Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Video on source site.


Thousands of gallons of fracking fluid have spilled following an accident at a natural gas well in Pennsylvania, WNEP reports.

The Chesapeake Energy well in Bradford County lost control late Tuesday night.

From WNEP:
The well blew near the surface, spilling thousands and thousands of gallons of frack fluid over containment walls, through fields, personal property and farms, even where cattle continue to graze.
Francis Roupp, deputy director of the county emergency management agency, told AP that there were no injuries, and that although fluids have reached a small stream, "no adverse effects" have been reported.

Roupp suggests a cracked well casing could be the culprit behind the fracking spill, but that certain details won't be known until the situation is under control


What is going on as of lately? Nuclear problems, fracking problems and nuclear problems. Seems like we are doing everything wrong, or perhaps putting the money and profit before safety.

Safety need to be higher regardless of expense, it appears as if we are going to kill ourselves by our own stupidity and greed.

I am surprised this is not a bigger story and this could affect a lot of people if it gets into the waterways, which it has already, hopefully more people will spread the story around.

Any thoughts?

Pred...




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


You know with the fluoride content in your water inserted from the government, it is more harmful to you than a little bit of fracking water. Just throwing that out there



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by predator0187
 


You know with the fluoride content in your water inserted from the government, it is more harmful to you than a little bit of fracking water. Just throwing that out there


Alright, but, fluoride and drilling lubricant? Sounds a tad bit worse. Why not throw everything in there?

Also, in my city, the fluoride is being taken out of our supply.

Pred...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by predator0187
 


You know with the fluoride content in your water inserted from the government, it is more harmful to you than a little bit of fracking water. Just throwing that out there


From the source article:

seven families have been evacuated as a result of the spill.

The chemicals used in fracking fluids have been a contentious subject, as many energy companies have long guarded them as a "trade secret." A recent report released by three House Democrats says that millions of gallons of potentially hazardous chemicals and known carcinogens, such as methanol, have been injected into wells across the country by energy companies using the controversial fracking method.


I don't know what they use down in the US, but up here, some companies use a butane/propane type of mix as frakking liquid, recover it, and then continue its use on the next well.

I wouldn't trust it to be "safe".



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


I apparently didn't want that to come out the way it did, because it isn't good to have anything in your water but, as it stands there are tons of crap in water now and NOBODY says a word about it other than on here. But if a gas company (who is providing energy for our country) spills something everyone wants to go crazy. Again I probably didn't want that to sound the way it did, but I love having Natural gas companies and drilling companies around because I spent last weekend without power because of the horrible storm that went through PA, and I would rather have filtered water or purified water rather than not having gas companies. So if they make a mistake like that, I forgive them, we are all human and all make mistakes.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
My suggestion? Go and get a sample. See what it is. Theres not any law as to what they can or can't put into the ground for fracking and im curious as to what you might find.

MOTF!



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
They know there is plenty of risks with this type of method, really makes a mess of the underground water tables. Would things be different if live was worth as much as money?



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Facking fluid is 99 percent water and sand ... even if 10,000 gallons spilled only 100 gallons of that is additive and out of that 100% gallons about 90% of that is soap.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
They know there is plenty of risks with this type of method, really makes a mess of the underground water tables. Would things be different if live was worth as much as money?


That’s simply not true .. there has not been one confirmed case of fracturing fluids entering groundwater supplies from fracturing.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


You will not find any reports if you do not look.



US studies have shown that chemicals used during fracking can contaminate groundwater, and the US Environmental Protection Agency is investigating links between drinking water impurities in heavily mined districts and health problems. A full report is to be produced in 2012. Read more: www.smh.com.au...

www.smh.com.au...

And that is in just a couple of minutes of looking, there is heaps out there that says this method has big problems.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 





Facking fluid is 99 percent water and sand ... even if 10,000 gallons spilled only 100 gallons of that is additive and out of that 100% gallons about 90% of that is soap.


Really? perhaps you should just see this small list...source



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


What was the operative word in that article ... I'll emphasize it so its more clear.


US studies have shown that chemicals used during fracking can contaminate groundwater


Can contaminate does not mean has contaminated. Try again.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Ohh, what about some uranium in your kool aid then www.sciencedaily.com... Drink up boys. I heard it goes great with some gulf area fish, but I guess you don't see any reports about that either.
edit on 21-4-2011 by kwakakev because: added fish



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by SirMike
 





Facking fluid is 99 percent water and sand ... even if 10,000 gallons spilled only 100 gallons of that is additive and out of that 100% gallons about 90% of that is soap.


Really? perhaps you should just see this small list...source


The "small list" neglected to include concentrations or ammounts used.

www.eqt.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by SirMike
 


Ohh, what about some uranium in your kool aid then www.sciencedaily.com... Drink up boys.


Ever hear of a physical property known as "solubility"? Uranium and most of its oxides and salts are classified as "insoluble", although in truth everything is soluble in water to some extent. Uranium has solubility in water of 1 to the -12 g per Kg or somewhere in that neighborhood …. as it varies slightly with pH, temperature and the uranium oxide in question. It exists naturally in EVERY water supply.

So drink up I will.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The case for fracture fluid not being a concern is far from closed:

Hydraulic fracturing poses some risk to groundwater, as does any activity that involves puncturing an aquifer. Most importantly, fluid spills at the surface can have serious impacts on local water. Accident rates are extremely low, but the impact of a single accident can be severe.

source

But don't take one reporter's word for it, there are some other organizations that are studying the issue:

Current constructionlemplacement technology is either too costly or ineffective for containing plumes at great depths or in fractured rock

emphasis mine

Let's see what else they have to say:

Temporary containment barriers are needed primarily to control source plumes where there is an immediate threat of migration. By limiting the spread of contaminants, potential secondary wastes from future cleanup operations may be reduce

Research Org USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC (United States). Office of Technology Development
Sponsoring Org USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)

Well with the case in PA, they've got it all over the surface and in some of the surface water supplies. No telling how much has migrated into the ground surrounding the well, that pressure blowout may have damaged the concrete sleeve which would allow the fluid to seep into the ground as well as being spewed from the well under pressure.


Above quotes from document sourced here.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 





The "small list" neglected to include concentrations or ammounts used.


well then try this one then source

and let me guess..that source isn't good either...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by SirMike
 





The "small list" neglected to include concentrations or ammounts used.


well then try this one then source

and let me guess..that source isn't good either...


You are familiar with the term concentration .. correct? It is the quantity (mass, molar, volume) of a constituent divided by the total amount of a mixture. The earthworks chart does not show this and is using some questionable reference material to make its case.

For example, it lists the MCL ethylene glycol at 73,000 micrograms per liter but the ATSDR lists it at 70,000 micrograms per liter. Similarly, it lists naphthalene at 20 micrograms per liter and the ATSDR lists it at 40. This might seem trivial, but if you cant count on the source to get simple things like this right, what does it say about the methodology and results of the rest of the material.

Think for yourself.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Topic already exists HERE complete with the breaking news of the blowout.
No need for duplicate threads. Search is your friend.
edit on 4/21/2011 by MadDogtheHunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


So, when are you moving next door to where this fracking is going on and opening up a mineral water company? It sounds relatively harmless to me. What could go wrong?

Second.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join