Marcellus Shale under Electron Microscope

Studying the contaminated water that comes up from fracking

Essay by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor and Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Slick water hydraulic fracturing, as most readers know, is using water solutions to break shale rock far below the earth’s surface, so that gas from pores containing oil and gas may be mobilized and brought to the surface.

The pores are very irregular in shape and size, ranging from a micrometer to a few hundreds of micrometers in dimensions, the size of a typical bacterium to the diameter of a human hair.

Pressures used at the surface are typically are up to 10,000 pounds per inch (psi), and at the depth the shale being fractured, more by the weight of the column of fracking liquid, which frequently goes than a mile down. At one mile down, if the fracking solution has the density of water (and it would usually be more) the pressure would be up to 12,280 psi. Over six tons to the square inch!

As the reader knows, temperature goes up as the depth increases, and the temperature is about 180 Fahrenheit at that depth. You don’t get far into chemistry without learning that solubility of substances is different, usually greater, at elevated temperature. Pressure also affects solubility, very much for gases, but usually somewhat less than for temperature. A particularly important pressure effect in drilling involves calcium sulfate, which precipitates out on the way up. Other solubility effects may be involved at these extreme pressures.

So, at this point, you and I have these understandings: the pores are very tiny and irregular, and the solubility of compounds is different at the bottom of the hole. Let’s add one more, it takes about ten barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil or gas energy equivalent to a barrel of oil.

All the solution that goes down the hole, in the order of 4.4 million gallons (105,000 barrels), more or less, since individual wells vary a lot, does not come back up when the pressure is allowed to drop. What does is called “flowback,” and amounts to 20 per cent, again more or less, while the rest stays in the ground. What comes up has the chemicals in it that went down, diminished in quantity by reactions below, plus such chemicals as result from the reaction and what chemicals will dissolve out of the formation quickly.

Flowback occurs for a few days, diminishing to a smaller constant flow. This smaller flow lasts the productive life of the well, some 7 or 8 years, and is called “produced water.” Produced water is more strongly influenced by what dissolves in water underground, and in time includes more water in the formation which has been there for millions of years.

Solutions that come up, flowback and produced water, usually go in the same holding pit, which is lined with one or two layers of 60 mil polyethylene plastic.

What we call fracking sprang from the ground full grown like the fierce warriors which from dragon’s teeth sown by Cadmus in Ancient Greek mythology.

This is very much unlike other large scale chemical industry operations. It did not go through a pilot plant stage and scale up stage, with careful analysis of effluents by chemists. Diverse entrepreneurs tried it with the old mixtures used in vertical fracking, with additives they thought might be helpful. No doubt salesmen from suppliers played a far more important part in drillers choices than engineers.

There is an illustration of the quantity of chemicals used in a typical well in Beaver County, Pennsylvania here. The quantity of chemicals shown is 757 barrels, including 373 barrels of “mystery chemicals,” so called because the identity is not known to the public. The reason given to the public and regulators is that this is “proprietary information.” It would give competitors an advantage if they could use them, too. The reader can take that claim as he/she sees fit.

So, here we are, a decade after fracking appeared to be heading for the big time, wondering what those “mystery chemicals” are. And wondering what else, and how much of it comes up with water from the deep. An important recent contribution to the question of what comes up that originates from the shale formation is an article titled “Scientists seek more data on existing water in shale formations,” located here.

The article is concerned with the composition of the water in the formation (really, what is dissolved in it) before fracking and thus can come to the surface. The reason for studying this “super-salty liquid with elevated levels of heavy metals, radium and other chemicals” is to “lead to safer disposal options and other actions to protect public health and the environment,” according to the article’s author.

Is there such a need? There certainly is. This “brine” has been eagerly sought by some road authorities as a dust suppressant and for a wintertime de-icer. “Brine” is widely understood by many people to be a salt (sodium chloride, ordinary table salt) solution. The fact is that chemists use “brine” for a a large category of compounds, not just one. Salts are the product of reaction between metals and highly non-metallic elements. Some are harmless and some are poisonous. Soluble barium compounds, some times present in these waters, are very poisonous.

The reader hardly needs to be warned about radioactivity. “Acceptable” levels of radiation have declined dramatically from when I first became aware of the “acceptable” concept in the 1950′s while an instructor at the Army Chemical Corps training school. I will predict they will decline further in the future.

An immense class of poisonous compounds is known, both organic and salts, that are called “endocrine disrupters”, but hardly recognized in formal toxicology. The endocrine glands are the ductless glands of the body, such as the pituitary gland, the thymus, the thyroid and parathyroid, the adrenal gland and many others. Their hormones go directly to the blood, in very small amounts, as with various body processes. Frequently they control other glands which produce far larger quantities of hormones.

Due to the small amount of hormone produced by these glands, a very small amount of disrupting toxins is needed to destroy their function, and disrupt body processes. These compounds, because they are present in such small quantities are difficult to analyze and study. Often, the amount required is near the limit of chemical detection.

“So to be able to understand all these things, we really need to understand the natural formation water,” says Madalyn Blondes of the United States Geological Survey, quoted in the article. The change from “flowback” water to “produced” water over time makes determining the composition of the water originally in the formation particularly difficult. Knowledge of composition also improves drilling efficiency by reducing “salting out” (deposition of solids, such as calcium sulfate) in drilling equipment.

Water in the shale formation started out as ancient sea water, which became more concentrated as the water evaporated. Some of what is there today exists in pores of the shale or surrounding formations and other could have been precipitated into the rock, but is re-dissolved by the fracking solution. Taras Bryndzia, a geologist with Shell International Exploration and Production, Inc., says of his research: “This data also showed that some brine could come from an adjacent layer.” Brian Stewart, a geologist at the University of Pittsburgh believes, “Indeed, it would be unlikely for the Marcellus shale layer to be the source for all of the produced water.” They have analyzed drill cuttings from the State of New York. “There’s not enough salt or water in those pores to really explain the super salty water that comes back,” Stewart said.

Stewart acknowledges the possibility of cracks outside the shale layer and even to the level of shallower wells above, but thinks contamination of ground water is from improperly functioning new well with leaks near the surface.

Fracking has been developed largely through trial and error by entrepreneurs. Let us hope more and more science, including solution chemistry and toxicology, can be applied as soon as possible.

#   #   #   #   #   #   #

Thirty Eight (38) Conservation Groups Object to GreenHunter Barge Activities

For Immediate Release: February 18, 2015.  Contact: Teresa Mills, 614-507-5651 tmills@chej.org, or  Robin Blakeman, 304-840-4877 rbrobinjh@gmail.com

Columbus, OH — Citing serious public health and safety concerns, environmental and community groups opposed to barging of fracking waste sent a letter to the U.S. Coast Guard requesting that the agency immediately initiate investigative action related to GreenHunter, LLC to determine the true contents of waste that GreenHunter, LLC may be transporting by barge on inland waterways, including the Ohio River and the Mississippi River, both, sources of drinking water for millions of people.

The letter of February 17, addressed to Captain Richard Timme, also requests the Coast Guard to issue a “cease and desist” order to GreenHunter, LLC to stop transporting any “oilfield wastes” while the Coast Guard makes its determination of what exactly is being shipped by the company. Additionally, the groups’ letter requests the Coast Guard to initiate an “enforcement penalty proceeding” if, indeed, the Coast Guard finds GreenHunter in violation regarding possible shipments of “shale gas extraction wastewater,” or SGEWW.

For the past two years, GreenHunter, LLC has been seeking U.S. Coast Guard permission to transport fracking waste on the Ohio River or other inland waterways.

The group’s letter references a statement by Kirk Trosclair, COO of GreenHunter to the Wheeling Intelligencer (2/6/15), “GreenHunter Water will continue to transport ‘oilfield waste’ until such time as the Coast Guard ultimately decides on the proper definition of ‘shale gas extraction waste water’ and the rules under which such waste water can be transported. Once these rules are finalized, GreenHunter will comply with these rules and regulations.”

The group reads Trosclair’s statement that GreenHunter ‘will continue to transport’ to mean that the company is actively shipping drilling wastes now, with impunity and without legal authority.”

Currently, fracking waste has too many legal exemptions, trade secrets, and euphemisms associated with it making it difficult to ascertain the precise components of the fracking waste. This in itself makes this situation not your typical shipment for transport down the Ohio River. Obviously, the Coast Guard needs to know exactly what substances are being transported on the waterways so that they can protect the public interest.

Dr. Randi Pokladnik says she “is concerned with the ability of local public drinking water systems to remove the numerous aromatic organic, carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting chemicals contained in wastes from shale gas extraction.”

“Just the thought of toxic and potentially radioactive unconventional gas well waste being shipped by barge on the Ohio River sickens me” says Robin Blakeman, organizer with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition in Huntington, WV. “I, and three generations of my entire immediate family get our tap water from the Huntington, WV intakes. I am appalled that a company like Green Hunter would try to subvert the Coast Guard’s authority and may already be shipping this noxious substance by barge, as well as by truck near the river’s edge. I hope the Coast Guard and the US EPA will do everything in their power to fully investigate Green Hunter’s operations and stop them from any activity which endangers our tap water!”

One only needs to consider the recent events of Charleston and Fayette County, West Virginia and Toledo, Ohio to grasp the enormity of the consequences of losing – even temporarily – a source of drinking water.

# # # – - - Signatories:

Commentary — Two Kinds of Truth for Your Consideration

Truth is elusive with consequences

Written by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Observers have been amazed with the division of attitudes toward modern high volume, horizontal, hydraulic fracturing which has come into use since the year 2000. It is as though one party says something is yellow and another, looking at the same thing, says it is blue. The obvious answer is, “Who is making money from it and who is paying a price?” That goes for people actually in contact with it, but what about the millions who form opinions in spite of no contact?

I think that is related to two kinds of truth, which I hope to distinguish. What is needed is to sort out a general idea, truth, and how one arrives at “truth.”

As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, “Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest.” So I must define truth to begin with: Truth is a belief which serves as a basis for individual action. If you believe something, that is your mental map of what is. Truth is one’s understanding of the real world, the guide for ones action.

Most works on philosophy include several definitions of truth. Almost all of them have one which has to do with verifiability. That means the ability to check, item by item, the contents of the verbal map of reality. Lets call this verifiable truth.

A second kind of guide for action is to respond to authority. If you believe some authority, it is a kind of truth. This may be a King, a religious leader, or simply “the boss,” who in our era (and many others), is whoever controls pay for your labor. This we will call authoritarian truth. Such a believer’s action is determined by a mental map provided by the authority.

What does this have to do with the understanding of the nature of fracking? A lot, really.

Concerning fracking the general public (including officials) must choose between the claims of the banks and the drilling companies on the one hand , and the cries from the injured on the other. The individual who is not directly affected, and cannot see what is going on, must choose what to believe.

Those in the field can see what is happening. People are hurting, and loosing what is theirs. For some who gain even a slight advantage it is easy to ignore another’s pain. That is also a human attribute. It makes possible wars, racism and genocide. It also makes it possible for some to be rich while others are poor. Those who aren’t seriously affected can adopt the authoritarian truth as a psychological defense.

One of the principal characteristics of authoritarian truth is that it is not constrained by verifiability. It offers an explanation, and suggests a course to follow for the believer’s advantage. It causes an expected reward for action. It may, and often does, involve deception about verifiability, however. Left out details don’t exist for the authoritarian believer. It is received truth.

Verifiable truth comes from direct sensory experience of the phenomenon, or from observers judged by the individual to be reliable. Who is reliable? Direct observers who don’t have an advantage by being untruthful and are able to understand what effects them. Simultaneous changes are a strong key to understanding.

If one thinks rural people are willing to lie about what affects them, or are too dumb to understand, or are people whose interests aren’t a significant part of the commonwealth, the economic whole of our state and nation, you might adopt such a view. You might be more willing to adopt a story put out by some authority.

In a situation where people need to act, people who are not where they can observe facts themselves, perhaps by voting or by buying, it becomes a considerable labor to decide what action they should take – in other words who to believe. We humans have a long history of cooperation with each other. Frequently it has been the best path to simply follow some leader, rather than to try to go it alone or join a minority. Most of our past has involved a choice between leaders without reference to verifiability of claims, or perhaps no choice between leaders at all; the choice is simply the degree or enthusiasm with which we follow some designated leader of our group. Consequently, we humans have developed no easy way to distinguish which kind of truth one is following. It is a labor and a learned skill not necessary for survival of the human race.

Because of this bit of human nature, those who can form belief on the basis of our own observation, and the observation of people we trust because we understand them, must aggressively present the story of what is going on to the wider public, who invest, who vote, and who regulate the world we live in.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn’t go away.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Fact to fiction — A twisted tale of how good research became bad information

By Elizabeth Miller, Boulder Weekly, November 20, 2014

The philosophy that University of Colorado research associate E. Michael Thurman applies to scientific research, he says, is: “You can sort the error from the truth if you work hard enough.” This week, that task became far more difficult as Thurman and his research associates came under fire for apparently declaring the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing operations to be harmless.

But it wasn’t true. The researchers never said anything like that, nor did they intend to. Like the children’s game of telephone, as word spread from one mouth to the next, the truth got so mired in errors it was nearly invisible by the end.

So how did a study designed to analyze traceable components of fracking fluid so potential contamination in groundwater could be identified get transformed into a headline that declared fracking fluid safe? The answer is poor communication and bad journalism.

…… the details are in the Article on hydraulic fracturing ……