Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
hydraulic fracturing?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HiredHand" data-source="post: 1858847" data-attributes="member: 2469"><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?pagewanted=all</a></p><p></p><p>Still, the documented E.P.A. case, which has gone largely unnoticed for decades, includes evidence that many industry representatives were aware of it and also fought the agencys attempts to include other cases in the final study.</p><p></p><p> The report is not recent it was published in 1987, and the contamination was discovered in 1984. Drilling technology and safeguards in well design have improved significantly since then. Nevertheless, the report does contradict what has emerged as a kind of mantra in the industry and in the government.</p><p></p><p>The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by the Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, W.Va., referring to it as Mr. Parsons water well.</p><p></p><p>When fracturing the Kaiser gas well on Mr. James Parsons property, fractures were created allowing migration of fracture fluid from the gas well to Mr. Parsons water well, according to the agencys summary of the case. This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parsons water, rendering it unusable.</p><p></p><p>Asked about the cause of the incident, Mr. Wohlschlegel emphasized that the important factor was that the driller and the regulator had not known about the nearby aquifer. <em><strong>But in comments submitted to the E.P.A. at the time about the report, the petroleum institute acknowledged that this was indeed a case of drinking water contamination from fracking.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p>The damage here, the institute wrote, referring to Mr. Parsons contaminated water well, results from an accident or malfunction of the fracturing process.</p><p></p><p>Mr. Wohlschlegel cautioned however that the comments provided at the time by the institute were not based on its own research and therefore it cannot be sure that other factors did not play a role.</p><p></p><p>In their report, E.P.A. officials also wrote that Mr. Parsons case was highlighted as an illustrative example of the hazards created by this type of drilling, and that legal settlements and nondisclosure agreements prevented access to scientific documentation of other incidents.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HiredHand, post: 1858847, member: 2469"] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?pagewanted=all[/url] Still, the documented E.P.A. case, which has gone largely unnoticed for decades, includes evidence that many industry representatives were aware of it and also fought the agencys attempts to include other cases in the final study. The report is not recent it was published in 1987, and the contamination was discovered in 1984. Drilling technology and safeguards in well design have improved significantly since then. Nevertheless, the report does contradict what has emerged as a kind of mantra in the industry and in the government. The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by the Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, W.Va., referring to it as Mr. Parsons water well. When fracturing the Kaiser gas well on Mr. James Parsons property, fractures were created allowing migration of fracture fluid from the gas well to Mr. Parsons water well, according to the agencys summary of the case. This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parsons water, rendering it unusable. Asked about the cause of the incident, Mr. Wohlschlegel emphasized that the important factor was that the driller and the regulator had not known about the nearby aquifer. [I][B]But in comments submitted to the E.P.A. at the time about the report, the petroleum institute acknowledged that this was indeed a case of drinking water contamination from fracking. [/B] [/I] The damage here, the institute wrote, referring to Mr. Parsons contaminated water well, results from an accident or malfunction of the fracturing process. Mr. Wohlschlegel cautioned however that the comments provided at the time by the institute were not based on its own research and therefore it cannot be sure that other factors did not play a role. In their report, E.P.A. officials also wrote that Mr. Parsons case was highlighted as an illustrative example of the hazards created by this type of drilling, and that legal settlements and nondisclosure agreements prevented access to scientific documentation of other incidents. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
hydraulic fracturing?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom