This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Study Finds Treated Fracking Wastewater Still Too Toxic
Submitted by Andy Tully via OilPrice.com,
One of the biggest concerns about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is that the vast amount of wastewater produced by the process of extracting oil and gas from shale rock deep underground is incredibly toxic.
Most often, the wastewater is injected into disposal wells deep underground. But a process does exist to convert contaminated water into drinking water that involves running it through wastewater treatment plants and into rivers.
Now a new report says that treated wastewater could be fouling drinking water supplies.
In an article published in Environmental Science & Technology -- the journal of the American Chemical Society -- a team of researchers acknowledged that the disposal of fracking wastewater is a serious challenge for energy companies that use hydraulic fracturing.
The wastewater left over from the process is not only highly radioactive, but also is contaminated with heavy metals salts known as halides, which are not suitable for consumption, according to the scientists.
Energy companies can opt to use commercial or municipal water treatment plants to purify the water, which is then released into local surface water such as rivers. The problem is that the process sometimes doesn’t remove most of the halides.
When that happens, the water is treated again, with more conventional methods such as chlorinization or ozonation. But there has been concern that this method could form toxic byproducts. The researchers decided to find out whether this was true.
They diluted samples of river water that contained fracking wastewater discharged from water treatment plants in Pennsylvania and Arkansas, simulating what happens when left-over fracking water gets into local surface waters. Then they used current methods of chlorinization and ozonation on the samples to remove the halides and determine whether the water was potable.
The results were not encouraging. The researchers found that the chlorine and ozone – used to rid samples of fracking wastewater containing as little as 0.01 percent and up to 0.1 percent of halides per volume of water – also formed an array of other toxic compounds known as “disinfection byproducts,” or DBPs.
As Climate Progress pointed out, “these chemicals — trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, bromate, and chlorite — are formed when the disinfectants used in water treatment plants react with halides, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.” All are potentially dangerous to humans, not to mention wildlife.
The results of the study have led researchers to advise the industry not to discharge fracking wastewater into surface waters, even if it has been treated.
»
- 9133 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Listen American Zero's.
How's come you always complain about how "DIRTY", dirty India is?
Whaaa, whaaa, whaaa. Frack you!
And still you breed like rats. Clean water must be highly overrated.
Fracking will go down in history as one of the greatest scams and frauds of our generation. Not only is fracking screwing investors (most fracking operations are LOSING MONEY), but it's destroying our environment.
Fracking is a desperate, last-ditch move by a desperate government on it's last leg.
"trihalomethanes" are an obscure way of saying "methylene chloride", known carcinogen. Probably some MEK and carbon tetrachloride in there also.
And people wonder why cattle drop dead in their tracks in North Dakota.
This is one of the most fraudulent, despicable articles I've ever read in all my years of reading ZH. I am in the water business. I know all about the chlorination problems with drinking water. This is why so many municipalities for the last 20 years in United States use chloramine instead of chlorine.
Anybody can do a 30 second Google search on chlorine treated water causing cancer and see millions of hits come up immediately, many of the studies going back decades.
This is one of the most bullshit articles I've ever read my life and so transparently provable.
truly serious question: is Distilled better or worse than Deionized?
better in terms of closest to only being H2O?
yes, for personal consumption.
thnx!
Neither distilled nor deionized water is that good to drink. The best drinking water is a high mineral content European water ( San Pellegrino, Apollinaris, etc.). Trace minerals are essential for good health. They are not found in American drinking water or in most American "spring" water, as they are removed via processing.
no dispute. I'm going for water, possibly from a municiple source, that actually is H2O once the processing is done.
DI water is corrosive, skin job freak. RO water is filtered enough, and possibly too much. Suicide rates are lower in areas where municipal water contains lithium.
Before I bought a reverse osmosis system I informed myself.
This topic is highly emotional. I don't understand why.
The facts I found out:
Mineral water contains mineral traces - but compared to the intake of minerals by food, it can be neglected. Food is the essential source for mineral intake. Ofcourse the water bottling industry is suggesting otherwise.
Rain water is free of minerals and for thousands of years has been the main source of water for different human races. To me a strong indicator, that mineral free water does no harm.
Reverse osmosis is capable to remove Nitrate, filtering not. Ofcourse also not boiling.
Studies in recent years have shown, that plastic is NOT biologically dead. Therefore water in plastic bottles, no matter how "much" minerals it may contain, can never be optimal.
Therefore we decided for RO several years ago, and no signs of health problems at all. In fact the opposite.
Once I got used to RO water and after some months I tested a remaining plastic bottled cheap water: I was amazed, how unnatural and chemical it tastes.
Psuedoscience and the ignorant do not make a good combination
"Anybody can do a 30 second Google search"
Instead, I took 30 seconds and clicked on the link to the referenced journal. Andy Tully was sloppy, leaving out chloramination. He may have been devious with the radioactive part. I didn't see anything about radioactivity, but I only read what was on the page, not the study.
Emphasis added...
"This study evaluated the minimum volume percentage of two Marcellus Shale and one Fayetteville Shale HFWs diluted by fresh water collected from the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers that would generate and/or alter the formation and speciation of DBPs following chlorination, chloramination, and ozonation treatments of the blended solutions."
a freind of mine has an acquaintance that works in north dakota with fracking. I agreed to check his samples of sndy dilling waste coming up from the well drilling. I used several probes with a Ludlum 2221. I used a 44-10 2 inch dia X 2'' long NaI scintillator and a 44-9 pancake. The radiation was negligabe on both detectors above background. THESE ARe industry standard detectors, and along with the Ludlum 2221 counter, they are a hot setup for a pretty wide spectrum of nuclear radiation.
If I was in Japan anywhere near Fukushima I'd want this setup. (paid about 1600.00 for 2221 and 44-10--- used, new is close to $4000.00) Anyway, the guy that was worried about radioactivity on his boreholes can dismiss that as I couldn't get anythiong above background (with 44-10, background here is 6900 counts per minute)
Theres fracking liquids out there already which are non-toxic. Sorry ZH, but this is soon to be a non-issue.
I could have stopped reading at "...not only highly radioactive, but...." Whenever a "study" makes a nondescript reference to something as "highly radioactive," it's a sure sign the authors of the study have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
The adverb "highly" is almost completely meaningless in a discussion of radioactivity without qualifying the type of radiation emitted (alpha, beta, gamma). In the case of radioisotopes used in fracking waters, they're beta emitters used as tracers. These are H.A.R.M.L.E.S.S. to you and me, even if dumped into our water aquifers - and they're NOT.
The "highly radioactive" comment was not scientific. It was inflammatory rhetoric designed to drum up the fractivists into yet another uninformed rage.
If there are fracking waste-water treatment issues, I'm sure they will be resolved. Necessity is the mother of invention. The sad thing is this: some underpaid no-name geek working long hours in the basement at Halliburton or Chesapeake will come up with a waste scrubbing technique to solve the problem and never get his name on a plaque anywhere for it. Or a raise.
I am sure they are up till all hours of the night and day desperately searching for a way to scrub radioactive and metal halide containing water that could safely be dumped into our aquifers as you say...
pssst... Zero.... and he's been around for over 3 years, too.... the plot thickens
ZerOhead,
That is not what I said, you illiterate idiot.
And as if to show the world how illiterate you are, you wrote, "up till all hours of the night and day," which is the worst mixed metaphor I've read in a while.
In the case of radioisotopes used in fracking waters, they're beta emitters used as tracers. These are H.A.R.M.L.E.S.S. to you and me, even if dumped into our water aquifers - and they're NOT.
Exactly how is a beta emitting radioisotope harmless if swallowed?
There is NO safe level of ionising radiation, chum(p).
Doctors inject low beta emitters into you prior to some CT scans. They work as tracers in your body just like they work as tracers in a well. These are not ionising (as in causing another atom to shed a valence electron) - that's what the higher energy alpha and gamma emitters do.
Are the Israeli's/ Israeli dual-citizens in government, involved in promoting it in the USA? Just wundrin'.
Quote the article correctly : "... heavy metal salts known as halides." You left out the most important part. That means the water is contaminated with NaCl and KCl. That's table salt, dude. Typically this is the level of information given in most articles on the "highly poisonous" fracking fluids. And the radioactivity usually is a function of isotopes of potassium that are normally very high in shales. Makes for great headlines but not really much to worry about (you'll find them high in most muds too ... stay away from sediment laden rivers!!!). So from your interesting cut where the fracking fluids are chocked full of heavy metals to being high in common salts shows a large difference in the level of emergency. Good lord the level incompetence is high on ZH these days.
I'm not really sure why you're spouting out nonsense, whether you have some hidden interest, whether you think being anti-fracking is anti-government (the EPA is anti-fracking, and they're about as governmental as you can get ...) or whether you just feel a need to get on a green bandwagon. In any case, this article contains little in the way of facts and your comments contain less.
According to the study abstract, there is more in play than salts.
"Since HFW is typically characterized by elevated salinity, concerns have been raised whether the high bromide and iodide in HFW may promote the formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) and alter their speciation to more toxic brominated and iodinated analogues."
Disclaimer: I'm neither a chemist nor a fracker.
There is nothing lacking in my knowledge of chemistry, dude. First of all, the term salt encompasses a vast array of compounds that are formed any time an acid neutralizes a base. Halogens act as Lewis acids (i.e. electron acceptors) when they form ionic bonds, so just because these compounds are styled as "salts" does not mean that they're benign. Secondly, sodium and potassium are not heavy metals, which is what the article specified. Heavy metals by definition are metals posing an environmental concern. This article is talking about halogenated metal-ion complexes which are quite toxic.
we will find out....
when that fracking fluid gets into the aquafer...
and contaminates the great plains...for thats where they get the ag water from...
and renders all that farmland worthless for growing crops....
then you will see COLLAPSE, FAMINE and CHAOS....
Brawndo, bitchez!
America is just creating more jobs for India. Water taster pays $3 a day, and you don't have to pretend your name is Steve.
Why can't you just give the Fracking Oily guys the benefit of the doubt? ;-)
Well, to be fair, according to Fracking Oily guys if its still too toxic, that means its safe to drink. Its just sterile and clean, like nuclear waste. As long as no microbes can live in it, it is considered clean water. Drink up frackers! They do it for your freedumbs and because they love you.
The solution is easy. 1, decimate all private property laws. 2, pass super-restrictive environmental protection laws. 3, only grant exemptions to the highest bidders so that they can pollute indiscriminately.
Wait, what?
It's been tried before:
Stalin's Legacy of Filthhttp://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/07/opinion/stalin-s-legacy-of-filth.html
whatthecurtains,
Pretty good propaganda from you.... Look over there, and not here.
Anyway, how about Cangaroo.TNT post?
I think Cangaroo.TNT is sending us a message here.
What do you think?
For fracks sake tell me something I don't know
All fracked up. FUBAR. Fracked up beyond all recognition.
looks like a tough crowd tonight...
Fracking Cylons......can't trust'em.
Tough crowd every night, captain. I make no bones whatsoever that I'm pro oil, pro hydraulic fracturing, pro shale revolution.
That being said, I enjoy engaging in a robust debate, exchanging ideas, and getting a wide array of viewpoints, particularly those that are informed and different from my own.
What just drives me up a wall the last several months, is that virtually none of these "debates /articles" have much truth in them. The above connection with chlorine and carcinogens in water has been known for decades. To conflate that situation with frackingis just beyond beyond.
One last thing, I do not know why everyone says " Oh, I did not downvote you". I DID downvote you.
back at ya...
you FRACKER!
As captain of the Houston Fraccers, I should point out that we are touchy about the correct spelling. If and when the word is ever spelled fracKture, we may change our jerseys. Till then ...
Well, to be fair, ZH did link to the ACS....so maybe if you posted some peer reviewed scientific research proving what you say, or at least backing it up, that would be helpful.
oh ps. please no studies from exxon or bp, since that would constitute conflict of interest, I prefer imaprtiality.
thanks in advance! luv,
trulz
Hey trulz, Goes like this ... (Steps closer, looks furtively over both shoulders, continues in sotto voice ... "Google is my friend. Pass it on.")
There is a Kardashian-size ass-ton (that, by the way is the new, official US Gubmint metric for larger than astronomical scale - KSAT) number of articles on the web on this topic. (I just googled {my friend} 'chlorine cancer drinking water' and prompted 463,000 hits in .4 sec.
Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT stating a position on this issue (chlorine/cancer). What I am pissed off about is the above ZH article clearly states that the "researchers"? treated this water with chlorinization and found these DBPs and TMHs. Real researchers have been finding that for many decades now ... way before the frac era.
This study is referring to the high levels of disinfection byproducts changing the makeup of the water table and how chloramine and chlorine treatments might not work due to that change. A chemist would need to explain what a toxic analogue of iodine or bromide would be though. I guess I could googlie booglie that as well.....
not my red arrow, but I got ya Yoko
money, money, money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0
Frack on [clap, clap], frack off [clap, clap], frack on, frack off, the frackers!
Been a stressful day, MsCreant, has it?
It actually has. Are the jokes that bad?
I enjoyed them MsC !! (and I say that at considerable risk to my person. Those reddies really hurt !!!)
i thought they were cute..
ms creant...
pay no attention to those FRACKERS...
Ms., you are in academe. You must appreciate the value of thorough, unbiased research. You may want to be aware these past few days two of the most extensive studies ever have just been released on hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. One study was done by the Department of Energy. The other study was done by five universities. Both studies were well over a year in length and cover a wide geographical area. The conclusions were that absolutely NO contamination from fracturing occurred. You can look it up.
You can be darned damned certain rootin tootin betchur life on it, that if the Department of Energy said there's no problem, it's destined for the SuperFund cleanup of all cleanups, toxic as all hell and impossible to vouchsafe for anybody anywhere anytime...
Yeah, knuks ... I rip the gubmint to shreds alla time, unless they come up with sumpin I agree with. Then I'm like "See! See!" It's actually effective with the progressive types cuz it kinda stymies em.
I think the domestic (United States) extraction business has a few true believers here.
Hey Yes ... Is all that white space some kinda zen-like meditation zone or something?
whuuuuuuut?
And dont forget Hunter Biden! That dude rocks! At least he has the convictions to be over in Western Ukraine fighting (and "working") for what he believes in! America! Frack Yah!
<que fireworks and pewpew shooters>
...<que: soaring eagle>....and...fade.....
Quebec and Nova Scotia banned it, and hopefully now New Brunswick will ban fracking.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/brian-gallant-s-hydro-fracking-promise-concerns-oil-industry-1.2777118
I had a girlfriend years ago who had a very finicky cat. She left town on a business trip with me responsible for taking care of the damn thing.
I never told her about it, but when that cat got hungry enough he ate turnip greens with a smile.
Send that fracked up water to finicky california.
Maybe it's toxic, but it's also negative cash flow!
Fixed: All are potentially dangerous to humans, not to mention wildlife.
halides are just a binary molecule with a halogen
and Arsenic just happens to be number 33 on the Periodic Table of Elements
all by itself, naturally.
Poisoned Water? (Problem)
Mass fear and hysteria? (Reaction)
Never fear the NWO business model that created that mess already has the Solution
Available at local drug stores and Crazy Eddies just in time for the holydays.
Don't forget your FREE experimental EBOLA vaccine. No purchase necessary. While supplies last. Because they care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yYGoO5imyY
Fracking is simply the exception that proves the rule. Without $4 trillion in exploration and investment over the last 9 years and $100/bbl oil - hardly a sustainable course, by the way - we would have hit peak oil in 2005.
GooseShtepping Moron,
It gets worse in oil...
Steven Kopits:
Between 1984 and 2005 the world had a 25% oil surpluses. Since 2006, global oil production is declining.
From 2005 to 2013, the world spent $4 trillion dollars on upstream [not including pipelines, refinery, transportation, wholesale] exploration and production. And another $3.5 trillion dollars to maintain current legacy [fields]. Result: Oil production has fallen by 1 million barrels per day [mbpd].
For Comparison: Between 1998 and 2005, $1.5 trillion dollars spent added 8.6 mbpd.
To put into perspective: Germany GDP: $3.5 trillion dollars. So if you compare to 1998/2005 period, the world ‘vaporized’ the GDP of Germany on oil production. And the world still came up short 1 million barrels a day.
How challenging is the situation: 2014 Capex [upstream] Expenditures Trend: About $300 billion. Current forecast Capex: $193 billion. Over 30% decline. Shell, 2nd largest oil company in the world, not only cut capex by 20% but, since 2013, it has been borrowing money to pay dividends.
I love that Kopits video. Everyone should see it. Not only does it tell the true story about oil, but it also proves by example that there are still a few honest and intelligent people ambling about the world. Kopits is a gem.
To return the good turn, I'll introduce you to this guy. If you ever feel like reading the truth about the cultural and economic collapse of Japan, give it a look.
http://spikejapan.wordpress.com/
Thanks…
Sounds interesting; and very telling.
Forgive my ignorance, but can't we just find another way to scrub the water? Surely there is another process? Or one can be developed? There's money in fracking, so we have motivation. The oil companies could do it.
Could we tweak the process of fracking? Use different materials in the injected water?
Someone should call up Halliburton and see if they have some leftover Corexit from the BP spill. It's not like it's doing any harm at the bottom of the Gulf [eyes rolling]
that's just cynical.
besides, it'd be a Halliburton subsidiary anyway.
They could even hire Reggie as head of the sucking and blowing committee! There must be a way to get all that valuable Corexittm just sitting down there!
It's cheaper to buy off the governments and pollute at will. When the governor shows up at your industry circle jerk as happened in PA last week, you know it's all good. No laws apply as long as the money flows to the campaigns. USA! USA! USA!
Pretty sad that our Government would even take a chance of polluting the most precious resource we have left, WATER. They are concerned about global warming but allow these chemicals to be pumped into the ground where we get our water from? Pretty obvious who's running the show here in the good Ol Totalitarian USSA
If, when you wake up in the morning, you pee in bed and just lay there, you will have a "toxic pollution" problem.
So, many people have solved the toxic pollution problem by using their opposable thumb to pull the covers aside, get up, walk to the bathroom, and pee in the toilet bowl.
Boys and girls, these problems can be solved.
Just don't look to the EPA, the Sierra Club, or the Daily KOS to solve them.
List Unit. Listen now, clearly.
That "TOXIC" pollution sounds dangerous and combustible.
I say some wall street'er form up an energy company and get some government money to clean up those "BROWN" fields.
Why lookie there, that toxic shit burns! Book it as a petroleum asset. Company stock now through the roof.
Short that company, convert USD profits to gold and hide out on the Caribbean island that you bought.
"LIFE IN AMERICA". Easy.
Urine is mostly sterile.
mostly.
It is sterile as it leaves the body, assuming healthy individual.
Soon after bacteria starts to reproducing on it, as it contains a some sugar.
Do the idiots that write this s tuff know what a water cut is? The water that comes up from stripper wells is just as toxic as frac water and cannot be reprocessed for drinking water. It has to be reinjected. The ratio of water to oil in stripper wells is often 50 to 1.
Dum da dum dum.....
Wrs ... I warned you the last time to NOT use facts, NEVER employ reason or logic when we are attempting to instill FEAR, uncertainty, doubt into people's minds.
Instead, let's take an action ...say putting chlorine into any water that's got any organic material whatsoever. Then, let us test it and find what has been known for many many decades, a host of DBHs, trihalmethane (THMs) appear. And then let's just connect that to frac water. Voila! The OMG crowd is off and running.
I would be curious if all the politicians and regulators who approved/voted to allow fracking would be willing to drink a glass of treated fracking water? I don't really know enough about the issue to weigh in, but it would be telling to see if the people who believe it is totally safe would put their money where their mouth is?
I suggest that these politicians be waterboarded with "treated" fracking wastewater.
An article like this will naturally draw the fracking supporters who will scream foul. They will refute the dirty water claims either with no documentation of it's safety or some form of refutation that makes little sense to laymen. The opponents of fracking come in two forms. Those who truly believe that pollution of ground water and the fracking water brought back to the surface and held in evaporation ponds is bad. They make claims too, but we readers are ill equipped to confirm their claims. So claim and counter claim driven often by self interest. I am not pro or anti fracking. I think it's ecnomics is dubious, that is why I am not invested in it. As for pollution, just from what I read, common sense says the waste products are foul, and geologic claims that fracking fluids and ground water can not mix, well, that is more than dubious.
It's an economic question, do you think energy out is worth energy and cash investment in? Do profits justify losses in water quality?
My guess is that those with a personal financial interest in fracking, will find a way to defend the waste water. It is in their interest to find this water safe. Though we might ask if they would live in a drill zone, the kinds where rigs and waate water ponds and tanks stand in residental or rural housing lots.
Common sense says the list of known chemicals is the water makes fracking water seriously bad for life. We just need to ask if all the waste is worth the energy out and profits.
I think zero interest rates may be driving much of the fracking, as free money makes fracking easier. With market interest rates in force, fracking would become a less profitable enterprise. And there is also a real question of well life and outputs over a few years time.
Shit, if the land owner approves, and the investor will kick in the cash, who am I to tell them both they can not use private land and private capital to frack?
I'm against Fracking primarily because of its place in the fossil-dollar hierarchy which dominates political will, thereby asserting its intentions above individual freedom, liberty.
we must use Dollars to BUY specific fluids/gases that, once set alight, we use as "energy".
the fossil-dollar hierarchy has little-to-no competition.
for a reason.
I am making money from frac wells but the water isn't an issue out where my wells are, extreme west texas. However, all water that comes up with oil is undrinkable. The key is whether or not the water injected by a frac job was drinkable to begin with. Out in west texas where my wells are, none of the water used for fracs was drinkable by humans to begin with.
The issues raised by the opponents of fracing are not monolithic. The consequences and costs vary with the geology and geography.
I'm refreshed to see so many ZHer "libertarians" agreeing that clean, drinkable water has a value all its own, especially for those who can't afford San Pellegrino.
Its fine for a man to do as he pleases on his land, as long as it cannot poison anothers. Poisoning an aquifer 2/3 the size of the North American Continent, far exceeds the boundaries of Political bickering and falls squarely on the shoulders of ones principles. In no sane, rational or logic driven narrative, would poisoning the well to extract more poison be deemed a rational position.
Unless of course you were arguing from a position that you had elsewhere to live aside from Earth. Then why would you care at all?
Hey trulz, I agree 1000% with your statements ... no one should be able to despoil aquifers.
So ... I'm gonna put back righatcha what you posed to me earlier, to wit, where is the peer-reviewed studies that show "2/3rds of the North American sized aquifer" is being poisoned?
(Even google didn't hep me out there)
This link, for funsies. http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/The_Ogallala_Aquifer_and_Its_Role_as_a_Thr...
Okay so it supplies 2/3 the north american continent with "corn" and "wheat". This aquifer also supplies millions of folks with water, as well as waters crops. This is also the same area as most fracking done today. This is the spot where water slowly filters into, to be taken back up and used again. Problem is, the process to fill the aquifer takes much longer than our current processes of extracting it. Fracking waste can and will leech into this store of valuable clean water, eventually, the amount of water that flows into this aquifer that is poisoned with human stupidity will be 100%. Human beings are on a path of total environmental toxic saturation. Once everything that you have is poisonous it will always continue to be so. All water from the west is poisoned with radiation and will continue to be so, with cumulative upkeep, so to speak. Corexit from the Gulf is slowly but surely making its way into the environment as well, further adding to the poisonous slurry of agricultural waste, excessive fertilizers and pesticides.
The sad part is, most people will gladly whistle as they are led to the gallows, just knowing they are headed to the pub.
See, trulz, the one comment that differentiates us, perhaps, is the statement that 'fracking waste can and will leach into this store ... of water".
The Ogallala goes to a depth of 200 feet to - in parts of Nebraska - 1,000 feet below the surface.
Trulz, the vast amount of horizontal drilling/fracturing occurring in the US takes place between 5,000 and 12,000 feet. The opening of fissures in successful frac jobs is measurd in 32nds of inches in width and a few hundred feet in length. The hydrocarbons that are released in successful wells are naturally pressurized in thousands of psi (the successful Utica wells just recently fractured are giving off gas at over 9,000 psi.
If there were to be any transmigration of any nature (and, in fact, the methane seeps naturally occur all the time, having migrated in eons of geological time leading to theatrical faucet-burning propaganda) it would be physically impossible for the fracturing water to rise up thousands of feet on its own and communicate with this - or indeed any other - water source/table/aquifer.
The study is referring to the ground water waste, not LNG thats 2 miles underground. Just the waste that is finding its way back into the water supply. Thats the main disconnect. I didnt read anywhere stating that fracking wells were causing contamination(directly). I read that the waste is causing contamination, caused by leaks, breaks and waste dumps/underground storage in the systems which is making its way back into the water supply. And the subsequent correlation between that and a chemical change forming a more toxic form of bromide and iodine. Correct? Isnt that exactly what the paper is saying? Its right there in the first sentence. So what you are saying, is that even though the waste water from fracking is being shown to cause increased toxicity, that fracking isnt to blame because its so deep? Even though these scientists are tracking the waste water and leaks from known fracking sites? Is this what you are saying? That even though its being shown to poison the water, that it isnt poisoning the water because you said so? Im still not sure you understand what these scientists are studying. I barely understand it, maybe you paid the 40$ to read the full study? I havent, I can only read the abstract. Maybe you can send me the pdf on googlie booglie mail. Thatd be nice of you.
What makes you think that the chemically treated water used in the fracking process is returned down to 5000-12000 feet, rather than disposed of at surface level??
Thirsty wells: Fracking consumes billions of gallons of water http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20140920/NEWS/140929938?template=printart
Drillers in Ohio have used more than 4 billion gallons of water to frack horizontal shale wells since 2011. That’s a lot of water. Enough to fill one two-liter soda bottle for every person on the planet; or in terms that motorists in shale country can relate to, 800,000 tanker-loads of water.
a good article on the problems of wastewater from fracking(based on Pennsylvania marcellus shale fracking)
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/fracking-wastewater-fullreport.pdf
I do not know, but every time I read how we treat our planet and our vital resources, I get upset. Oil drilling is a terrible mistake that should be stopped right now, before we destroy our habitat completely. Scarcity of drinking water is a problem that we will have to challenge, especially if the global temperature rises in the next one hundred years for more than 3 degrees Celsius. The worst thing about this whole problem is that we already have technological and architectonical solutions to it, and it is only our dependency on the monetary system that makes us behave otherwise.
Much of the southern US is reliant on underground aquifers for water supply. Pumping millions of gallons of toxic chemicals around them for fracking purposes could be seen as a bit dim.
'highly radioactive'???how???
does high pressure and going deep underground now create radioactivity...and not just a little but 'highly'!!??
I am calling BS.
Yes fracking is not profitable and is a desperate attempt...but it is not new and ...seriously?? generates radiation....