Don't Frack the Potomac Watershed

The 1.1 million-acre George Washington National Forest sits on the eastern portion of the Marcellus shale formation. Now, as reported in the L.A. Times and Washington Post, the U.S. Forest Service is deciding whether to open up the national forest to oil and gas leases allowing hydraulic fracking at the source of the Potomac River, the lifeblood of our region. The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1993 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on file, describes seven alternatives and the Forest Service has identified Alternative G as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. This alternative as can be seen in the chart below would allow further development of the oil and gas resources in the Forest. This should not happen at this time.

from US Forest Service

The Potomac is the major source of drinking water for more than 4 million people, and the headlands and watershed are within the eastern edge of the forest along the edge of the Marcellus shale formation. The entire Chesapeake Bay region is under a mandated pollution diet from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service is considering allowing activities that could increase sediment runoff and potentially release pollution to the Potomac River.

The Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Fairfax County Water Authority and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission furnish about 95% of the metropolitan region's water from the Potomac River. For more than two centuries the waters of the Potomac seemed unlimited, but regional growth, pollution and drought proved that was not true. Congress created the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to address the pollution of the river, but now their primary job is to manage the allocation of the Potomac’s Waters especially in times of drought. The idea of diverting millions of gallons of water to be used in hydrofracking and even the smallest risk of pollution to the river from spills and leaks is an unacceptable risk to the water supply for the region.

Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydro fracking, using 2-5 million gallons of water mixed with chemicals. For gas to flow out of the shale, all of the water not absorbed by the formation during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals used in fracking represent 15,000 gallons of unknown chemical compostion in the waste water recovered from the typical hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow.

The oil and gas industry has failed to determine proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants. This must be accomplished before even considering expanding fracking into important watersheds. In addition, the impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be monitored and addressed.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently engaged in a review of hydraulic fracking and that should be completed before fracking is further expanded into ecologically sensitive areas.

While geologists and engineers believe that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table, they base this on the “typical” geology where there are thousands of feet between the water table and the fracking location and does not account for any potential impacts from human error or carelessness or on the hydraulic balance in a watershed. The problems seen in drinking water wells near hydro fracking jobs have typically occurred when fracking fluid seeps into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells and from accidental release or improper storage of recovered fracking fluid.

The oil and gas industry has outpaced regulators and knowledge of the consequences from forcing oil and gas from the earth. It is essential to determine the vertical and horizontal separation that is necessary to protect the drinking water aquifers and watersheds from the environmental impacts from fracking before watersheds are damaged or destroyed or the U. S. Forest Service allows vastly expanded development of oil and gas resources in the National Forests. The oil and gas will still be in the ground when we have more knowledge, then fracking can be expanded with increased oversight to ensure that this separation is maintained, improved well-design requirements are developed and ensure their consistent implementation and require the appropriate handling, treatment and recycling of drilling waste water.

The deep well injection commonly used in Texas to dispose of fracking water may have consequences beyond small earthquakes and is not appropriate in all geologies. Sewage treatment plants are designed to separate solids and use bacteria to treat biological waste. They are not equipped to remove or neutralize the contaminants in used hydro fracking fluid. In 2009 and 2010, public sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania directly upstream from drinking-water intake facilities accepted wastewater that contained radionuclides at levels hundred even thousands of times the drinking-water standard despite the fact that these plants (and most sewage plants) were exempt from monitoring for radiation. Local regulators and gas producers believed the waste was not a threat because it would be diluted by treatment in the sewage treatment plants or the river itself, without sampling to verify this. They guessed at the environmental impact and safety of the public drinking water supply. Water resources are primary to life, energy resources are secondary.

Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the equipment, machinery and operation of the oil and gas industry as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads changing the runoff quantity, velocity and quality while exposing the watershed to potential sources of hydrocarbon contamination. The watersheds that supply the water that is the life of our region must be protected first and foremost. Over the years there have been reports from several states noting contamination of drinking water wells in association with fracking, though no definitive proof because of lack of adequate testing and difficulties in understanding groundwater, the full extent to which hydro fracking fluids have contaminated or might in the future contaminate groundwater is unknown. However, many cases of associated contamination have been confirmed.

The Potomac River is an irreplaceable source of drinking water for millions of people and should be protected. All of the Potomac River watershed needs to be designated by Congress as withdrawn from availability for oil and gas leasing until such time that we know how to ensure with certainty the availability and purity of the Potomac.

NETL Fracking Research Does Not Find Contamination

On Friday a statement was released by the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Pittsburgh, PA about the preliminary findings of their Pittsburgh fracking study. NETL has been conducting research at a sight in the Marcellus Shale formation southwest of Pittsburgh to determine (amongst other things) if hydraulic fracturing in this geology can contaminate groundwater. According to a statement from NETL, they are still in the early stages of collecting, analyzing, and validating data from this site, but preliminary analysis did not find any of the fracking fluid within 5,000 feet of the surface. The results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims at this time and NETL expects to issue a final report on the results by the end of 2013.

In the NETL study a hydraulically fractured shale gas well was injected with four different man-made tracers at different stages of the fracking process. The preliminary results did not find any of the tracers above the 5,000 foot depth. This study is important because it adds to our knowledge of the impact of fracturing on geology, but geology varies across the Marcellus shale formation and from shale formation to formation so these results may apply only to this section of the Marcellus shale formation. In addition, the wells at the research site are likely to have been completed “by the book.”

How a well is completed may be one of the most important determinates if there will be any shallow impact from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is more commonly known. When a well is fracked fluids made up of mostly water and chemical additives are injected at high pressure into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected in some geologies. Natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane reserve. The NETL study is also performing seismic monitoring to understand the fracturing process and how naturally occurring fractures are impacted by fracking.

As has been shown by research performed at other locations and by Duke University and other researchers, how carefully a well is completed and the surrounding geology determines the potential for fracking to impact groundwater. In the study in Northeast Pennsylvania the Duke scientists found that natural gas, derived both naturally and at least in part from the shale gas was present in some of the shallow groundwater wells less than a mile away from natural gas wells. Dr. Rob Jackson the lead author pointed out that the two simplest explanations for the higher dissolved gas concentrations measured in the drinking water were faulty or inadequate steel casings and/or imperfections in the cement sealing (also known as the grouting) between casings and rock that keep fluids from moving up the outside of the well. In 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued 90 violations for faulty casing and cementing on 64 Marcellus shale gas wells; 119 violations were issued in 2011.

In another study by Duke University and the US Geological Survey no evidence of drinking water contamination from methane from shale gas was found in a part of the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas (2). That shale has a less fractured geology than the Marcellus and good confining layers above and below the drinking water aquifers.

In Wyoming where the water table is deep and the shale gas shallow the drinking water has been impacted, but the cause of the impact is still under investigation. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, reported in 2011 that they found glycols, alcohols, methane and benzene in a well drilled to the water aquifer in Wyoming within the Pavillion field. Initially EPA reported that the contaminants found were consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids and likely due to fracking, but has since backed off that conclusion stating “the source of those contaminants has not been determined.” EPA now states that their efforts to evaluate potential migration pathways from deeper gas production zones to shallower domestic water wells in the Pavillion gas field are inconclusive. EPA has turned the investigation over to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission who will assess the need for any further action to protect drinking water resources.

EPA does not plan to finalize or seek peer review of its draft Pavillion groundwater report released in December, 2011. Nor does the agency plan to rely upon the conclusions in the draft report and is backing away from a report that initially claimed to show fracking contaminated groundwater. EPA is moving forward on a major research program on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water in different areas of the country and will release a draft report in late 2014. EPA will look to the results of that national program as the basis for its scientific conclusions and recommendations on hydraulic fracturing.

Meanwhile the NETL preliminary results are all over the news as the final word instead of simply another piece of knowledge in a recent slew of studies. Ultimately, we need to understand why, in some cases, shale gas extraction appears to contaminate groundwater and how to ensure that contamination does not happen with a high level of certainty in susceptible geology. Well construction and maintenance needs to be studied, optimized and carefully regulated before further expansion of shale gas development.

1. Jackson, RB, Vengosh, A, Darrah, TH, Warner, NR, Down, A, Poreda, RJ, Osborn, SG, Zhao, K, Karr, JD (2013) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print June 24, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1221635110

2. Kresse TM, et al. (2012) Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011 (USGS), US Geological Survey Scientific Report 2012–5273 (Lafayette Publishing Service Center, Lafayette, LA).

New Research on Fracking and Contamination of Drinking Water

Scientists have found and investigated methane in drinking water wells near fracked gas wells in the Marcellus Shale. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known involves the pressurized injection of fluids commonly made up of mostly water and chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected. Natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane reserve.

Over the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction has increased and has expanded over a wide diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations beyond its original use in old oil and gas fields to revitalize them. By January of 2013, the daily production of methane (CH4) in the United States had increased 30% from January 2005 to about 70 billion cubic feet of gas each day. As fracking has expanded at what seems a breakneck speed in some regions, so has a public and regulatory concern about the possible environmental consequences of fracking and horizontal drilling. These concerns include air pollution from the operation of heavy equipment, human health effects for workers and people living near well pads from chemical exposure, noise and dust, induced seismicity from the disposal of fracking fluids, and increased greenhouse gas emissions from poor well head control and continued use of hydrocarbons.

However, the biggest health concern remains the potential for drinking water contamination from fracturing fluids, natural formation waters, and stray gases. While geologists and engineers believed that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table, this had not been studied and there were reported instances of contamination of drinking water wells in areas that had been fracked. Only in the past three years has the potential to contaminate drinking water wells been studied. In a small group of studies (listed below) that were primarily in the Marcellus region of Pennsylvania, peer-reviewed studies found no evidence of salts, metals, or radioactivity beyond naturally occurring concentrations in drinking water wells near shale gas wells. However, in the latest studies they did find increased levels of methane in groundwater wells.

Methane gas occurs naturally in groundwater aquifers in most geological sedimentary basins. Methane gas exists in a dissolved state in the groundwater underground and will “bubble out” when pumped to the surface. For those on private water well supplies, spurting taps is a typical indication of this phenomenon. Methane present in groundwater can be a result of biogenic activity or can be from coal gas beds or from deeper shale gas. Biogenic methane is produced by subsurface bacteria and commonly occurs naturally in groundwater aquifers used for water well supplies. Thermogenic methane gas is produced at greater depths through high pressure and temperature processes and is characteristic of deep oil and gas reservoirs that conventional and shale gas wells tap into. Methane gas typically contains trace amounts of ethane. The proportion of methane to ethane in a gas can help determine its origin. Biogenic gas typically contains above 1,000 times more methane than ethane, but thermogenic gas has higher levels of ethane. In addition, isotope data can also be used to help determine whether a gas is biogenic or thermogenic. In the most recent research paper from the scientists at Duke University, University of Rochester and California State Polytechnic University (1) used these ratios to examine the occurrence and source of methane in drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania.

A total of 81 samples from drinking water wells were collected in six counties in Pennsylvania (Bradford, Lackawanna, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wayne, and Wyoming), and results were combined with 60 previous samples from a 2011 study by Stephen G. Osborn et al. (2). Dissolved methane was detected in the drinking water of 82% of the houses sampled (115 of 141 samples). Methane concentrations in drinking water wells of the homes closest to the gas wells were six times higher on average than concentrations for homes farther away. All of the 12 houses where CH4 concentrations were greater than 28 mg/L (the threshold for immediate remediation set by the US Department of the Interior) were well within a mile of an active shale gas well. Concentrations of ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8) were also higher in drinking water of homes near the shale gas wells.

The scientists concluded that the combined results suggest that natural gas, derived at least in part from thermogenic sources (the shale gas) was present in some of the shallow water wells less than a mile away from natural gas wells. The scientist pointed out that the two simplest explanations for the higher dissolved gas concentrations measured in the drinking water are faulty or inadequate steel casings and/or imperfections in the cement sealing (also known as the grouting) between casings and rock that keep fluids from moving up the outside of the well. In 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued 90 violations for faulty casing and cementing on 64 Marcellus shale gas wells; 119 violations were issued in 2011.

The scientist believed based on their isotopic analysis and previous studies that the cause of the elevated levels of methane (CH4) in the groundwater was due to imperfections in the cement grouting on the wells. Faulty cement grouting can allow methane and other gases from intermediate layers to flow into, up, and out of the void between the steel casing and the grouting into shallow drinking water layers. The geochemical and isotopic compositions of stray gas contamination in this scenario would not fully match the target shale gas, and no fracturing chemicals or deep formation waters would be expected, because a direct connection to the deepest layers does not exist; and this is consistent with their findings. Faulty grouting is believed to be the most likely cause of the scientists’ findings. Legacy or abandoned oil and gas wells (and even abandoned water wells) though a potential source of contamination, were unlikely to be the cause in this instance. Historical drilling activity was negligible within the study area making this mechanism unlikely there. Though, in 2000, the Pennsylvania DEP estimated that it had records for 141,000 of the 325,000 oil and gas wells that had historically been drilled in the state.

In another study by Duke University and the US Geological Survey no evidence of drinking water contamination from methane from shale gas was found in a part of the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas (7). That shale has a less fractured geology than the Marcellus and good confining layers above and below the drinking water aquifers. Ultimately, we need to understand why, in some cases, shale gas extraction contaminates groundwater and how to ensure that contamination does not happen with a high level of certainty in susceptible geology. Well construction and maintenance needs to be studied, optimized and carefully regulated before further expansion of shale gas development.

1. Jackson, RB, Vengosh, A, Darrah, TH, Warner,  NR, Down, A, Poreda, RJ, Osborn, SG, Zhao, K, Karr,JD (2013) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print June24, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1221635110
2. Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(20):8172–8176.
3. DiGiulio DC, Wilkin RT, Miller C, Oberley G (2011) Investigation of Ground Water Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming (US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ada, OK), p 74820.
4. Warner NR, et al. (2012) Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(30):11961–11966.
5. Chapman EC, et al. (2012) Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction. Environ Sci Technol 46(6):3545–3553.
6. Boyer EW, et al. (2012) The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies (The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA)
7. Kresse TM, et al. (2012) Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011 (USGS), US Geological Survey Scientific Report 2012–5273 (Lafayette Publishing Service Center, Lafayette, LA).

Dimock, Gasland and the EPA – Fracking and Water

Last Wednesday, July 25th 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it has completed its sampling of private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pa. Based on the outcome of that sampling, EPA has determined that the levels of contaminants present do not require additional action by the Agency, the water with the existing private well treatment systems is safe to drink. Regional Administrator, Shawn M. Garvin, said “The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action.  Throughout EPA's work in Dimock, the Agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.” The EPA’s news release is intended to end the story of Dimock, but bureaucratic speak is never really clear. So, let’s see if we can bring clarity and accuracy to the end of the story of Dimock, PA.  

The Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA, which is how the EPA looks at water quality, defines a contaminant as “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water” (U.S. Code, 2002; 40 CFR 141.2). This is a very broad definition of contaminant includes every substance (including minerals) that may be found dissolved or suspended in water, everything but the water molecule itself. However, the SDWA only has MCLs and secondary standards for 91 contaminants. Groundwater aquifers are potentially vulnerable to a wide range of man-made and naturally occurring contaminants, including many that are not regulated in drinking water under the SDWA. The presence of a contaminant in water does not necessarily mean that there is a human-health concern. Whether a particular contaminant in water is potentially harmful to human health depends on the contaminant’s toxicity and concentration as well as other factors including the susceptibility of individuals, amount of water consumed, and duration of exposure. EPA did a final round of testing of the private wells in the Dimock area to make sure that the water from the drinking water wells was safe to consume and all identified contaminants were within the acceptable level as determined by a risk analysis. Most private well owners rarely test their well water quality and very few ever consider testing for the entire suit of contaminants regulated under the SDWA let alone the list of potential contaminants that EPA tested for here.

Dimock, Pennsylvania is located in Susquehanna County near the New York border, overlies the Marcellus Shale and was an early area that had been developed with hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Dimock had been made famous for its appearance in the Josh Fox movie Gasland.   In Dimock, Mr. Fox met families who demonstrated on camera how they were able to light their running tap water on fire due to the methane gas present in their wells. That was a rather spectacular display. Residents also claimed to be suffering from numerous health issues related to contamination of their well water. Methane is a simple asphyxiant that displaces oxygen from air. Methane released from water into an enclosed environment could cause serious symptoms. Exposure to low oxygen environments produces symptoms of central nervous depression, including nausea, headache, dizziness, confusion, fatigue and weakness. Even if there was no other contaminant of concern present in the water, the symptoms of central nervous depression could be very frightening.

Cabot began natural gas fracking in the Dimock area in 2008. On January 1, 2009, an explosion was reported in an outside, below-grade water well pit at a home located in Dimock. In Pennsylvania private drinking water wells are not regulated and are often the shallow, dug wells that are housed in a pit. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) collected samples from wells that provide drinking water to 13 homes located near the Cabot fracked gas wells, and these samples contained elevated levels of dissolved methane gas. (During the year the number of impacted homes would expand to 18 from 13.) The presence of dissolved methane and/or combustible gas was noted in the private wells within six months of completion of drilling of the Cabot  gas Wells and Cabot was presumed to be responsible for the pollution, pursuant to Section 208(c) of the PA Oil and Gas Act, 58 P.S. §601.208(c). None of the homes dependent on their private drinking water well had done any extensive testing of their water quality before Cabot began fracking in the area and all contaminants found (except for fecal coliform) are sometimes naturally present in groundwater. The two important questions raised were is the water safe to drink and did Cabot cause any change in the water quality by fracking in Dimock. PADEP presumed Cabot responsible and cited them for improper or insufficient cementing of the well casings. In addition there had been several other violations for improper storage of drilling mud, diesel spills, failure to maintain records and driller’s logs.

In November 2009 the PADEP entered into a consent agreement with Cabot for methane and metals removal systems for eighteen private wells in the Dimock area. The agreement was later revised several times. The revised agreement required Cabot to pay the impacted fam­i­lies set­tle­ments worth twice their prop­erty assessed val­ues, deposit the money into an escrow account and notify the residents that the money was available and to install a water treatment system (a filter or ion exchange system) in each impacted home. The agreement calls for each well owner to enter into the agreement with Cabot who was to install water treatment systems in their homes. Until the treatment systems were installed, Cabot was to provide delivered bottled water. There were no plans for confirmation testing to demonstrate the effectiveness of the filtration systems.  There were eighteen private wells that were part of the PADEP /Cabot agreement. By 2011 only six well owners had signed agreements and had water treatment systems installed in their homes. However, most of these were buying bottled water because they did not feel confident that the treatment systems were effective. Water treatment systems are often simple and unimpressive in appearance and verification sampling should have been performed.  Twelve of the private well owners had not signed the agreement Cabot and instead eleven (I could not trace the 12^th ) had filed a civil suit against the company. These owners were being provided delivered water by Cabot. On November 30, 2011, with the approval of the PADEP, Cabot ceased delivering water to these homes. PADEP agreed to stopping the water deliveries because there had been sufficient time for residents to sign the agreement and that a remedy for private well owners had been provided. Clearly, many of the homeowners were not satisfied with the remedy offered.

Very public protests took place aided by environmental groups and anti-fracking grass roots groups and  resulted in the EPA stepping in and reviewing all the data for the 18 wells. In their summery EPA notes that based on the maximum contaminant sampling results for the 18 wells sampled, levels of coliform bacteria, methane, ethylene glycol, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 2-methoxyethanoI aluminum were present.  Coliform bacteria were found in half the wells and typically indicate a pathway exists for disease causing bacteria to contaminant the water supply, though it . E. coli bacteria and fecal bacteria are a subset of coliform bacteria that only occur in animal and human waste and are a threat to human health. The level of coliform bacteria found in two of the wells was too high to measure. After reviewing all the sample data, information and residents’ concerns by the EPA and ATSDR (a part of the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services) the regulators identified a significant group of private wells in the nearby area that had not been tested and were not part of the existing PADEP /Cabot agreement. In addition, the level of concern and frustration of the residents who were party to the PADEP /Cabot agreement prompted EPA to temporarily supply water to four homes and perform follow up environmental monitoring and water sampling and have ATSDR perform a full public health evaluation on the data from the site area. Because many of these compounds affect the same organ systems, ATSDR used suitable methods to evaluate the potential for synergistic actions and the cumulative concentration of all substances, and dissolved combustible gases was considered to protect against the buildup of explosive gases in all wells in the area.

Between January and March of 2012 EPA collected 61 separate groundwater samples, 6 duplicates for quality control testing and performed188 analyses for each sample, in some instances the samples were filtered and retested. These samples covered the water supply to 64 homes, and two rounds of sampling at four wells where EPA was delivering temporary water supplies because prior sampling data found elevated levels of contaminants in those wells. EPA found an elevated level of manganese in untreated well water at one of the wells. Two homes that obtain their water from that well have water treatment systems that can reduce manganese to levels that according to the EPA do not present a health concern.

Many of the perceived problems with well water are caused by the presence of iron and manganese. Iron and manganese can give water an unpleasant taste, odor and color. Manganese causes brownish-black stains on household items washed with the water. In addition, water contaminated with iron and manganese often contains iron or manganese bacteria which feed on the minerals. These bacteria do not cause health problems, but can form a reddish brown or brownish black slime in toilet tanks and clog filters. Iron and manganese often occur together and are naturally occurring elements commonly found in groundwater in many parts of the country. At  levels naturally present in groundwater iron and manganese do not usually present a health hazard. However, their presence in well water can cause unpleasant taste, staining and accumulation of mineral solids that can clog water treatment equipment and plumbing. In addition, a persistent coliform (non-fecal) bacteria problem may be caused by iron bacteria. Under guidelines for public water supplies set by EPA, iron and manganese are considered secondary contaminants. The standard Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for iron is 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L or ppm) and 0.05 mg/L for manganese. This level of iron and manganese are easily detected by taste, smell or appearance and thumbing through the results of the EPA sampling I saw manganese levels high enough to see and taste in drinking water.

In addition, to the elevated manganese, there were elevated levels of sodium not beyond what can occur naturally, elevated levels of arsenic not beyond what can naturally occur, but in at least one case significantly elevated over the other samples and above the SDWA MCL. Methane was present in several samples and can also be naturally occurring. Fecal coiform bacteria indicative of contamination from a septic system was present in one sample (that water is NOT safe) and coliform bacteria was present in several samples. Only one of their sodium levels was higher than mine which is naturally occurring, safe to drink and tastes good.   

ATSDR performed the risk analysis on the results. Overall during the sampling in Dimock, EPA found elevated arsenic, barium or manganese, all of which are also naturally occurring substances, in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern according to ATSDR. In all cases the private wells either now have or will have their own treatment systems that can reduce concentrations of those metals to acceptable levels at the tap.  EPA provided all the residents their sampling results and has no further plans to conduct additional drinking water sampling in Dimock or continue to provide drinking water. The water supply to these homes with their treatment systems is deemed to be safe by the EPA.

The bottom line is we really do not know definitively what impact if any Cabot caused to the groundwater. Cabot agreed that they failed to properly grout the gas wells and certainly they did not properly store and contain the fracking fluid. Publicized photos show jugs of dirty looking water reportedly from wells in the area and could be manganese and iron, fecal contamination, or dirt that entered the groundwater through surface infiltration of loosening of fines within the aquifer. EPA sampling is silent on water appearance. PADEP concluded that surface spills and shoddy construction practices by Cabot allowed natural gas from a shallow deposit above the Marcellus to drift into the drinking-water wells of residents. The non-quantified traces of chemicals that are sometimes used in fracking, and antifreeze and are common in fuel that had been reported in previous sampling were not found the EPA water samples. EPA found only naturally occurring heavy metals at levels of any concern.

For the past decade and a half, the US Geological Survey, USGS, has been studying groundwater quality in the United States. The presence of a contaminant in water does not necessarily mean that there is a human-health concern. Whether a particular contaminant in water is potentially harmful to human health depends on the contaminant’s toxicity and concentration in drinking water. Other factors include the susceptibility of individuals, amount of water consumed, and duration of exposure that is why the ATSDR performed their risk analysis.  In their survey testing of groundwater in the United States the USGS has found most man-made contaminants at both trace and concentrations exceeding human health screening levels or MCLs in groundwater samples from unconfined aquifers. These man-made contaminants originate at the surface and the unconsolidated aquifers provided little natural protection from surface infiltration. 

The shallow drinking water wells in Dimock make them particularly susceptible to contamination. The residents of Dimock did not regularly test their water quality historically. The bacterial concentrations found in early rounds of testing were troubling, though unlikely to have been caused by the fracking, but were indicative of susceptible and potentially poorly maintained or constructed wells. The fecal bacteria found in one well was a health hazard very unlikely to have been caused by fracking, but likely to be caused by a failing septic system. Prior studies of private well water in Pennsylvania have found that approximately one third of private wells test positive for total coliform bacteria (Swistock et al 2009). The highest incidence of coliform bacteria tends to occur with snow melts and rains that carry the bacteria from the surface, but can also occur with iron and manganese. Regularly testing your drinking water and maintaining any water treatment system in your home is an essential part of private well ownership. 

500 Feet From Your Front Door-Pennsylvania Passes HB 1950

On February 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed House Bill 1950 amending the Commonwealth’s Oil and Gas Act (the “Act”). It was signed into law on February 13th 2012 by the Governor. Under HB 1950, an impact fee will be levied on each fracked gas well and is anticipated to yield between $190,000 and $355,000 per well in the first 15 years. The funding will be split between local municipalities and the state. In addition, this legislation restricts local municipalities’ ability to use zoning regulations to restrict drilling and hydraulic fracking in residential neighborhoods, taking away residents ability to make decisions about drilling that best fits the needs of their communities. HB 1950 increases setbacks, providing that the shale gas wells are 500 feet from occupied structures and water wells, and 1,000 feet from public drinking water wells. In addition to the setbacks, the new law prohibits wastewater pits within the 100 year floodplain, requires new fracturing fluid chemical disclosure, requiring all operators to complete a chemical disclosure form and post the form on the chemical disclosure registry, FracFocus.com. Other items required under the law are additional well permitting procedures, plans, and approvals, increased bonding requirements and stricter enforcement and higher fines. Finally, the new law requires drillers to notify all surface rights owners within 3,000 feet of a well head.

In Pennsylvania, ownership of surface rights and ownership of minerals rights are often separated. In addition, mineral rights on the same tract may be separated from each other - oil, gas, coal, hard rock minerals, etc. may all be owned by separate companies. The mineral rights were usually separated before land was partitioned so that an individual or corporation may own the rights to an entire neighborhood. Pennsylvania does not maintain ownership records of mineral properties in a central location nor do they have property tax records for the mineral rights because they do not pay property taxes on those rights. Rather; county governments maintain the old transfer records that contain this, you could be surprised to find that a corporation already has the right to drill within 500 feet of your house, but under the new law they will have to notify you of their intent to drill.

All surface and mineral owners have property rights under the law. Pennsylvania recognizes both the mineral owner's right to recover the mineral, and the landowner's right to protection from unreasonable encroachment or damage. Some towns had attempted to control hydraulic fracturing and shale gas processing through zoning. Now, HB 1950 effectively removes oil and gas drilling and related gas processing activities from nearly all local land use regulation, including regulation under the Municipalities Planning Code. According to Richard A. Ward, Township Manager Robinson Township, PA, this bill effectively turns the entire state of Pennsylvania into one large industrial zone. No zoning could exclude fracking wells and shale gas processing and no neighborhood is safe.

This bill amends Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, consolidating the Oil and Gas Act modifying the definitions, well permitting process, well location restrictions including increasing horizontal setbacks from water supply wells to 1,000 feet, reporting requirements, bonding, enforcement orders, penalties, civil penalties and, restricting local ordinances relating to oil and gas operations; and taxing the gas. However, the most significant element would in effect take away from the towns the ability to use zoning to exclude shale gas production in residential neighborhoods.

While it would undoubtedly be beneficial for the industry and regulators to have a single set of statewide regulations for siting and drilling hydraulic fracturing wells, watershed characteristics and geology vary across the state. Furthermore, the health and welfare of communities are best protected by local zoning. There has not been enough data gathered and studied to know horizontal distance to a drinking water well and aquifer will guarantee safety for the water supply throughout the various localities in the state and the 1,000 feet required under HB 1950 has no basis in scientific fact. Though it took several years, the legislation still seems in a rush, to generate taxes and jobs. The gas will still be there if we take the time to understand fracking adequately to be able to release the gas from the shale formations without significant damage to our water resources and communities.

More than One Way to Frack a Well

Our ability to recover natural gas buried in deep geological deposits beneath the earth has increased dramatically due to advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in methods to "hydraulically fracture" or "hydraulically stimulate" the formation to generate cracks or "fractures" through which gases and liquids can flow more rapidly to the well. Hydraulic fracking as it is typically called is the pumping of millions of gallons of chemicals and water into shale at high pressure to increase the recovery of oil and natural gas from shale.

In hydraulic fracking on average 2-5 million gallons of chemicals and water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. The use of water laced with chemicals to enhance oil and gas production has been very successful in the United States with many improvements in the technique since its inception in the 1950's. Water-based fracturing liquids (once called slickwater) are the most commonly used in the lower shale formations like the Marcellus. Generally, chemical additives are mixed with the water to improve its ability to transport the proppant, the sand or other substance used to prop open the fractures to allow the gas to flow. This is achieved through the addition of gels to increase the viscosity and also to reduce fluid loss from the fracture by temporarily blocking the natural permeability of the rock. Once the pumping is completed, the gel breaks down and the spent liquids can flow back to the surface after which the gas can flow up to the well bore. This works well in the higher pressure formations where the back pressure from the formation can push the liquids out of the formation rather than absorb the liquids into the formation.

While geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking “water,” a mix of chemicals and water, will somehow infiltrate groundwater reserves though a fissure created by the fracking. It is believed that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table, but there are other risks in how we build wells and fracture the shale. There have been documented cases of seepage into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells. There are also places where groundwater is only several hundred feet above the gas reserves as in Wyoming and groundwater is more easily directly impacted by fracking. In the past decade the advances in drilling and fracking technology have been adapted to exploit gas in the Barnett shale in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas and applied to a series of major shale gas deposits that could not have been viable without the advances in drilling and fracking techniques.

A mild winter combined with the newly available gas supplies has resulted in a crash in gas prices. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply of proven, producible reserves and even with expanded use of natural gas to replace coal in fueling power plants, there is more than a generation of currently accessible reserves. The falling price of natural gas and disappointing life span of hydro fracked wells has renewed interest in other methods of fracturing a formation to increase the gas recovery over the life of the well and reduce the overall costs of fracking including the costs associated with waste water treatment to improve the economics of the project. Other methods of fracturing a formation have been used in formations where the gas reservoir is at a lower pressure and does not have sufficient energy to push the liquids back up the well. Without adequate pressure in the formation the liquids and chemicals used in the hydraulic stimulation process remain in the reservoir and impede the flow of oil and gas and shorten the lifetime of the well.

From the 1970’s until about 10 years ago it was standard to stimulate wells with nitrogen gas or nitrogen foam. Nitrogen gas and foam have a long history as the fracturing fluids of choice in the Antrim, New Albany, and Ohio (Lower Huron) shale where experience had shown a dry fracturing was superior. However, it was the Marcellus shale formations that tipped the balance to hydraulic fracturing. Water is non-compressible, drives net pressure better in shale stimulations than nitrogen foam fluids. Using water improved the chances of opening other planes of weakness or natural fractures with high pump rates and fluid volumes. It was believed that the Marcellus shale gas recovery was not significantly impacted by clays absorbing water and reducing overall gas production in a hydraulic frack; however, this belief may not prove to be true over the life of the wells.

Now, other methods of fracturing shale formations are being examined in response to the public outcry against the potential ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing, excessive water use and earthquakes associated with some fracking water disposal wells combined with some hydraulic fracture wells experiencing a lower production yield than anticipated and the depressed price of natural gas. In the late 1990’s a series of test wells were drilled by industry and studied by the Department of Energy, DOE. These wells used liquid phase carbon dioxide, CO2, for fracturing and had significantly increased gas well yield over nitrogen fracked wells. In these wells, CO2 was pumped as a liquid then vaporized to a gas and flowed out from the reservoir leaving no liquid or chemical damage to the formation. This process can transport proppant in only limited volumes and requires a specialized blender to mix the liquid CO2 with proppant. These limitations were a problem for the lower shale formations where more proppant was needed.

Sometimes in a hydraulic frack the gels do not completely break down and even when they do, there is always some residue that remains in the well and can block and damage the gas reservoir. Hydraulic fracking gels create some damage, but the fractures were of sufficient length to offset the damage in the Texas wells which popularized the method. Some geological formations; however, do not respond as effectively to hydraulic stimulations. The fracturing liquids can become trapped in the formation because the reservoir is at a lower pressure and does not have sufficient energy to push the liquids back to the well bore. The gas well yields are diminished because the liquids and chemicals used in the fracking remain in the reservoir and impede the flow of oil and gas. These problems were slow to be addressed because of the high price for natural gas last decade, termination of the Gas Research Institute and a sharp decline in DOE gas research and technology program just as shale gas production was taking off.

Now with the low price for natural gas and contracts that require drilling, energy companies are looking for better methods of stimulating gas reserves. Chesapeake Energy Corp. has fractured a natural gas well in Ohio's Utica shale using a reported 471,534 gallons of water mixed with carbon dioxide, sand and chemical additives to create a foam that was pumped down the well under pressure to crack the underground rock. In nearby wells hydro fracked by Chesapeake the average water usage was 5.8 million gallons. Well production results from this CO2 foam and water fracked well will have to be evaluated over a period of at least 24 months and typically 36 months to know if this technique was successful, but it holds promise as a less resource damaging or wasting method to access shale gas.

Give the US Geological Survey the Well Data

It has long been known that natural gas was trapped in the tiny pore spaces that comprise shale rock, but that knowledge was useless. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas. However, in the past decade our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth in these shale deposits has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertical well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of water laced with proprietary chemicals into shale at high pressure to release the natural gas stored in the pore spaces have increased our ability to recover natural gas from that shale. This combined with the increase in the price of natural gas has spurred the race to develop wells to exploit the natural gas from a series of major shale gas deposits in North America that could not have been viable without these advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shale in Canada are now accessible. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply (at the current rate of use) of proven, producible reserves.

Natural gas is now seen as an abundant domestic energy resource. When it burns, natural gas emits the lowest amount of carbon dioxide per calorie of any fossil fuel and burns cleanly because of this natural gas could be the “bridge fuel” in the long-term transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy or whatever the future and science will discover. In the 1990’s natural gas, sold for $2 per million BTUs after peaking in 2005 natural gas is now about $4 per million BTUs, making the extraction of shale gas viable and profitable. The U.S. uses natural gas to produce 21 % of its electricity. Coal is used to product 48 % of electricity in the United States and is still much cheaper than natural gas for generating electricity, but new regulations by the EPA on carbon emissions could decrease that financial advantage because coal burns dirtier than natural gas. Recent ambitious plans to convert the nation to renewable energy: build nuclear plants and solar and wind farms, were made under the assumption that natural gas prices would average $7 to $9 per million BTUs. At that level, electricity prices would have been high enough to make wind and nuclear power look affordable. Now, with natural gas at $4 per million BTUs and more gas reserves announced each year, many of these projects suddenly look too expensive. Shale sourced natural gas could profoundly change the future of our nation and world we live in; however we need to remember that the gas still is a limited resource and be cautious about what other impacts fracking might have on our other resources especially the hydraulic balance.

Though there has been tremendous concern for the potential direct adverse impact that fracking may have on drinking water, geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking “water,” a mix chemicals and water, will somehow infiltrate groundwater reserves though a fissure created by the fracking. It is believed though not documented and tested that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table. There are other risks in how we build wells and fracture the shale. Documented contamination to drinking water wells due to seepage of fracking water into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells can be controlled to some extent by recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed. That is not being done.

Though the energy companies are beginning to gather baseline data for drinking water wells in the areas being fracked, the data collection is not ongoing nor broad enough. The data that is being collected is not adding to the base of knowledge, but rather I suspect to demonstrate that stray gas was a pre-existing condition of the drinking water wells. What is needed is an ongoing monitoring and data collection of the potential impacts to our water supply from hydraulic fracking. Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydraulic fracking, using up to 3 million gallons of water. Data needs to be gathered on the impact to water resources of supplying water for the construction of thousands of wells per year. For gas to flow out of the shale, nearly all of the water injected into the well during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals are 15,000 gallons in the waste from the typical 3 million gallon hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants and monitoring the impact from this disposal must also be done. The impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be measured and monitored. Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads. The watersheds must be monitored. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3032/pdf/FS2009-3032.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The USGS employs 10,000 scientists, technicians, and support staff that serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. The USGS is an amazing national resource that we have failed to fully utilize in the understanding of the impacts of hydraulic fracking. The USGS should determine the parameters that need to be monitored for a base line and on an ongoing or periodic basis and industry should provide that data in a usable format to the USGS. For once let’s develop a resource carefully and correctly without scaring the earth or damaging our water supply. We’ve lost our margin for error.

Natural Gas, Energy and the Environment

It is a dream of some for the United States to become “energy independent.” For others the dream is to convert our nation to renewable energy sources. These two ideas or dreams are related, but we are not about to jump from oil dependence to solar and wind, and the resurgence of atomic power plants in the United States may not come to fruition after the post Tsunami reactor disaster in Japan. Many think that the way to progress is to move from oil and coal fired electrical generating plants to cleaner natural gas plants and from there to more renewable sources of power. Clearly, all your eggs in one basket mega power plant strategy is not the optimal plan.

Our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of chemicals and water into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Hydraulic fracking is a technology that was unknown 60 years ago. In the past decade the advances in drilling and fracking technology have been adapted to exploit gas in the Barnett shale in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas and applied to a series of major shale gas deposits that could not have been viable without the advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shales in Canada are now accessible. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply of proven, producible reserves and even with expanded use of natural gas, there is more than a generation of currently accessible reserves.

A large swath of Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia sit atop the Marcellus Shale, which is the third-largest natural gas field currently known in the world. The Marcellus Shale alone is estimated to be 500-trillion-cubic-feet of gas reserve. This resource could heat our homes for a generation or more, and power our electrical generating plants, even fuel cars either directly or through plug in hybrids. The possible impacts to our economy and environment are far reaching. The potential risks are also far reaching. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/List_of_natural_gas_fields

In hydraulic fracking on average 2-3 million gallons of chemicals and water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. While geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking “water,” a mix chemicals and water, will somehow infiltrate groundwater reserves though a fissure created by the fracking there are other routes of contamination and impact. It is believed that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table, there are other risks in how we build wells and fracture the shale. There have been documented cases of seepage into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells. There are also places where groundwater is only several hundred feet above the gas reserves as they are in Wyoming and groundwater is more easily directly impacted by fracking.

Though it is unlikely that the strontium and barium and radioactive materials that occur naturally in the brine in the Marcellus shale, will flow from the shale through a crack or fissure up thousands of feet to the groundwater supplies, there are still other routes of contamination a portion of the fracking water is recovered and reused, disposed or stored. In fact, there have already been several high-profile cases of groundwater contamination. According to the PA Department of the Environment surface spills and shoddy construction practices (by Cabot Oil) allowed natural gas from a shallow deposit above the Marcellus to drift into the drinking-water wells of 14 Pennsylvania residents. The state is currently investigating traces of toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene chemicals that are sometimes used in fracking and are common in fuel found in some of the drinking water wells in the area. These could easily be long present contaminants from leaking underground storage tanks, but the residents did not regularly test and document their water quality historically.

According to the US Geological Survey in 2000 the United States used about 323 billion gallons per day of surface water and about 84.5 billion gallons per day of ground water. Although surface water is used more to supply drinking water and to irrigate crops, ground water is vital in that it not only helps to keep rivers and lakes full, it also provides water for people in places where visible water is scarce and rural areas. To survive over time, a population must live within the carrying capacity of its ecosystem, which represents a form of natural capital. One of the most important elements is potable water. Without water there can be no life. As populations grow water is needed for drinking, bathing, to support irrigated agriculture and industry. In the quest for fuel and wealth we can not forget our need for water.

The recharge of groundwater and the possibilities for its abstraction vary greatly from place to place, owing to rainfall conditions and the distribution of aquifers (rock and sand layers in whose pore spaces the groundwater sits). Generally, groundwater is renewed only during a part of each year through precipitation, but can be abstracted year-round. Provided that there is adequate replenishment, and that the source is protected from pollution, groundwater can be abstracted indefinitely.

Groundwater forms the invisible, subsurface part of the natural water cycle. Any attempt to accurately model the groundwater component of the water cycle requires adequate measurements and observations over decades. The computer models in common use in the United States only address the shallower groundwater and surface water interactions; GSFLOW (USGS) and ArcHydro (ESRI) are two commonly used models. Proper study and modeling of groundwater has not yet been done, rules of thumb and common knowledge assumptions are utilized instead of facts to assess the risks to water. This is irresponsible when pumping 2-3 million gallons of chemically laced water a mile into the earth. In hydraulic fracking water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. To reach the gas deposits requires drilling though a couple of miles of earth and rock using “common knowledge” that our groundwater will not be impacted. In addition, natural gas which is methane and a significant greenhouse gas, escapes from the well heads due to imperfect operations, grouting and sealing. It is estimated that between 1% and 8% (depending on who is doing the estimating)of the natural gas escapes in this way.

This past spring, the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board was created to identify the measures that can be taken to reduce the environmental impact and improve the safety of shale gas production utilizing fracking. Their report was issued today after 90 days. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. The report is to some extent a collection of the best regulatory framework among the states and covers little new ground overlooking some of the significant questions. This is a work product of a subcommittee at the Department of Energy that reports to the Secretary of Energy. EPA will be the regulatory agency and is currently engaged in a multi-year study of hydraulic fracturing. http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/081111_90_day_report.pdf

Fracking Contaminated a Drinking Water Well

Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known is the pressurized injection of water with chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid cracks open or enlarges fractures in the rocks and shale. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing when the pumping stops and the pressure is released. Natural gas will flow from the fractures in the rock and shale into the wells increasing the recovery of the methane.

Historically, shale wells had been drilled vertically and then hydraulically fractured with 80,000 gallons or less of water and sometimes water and diesel. Diesel use is no longer allowed. However, today the most efficient method for developing the vast low-permeability Marcellus shale reservoirs is high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Wells used for hydraulic fracturing are drilled vertically, vertically and horizontally, or directionally and may extend more than 8,000 feet below ground surface or less than 1,000 feet. The wells can extend several thousand feet horizontally, potentially allowing impact to properties and water supplies far away from the well heads. Fifty thousand to 350,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture one well in a coalbed formation while two to five million gallons of water may be necessary to fracture one horizontal well in a shale formation. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area.

No one has ever looked at what the long term implications are for the hydraulic balance and groundwater supply when fracking occurs. The removal of millions of gallons of water, the fracturing of the geological formations, and the high pressure injection of contaminants even at low concentrations into the subsurface could cause significant changes in groundwater flow and quality. Now, the often repeated statement by oil industry executives and the current EPA administration that no documented case of drinking water aquifer being contaminated with fracking fluid has been proven false.

In last Thursday’s New York Times was an article by Ian Urbana outlining information that was part of a 1987 E.P.A. report to congress titled “Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy.” This three volume report was brought to the attention of the New York Times by Carla Greathouse, the study’s lead author. Corroborating documentation was obtained from state archives or from the agency’s library by the New York Times. It appears despite claims to the contrary, EPA has been aware of at least one well documented case of drinking water well contamination from fracking for 25 years. In addition, there are reports from several states noting contamination of drinking water wells in association with fracking. One New York state report reads: “Because of possible underreporting by individuals whose drinking water was contaminated and difficulties in detection, the full extent to which injected brines have contaminated underground sources of drinking water is unknown. However, 23 cases of contamination have been confirmed and 4 are suspected.” http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/216377/doc-reader-with-epa-report.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-documents-7.html#document/p1/a27935

In some parts of the country, groundwater is the primary source of drinking water. Residents of 34 of the 100 largest cities in the United States rely on groundwater, as do about 95% of rural households. My own home in the rural crescent would be worthless without my well. Groundwater needs to be protected from anything that can contaminate, damage the water table or impair well production potential. Groundwater hydrology is not fully understood and impairment is not easily seen, only slowly experienced. Groundwater contamination is a particular concern to many of the most vocal opponents of fracking, and although earth’s cleansing capacity is limited, impairment to groundwater storage, flow and well productive capacity should be of equal or greater concern. .

About half the population of the United States depends on groundwater for a significant portion of its drinking water. To help protect these supplies from contamination, the Congress passed Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. This law requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish an underground injection control (LJIC) program. Through this program, EPA, directly or through delegation to states, regulates the design, construction, and operation of underground injection wells, which inject wastes and other fluids below underground drinking water sources. It is time that EPA make their first priority the protection of groundwater.

Fracking and Drinking Water Problems

On July 28th 2011 the EPA proposed standards that would require oil and gas well operators to cut emissions of volatile organic compounds, VOCs, (including methane) with fracking projects required to reduce VOC emissions by 95%. This is the second step EPA has taken in reexamining fracking. The documentary film “Gasland” created a groundswell of support for EPA to reexamine the impact of fracking on drinking water supplies and EPA announced in March 2010 that it will study the potential adverse impact that fracking may have on drinking water and developed a study plan with advise from their independent Science Advisory Board Environment Engineering Committee. Most of the Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing controversy has been focused on Pennsylvania and New York, but the Marcellus Shale runs through Maryland to Virginia. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/d3483ab445ae61418525775900603e79!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.1#2

Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known involves the pressurized injection of fluids commonly made up of mostly water and chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected. Natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane reserve.

Wells used for hydraulic fracturing are drilled vertically, vertically and horizontally, or directionally and may extend more than 8,000 feet below ground surface or less than 1,000 feet, and horizontal sections of a well may extend several thousands of feet away from the production pad on the surface. This allows potential impact to properties and water supplies far away from the well heads. Over the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction has increased and has expanded over a wider diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations beyond its original use in old oil and gas fields to revitalize them. It is projected that shale gas will comprise over 20% of the total U.S. gas supply in the next 20-35 years. http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

Given expansion in the use of fracking it seems appropriate to reexamine the potential consequences. The 2005 energy law exempts fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It has been suggested by some that particular “loophole” was created for Halliburton, a company once headed by former Vice President Cheney and one of the companies that helped pioneer fracking and is a supplier of fracking fluids. A more likely explanation is that the energy industry managed once more to be exempted from regulation. The 2004 EPA study “Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs” states that EPA reviewed 11 major coal basins mined for coalbed methane and saw no conclusive evidence that water quality degradation on underground drinking water supplies had occurred as a direct result of the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids.

The report goes on to state that “Although potentially hazardous chemicals may be introduced into USDW (underground source of drinking water) the risk posed to USDW by introduction of these chemicals is reduced significantly by groundwater production and injected fluid recovery, combined with the mitigation effects of dilution and dispersion, adsorption and potentially biodegradation. Additionally, EPA has reached an agreement with the major service companies to voluntarily eliminate diesel fuel from hydraulic fracturing fluids that are injected directly into USDW for coalbed methane production.” http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_coalbedmethanestudy.cfm

However, the Marcellus Shale covers an area in Pennsylvania where the coal and gas rights were separated from the land title generations ago so that many people live on land where they do not own the gas and coal rights and fracking can occur adjacent to or beneath their homes. Much of the concern with fracking has been direct contamination of drinking water supplies with methane and the additives in the fracking water, but serious study should be given to the potential to impact groundwater flow and reservoirs through the fracking process.
Fracturing fluids can be up to 99% water. The volume of water needed for hydraulic fracturing varies by site and type of formation. Fifty thousand to 350,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture one well in a coalbed formation while two to five million gallons of water may be necessary to fracture one horizontal well in a shale formation. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process may be disposed in several ways. The water that flows back after fracturing may be returned underground using injection well, discharged to surface waters after treatment to remove contaminants, or applied to land surfaces. Not all fracturing fluids injected into the geologic formation during hydraulic fracturing are recovered. The EPA estimates that the fluids recovered range from 15-80% of the volume injected depending on the site. No one has ever looked at what the long term implications are for the hydraulic balance when fracking occurs. The removal of millions of gallons of water, the fracturing of the geological formations, and the injection of contaminants even at low concentrations into the subsurface could cause significant changes in groundwater flow and quality. I jealously guard my groundwater supply and would be outraged if fracking or for that matter even massive pumping of that quantity of groundwater would occur anywhere within 5 miles of here (which covers the recharge zone up Bull Run mountain and the hydraulic barrier of the river. The water is a valuable resource and should be guarded and protected. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/hfresearchstudyfs.pdf