Fracking and drinking water map shows where contamination may be

Fracking for natural gas is turning America the Beautiful into a toxic hell! So, the story goes that presents this map. In the map you can see America's rivers in blue and shaded in red are the Fracking areas.



One thing to note about the map is that not all areas are fracked, but fracking is within them, and also, NY state is shown in red because fracking may starting there soon. The map is from the documentary Gasland.

Fracking and drink water map shows where you shouldn't drink the water

In the link, there are a couple of videos about the dangers of fracking to our water supply. Here are some other links.

Four states confirm water pollution from drilling

This one is from January of this year printed in the USA Today.

The AP found that Pennsylvania received 398 complaints in 2013 alleging that oil or natural gas drilling polluted or otherwise affected private water wells, compared with 499 in 2012. The Pennsylvania complaints can include allegations of short-term diminished water flow, as well as pollution from stray gas or other substances. More than 100 cases of pollution were confirmed over the past five years.

Also from this USA Today article;

Extracting fuel from shale formations requires pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break apart rock and free the gas. Some of that water, along with large quantities of existing underground water, returns to the surface, and it can contain high levels of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals and naturally occurring low-level radiation.

But some conventional oil and gas wells are still drilled, so the complaints about water contamination can come from them, too. Experts say the most common type of pollution involves methane, not chemicals from the drilling process.

Here are more links;

OK town sues over toxic water

Dangerous levels of methane in PA town's water supply

Study finds levels of methane in TX water after EPA gives all clear

I could go on with the links...if you want to read more, just google "fracking water contamination"

But, you must check this one out Dangers of Fracking

Now, here's a little of my own opinion on this matter.

It may be the biggest mystery in the history of mankind. What could that be, you ask? What was the cause of the worldwide methane gas increase in 2007?

According to a study done at MIT in 2008, researchers were baffled that methane began increasing again after it had leveled off for nearly 10 years, from about 1997 until 2007. They were originally baffled that it had stopped rising in the 90’s, but even more mystified when it started rising again.

Here’s why it was such a mystery. The guys at MIT said that when the levels started to increase, it was on a worldwide scale. It started rising in both hemispheres. They said that it should have started in the northern hemisphere, where most methane production occurs, such as aquaculture, wetlands, livestock and landfills, and then over the course of a year, the methane would spread into the southern hemisphere. But, that didn’t happen. The increasing methane levels were the same throughout.

Levels of greenhouse gas methane begin to rise again

According to the MIT report, methane levels had more than tripled since pre-industrial times (the mid 1700’s) and that accounted for about 20% of human contribution to global warming. Researchers assumed that after the rate of emission leveled off in the late 1990’s it had balanced out with its rate of destruction in the atmosphere.

Mysteriously, methane release jumped all at once, adding a million metric tons of gas to the atmosphere. At first, they thought that it may have been because there were exceptionally warm temperatures throughout 2007 over Siberia creating more bacteria from wetlands. Well, this still wouldn’t explain the rise in methane emissions from the southern hemisphere.

One suggestion by the MIT researchers is that there was a drop in hydroxyl radicals that mitigate methane release and keep it all balanced. But, they say that this would still result in a rise in the southern hemisphere.

Of course, after further studies, they came out in a report the following year saying it was “probable” that these new methane emissions were a natural earth cycle. This is what scientists have to do. When they can’t figure something out, they do the next best thing to appear in control. They come up with something, such as this “probable” natural earth cycle. It makes them feel better, but the fact remains that this wasn’t “probably” natural. The levels of methane remained the same for over 400,000 years prior to the industrial times when it started rising in the 1750’s. At this time, mankind started burning coal and we started creating landfills.

It took nearly 250 years for the levels to triple from around 250 ppb to over 700 ppb. Then it suddenly leveled off for a decade. Then, in 2007, it skyrocketed. In what took 250 years took only 7 years this time around…methane levels tripled again. Now, the levels are over 2,000 ppb.

Why did this happen? That is the greatest mystery in the history of mankind.

I have an opinion. What major change has occurred in our world prior to 2007?

In 2005, George Bush signed into law the Clean Water Act that allowed fracking to begin. How many hundreds of thousands of wells were drilled in that short period of time between 2005 and 2007, or 08 or beyond? And how many were left abandoned and not even used?

It was said that fracking was supposed to be cleaner than coal and in order for that to happen, oil and gas companies could only lose up to 3% of the methane extracted from below or it would be worse than coal. Well, guess what, numerous studies, including admissions from the EPA, have proven now that they are losing more than 3% and it ranges all the way up to 9%. This is gas that is supposed to be captured, but it is "fugitive" and is escaping before they capture it. This is just the gas during the extraction process, not to mention how much gas escapes when these sights are first drilled.

Fracking was supposed to be our savior, cutting down carbon emissions from coal use. Well, the one thing they ignored in these original studies was methane, a far worse threat to our atmosphere than carbon because it is 25 times more efficient at trapping the sun's heat. It's like carbon was a sheet over the planet and now we've thrown a quilt on top of that. Not good at all!

Ya see!!! Its not caused by climate change (as many of us keep saying), its the fracking!

You know, if they are going to start fracking near your house, it would be good to get your water tested before hand so that if something happens, you have evidence to prove it was good water. Also keeping a sample and having witnesses to show you got it from your well would be a good idea, having a seal put on the container that is initialed.

But remember, if you sue, the well drilling company may hire your witness or their kid and they may say they were not sure that it was the sample.

Just throwing this out there, but I think that map can be called into question, simply by the amount of blue as indicated for rivers. If that were true, the country could be considered a big Everglades in most places. Other than that, I'm sure there's still a risk of contamination at some level.

AAC

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Ya see!!! Its not caused by climate change (as many of us keep saying), its the fracking!

Yeah, but it's the fracking that's causing the climate change...well, the boost that we've seen over the past 7 years. Of course, the planet was slowly warming, but IMO, it's been kicked into high gear, and that's what fracking may have caused.

Figure it like this...for 400,000 years methane levels were stable, then in the 1750's the industrial age begins and we see an increase over 250 years, but it's a slight increase and not a threat to us. Then, boom...we start fracking in '05, then we see methane levels shoot through the roof, and threaten our very existence.

What is a livable methane level? They say 1,250 parts per billion, but currently (and since last summer) levels have been surging up past 2,000 ppb and sometimes as high as 2,400 ppb throughout the Arctic regions. We have reached a critical point and there is so much denial, it may doom us all. Fracking has to stop, but there is so much money in it, I just don't see it happening. The oil and gas industry is booming, landowners are making a killing from leases, politicians are raking it in from lobbyists, it's created thousands of jobs and we all are saving money on our heating bills.

Arctic ice is melting at unprecedented levels, permafrost is melting and this is causing the methane hydrates underneath to thaw at extremely hazardous levels. The methane is acidifying the oceans and saturating our atmosphere. Our ozone layer has been decimated and we, humans and animals, are all being poisoned from the toxic fallout of high levels of methane and hydrogen sulfide gases. There are many things that will have to be done to stop it but fracking, IMO, is the first and foremost threat that needs to be eliminated, no matter what it costs us economically. The future costs will be much greater.

originally posted by: rickymouse
You know, if they are going to start fracking near your house, it would be good to get your water tested before hand so that if something happens, you have evidence to prove it was good water. Also keeping a sample and having witnesses to show you got it from your well would be a good idea, having a seal put on the container that is initialed.

But remember, if you sue, the well drilling company may hire your witness or their kid and they may say they were not sure that it was the sample.

Here is a case in which the landowners did get a water sample prior to the company drilling a well.

Prior to the drilling, the methane levels detected in the Klines' tap water -- which comes from a well -- were 9 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is considered safe. Now, the levels have spiked to 22 mg/L.

Tap water catches fire

Debby Kline told the station that lighting a candle near the running faucet set off "a huge explosion -- the entire sink up to the ceiling."


The Portage County woman said she had previously noticed the water "fizzing."

Dangerously high levels of methane -- a highly flammable gas -- in the water appear to be the culprit. A natural gas company began drilling near the home six months ago, NBC 4 reported, and the Klines suspect the company may be responsible for their flammable water.

And for now, these folks have to live in these conditions. This will be a growing trend.

The Klines said that because purchasing a methane filter would cost around $8,000. For now, they're drinking bottled water, but they're still bathing in the water straight of the tap.

"We don't know the consequences of sitting in gas water," Debby told TODAY. "We just don't have a choice."

Methane in drinking water is not "usually" considered a health threat, according to the Water Systems Council. The real danger occurs when the gas escapes from the water and builds up in the air, especially in "poorly ventilated or confined areas."

The Council's fact sheet states that in addition to presenting explosion hazards, methane in the air "acts as an asphyxiate," which means it can "displace air and can cause breathing and other health problems."

this is a very important topic

reports of fracking causing EarthQuakes, water pollution,

what is the impact to our ecosystem

a reply to: Rezlooper

I highly doubt if those people will see a cent for many years from the gas company. They will drag it out in court for many years and look for any excuse other than their actions to pin it on. Lawyers know they will eventually have to pay but they do not make it easy to collect. This will dissuade most people from suing. Later on the drilling company will go bankrupt and be protected, because they followed all the regulations that the government set.

Dragging things out for years is a common legal practice then they offer a settlement and the people are not allowed to comment. The lawyer the people get tells them to be quiet too, not telling others what goes on. It is a scam in the legal system.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Rezlooper

I highly doubt if those people will see a cent for many years from the gas company. They will drag it out in court for many years and look for any excuse other than their actions to pin it on. Lawyers know they will eventually have to pay but they do not make it easy to collect. This will dissuade most people from suing. Later on the drilling company will go bankrupt and be protected, because they followed all the regulations that the government set.

Dragging things out for years is a common legal practice then they offer a settlement and the people are not allowed to comment. The lawyer the people get tells them to be quiet too, not telling others what goes on. It is a scam in the legal system.

Yep, happens over and over, and all the while, these poor folks have to bath their children in gassy, methane water. They say there's not adverse health effects, but I highly doubt that. If water is potently gassy enough to explode when it comes out of the kitchen sink, then it's definitely hazardous to bath in. I'd like to see any one of these experts live with that type of water. They can't afford to do anything about it and yet, the gas company sits by and watches knowing full-well they are the cause. If they offered to spend the $8,000 to help them clean the water, it would be admitting their guilt and opening themselves up to the lawsuit that would surely follow.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Oh my God

that's half the US

How can anyone look upon fracking and not feel sick

only the uncaring, the unintelligent ones, and there are lot of them, otherwise people would stop fracking

The primary purpose of fracking is to upset and unsettle the American population. The government is using fracking in the same way it used problems with Social Security and wasting billions on three dune buggies on Mars. All these activities are being used to upset and unsettle the American population.
The second purpose is to increase construction of water recycling plants that make both water for landscaping and potable water. Another part of the second purpose is to increase construction of de-salinization plants. Of course, every construction project means some dollars in the back pockets of elected and non-elected public officials, which is the goal of the second purpose.
The counter action to the use of fracking for the purposes I stated, is to vote in new public officials after the present official has served one term. This would upset and unsettle the official's lives, and reduce the money going to their back pockets.

I am waiting for someone with a brain to explain to me this:

The average private water well depth in Pennsylvania is less than 200 feet.

A fracking well is over 5000 feet.

How is it that chemicals used at that depth contaminate a well 4800 feet ABOVE that, when fluids follow a course of less resistance, and generally DOWN?

Please...anyone...Beuller? Beuller?

It's really sad that our government would allow this to happen.

It's so unnecessary.


This is precisely the sort of sh@t they are here to prevent.

a reply to: Rezlooper

It took nearly 250 years for the levels to triple from around 250 ppb to over 700 ppb. Then it suddenly leveled off for a decade. Then, in 2007, it skyrocketed. In what took 250 years took only 7 years this time around…methane levels tripled again. Now, the levels are over 2,000 ppb.

Why did this happen? That is the greatest mystery in the history of mankind.

The mystery is easily solved. Your numbers are completely off. There was no tripling of methane levels in the last 7 years.

cdiac.ornl.gov...

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

The Context

Because methane is mostly well-mixed in the atmosphere, emissions from the Arctic or from the US must be seen within the context of the global sources of methane to the atmosphere. Estimates of methane emissions from the Arctic have risen, from land (Walter et al 2006) as well now as from the continental shelf off Siberia.

Call it 20-30 Tg CH4 per year from both sources. The US is apparently emitting more than we thought we were, maybe 30 Tg CH4 per year. But these fluxes are relatively small compared to the global emission rate of about 600 Tg CH4 per year. The Arctic and US anthropogenic are each about 5% of the total.

Changes in the atmospheric concentration scale more-or-less with changes in the chronic emission flux, so unless these sources suddenly increase by an order of magnitude or more, they won’t dominate the atmospheric concentration of methane, or its climate impact.

Is this bad news for global warming?

Not really, because the one real hard fact that we know about atmospheric methane is that it’s concentration isn’t rising very quickly. Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase.

This is in contrast to CO2, which accumulates in the atmosphere/ocean system, meaning that steady (non-rising) emissions still lead to a rising atmospheric concentration. There is enough uncertainty in the methane budget that tweaks of a few percent here and there don’t upset the apple cart.

Since the methane concentration wasn't rising all that much, its sources, uncertain as they are, have been mostly balanced by sinks, also uncertain. If anything, the paper is good news for people concerned about global warming, because it gives us something to fix.

- See more at: www.realclimate.org...-16393-3

What's the difference between you and the people you call climate (science) deniers? You seem to have no problem to fabricate scare stories and present half truths as fact while you completely ignore hard science.

A lot of people love 'doom porn' and you seen to be more than happy to give them what they want. Do you have a book to sell?

a reply to: phantomjack

My guess I that as the rock layers are shattered in the fracturing process, the gas and liquids may be exposed to permeable layers above the previously impermeable rock layer. Wells are usually drilled into layers of gravel or sand, not necessarily large water filled voids. The pressure of the earths surrounding crust pushing towards the center (gravity) is going to cause this new void created by fracturing to compress. The gas and water to flow towards the path of least resistance- wells.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Ya see!!! Its not caused by climate change (as many of us keep saying), its the fracking!

Yeah, but it's the fracking that's causing the climate change...well, the boost that we've seen over the past 7 years.

Yes, fracking and stuff like this..

Gas flaring releases of large amounts of methane, which has a high global warming potential. The methane is accompanied by the other major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, of which Nigeria was estimated to have emitted more than 34.38 million metric tons of in 2002, accounting for about 50% of all industrial emissions in the country and 30% of the total CO2 emissions. While flaring in the west has been minimized, in Nigeria it has grown proportionally with oil production.[26]

Nigeria flares more natural gas associated with oil extraction than any other country, with estimates suggesting that of the 3.5 billion cubic feet (100,000,000 m³) of associated gas (AG) produced annually, 2.5 billion cubic feet (70,000,000 m³), or about 70% is wasted via flaring.[citation needed] This equals about 25% of the UK's total natural gas consumption, and is the equivalent to 40% of the entire African continent's gas consumption in 2001.

"Nigeria currently flares 75% of the gas it produces.".[26]

en.wikipedia.org...

And its only gotten worse.

Nigeria is to penalise oil giants for flaring gas but campaigners say it's unlikely to curb the release of greenhouse gases in the country, which is the world's second biggest offender after Russia.

Toxic orange flares – a byproduct of Nigeria's 2m-barrel-a-day oil industry – spew the equivalent emissions of the UK's annual gas use every three months in the palm-fringed Niger Delta. Nigeria has Africa's largest natural gas reserves, which could be used for power generation if trapped.

"Because of the flares it is so hot, it is smoky, the air is thick and it is constantly daytime here," said Aniete Aniete, a fisherman from the oil-producing Delta heartland. "Our rivers are black and the [acid] rain eats our houses. Our bodies are covered in oil. You feel that if you live to old age here, it is a miracle."

www.theguardian.com...

Really look at this map and ask, is it really a good idea to fracture the Earths crust on this scale?

a reply to: rickymouse










Read the full report here

a reply to: Millers


The people who had this report put together are receiving some of their agencies income from the oil and gas industry in the form of tax payments. Now these people in this agency, and the scientists at the top level of gas exploration are taught the same way, so there is a common consensus that unless there is undeniable proof or there is no widespread evidence, it cannot only effect one well. This is not true though, the crack could have only came up in one isolated area and vents there.

This policy comes under "for the good of the people". You are allowed to disadvantage a few people for the good of many. Sucks if you are one of the few that get disadvantaged though. Now remember, there are 300 million people in this country, so a million is about a third of a percent. They can destroy the lives of a million people without any repercussion legally if they can show that they are serving the rest. Most laws use and abuse this many times in this country. Economic growth takes precedence over rationality in this country. They can destroy your property without compensating you adequately if it is considered to improve the Economy. Even if all the product is sold by companies to other nations. it is all about making the numbers look good, not about fairness to our own people.