Dems seek EPA natural gas drilling controls on heels of exposé

the hill ^ | 2/27/11 | Ben Geman

[epithermal]

PA is where the oil industry began, so drilling has been going on since the 1800’s. I imagine a lot of those wells shown are abandoned.

I have been looking for available GIS data for wells and there does seem to be one, but it is apparently only available as a pay per view:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/oilandgas/wis_home.aspx

But, you can search for the wells by permit number and they do give a lat and long that could be used to build a GIS map:

https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/WellDetails/WellDetails.aspx

If I find the time I may put together a map later today.

The spin has already hit the media about the issue. Do a Google search for Pennsylvania radioactivity and the first hit should get you a Philly paper article that makes it sound like people are dropping dead all over PA from fracing waste water.

[dirtboy]

You might be interested in this. The NY Times provided a link to an Excel spreadsheet of radioactivity in frack water from wells. They also provided a link to over 1,000 pages of source documents. I consolidated the Excel data to figure out which counties had the highest average radioactivity per well (post 116). Bradford County topped the list - but only two wells are in the sample for that county. To see if they were cherry-picking, I went to their source data link in post 117 and searched for Bradford - and only found two hits, none of which covered well test data.

So the NY Times gives us a second-hand Excel spreadsheet with no access to the raw data. Sound familiar? Just like AGW claims.

And the second link in 112? The one that shows three municipal plants effectively treating the fracking water? They had that in their document trove - but didn't mention it in the article.

[dirtboy]

As a final confirmation that the raw well data is not in the Times link, I searched the number 19220 - the gross alpha value for Black #1H well in the NY Times speadsheet. Number not found. I searched for Black #1H as well - not found. And Black #1H appears to be a recent well:

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol39/39-25/1137.html

16. Chief Oil & Gas, LLC, Pad ID: Black Unit No. 1, ABR-20090517, Burlington Township, Bradford County, PA, Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 mgd, Approval Date: May 14, 2009.

[dirtboy]

Yep, Black 1H was spudded January 2009. It’s Marcellus with horizontal drilling, according to this speadsheet:

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/z1Jan2009.htm

[dirtboy]

On Page 410 the Times provides for the spreadsheet data - a very, very limited graphical view of the data (only a few wells worth) - so not only can we not tell if the data is cherry-picked, but we can’t even tell if the data in the spreadsheet was accurately transcribed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p533/a9948

[dirtboy]

And the second link in 112? The one that shows three municipal plants effectively treating the fracking water? They had that in their document trove - but didn't mention it in the article.

In re-reading the article, they do mention this - in passing.

[epithermal]

Thanks for sharing all the insights you have made. I don’t take any of the NYT data at face value, so I tend to discount their entire thesis that any problem exists.

I agree they are picking the data to support their conclusions and they have not really shown in any scientific study that surface water has been impacted. All they say is that it “may” have impacts.

I am going to spend some time to look for any regional scale studies done on the issue that are in the scientific literature. But it will have to wait until later today because I have business to attend to this morning.

[SgtHooper]

Well, based on what I read in the critical Gasland article, my concern may be unwarranted. But to put it generally, any fluid pumped into the ground is a contaminant, except water. For shale they include polymers, asphalt, glycols and oil.

[dirtboy]

I agree they are picking the data to support their conclusions and they have not really shown in any scientific study that surface water has been impacted. All they say is that it “may” have impacts.

This was my favorite:

In late 2008, drilling and coal-mine waste released during a drought so overwhelmed the Monongahela that local officials advised people in the Pittsburgh area to drink bottled water.

Drilling AND coal-mine waste. What was the estimated ratio? How much do you want to bet that coal-mine waste was the overwhelming problem, given the history of such in PA?

[Reddy]

Hey- just wanted you to know, FRiend, that I think the jury of the safety of fracking is out.... anyway, here is an interesting article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_11/b4219025777026_page_2.htm
I’m sorry, I am just the kind of person who really thinks that we need to always use wisdom and put people first :)
PS... I am not a sir :)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I’m a sand can driver for the frac industry ... this article is pure ee fried bullshit.

Well, since it involved the New York Times and Ed Markey, that's about what I suspected.

[okie01]

they found “leaverite.”

Had to look it up.

LOL.