Fracking and drinking water map shows where contamination may be

originally posted by: kaaer
a reply to: shrevegal


I have to say that i am sorry to hear that you had such a bad experiance. But i would also like to say that the "explosions" wont shake your house. The charges used for wireline during a fracing can hardly be felt when you are touching the well head much less above the location they are being fired 7k feet below. Also horizontal drilling is pretty much all large company's do these days.

It's funny, a couple of posts above this one you said you are not a fan of the oil and gas industry. But, it's apparent after a couple more posts that you are certainly a member of the industry, not that I'm bashing you for it, you have every right to speak and present your side of it, but don't pretend to be something else.

What the Frack is going on? I hear that you can even light water on fire straight from the faucet! They are destroying the water tables so we won't be able to get fresh, clean drinking water wihtout buying it from these crooks at higher than gas prices, just you watch. We need to stop this in any way we can. Make sure you have a way to find a fresh water tap, or have a really good filtration system for an emergency. This sucks. Be ready and don't be a victim of their shenanagins! Don't depend on anyone for your family's clean drinking water, you need to have a strategy. Water will be the gold of this century! filtering toxins from water

a reply to: Rezlooper

What is it with your attempts to continuously claim all these changes happening on Earth are because of mankind?... Fracking can be dangerous but that is not the reason why volcanic and seismic activity has been increasing worldwide...

Last I checked there is no extensive fracking going on in the Antarctic, yet as I showed you several times underwater volcano activity has been on the increase to the point that many volcanoes are warming the waters under the Antarcttic among other areas...

Mankind is not the reason these changes have been occurring on Earth, and will continue to get worse...

Also, take a look at this thread below to see part of what has been, and is happening on Earth's interior.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

At the end of that first page you can see a webcam and a picture of the steam coming out of the volcano showing the recent earthquake activity which increased in that area is being caused by a large magma plume that suddenly has moved upwards towards the upper mantle of Greenland.

vedur2.mogt.is...

That's some of the recent activity the changes happening on Earth have been causing.

Also remember the borehole data graph I have given which shows the Earth's interior has been warming and increasing in warming since the 1600s.

First post here... Felt compelled to reply. I have not googled any of this but if memory serves the earths crust is about 100,000 feet continentally and 25,000 feet in the ocean. The crust makes up less than 1% of the earths volume. Fracing (Note there is not a k in this word as its short for fracturing) happens at about 13,000 feet. Most fracing liquids now a days compose of only 2 percent or less of chemicals other than water.


I think your fights should be with water re-injection as that has a pretty reputable correlation with earthquakes in OK.

Just trying to add some balance to this debate.. I see a lot of posts that lead me to believe that fracing isn't well understood.



edit... Also people always point to a famous documentary about water burning because of fracing... That towns name is... wait for it... burning springs. Water was on fire long before fracing happened.

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga
First post here... Felt compelled to reply. I have not googled any of this but if memory serves the earths crust is about 100,000 feet continentally and 25,000 feet in the ocean. The crust makes up less than 1% of the earths volume. Fracing (Note there is not a k in this word as its short for fracturing) happens at about 13,000 feet. Most fracing liquids now a days compose of only 2 percent or less of chemicals other than water.


I think your fights should be with water re-injection as that has a pretty reputable correlation with earthquakes in OK.

Just trying to add some balance to this debate.. I see a lot of posts that lead me to believe that fracing isn't well understood.



edit... Also people always point to a famous documentary about water burning because of fracing... That towns name is... wait for it... burning springs. Water was on fire long before fracing happened.

So, with numerous posts on here, you think that the only place water is burning is in Burning Springs? There are many other investigations ongoing about claims of high levels of methane in water supply after fracking (note my spelling). And 13,000 feet, seriously? That's more than 2 miles deep. That's news to me. I guess I don't understand because I've been under the impression that fracking is a mile down. Are you saying that it's not?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Rezlooper

What is it with your attempts to continuously claim all these changes happening on Earth are because of mankind?... Fracking can be dangerous but that is not the reason why volcanic and seismic activity has been increasing worldwide...

Really? There isn't much doubt anymore that fracking causes earthquakes. Sure, you will argue that it's the wastewater disposal that causes it, rather than the actual frac well, but seriously, what's the difference? There would be no wastewater injection if there weren't frac wells.

How oil and gas disposal wells can cause earthqaukes

Scientists warn of earthquake risks from fracking operations

This one here really gets me. So, they've given up arguing that quakes aren't caused by fracking, they admit now, but then put together a study that says they are 16 times less hazardous than natural quakes. LMFAO. That's supposed to make us all feel better about it. "Hey, our fracking operations are causing disturbances to the earth's crust, but, it ain't so bad." Rest easy, right?

Study says fracking-induced quakes less hazardous than natural ones

Fracking causing earthquake boom in Oklahoma

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Rezlooper

Last I checked there is no extensive fracking going on in the Antarctic, yet as I showed you several times underwater volcano activity has been on the increase to the point that many volcanoes are warming the waters under the Antarcttic among other areas...

Here is a thread I did early last year in regards to increased seismic activity caused by global warming. In a quick simple summary...methane gas levels in the atmosphere are rising to a point of trapping in the sun's heat and increasing global temperatures. This is causing land and sea ice and permafrost to melt (which also causes more methane to release), and this melting ice is causing weight to increase or decrease on land and on the thin continental shelves in the oceans. When land ice melts, it adds weight to the oceans increasing pressure on the thin continental shelf and at the same time, decreasing pressure over the crust on land. This is causing an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity. The same weight displacement occurs around volcanoes causing their increase as well.

Dangerous Gas Theory in relation to increased seismic activity

Now, what caused the methane to begin rapidly and dangerously increasing in the first place (in 2007)? That is the big question. IMO, a major cause may be the fracking operations that began around this same time, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of wells drilled in just a couple of years after 2005.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Now, what caused the methane to begin rapidly and dangerously increasing in the first place (in 2007)? That is the big question.

It's one thing to share information about the dangers of fracking, but it's a completely different thing to outright lie to your target audience.

I still don't understand why do you think this is necessary.

If it's okay for you to spread disinformation, then it would be also fair game for everyone else, including gas companies.

Your claim of tripling methane levels since 2007 is complete fiction. Since this is central to your argument everything that follows from there is equally fictional.

Methane (CH4) emissions in the United States decreased by almost 11% between 1990 and 2012. During this time period, emissions increased from sources associated with agricultural activities, while emissions decreased from sources associated with the exploration and production of natural gas and petroleum products.

epa.gov...

Natural gas systems were the second largest anthropogenic source category of CH4 emissions in the United States in 2012 with129.9 Tg CO2 Eq. of CH4 emitted into the atmosphere. Those emissions have decreased by 26.6 Tg CO2 Eq. (17.0 percent) since 1990.

The decrease in CH4 emissions is largely due to the decrease in emissions from production and distribution. The decrease in production emissions is due to increased voluntary reductions, from activities such as replacing high bleed pneumatic devices, and the increased use of plunger lifts for liquids unloading, and increased regulatory reductions.

The decrease in distribution emissions is due to a decrease in cast iron and unprotected steel pipelines. Emissions from field production accounted for 32.2 percent of CH4 emissions from natural gas systems in 2012.

CH4 emissions from field production decreased by 25.2 percent from 1990 through 2012; however, the trend was not stable over the time series-emissions from this source increased by 23.4 percent from 1990 through 2006 due primarily to increases in hydraulically fractured well completions and workovers, and then declined by 39.4 percent from 2006 to 2012.

Reasons for the 2006-2012 trend include an increase in plunger lift use for liquids unloading, increased voluntary reductions over that time period (including those associated with pneumatic devices), and Reduced Emissions Completions (RECs) use for well completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing.

epa.gov...

a reply to: Millers

Despite whatever government propaganda piece you display, methane levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed to higher levels than in the past 400,000 years. All one has to do is google methane and any phrase they choose and tons of tons of information they will find. Anyone can do the research themselves and see that methane gas levels in the atmosphere, on a global scale, have increased. Your claim is that methane emission from US sources has actually decreased, but this EPA document is from earlier this year, and at the same time, the EPA admitted that fracking emissions of methane were actually higher than estimated.

Fracking emissions 1000x higher than EPA estimated

EPA underestimates fracking impact on climate change

Up to 1,000 times more methane released at gas wells than estimated

LA Times source

Like I said, there is tons of information out there that disputes your claims. One just has to look and do their own research on this topic. No matter how much the oil and gas industry attempts (or spends) to create studies and stories showing how great fracking is, they are running out of lies to tell. Hopefully, they run out sooner than later and the people will realize, rise up and stop this damning of our planet!

You know, no matter who is right or wrong the one valid point remains, if "they" keep screwing around with the earth/plates/soil in regards to fracking, the possibility of a rather large earthquake being set off eventually is entirely within the realm of possibility. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas have been mentioned in reports by some scientists that feel the process can cause such to occur. If the New Madrid or even those 2 states near that fault have a big shaker, the entire middle of the country, and especially those areas of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and Oklahoma as well, are one huge criss cross of gas pipelines. The destruction would be tremendous. Beyond the worries of water and air contamination, fires would be off the charts horrific. But no, they just gotta keep drillin until it does some killin while they make a killin.

originally posted by: shrevegal
You know, no matter who is right or wrong the one valid point remains, if "they" keep screwing around with the earth/plates/soil in regards to fracking, the possibility of a rather large earthquake being set off eventually is entirely within the realm of possibility. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas have been mentioned in reports by some scientists that feel the process can cause such to occur. If the New Madrid or even those 2 states near that fault have a big shaker, the entire middle of the country, and especially those areas of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and Oklahoma as well, are one huge criss cross of gas pipelines. The destruction would be tremendous. Beyond the worries of water and air contamination, fires would be off the charts horrific. But no, they just gotta keep drillin until it does some killin while they make a killin.

Once again its the re-injection of water into the soil that is being linked more and more to earthquakes (this has nothing to do with fracing).

At the time of this thread there is more fracing per square mile in southern texas than in any other place in the US.
Little Kenedy Texas is right in middle of this boom. In a helicopter the landscape is literally littered with wells and drilling rigs.
This is a report of Kenedys water. www.elosowsc.com...
Looks clean.
The water table is somewhere between 100-1000 feet. Fracing occurs at 12500-13500ft in this area.

A large portion of beef we eat comes from this area as well. Kenedy (and all of south texas)so far seems to not have earthquakes or burning water...

I simply disagree with a lot of the takes in this thread.

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga There are actual scientific reports that beg to differ. You can probably google them. Whether it is actually the drilling process or getting rid of the waste water or whatever, there are more and more scientists stating the view that fracking is problematic. I'm in no mood to argue the point so folks can believe what they want. Also, water wells do get contaminated and so does the air and soil. Folks that think otherwise...enjoy. Good day.

originally posted by: shrevegal
a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga There are actual scientific reports that beg to differ. You can probably google them. Whether it is actually the drilling process or getting rid of the waste water or whatever, there are more and more scientists stating the view that fracking is problematic. I'm in no mood to argue the point so folks can believe what they want. Also, water wells do get contaminated and so does the air and soil. Folks that think otherwise...enjoy. Good day.

Lol I offered proof... you offered anger. Show me some water reports.. I showed you a water report from last year in one of the worlds most fraced areas per square mile. You people just sling ignorance and hate. I accept that re-injected water may contribute to earthquakes... When there is proof then people like me are not blind.


But for the rest of this water contamination stuff- I just don't buy it. Most rational people that want evidence do not either.

But like you said, I don't have time for people like you. Live in fantasy.

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga

originally posted by: shrevegal
You know, no matter who is right or wrong the one valid point remains, if "they" keep screwing around with the earth/plates/soil in regards to fracking, the possibility of a rather large earthquake being set off eventually is entirely within the realm of possibility. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas have been mentioned in reports by some scientists that feel the process can cause such to occur. If the New Madrid or even those 2 states near that fault have a big shaker, the entire middle of the country, and especially those areas of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and Oklahoma as well, are one huge criss cross of gas pipelines. The destruction would be tremendous. Beyond the worries of water and air contamination, fires would be off the charts horrific. But no, they just gotta keep drillin until it does some killin while they make a killin.

Once again its the re-injection of water into the soil that is being linked more and more to earthquakes (this has nothing to do with fracing).

At the time of this thread there is more fracing per square mile in southern texas than in any other place in the US.
Little Kenedy Texas is right in middle of this boom. In a helicopter the landscape is literally littered with wells and drilling rigs.
This is a report of Kenedys water. www.elosowsc.com...
Looks clean.
The water table is somewhere between 100-1000 feet. Fracing occurs at 12500-13500ft in this area.

A large portion of beef we eat comes from this area as well. Kenedy (and all of south texas)so far seems to not have earthquakes or burning water...

I simply disagree with a lot of the takes in this thread.

Well, that may be why, right there...12,500 feet below rather than 5,000 feet. The methane may still be leaking upwards but that's pretty deep. Maybe, the drilling that occurs 5,000 feet is deep enough that the methane leaks up to the water table. Just a thought anyways.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga

originally posted by: shrevegal
You know, no matter who is right or wrong the one valid point remains, if "they" keep screwing around with the earth/plates/soil in regards to fracking, the possibility of a rather large earthquake being set off eventually is entirely within the realm of possibility. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas have been mentioned in reports by some scientists that feel the process can cause such to occur. If the New Madrid or even those 2 states near that fault have a big shaker, the entire middle of the country, and especially those areas of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and Oklahoma as well, are one huge criss cross of gas pipelines. The destruction would be tremendous. Beyond the worries of water and air contamination, fires would be off the charts horrific. But no, they just gotta keep drillin until it does some killin while they make a killin.

Once again its the re-injection of water into the soil that is being linked more and more to earthquakes (this has nothing to do with fracing).

At the time of this thread there is more fracing per square mile in southern texas than in any other place in the US.
Little Kenedy Texas is right in middle of this boom. In a helicopter the landscape is literally littered with wells and drilling rigs.
This is a report of Kenedys water. www.elosowsc.com...
Looks clean.
The water table is somewhere between 100-1000 feet. Fracing occurs at 12500-13500ft in this area.

A large portion of beef we eat comes from this area as well. Kenedy (and all of south texas)so far seems to not have earthquakes or burning water...

I simply disagree with a lot of the takes in this thread.

Well, that may be why, right there...12,500 feet below rather than 5,000 feet. The methane may still be leaking upwards but that's pretty deep. Maybe, the drilling that occurs 5,000 feet is deep enough that the methane leaks up to the water table. Just a thought anyways.

Methane Migration is a real phenomena. It is unclear if having a well nearby adds to the problem. It could, but wells are usually (should be) cemented well up (around 4,000ft) where it would make methane migration seemingly unaffected by having a well nearby. I am not sure on this. I know time will tell.

originally posted by: phantomjack
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 being displaced by injected water and chemicals and forced in the path of least resistance, which is usually up.
Methane being [I]lighter[/I] than air may have some bearing on it as well.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Water re-injection map is completely different than the water/frac map. Water re-injection occurs in very concentrated specific places.

You could be right. Water re-injection could be causing a lot of problems. But on the flip side of the coin you have to remember that in geology rocks and soil are all porous to some degree. Deep underground the movement of least resistance can be down, up, or lateral. It depends on the geology. This is the problem with the people working the "fracing /re-injection is bad" side of the debate. There just simply isn't concrete evidence, while on the other side people point to actual water table purity data and lack of concrete effects.

Time will decide this particular debate as there are areas of the US that have more well sites with fracing than they have houses... Time will tell us, very shortly how safe or unsafe this practice is. As of now, at least imo, time has shown us fracing is not adverse at all to environment.