The study you won'Tt be hearing about from the left: No impact on groundwater from fracking

[raykeller]

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/10/study-wont-hearing-no-impact-groundwater-fracking/

The study you wonâ?Tt be hearing about from the left: No impact on
groundwater from fracking
by Jazz Shaw


Protests by environmentalists against hydraulic fracturing (or fracking)
have been going on for years now, along with the Hollywood efforts of serial
fabulists such as Josh Fox. One of the biggest concerns surrounding the
process is the possibility of contamination of groundwater. While a previous
study in Pennsylvania by the state Department of Environmental Protection
revealed zero instances of this happening (except for surface spills during
transport of hydraulic fluids), critics discounted the study and the
protests continued.

Now a different study conducted in Ohio on the Utica shale play has been
completed and published. They were looking for evidence of natural gas
methane (CH4) in the drinking water near fracking sites which might be
traced back to the drilling process. In order to identify the origins of any
CH4 detected in the ground, they employed radiocarbon dating of the samples
to determine if the compounds had come from the drilling sites or were
biogenic, naturally occurring methane. Baseline testing was done prior to
any drilling and continued during and well after the drilling was done. Once
again, they found no evidence of contamination. The study results are posted
at the Springer research material repository.

Here, we present the results of a free public water testing program in the
Utica Shale of Ohio, where we measured CH4 concentration, CH4 stable
isotopic composition, and pH and conductivity along temporal and spatial
gradients of hydraulic fracturing activity. Dissolved CH4 ranged from 0.2
μg/L to 25 mg/L, and stable isotopic measurements indicated a predominantly
biogenic carbonate reduction CH4 source. Radiocarbon dating of CH4 in
combination with stable isotopic analysis of CH4 in three samples indicated
that fossil C substrates are the source of CH4 in groundwater, with one 14C
date indicative of modern biogenic carbonate reduction.

We found no relationship between CH4 concentration or source in groundwater
and proximity to active gas well sites. No significant changes in CH4
concentration, CH4 isotopic composition, pH, or conductivity in water wells
were observed during the study period. These data indicate that high levels
of biogenic CH4 can be present in groundwater wells independent of hydraulic
fracturing activity and affirm the need for isotopic or other fingerprinting
techniques for CH4 source identification.

Another attack frequently launched by the â?okeep it in the groundâ? crowd
consists of questioning the bias of the study participants or the source of
funding. This testing was done on a completely independent basis and the
funding came from two sources. One was the David & Sara Weston Foundation, a
group whose mission is to, â?oenrich and strengthen underserved communities
inâ?¦ the arts, environmental conservation and social services.â?
Additional funding was provided by a grant from the Deer Creek Foundation,
which seeks to â?oenrich the cultural and artistic quality of life in the
St. Louis metropolitan area.â?

In other words, weâ?Tre not talking about flunkies for ExxonMobil here.

Do you suppose this study will surface on the front page of the New York
Times or the Washington Post with the same level of coverage they give to
protesters opposed to drilling? Or will this simply go down the memory hole
along with the rest of the science showing that the energy industry has
delivered on its promises to make this technology as environmentally
friendly as possible? Itâ?Ts just so hard to predict, so I wonâ?Tt hazard a
guess here.

[James Dellingpole]

raykeller wrote

>
> https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/10/study-wont-hearing-no-
impa

This is a big conspiracy. Looks like the study was buried by the
Trump adminstration and Scott Pruitt's EPA Environazis. I get
all my science filtered through www.hotair.com because they have
teams of scientists giving us all the real story. Why would
anyone want to believe anyone else? This cover up is proof that
Scott Pruitt is a left wing Communist Environut who is against
jobs for the working people of America. Trump must fire this
bastard now.

[James Dellingpole]

raykeller wrote

>
> https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/10/study-wont-hearing-no-
impa
> ct-groundwater-fracking/
>

[whit3rd]

On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:31:04 PM UTC-7, raykeller wrote:
> https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/10/study-wont-hearing-no-impact-groundwater-fracking/
>
> The study you wonâ?Tt be hearing about from the left: No impact on
> groundwater from fracking
> by Jazz Shaw
>
>

> Protests by environmentalists against hydraulic fracturing...

Why would we hear about ground water from 'the left', or from some political
pundit like Jazz Shaw? We should hear from the folk who did the study.
So, give a reference to the study itself, instead of dancing around the Maypole
and reposting trash-talk about some faction you dislike.

Water quality is too important to risk losing it in an election. Don't politicize the
data, just publish and inform, let another jackass bray about the faction-of-the-day.

[James Dellingpole]

raykeller wrote

>
> https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/10/study-wont-hearing-no-
impa
> ct-groundwater-fracking/
>

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 7:14:16 AM UTC-8, James Dellingpole wrote:

reposting yet again, same lame claims
...

> This is a big conspiracy. Looks like the study was buried by the
> Trump adminstration and Scott Pruitt's EPA Environazis.

Not 'buried', just yawn and move on.
A truism you might recall, is 'oil and water don't mix'.
Testing water for hydrocarbon alkanes (like the mineral oil that is used for laxatives)
won't tell you whether the water is drinkable. CH4 is just a short-chain alkane
and is relatively chemically inert. So the cited study hasn't any relevance to
any contaminant that we'd expect to see in more than trace amounts, and doesn't cover
any possible toxins.

Now, yawn. Then, move on.

[Jim Wilkins]

"whit3rd" <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e16bf55f-cec7-4ef8...@googlegroups.com...

You completely missed the point. The presence of methane would
indicate that fracking may have created fissures that could allow
other substances to migrate into ground water. Its absence is a good
indication that fracking didn't, especially in areas with proven
hydrocarbon reserves. The Carbon-14 test can distinguish whether the
methane is ancient, released from deep rocks, or of recent surface
origin from the decay of organic matter carried down by rainwater.

Oil and water DO mix if you know how, that's what soap is for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
"Methane clathrates (hydrates) are also commonly formed during natural
gas production operations, when liquid water is condensed in the
presence of methane at high pressure. It is known that larger
hydrocarbon molecules like ethane and propane can also form hydrates,
..."

[Clare Snyder]

You mean the study paid for and done by the oil companies??????

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-8, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "whit3rd" <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e16bf55f-cec7-4ef8...@googlegroups.com...

> > Now, yawn. Then, move on.
>
> You completely missed the point. The presence of methane would

> indicate that fracking may have created fissures that could...

But fissures aren't an indication of the fissure CAUSE, or age, unless this
was a differential study with before/after measurements. Fracking is intended
to create fissures, no doubt it does so; causing danger, I have some doubt.
I have no confidence that the study indicates any great measure of safety.

>Oil and water DO mix if you know how, that's what soap is for.

It's not clear how a soap would travel in clay or soil; it's more likely to stick to
ALL surfaces in the subsoil, not just the exterior surface of an methane bubble so as to
send it into a water sample. Lots of minerals (salt, for instance) pop bubbles.

[Jim Wilkins]

"whit3rd" <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:75b6e2d2-bcf3-4f25...@googlegroups.com...

What happened to you? You used to be smart enough to realize that the
methane clathrate reference, not soap, shows that methane dissolves in
water.

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:49:28 AM UTC-8, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "whit3rd" <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:75b6e2d2-bcf3-4f25...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-8, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> >>Oil and water DO mix if you know how, that's what soap is for.
> >
> > It's not clear how a soap would travel in clay or soil; it's more
> > likely to stick to
> > ALL surfaces in the subsoil, not just the exterior surface of an
> > methane bubble so as to
> > send it into a water sample. Lots of minerals (salt, for instance)
> > pop bubbles.
>
> What happened to you? You used to be smart enough to realize that the
> methane clathrate reference, not soap, shows that methane dissolves in
> water.

It's not dissolution, that's chemical bonding, only stable at high pressures/low temperatures.
You wouldn't expect clathrates in temperate climes, certainly not at water-well depths.

[Jim Wilkins]

"whit3rd" <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f8b3144-a33d-449e...@googlegroups.com...

http://www.purewateroccasional.net/wtimethane.html
"Dissolves in water, but does not ionize. Solubility in water at 10
degrees C (50 F) is 42 mg/L."

That's easily enough to detect, not only with instruments but by
observation.
"When dissolved in water, it can give water a milky look, or "swampy"
odor and taste."