PDA

View Full Version : Confirmed: Fracking Can Pollute



Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 05:34 AM
Monday, Jul 9, 2012 03:00 PM EDT
Confirmed: Fracking can pollute
A new study explodes the gas industry's claim that fracking won't contaminate local drinking water
By Sarah Laskow

Ron and Jean Carter hold a bottle of well water outside their home in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The Carters are suing Cabot Energy for allegedly poisoning their well with toxic chemicals and water. (Reuters/Les Stone)


One of the key arguments in the case for fracking rests on an appeal to common sense. The hydraulic fracturing process — pushing gallons upon gallons of chemical-laden water into shale rock in order to bubble up natural gas — takes place deep in the ground, thousands of feet below the earth’s surface and thousands of feet below the shallow aquifers that provide drinking water. Given the distance between the water and the fracking fluid, there’s just no way fracking could contaminate aquifers, the gas industry and its allies argue. So many layers of rock lie between noxious fracking fluid and water that the risks of chemical-laced drinking water don’t compute.

“Any way you look at it,” one natural gas executive told Fox News, “it is hard to imagine that anything we can do at 6,500 feet would ever approach the surface.”

But a new study, published in the formidable Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, upends that common-sense argument. It shows that fluids may have traveled from deep within Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, one of the formations at the center of the gas boom, into shallow aquifers hundreds of feet above. These fluids aren’t products of fracking, but if they can travel up through layers of rocks, close to the surface, it means that fracking fluids could, too.

“The fact that it’s a mile or two miles apart doesn’t mean that there’s separation,” says Prof. Avner Vengosh, the Duke University geochemist whose research group conducted the study.

The group’s study indicates that, on the contrary, natural pathways link deep formations and shallow aquifers. The team collected and analyzed water samples from aquifers in northeastern Pennsylvania and from brine that originated in the Marcellus Shale in order to build up an inventory of water compositions. “Every water in nature has a unique geochemical fingerprint,” Vengosh says. “As geochemists, we learn to understand the water’s origin.” The chemical fingerprint can change as elements in the water react with rock or as rainwater washes in. One of the types of water they identified had a fingerprint that suggests it had been mixed with water of a much higher salinity — a water very similar to naturally occurring Marcellus brine.

The study doesn’t prove that fracking fluid has traveled up to aquifers of drinking water. But it’s enough to show that there is no reason to assume that chemicals pumped deep into the ground will stay there. “Because there is a hydraulic connection, it increases the risk of contamination” of ground water, Vengosh says.

Back in May, a study commissioned by anti-fracking groups used computer modeling to show that fracking chemicals could reach shallow aquifers within a few years. That study didn’t use sampling, but it found that the process of fracking itself could speed up the movement of chemicals that would naturally travel through the ground.

This new study doesn’t make any predictions about the time frame in which chemicals might migrate towards the surface or about the volumes of fluid that could make the journey. But it’s notable to Vengosh that the Pennsylvania area in which he and his team were working enjoys fairly heavy rainfall, which means the groundwater aquifer recharges quickly with rainwater. That the team still found a higher concentration of saline water could indicate that there’s a continuous connection between the deeper and more shallow layers of earth. The new study notes, as well, that gas can move much more quickly along these hydraulic pathways than chemical fluids and that it could travel from the shale to the surface within a year.

Just because natural pathways like these could become a problem in some places, though, doesn’t mean that they will pose a problem everywhere. Beneath our feet, the layers of the earth don’t arrange themselves as neatly as an illustration in a middle school textbook, uniformly divided up like layers on a cake, and what’s true in one section of the Marcellus shale will not necessarily be true across its entire breadth, let alone in another formation. These pathways do mean, however, that the natural gas industry can no longer argue that as long as it constructs its wells properly, fracking poses no risk at all to drinking water. In order to claim its work will not contaminate groundwater, gas companies should have to look more closely at the characteristics of the earth that they’re working within. It is not only possible to imagine that work the gas industry does at 6,500 feet could affect water closer to surface, it’s more than reasonable to worry that it will.

llotter
07-10-2012, 07:19 AM
Fracking has caused a dramatic decrease in CO2 levels in this country. *

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 07:20 AM
Bull.

LWW
07-10-2012, 07:43 AM
This thread is a classic example of the risks of doing a cut and paste that one hasn't read.from the OP's evidence:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But a new study, published in the formidable Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, upends that common-sense argument. It shows that fluids <span style='font-size: 14pt'>may</span> have traveled from deep within Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, one of the formations at the center of the gas boom, into shallow aquifers hundreds of feet above. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>These fluids aren’t products of fracking</span></div></div>

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread is a classic example of the risks of doing a cut and paste that one hasn't read.from the OP's evidence:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But a new study, published in the formidable Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, upends that common-sense argument. It shows that fluids <span style='font-size: 14pt'>may</span> have traveled from deep within Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, one of the formations at the center of the gas boom, into shallow aquifers hundreds of feet above. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>These fluids aren’t products of fracking</span></div></div> </div></div>




<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin
</span> </span>

Sev
07-10-2012, 07:59 AM
Actually its not.
The technological advances are linked to an overall lowering of CO2 output.

Sev
07-10-2012, 08:02 AM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/07/usa_co2_q1_june2012_eia.png

LWW
07-10-2012, 08:08 AM
OH DEAR!

eg8r
07-10-2012, 08:28 AM
Well, I am not going to read the doc, but to the point you are trying to make...the fluids are not products of fracking...Is the fact that the fluids are making into the shallow aquifers the product of fracking? Meaning, if fracking was not happening, would the fluids get down there on their own?

eg8r

eg8r
07-10-2012, 08:29 AM
Why would you post this when LWW is clearly responding to llotter?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 08:42 AM
I'm not interested in predictions.

There has been no drop in co2 levels.

In fact, the globe is constantly heating up due to rises in those levels.

The scales lines are never perfectly straight lines, but that does not mean that there has been any appreciable decreses in co2 levels.
G.

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would you post this when LWW is clearly responding to llotter?

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread is a classic example of the risks of doing a cut and paste that one hasn't read.from the OP's evidence:

</div></div>

Clearly pointed at me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin
</div></div>

Sev
07-10-2012, 08:47 AM
USA CO2 levels have dropped. That is all that matters.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/u-s-going-green-accidentally.php

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 08:53 AM
No they have not.

G.

Sev
07-10-2012, 08:56 AM
Yes they have.
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012...to-1991-levels/ (http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/07/02/more-shockingly-good-news-from-shale-gas-co2-emissions-will-likely-fall-this-year-to-1991-levels/)

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 09:11 AM
NO, they have not.

G.

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">USA CO2 levels have dropped. That is all that matters.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/u-s-going-green-accidentally.php </div></div>

Baloney.

Do you think co2 is the only thing that matters when it comes to global warming?

CO2 levels have not shown any significant drop, in fact, just the opposite.

G.

You need to do some scientific reading, not focus on predictions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scientists: Carbon dixode at highest level in 800,000 years
By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press
Updated 5/31/2012 2:43 PM



WASHINGTON – The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.



Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.

Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

INTERACTIVE: Enhanced 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.

"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.

For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

It's been at least 800,000 years — probably more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.

Until now.

Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.

So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.

Globally, the average carbon dioxide level is about 395 parts per million but will pass the 400 mark within a few years, scientists said.

The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist.

"This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high," he said.

Tans called reaching the 400 number "depressing," and Butler said it was "a troubling milestone."

"It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."

Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.

Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week.

The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.

"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400 ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders — with a few honorable exceptions — are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former Vice President Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."

But political dynamics in the United States mean there's no possibility of significant restrictions on man-made greenhouse gases no matter what the levels are in the air, said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute.

"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot.

Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.



</div></div>

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/...ming/55312242/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/story/2012-05-31/carbon-dioxide-greehouse-gas-level-climate-change-global-warming/55312242/1)

DiabloViejo
07-10-2012, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">USA CO2 levels have dropped. That is all that matters.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/u-s-going-green-accidentally.php </div></div>

Well gee, I guess drinking water loaded with toxins and carcinogens is good for you because of a supposed reduction in US CO2 levels. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Gotta love right wing logic! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Sev
07-10-2012, 09:37 AM
Yes yes they are screaming CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

Big deal.

That big yellow thing in the sky is the biggest contributor.
What do they call that again.

Oh yes a G class star.

Hmmmmm. Ironic. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
07-10-2012, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">USA CO2 levels have dropped. That is all that matters.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/u-s-going-green-accidentally.php </div></div>

Well gee, I guess drinking water loaded with toxins and carcinogens is good for you because of a supposed reduction in US CO2 levels. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Gotta love right wing logic! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>Wht evidence of this do you have?

What's that?

You don't have any?

But ... I already knew that.

Sev
07-10-2012, 10:06 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/1...s#ixzz20Eh3zIeA (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/study-southeast-absorbs-more-carbon-than-it-produces/?test=latestnews#ixzz20Eh3zIeA)
<span style="color: #000000">
AUBURN, AL – As the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a new Auburn University study suggests the Southeastern U.S. absorbs more carbon than it produces. And, at least in the short term, air pollution may actually be helping to speed the growth of young, carbon-absorbing forests in the region.

“Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake is much faster than other regions,” said Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburn’s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, and lead author of the study published in the journal Ecosystems. “This area has trees that are very young and the growth is very fast. So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere.”

While earlier studies have examined the effect of individual factors on carbon storage and climate change, Tian developed a computer model that takes into account multiple natural and manmade variables – such as land use, climate and pollution – over the past century.

The model suggests that moderate amounts of air pollution, in the form of carbon and nitrogen, had a fertilization effect on young forests. Many of these new trees appeared on abandoned agricultural land during the mid-20th century.

“In the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake,” Tian said. “But that’s not guaranteed for long.”

The Auburn study suggests the Southeast is approaching a “tipping point.” The region’s urban areas are growing. And, despite the temporary fertilization effects of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, Tian said increasing levels of other pollutants, such as ground level ozone, threaten to do more harm than good to the environment in the long-term.

“The take-home message is we really need to do urban/land use planning and also air pollution control to help the Southern U.S. forests to become maybe a sustainable carbon sink,” Tian said.</span>

Gayle in MD
07-11-2012, 06:51 AM
LOL....


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Climate Change, Extreme Weather Linked In Studies Examining Texas Drought And U.K. Heat


* 2011 was among 15 warmest years globally - U.S. agency

* Extreme weather events show influence of climate change

* Greenhouse gas levels in atmosphere reaches new high

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON, July 10 (Reuters) - Climate change increased the odds for the kind of extreme weather that prevailed in 2011, a year that saw severe drought in Texas, unusual heat in England and was one of the 15 warmest years on record, scientists reported on Tuesday.

Overall, 2011 was a year of extreme events - from historic droughts in East Africa, northern Mexico and the southern United States to an above-average cyclone season in the North Atlantic and the end of Australia's wettest two-year period ever, scientists from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Kingdom's Met Office said.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In the 22nd annual "State of the Climate" report, experts also found the Arctic was warming about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, on average, with Arctic sea ice shrinking to its second-smallest recorded size.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Heat-trapping greenhouse gas concentrations - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide among others - continued to rise last year, and the global average atmospheric concentration for carbon dioxide went over 390 parts per million for the first time, an increase of 2.1 ppm in 2010. </span> "Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment," Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan said in a statement. "This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come."</span>
Beyond measuring what happened in 2011, the international team of scientists aimed to start answering a question weather-watchers have been asking for years: can climate change be shown to be responsible for specific weather events?


RAISING THE ODDS

The climate experts acknowledged that event attribution science, as it is called, is in its early stages.

"Currently, attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change remains challenging," Peterson, Stott and other scientists wrote in a study published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Attribution is possible, they said, as long as it is framed in terms of probability, rather than certainty. So instead of saying climate change caused a heat wave, researchers could gauge how much more or less likely the heat wave was in a world where the climate is changing.

For example, both Texas and England felt the warming effects of the La Nina weather-making pattern but climate change pushed these influences to extremes, Stott said.

La Nina, a recurring patch of cool water in the equatorial Pacific that alternates with the warm-water phenomenon El Nino, would typically bring heat to Texas, the researchers said in an online briefing.

Adding climate change to La Nina makes a Texas heat wave 20 times more likely than it would have been 50 years ago, said Peter Stott of the Met Office. By some measures, 2011 was the warmest, driest growing season in the Texas record, Stott said.

In Britain, November 2011 was the second-warmest in the central England temperature record dating back to 1659, and climate change made that extreme high temperature average 60 times more likely than it would have been in 1960, the researchers found.

By contrast, deadly floods in Thailand last year cannot be blamed on climate change, the scientific team said.

Tuesday's report came one day after NOAA announced statistics for the continental United States, showing that the past 12 months were the hottest such period on record and the first six month of 2012 were the hottest such period on record, with more than 170 all-time heat records matched or broken.

The full report is available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2011.php .

Highlights are at http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2012/state-of-the-climate-in-2011-highlights/2 . (Reporting By Deborah Zabarenko; Editing by Bill Trott)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/climate-change-extreme-weather_n_1663014.html </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>CO2 is NOT going down!</span>