Fracked gas in populated areas increases disease vastly

I fail to understand why anyone can't understand that:

• The subsurface is complex with aquifers, oil, gas, natural fractures, preferential pathways, porous and non-porous strata, etc.
• You can poke a shallow hole into it and tap into vast, and in some cases, ancient, fresh water supplies
• You can poke a deeper hole in it and tap into underground formations containing fossil oil and/or gas
• The deeper hole you poked through the water bearing layers and confining strata, combined with injection of "stuff" under high pressure..
• Forces oil, gas, and injected "stuff" to migrate outward and upward through existing or newly created fractures or punched holes to areas where it wasn't before
• Potentially contaminating water supplies with "stuff" or the petroleum, or gas its pushing around.

Or grossly oversimplified:

Put two straws in a orange. Pump crap into one and start sucking on the other. Pretty soon you'll taste crap.

If your orange straw theory worked like you say it does then there would not be one single ounce of fresh drinkable water on this planet. Aquifers are sealed off by MANY layers of rock,shale,and SALT. For instance here there are 3 layers of salt sandwiched in between other layers of rock ,shale,strata , etc. The bottom layer of salt above our gas medina is 500-550 feet thick. Don't you think if there was going to be aquifer contamination issues that a shale gas formation under 30,000 PSI natural pressure would drive the salt brine into fresh water aquifers. If anything drilling a gas well relieves pressure off of an aquifer and quite possibly PREVENTS natural contamination.

Its all a matter of time and subsurface formation properties. Yeah it would happen fast in an orange, much more slowly in our earth, faster in some places, slower in others.
Our water supplies everywhere show increased levels of contamination from myriad sources including drilling.
Even standard drilling practices have contaminated aquifers let alone those using fracturing production.This has been observed countless times through the new appearance of drilling mud constituents (e.g., metals, polymers) in previously uncontaminated water supplies subsequent to drilling.
Even If we stop doing everything we do that pollutes this contamination would still continue to spread.
You can only poke so many holes in those same strata you refer to as "sealing" the oil, gas, injected stuff.
Heck, oil used to come to the surface in "seeps" before we started collecting it. This alone demonstrates how oil is not always contained within the confining layers of salt and rock you mention even under natural pressure let alone under fracturing pressures.

As Craig noted there are elevated cancers risks from a host chemicals present in the liquid hydrocarbons, stripped and stored onsite.
None of them are any worse than the crap that used to be added to gas, some of it still is - benzine toululene(sp) etc.
We have knockout drums for gas precipitates on every NG powerplant I've worked on. None of them require air permits. The only EPA regulated tank emmission we have is on a 2.5mil gallon #2 FO tank(ULS dyed diesel). The reason most of these storage tank's fugitive emmisions are exempted is due to their size. Now having a bunch of small tanks doesn't make it better obviously.

New documentary coming out "FRACKNATION" on a low budget, no oil money, to dispell some of the misinformation from the activist kid that made "Gasland" - he has a sequel as well.
The people lighting their faucets on fire in the movie were lighting it on fire before any wells were drilled. The water was also tested(by state agency) and found to be natuarlly occuring methane in the groundwater table, not fracked gas.

If I was gettin a check I'd be all for it. Since I'm not getting one I say OFF WITH THEIR WELL HEAD!

I'd for one would much rather see a well spitting checks my way than a wind turbine sucking my tax dollars on the horizon

You're singing to the choir.
There is such a thing as shallow oil/gas above salt and strata formations.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/nyserda2.pdf
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/titusville-pa-barrels-of-oil-miles-of-mud/
I live nearly dead nuts between both these towns.
And to think my town placed in the top 10 best tasting water in the state. 150 years of exploration and still good water !!?????? Probably half that time (75 years) went unregulated.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/albany_wins_state_drinking_wat.html
There are 1062 square miles in my county with approximately 3500 producing oil/gas wells (what's that,,,, 3.5 wells/sq. mile) at depths of 800-5000'. Most of these were drilled early 70's-mid 80's. There are another 2500 wells that have been capped or abandoned since record keeping began.
http://andyarthur.org/maps/gas.html
150 years of drilling and here is Titusvilles 2009 water quality report.
http://www.cityoftitusvillepa.gov/files/2009 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report.pdf

This may solve a lot of problems, no water, no truck's, no waste. The gas that is used is recoverd.
The enviros that are far out will not be satified until we become hunter gathers once more.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/461...urce=email_alternative_energy_investing&ifp=1

It proves the point that if you don't make them clean up their act they'd still be dumping on the ground and into the river. Regulation, not corportate stewardship is what funded/prompted this type of development. Horizontal drilling itself is a reaction to regulation, an attempt to lower the footprint of drilling.
I'm glad and heartened to see developments in this direction but I bet if this becomes the new norm they'll look for looser restrictions and elimination of other regulations, claiming they were ALLWAYS had the enviroment in mind.

I checked out the water report you provided. Do they explain why only 6 of at least 26 contaminants are reported? Probably because these were the only ones detected but they don't say that. Its interesting that Barium shows up at 0.05 MG/L because that's one the elements historically found in drilling mud. Unless you have mine waste depositories, metal refineries, or natural deposits nearby, as the report mentions, the source is likely drilling mud.

No doubt you can have a clean aquifer amongst a lot of contamination. Some aquifers are very well defined and confined; others not. That doesn't mean that many other aquifers in the area aren't contaminated though.

I wouldn't put too much value on water "taste" as an indicator of contamination. Some contaminants have no or little taste. Trichloroethylene, one of the most common ground water contaminants and a known carcinogen, tastes and smells rather "sweet".

You're taking shots in the dark.
Of all the places in the world if your theory is correct should be polluted with cancer and illness. The birthplace of oil/gas! Right here in my backyard.
From Wiki.
""Non-toxicity of barium sulfate
Because it is highly insoluble in water as well as stomach acids, barium sulfate can be taken orally. It is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate.[21][22] However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.[23]""

The report you provided said nothing of "barium sulfate", just barium. Here are some more "shots in the dark" from the Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: "The Ba2+ ion and the soluble compounds of barium (notably chloride, nitrate, hydroxide) are toxic to humans. Although barium carbonate is relatively insoluble in water, it is toxic to humans because it is soluble in the gastrointestinal tract. The insoluble compounds of barium (notably sulfate) are inefficient sources of Ba2+ ion and are therefore generally nontoxic to humans".

I just referenced barium because its a known component of drilling mud and a good tracer because its relative non reactive and doesn't degrade much. Even if barium or its compounds weren't bad for you, its appearance could indicate that other nasty stuff in the source material, in this case maybe drilling mud, could be making its way into the groundwater also. These may be the many other chemicals that water supplies aren't required to test for.

I have no dog in this fight. You keep going back to anecdotal information.
I'm just trying to convince you and anyone else reading that just because one underground water supply hasn't been contaminated by petroleum/gas production doesn't mean that others haven't.

If drilling mud or any content of drilling mud were to be found in water supplies so wood oil, gas and condensates . If a casing is compromised one doesn't escape and the other not !
Town/city water supplies aren't required to test for certain harmful chemicals??? Give me a break !
Now that you know where oil/gas were discovered you're free to google you're way through 150 years of land swiss cheesery to find the real truth about drilling/fracing. You can't turn your head here without seeing a wellhead or a jack pump.
I've lived it and been around it my entire life.

Public water supplies do not have to test for the literally thousands of known harmful chemicals. They have to test for only 90. (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/index.cfm).

Drilling mud is used in the borehole during drill bit advancement before all the casing is even placed. In fact once the well starts producing all mud is pushed out into the formation or out the top of the casing. Its not contaminants escaping through a compromised steel casing that are the issue. The leaks that occur are typically outside the casing in the space between the borehole and the casing. This allows whatever is in the high pressure formation or whatever is pumped in under high pressure to contaminate other fluid bearing formations above or below. Its kind of like water leaking into you basement around where a pipe passes through the wall.

There would not be a gas well anywhere that would build pressure if this were true. Water aquifers would be undrinkable.

Try this. http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-...tion/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Drilling_Video.aspx

Nice video. Thanks for posting. It illustrates well where contamination of the aquifer can take place.
1. When the borehole is being advanced through the aquifer there is no casing and the drilling mud mixes freely with water in the aquifer.
2. When "sealing" the space between the casing and borehole. You're pumping in concrete, it takes the path of least resistance and the seal created may not be perfect. Also, the subsurface is dynamic. Things move around. Seals crack, etc.
3. As shown in the video, the high pressures used during fracturing widen existing or create new cracks which are potential pathways for aquifer contamination. They are basically blowing rock apart with very high pressures. Its pretty easy to see how this might create "leaks".

The video shows a fairly simplified view where everything exists in discrete, uniform layers. This is rarely the case. Its complex down there and our tools for characterizing how thing are laid out are limited.

I don't know but I'd guess most do but some don't.
In some places intrusions of igneous rock extend all the way to the surface and above (e.g. Grandfather Mountain) and aquifers don't form readily there. Of course nobody would want to drill there anyway, not for fossil fuels anyway.

NY State DEC rules require 4 caseings at different levels,plus cement at each stage

If they provided information about the tracing elements they already use we could identify if these were really drilling problems or pre-existing problems. Why won't they do that? Why won't we make them do that?

Regardless of how many casings there are, it's the concrete seal between the last casing and the borehole that is critical in sealing the well as it goes up through the various layers to the surface. Here's an interesting industry publication that explains a lot of this. Note their chart on the percentage of wells that leak as they age. An eye opener.

http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.ashx

Hi sesmith

Good site, but very dated 10 years or more.
We as country need a practical way to produce energy now.
Wind and solar decades away.