case?) and that the false positives in the control samples are puzzling and may warrant retesting at the wells. The rest of the points are very weak.

Either way, this can all be resolved with further testing and analysis. It will be interesting to watch.

[cowboy]

In case you missed this Wall Street Journal story.

Some energy companies, state regulators, academics and environmentalists are reaching consensus that natural-gas drilling has led to several incidents of water pollution—but not because of fracking.

The energy officials and some environmentalists agree that poorly built wells are to blame for some cases of water contamination. In those cases, they say, wells weren't properly sealed with subterranean cement, which allowed contaminants to travel up the well bore from deep underground into shallow aquifers that provide drinking water.

An interesting consensus between industry and environmental interests:

Mark Boling, executive vice president and general counsel of Southwestern Energy Co., a major natural-gas producer, said he has examined several incidents in Colorado and Pennsylvania where gas drilling appears to have caused gas to get into drinking water. "Every one we identified was caused by a failure of the integrity of the well, and almost always it was the cement job," he said.

A. Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser with the Environmental Defense Fund who is working with Mr. Boling, agreed. "The groundwater pollution incidents that have come to light to date have all been caused by well construction problems," he said.

Both men are calling for a stronger set of standards for well construction, including better cementing and more testing to ensure that wells and cement have no leaks.

Also, it seems clear that, despite the absence of a k in the word 'fracture', people can't help themselves, and it has become common convention to spell the word's shortcut as 'frack'. Thus be advised that the soon-to-be-accepted acronym for people who frequent CougarUteForum is 'CUFFer'. You just can't stop a 12-ton pile of wet cow crap when it's sliding downhill.

[Green Monstah]

I prefer fracking, otherwise people look at "fracing" and ask, "what does FRAY-sing mean?"