Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-just-sugar-water dept.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39032748

Up to 16% of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells spill liquids every year, according to new research from US scientists. They found that there had been 6,600 releases from these fracked wells over a ten-year period in four states. The biggest problems were reported in oil-rich North Dakota where 67% of the spills were recorded. The largest spill recorded involved 100,000 litres of fluid with most related to storing and moving liquids.

[...] A [previous] study carried out by the US Environment Protection Agency on fracking in eight states between 2006 and 2012 concluded that 457 spills had occurred. But this new study, while limited to just four states with adequate data, suggests the level of spills is much higher. The researchers found 6,648 spills between 2005 and 2014.

"The EPA just looked at spills from the hydraulic fracturing process itself which is just a few days to a few weeks," lead author Dr Lauren Patterson from Duke University told BBC News. "We're looking at spills at unconventional wells from the time of the drilling through production which could be decades."

Patterson, et.al. Unconventional Oil and Gas Spills: Risks, Mitigation Priorities, and State Reporting Requirements Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05749

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 23 2017, @06:34PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 23 2017, @06:34PM (#470811) Journal

    Some random thoughts from someone who gets paid to deal with this fun stuff...

    Define "Spill":

    Most people are picturing pipeline ruptures and overturned tanker trucks. The EPA defines "Reportable Quantities (RQs)" for hazardous materials where if you spill more than the RQ you have to report it to the EPA. Depending on how hazardous the substance is that could be 100 gallons for normal hazardous waste or 10 or even 1 gallon for the really nasty stuff.

    The RQ for oil is "enough to create a visible sheen." [epa.gov] So, 1 teaspoon on a rainy day is enough to trigger that.

    It's good to collect this data but spill count makes a terrible metric for environmental performance. If I spill 1000 teaspoons over the year but my neighbor spills 1 barrel obviously the neighbor is worse.

    Where's the Science:

    What exactly is this a study of? It seems like they are just summarizing publicly available EPA data. That's something the EPA already does. What scientific insight does this offer that warrants a paper?

    Are they trying to independently verify the EPA data, maybe? Or quantify it in a different manner? The study itself is paywalled so it's hard to tell...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @06:59PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @06:59PM (#470825)

    It is almost like you didn't really read the BBC article let alone the actual study: epa.gov [epa.gov]

    Surprise surprise, there have been multiple incidents of hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water sources. Statistically the incidence of contamination is low compared to the total number of frakking wells, but when it comes to the one planet we live on I would prefer to be cautious.

    I will agree that the paywall on the subsequent study is dumb, and especially ironic when the summary concludes with

    Transparency for data sharing and analysis will be increasingly important as UOG development expands.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:14PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:14PM (#470837) Journal

      What you just linked is not the study the article is referring to.

      Also, from you link:

      We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
      drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
      we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water
      resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases,
      however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:44PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:44PM (#470856)

        I mentioned both of those points:

        I will agree that the paywall on the subsequent study is dumb, and especially ironic when the summary concludes with

        and I did read that same paragraph, hence:

        Statistically the incidence of contamination is low compared to the total number of frakking wells, but when it comes to the one planet we live on I would prefer to be cautious.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 23 2017, @08:50PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 23 2017, @08:50PM (#470883) Journal

          You miss-read it then because a low incident count, and a lack of systemic impacts are two VERY different things.

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:58PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:58PM (#470917)

            Yes sir semantics officer sir!

            There was a lack of widespread systemic impacts, and a few incidents that were serious. Basically, frakking isn't the end of the world, it doesn't guarantee massive pollution of drinking water. That said, there are long term effects we can't know about without magic earth penetrating x-ray vision. Many areas have developed increased seismic activity, and the profitability of frakking just doesn't seem worth the risks. Better to invest in more sustainable options.

            But that is my 2 cents.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 23 2017, @10:50PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 23 2017, @10:50PM (#470937) Journal

              That's fine, let's ban natural gas.

              End Result: Trump coal-job promises come true. CO2 emissions massively increase. Radioactive dust emission massively increase. S0x, N0x, PM5, PM2.5 go way up and acid rain comes back.

              Great job Mr. Environmentalist.

              • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:35PM

                by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:35PM (#470957)

                What the hell? Frakking can be used for gas and oil.

                I would prefer investment in nuclear (the modern less-dangerous designs, thorium reactor research, etc) along with solar/wind/hydro/tidal. Why are you so bent out of shape over this?

                --
                ~Tilting at windmills~
              • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:53PM

                by butthurt (6141) on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:53PM (#470963) Journal

                Methane doesn't persist in the atmosphere as long as does carbon dioxide, but it absorbs infrared light more strongly, so that it has a greater greenhouse warming potential. In the United States, perhaps more than 2% of natural gas produced is lost to leaks. An industry initiative is striving to reduce that to less than 1%.

                https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/energy-environment/future-of-natural-gas-hinges-on-stanching-methane-leaks.html [nytimes.com]