Will NY state lands remain "forever wild"?

[SteveB]

I was actually speaking to some PA residents earlier this year, that have fracking wells on their property, or nearby, and none of them seemed to have any problems with it. Their water and soil had been tested before the fracking started, and it gets tested regularly since.

 

 

I have family living for 30 years dead center in the middle of it there.

They report the same as you - no changes.

The only people they know of with water issues had those same issues prior to drilling.

[mike rossi]

It is a convenient argument for the industry to keep reminding the public that methane naturally occurs in some well water even in the absence of fracking. They are playing this card to the point it should be insulting your intelligence.

[mike rossi]

There actually is a published study about well contamination  that shows it is possible to distinguish between naturally occurring methane and methane that entered the water supply from hydrofracking. Briefly, the naturally occurring methane is called  biogenic methane and the methane that hydrofracking extracts is called thermogenic methane. The substances differ chemically by the isotopes - lab tests can discern the difference and thereby determine if the contamination was due to fracking.

 

Interestingly several lawsuits from homeowners with contaminated wells were dismissed because the contamination was from biogenic methane. However, there have been other lawsuits which were upheld because the tests show that the methane was thermogenic, the kind found deep in the shale which only fracking can unbound. 

 

Not only is this study published in a science journal, there is a plain language video documentary as well as a number of plain language articles. Also, as is the case with most lawsuits, especially those of public concern, the legal proceedings are also available and can be found online.

 

Does this info  satisfy the debate about water or well contamination?

Edited May 7, 2013 by mike rossi

[tuckersdaddy]

There actually is a published study about well contamination  that shows it is possible to distinguish between naturally occurring methane and methane that entered the water supply from hydrofracking. Briefly, the naturally occurring methane is called  biogenic methane and the methane that hydrofracking extracts is called thermogenic methane. The substances differ chemically by the isotopes - lab tests can discern the difference and thereby determine if the contamination was due to fracking.

 

Interestingly several lawsuits from homeowners with contaminated wells were dismissed because the contamination was from biogenic methane. However, there have been other lawsuits which were upheld because the tests show that the methane was thermogenic, the kind found deep in the shale which only fracking can unbound. 

 

Not only is this study published in a science journal, there is a plain language video documentary as well as a number of plain language articles. Also, as is the case with most lawsuits, especially those of public concern, the legal proceedings are also available and can be found online.

 

Does this info  satisfy the debate about water or well contamination?

 

That could be good to know. where is this study? or are we keeping the info for yourself? i would like to read some of this as to check the credibility of it (hey if the gas companies can be checked and double checked, all info is fair game). Doc's been reading some good stuff too but wont share.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

I'll ask again, not trying to be controversial, just looking for ideas as to what would be good energy sources in the short, medium, and long term. What has anyone else read or seen that wont have environmental impacts?

You wonder why i have little trust in the anti frackers. 6 pages of debate, no referrals to go to, so i can say ohhh i get it now. You ask a gas company what they do, they tell you. sugar coated it may be, but they tell you. the number one tool in the anti's arsenal is to delay, delay, delay, until the problem disappears. this tool is used very effectively with all liberal anti groups regardless of the cause. (and yes the libs do lead the anti fracking movement).

When anti pollution movements are lead by the likes of Al Gore and his cronies, i think the scrutiny needs to be just as tough if the other direction, and just the mention of this takes the debate away from the original focus to everything else, until the original debate of pollution goes away.

Dont believe me that its a tactic? how much are we hearing about the safe act today, as compared to 1, 2, or 3 months ago? the distraction was school, first responder shootings that happen every day in some form, the press stirs it up, then it goes away without any real debate as to the true cause, gun control.  Its happening now. we need to control our borders to monitor who comes into our country and the reasons, but the conversation gets taken to the status of illegal immigration and what to do with the latinos currently here, and the boarders are still left open to radicals dropping off gym bag bombs.

The point is tactics are more valuable than facts, and as much as you dont like the idea of being bought, i dont get a warm fuzzy about being manipulated, particularly by our current regime. (NY and FED.)

Edited May 8, 2013 by tuckersdaddy

[Doc]

That could be good to know. where is this study? or are we keeping the info for yourself? i would like to read some of this as to check the credibility of it (hey if the gas companies can be checked and double checked, all info is fair game). Doc's been reading some good stuff too but wont share.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

For crying out loud man.... do your own research. This stuff is not hard to find for someone that is truly interested in doing so. It's nice to ask everybody else to do your homework for you, but not always so easy to find someone gullible enough to actually do it for you.

[mike rossi]

People tied to a political agenda wouldn't find the researcher himself credible even if they communicated directly with him. What is posting the research going to accomplish?

Edited May 8, 2013 by mike rossi

[tuckersdaddy]

Your proving my point I can and have given examples to back my statements, it appears you are struggling doing the same which futher back my claims as to who to trust. The lack of facts from what ive found falls more twards the antis then the gas companies. You may not like what they say, it may be sugar coated but it is more creditable.

[Doc]

Your proving my point I can and have given examples to back my statements, it appears you are struggling doing the same which futher back my claims as to who to trust. The lack of facts from what ive found falls more twards the antis then the gas companies. You may not like what they say, it may be sugar coated but it is more creditable.

You seem to see this discussion as some kind of contest. I really don't care if you become convinced of one side of the issue or not. All I ask is that you do your own research on the subject in an honest and unbiased fashion. The conclusions you arrive at are your own, and only you know if you arrived at them in that honest and unbiased fashion. I am doing the same thing but with one particular bias. That bias is that if for some reason I am wrong, I want to be sure that I err on the side of environmental safety. I do not want it said that I or my generation once again threw environmental safety issues of future generations into the dumper for the sake of our own selfish financial expediency.

[mike rossi]

The link below is to the study I referred to in post # 103 which suggests that methane gas does enter wells or water supplies as a direct result of fracking.

 

 Following the link is a list of 35 additional studies are taken from the literature review citations on the last page of the study.

 

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofracking/Osborn%20et%20al%20%20Hydrofracking%202011.pdf

 

1. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the

next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972.

2. Tour JM, Kittrell C, Colvin VL (2010) Green carbon as a bridge to renewable energy.

Nature Mater 9:871–874.

3. Kerr RA (2010) Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science 328:1624–1626.

4. Raupach MR, et al. (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions.

Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10288–10293.

5. US Energy Information Administration (2010) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections

to 2035 (US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC), DOE/EIA-

0383; http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf.

6. US Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Hydraulic Fracturing. (US Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC), http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/

class2/hydraulicfracturing/.

7. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale:

Challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44:5679–5684.

8. Revesz KM, Breen KJ, Baldassare AJ, Burruss RC (2010) Carbon and hydrogen isotopic

evidence for the origin of combustible gases in water supply wells in north-central

Pennsylvania. Appl Geochem 25:1845–1859.

9. Zoback M, Kitasei S, Copithorne B Addressing the environmental risks from shale gas

development. Worldwatch Institute Briefing Paper 1 (Worldwatch Inst, Washington,

DC), http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-

Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdf.

10. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas

Management (2010) 2009 Year End Workload Report. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, Harrisburg, PA), http://www.

dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.

pdf.

11. Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M (2010) Natural gas operations from

a public health perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, in press.

12. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) Private Water Wells

in Pennsylvania. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA),

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/.

13. Eltschlager KK, Hawkins JW, Ehler WC, Baldassare F (2001) Technical Measures for the

Investigation and Mitigation of Fugitive Methane Hazards in Areas of Coal Mining (US

Dept of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

Pittsburgh).

14. Schoell M (1980) The hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from

natural gases of various origins. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 44:649–661.

15. Bernard BB (1978) Light hydrocarbons in marine sediments. PhD Dissertation (Texas

A&M Univ, College Station, TX).

16. Jenden PD, Drazan DJ, Kaplan IR (1993) Mixing of thermogenic natural gases in northern

Appalachian Basin. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 77:980–998.

17. Laughrey CD, Baldassare FJ (1998) Geochemistry and origin of some natural gases in

the Plateau Province Central Appalachian Basin, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Am Assoc Pet

Geol Bull 82:317–335.

18. Osborn SG, McIntosh JC (2010) Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of

microbial gas in Devonian organic-rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern

Appalachian Basin. Appl Geochem 25:456–471.

19. Repetski JE, Ryder RT, Harper JA, Trippi MH (2006) Thermal maturity patterns in the

Ordovician and Devonian of Pennsylvania using conodont color alteration index (CAI)

and vitrinite reflectance (%Ro). Northeastern Geology Environmental Sciences

28:266–294.

20. Martini AM, et al. (1998) Genetic and temporal relations between formation waters

and biogenic methane: Upper Devonian Antrim Shale, Michigan Basin, USA. Geochim

Cosmochim Acta 62:1699–1720.

21. Engelder T, Lash GG, Uzcategui RS (2009) Joint sets that enhance production from

Middle and Upper Devonian gas shales of the Appalachian Basin. Am Assoc Pet Geol

Bull 93:857–889.

22. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) (Pennsylvania Dept of

Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA), Marcellus Shale, http://www.dep.state.

pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htm.

23. New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection

(2009) (New York State Dept of Health, Troy, NY), Comments, July 21, 2009, Supplemental

Generic Environmental Statement on the Oil and Gas Regulatory Program

Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic-Fracturing to Develop

the Marcellus Shale and other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs; http://www.

riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-

3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdf.

24. Taylor LE (1984) Groundwater Resources of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania:

Water Resources Report 58. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Resources-

Office of Parks and Forestry—Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg,

PA) 139.

25. Williams JH, Taylor L, Low D (1998) Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the

Glaciated Valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania: Water Resources

Report 68. (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept of Conservation and Natural

Resources, Harrisburg, PA) p 89.

26. Kendall C, Coplan TB (2001) Distribution of oxygen-18 and deuterium in river waters

across the United States. Hydrol Processes 15:1363–1393.

27. Van Stempvoort D, Maathuis H, Jaworski E, Mayer B, Rich K (2005) Oxidation of

fugitive methane in groundwater linked to bacterial sulfate reduction. Ground Water

43:187–199.

28. Taylor SW, Sherwood Lollar B, Wassenaar LI (2000) Bacteriogenic ethane in nearsurface

aquifers: Implications for leaking hydrocarbon well bores. Environ Sci Technol

34:4727–4732.

29. Cramer B, Schlomer S, Poelchau HS (2002) Uplift-related hydrocarbon accumulations:

the release of natural gas from groundwater. 196 (Geological Society Special Publications,

London), 447–455.

30. Geyer AR, Wilshusen JP (1982) Engineering characteristics of the rocks of Pennsylvania;

environmental geology supplement to the state geologic map, 1982 Pennsylvania

Geological Survey. (Dept of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Management,

Harrisburg, PA).

31. Etiope G, Martinelli G (2002) Migration of carrier and trace gases in the geosphere:

An overview. Phys Earth Planet Inter 129:185–204.

32. Aravena R, Wassenaar LI (1993) Dissolved organic carbon and methane in a regional

confined aquifer, southern Ontario, Canada: Carbon isotope evidence for associated

subsurface sources. Appl Geochem 8:483–493.

33. Coleman DD, Liu C, Riley KM (1988) Microbial methane in the shallow Paleozoic

sediments and glacial deposits of the Illinois, USA. Chem Geol 71:23–40.

34. Alexander SS, Cakir R, Doden AG, Gold DP, Root SI (2005) Basement depth and related

geospatial database for Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Open-

File General Geology Report 05-01.0. (Pennsylvania Dept of Conservation and Natural

Resources, Middletown, PA), http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile.

35. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) Online mapping, data access wizard, oil

and gas locations. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA),

http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=

OR&entry=PASDA.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2013 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

Your proving my point I can and have given examples to back my statements, it appears you are struggling doing the same which futher back my claims as to who to trust. The lack of facts from what ive found falls more twards the antis then the gas companies. You may not like what they say, it may be sugar coated but it is more creditable.

Edited May 8, 2013 by mike rossi

[Doc]

Tuckersdaddy-

 

Ha-ha-ha .... Well there is a list of resources that will keep you busy for a while. And congratulations on manipulating someone to do your research for you.

[tuckersdaddy]

Mike... Thank you. Now thats the way to present an argument! A lot of the studies you mentioned dont  have readily available links. So if someone was to Google or bing them, they simply dont exist, unless it is shared by someone who has  first hand knowledge of where it is buried.

[tuckersdaddy]

Tuckersdaddy-

 

Ha-ha-ha .... Well there is a list of resources that will keep you busy for a while. And congratulations on manipulating someone to do your research for you.

 

 It has nothing to do with having someone else do the research for me, its about sharing the information on both sides. Some of the articles listed are pre internet, and it would take someone a lifetime to find them much less read them. So to have someone notate them and bring their relevance  to a debate that has as much impact on life here in NY its not manipulation, its simply an attempt to inform everyone of whats at stake on both sides of the argument.  

[Doc]

 It has nothing to do with having someone else do the research for me, its about sharing the information on both sides. Some of the articles listed are pre internet, and it would take someone a lifetime to find them much less read them. So to have someone notate them and bring their relevance  to a debate that has as much impact on life here in NY its not manipulation, its simply an attempt to inform everyone of whats at stake on both sides of the argument.  

Somehow, I really don't think that it took Mike his whole lifetime to accumulate these sources, but anyway, it looks like you have a pile of reading to do now.