Gasland Clarification

[arachadillo]

Just watched a very informative hearing on the health and environmental issues associated with fracking.

One of the questions at the hearing dealt with a scene in the movie Gasland where the water from the faucet was set afire.

The respondent said that an investigation determined that the methane laden tap water in the household was a product of natural factors rather than a result of fracking induced methane migration.

It's important to note the issues associated with fracking induced methane migration.

For example, while growing up and visiting relatives who lived near Dimock, Pa (another site protrayed in the movie) I quickly learned that the tap water in the area was undrinkable, and therefore accompanied my parents to local springs to get drinking water.

Being of a young age, I do not recall if the problems with the tap water were methane related or other chemical related.

Having said that, the potential for methane migration is also a fact. Lectures given by engineering professors and environment and health related professionals from the Penn State Marcellus Shale project have documented that methane migration can occur up to a mile from any drilling area.

So, for land owners in potential drilling areas, it's important to have the water tested prior to the start of any drilling, in order to have a baseline water quality level that will determine the degree of water quality problems (if any) caused by nearby fracking.

Again, it's not the case that fracking could not cause tap water to be set ablaze. It's more the case that the movie used a less than adequate example to demonstrate that fact.

[CC]

1. Most wells have to be tested when first drilled and

when buying a house to get a mortgage. Hell, I used to do day care and had to have mine tested yearly to keep my license. Plus if your water tasted fine, was clear and did not light on fire before drilling started and all these things started after drilling began there is a pretty good chance it was caused by drilling. Hell, a new well drilled up stream for someone else can affect your well. Yet it isn't just the landowners in a potential area that has to worry. The area Josh lives in supplies the water to major cities (NYC for one) and towns down stream. What do people do it that becomes contaminated?

Long before Gasland I had to listen to way too many aquifer and well experts on how simple changes elsewhere can change a persons well water. That is because they decided to build a power plant in the middle of nowhere straddling the MD/PA border for a VA power company that pulls an average of 25,000 gallons a day out of our aquifer. We went from having some of the purist, cleanest water in the area to having to deal with a high iron content for weeks after the power plant works extra hard and pumps water out heavily. Since I had it tested yearly for over 20 years we do have a record of the change with the Health Dept. Not that it matters one bit to the power plant. We are not the only ones either but the whole area gets the same not us answer. At least our well is still safe and potable.

As for the movie, a non-expert went to talk to others that had allowed fracking or had naighbors that allowed fracking on their land before he signed to let a company use his land. The more he saw the more he looked the more he looked the more problems he found. That is a big part of why the movie was so believable and hits so hard. The movie actually just made me want to look into it further. Then I found out that it could be a major hazard to the water supplies in my area. Josh doesn't set himself up as an expert in the movie and the gas companies have spent an awful lot of money to try to tarnish both the movie and the movie maker. That alone give the movie more weight with me than had they ignored both.

If you are interested in a snapshot of how oil and gas companies work try reading "The Legend of Colton H. Bryant" by Alexandra Fuller. There is a reason a company like Transocean can be a part of the BP oil spill that killed 11 workers at once and not have a clue when they award safety bonuses for the "best safety-year ever." My first question was, how many people die in a normal year on Tranocean run projects then?

[kristopher]

2. This type of extraction worries me also.

The way it was implemented and given so much power to avoid oversight under the Cheney administration is, by itself, a reason to walk through the logic and safety of the entire process from square one.

Significant expansion of natural gas is not a particularly desirable trend from the point of view of rapid expansion of renewables. Far better to expand the full range noncarbon renewables instead. We have more than enough natgas capacity online to accommodate the changeover.

[phantom power]

3. One thing on my mind -- "fracking" is an old practice...

I remember my dad taking me with him when he inspected fracking operations in western NY, back in the 70s. The wells were smaller then. Not as deep, no horizontal drilling, different geology. What's going on in the Marcellus formation is a whole different ballgame. But fracking, per se, is not intrinsically problematic.

[CC]

4. They used to just use water

Now they use a cocktail of chemicals with the water to extract more gas more efficiently. It can probably be done safely in areas but do we really want the gas companies making the money to be the ones that judge what is and isn't safe?