tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post3652317249312361193..comments2023-12-26T05:33:56.740-05:00Comments on John Hanger's Facts of The Day: Statement On EPA Wyoming Fracking Investigation ReportJohn Hangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06565915866938789295noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-9152852689232145052012-01-02T21:22:58.237-05:002012-01-02T21:22:58.237-05:00There seems to be no controversy about the finding...There seems to be no controversy about the findings that contamination of groundwater resulted from the pits. Encana itself agrees that some pits have leaked and done remediation. <br /><br />There seems little controversy about EPA's own statements concerning the unusual, even unique circumstances of this case. Sandstone, no cap rock between groundwater and the hydraulic fracturing.<br /><br />The rest of the findings are contested and are preliminary. The key is for the politics to be kept out of this that may come from any and all directions.<br /><br />I will be looking carefully at descriptions of the drilling practices done at the gas wells in the final report. Is it correct what EPA has preliminarily stated about how the gas wells were drilled there? If it is correct, whether contamination resulted or not, the drilling designs and practices are not acceptable.John Hangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06565915866938789295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-87215478961149260712012-01-02T12:45:28.592-05:002012-01-02T12:45:28.592-05:00I live near Pavillion, and while prior to this stu...I live near Pavillion, and while prior to this study there has been no evidence directly linking fracking to water quality, it was pretty telling that soon after gas companies started fracking people in Pavillion began to get flammable water from their taps. Unfortunately, it looks like Gov. Matt Mead is backing Encana without a thought for the safety and livelihoods of the people who elected him. These findings are really Pavillion's one shot to get the facts out there (it's Wyoming, let's face it, the rest of the country could care less), so here's hoping that, the challenges of inaccuracy in the Star Tribune aside, their findings are airtight.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13953748783487956087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-61394991714674475592011-12-11T19:02:33.144-05:002011-12-11T19:02:33.144-05:00EPA is behaving professionally. It has done a care...EPA is behaving professionally. It has done a careful investigation, released preliminary findings for the entire world to examine and to comment, and also to have independent science review. The EPA itself is waiting to make final report so everyone should too. Yet, the preliminary report is troubling. Put aside the water quality findings for a moment and just look at the description of the drilling operations. It is not possible to defend a practice of drilling through an aquifer without proper casing and cementing to insure a barrier for gas and fluids between the gas well and aquifer. But it huge mistakes seemed to have been made in nearly all 169 gas wells. And what about the pits and the findings there? And how do you explain chloride readings 18 times the expected value? Even if the water readings were all normal, the practices here are indefensible if properly presented in the preliminary report. I am really interested in your thoughts on the chloride readings.John Hangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06565915866938789295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-78726595409993241132011-12-11T17:45:47.797-05:002011-12-11T17:45:47.797-05:00It's very important to point out how very diff...It's very important to point out how very different this case is than the Marcellus John. <br /><br />First, we should probably take a wait and see approach on this. According to what they found in earlier work, few if any of these chemicals were ever found in anyone's water well. These were monitoring wells drilled outside of town - not the wells of homeowners. I just have a feeling that in the end they will backpeddle on some of the worst implications of the study. The aquifer there is naturally hydrocarbon bearing so some of what they found could be naturally occurring. But it all could be as they say and perhaps actions should be taken as if the worst of what they say is true.<br /><br />That said, this formation is being fracked at much shallower depths than the Marcellus. The shallowest Marcellus wells to date are probably around 5000 feet and the fresh water doesn't extend down much more than a few hundred feet in most cases. That means there are thousands of feet between the zone being fracked and the fresh water. In the case of Pavillion it sounds like it was a few hundred feet. In NY, Marcellus wells will be shallower but it sounds like they are not going to allow any wells to be drilled where the Marcellus is less than 1000 feet below the fresh water. It is really unlikely that many Marcellus wells will be drilled horizontally where the Marcellus is less than 2000 feet below the fresh water. This is an enormous difference. <br /><br />It also sounds like they were not running surface casing over the entire fresh water zone and cementing it all the way back to surface. These are things that are required in NY and PA that would have easily prevented this problem. And the open unlined pits have not been allowed in the east for a long time - decades. WY needs to wake up and get some decent regulations.<br /><br />So this is not evidence that the Marcellus activity is currently contaminating groundwater or will contaminate groundwater in the future. It does make a good argument for stricter regulation of the industry in some western states that have been a bit too relaxed.Concerned Scientistnoreply@blogger.com