Markell: Delaware will vote against controversial drilling in Delaware River wat

DRC Archive Environmental and Other Science Discussion
1

Markell: Delaware will vote against controversial drilling in Delaware River watershed
6:01 PM, Nov. 17, 2011

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20111117/NEWS/111117062/Markell-Delaware-will-vote-against-controversial-drilling-Delaware-River-watershed?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

Gov. Jack Markell said late today that Delaware will vote against a regional agency plan to allow a controversial type of deep shale-gas drilling in the Delaware River watershed, citing unsettled and inadequate terms for state and local environmental safeguards and insufficient public review of recently amended regulatory proposals.

The letter, sent to the governors of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York and the Army Corps of Engineers, emerged just ahead of Monday’s Delaware River Basin Commission vote on new regulations to allow the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to develop natural gas wells across the northern and northwestern tier of the 13,000-acre watershed.

Fracking allows well-drillers to break previously inaccessible natural gas free of deep shale beds by using high-pressure injections of water, chemicals and sand. Vast amounts of gas are believed to be trapped under a 50,000 square mile stone layer below Pennsylvania and New York and similar deposits around the eastern United States.

Drilling advocates see the gas as an untapped source of wealth and reliable, cleaner-burning domestic energy. Critics see the drilling practice as a threat to groundwater and air quality, and as a potential source of spills, runoff and aquifer pollution that could eventually contaminate the Delaware River itself.

“This risk is a significant concern for Delaware and therefore, until we have confidence that the Commission’s Natural Gas Development Regulations, coupled with the state and local regulations upon which they rely, are adequately protective of this water supply, I have a duty to current and future generations of Delawareans to vote no,” Markell said in a letter sent during a stopover in Kuwait, during his return trip from visiting Delaware troops stationed in Afghanistan.

While acknowledging the economic importance of shale gas resources – and saying that it does “not mean that Delaware will refuse to move forward under any circumstances” – Markell said that key, science-based agreements have yet to be made.

“The very efficacy of the Commission’s regulations depend heavily on state law or regulation but the decision makers in each state have yet to determine whether sound science will ultimately prevail,” Markell said. “As such, this Commission is simply not able to properly evaluate these regulations based on the science at this time.

“By far, the single most important issue for a downstream state like Delaware is whether the wells are being drilled, constructed, and operated in a manner that adequately protects our public and private water supplies,” Markell said.

2

Well, the shale formation isn’t under Delaware. heres some info and maps of the Marcellus shale gas formation. although some could be under the chesapeake and Delaware bays upper water sheds. not sure where the divide is , out near summit Pa?
http://marcellusshaleformation.com/

3

I think the main problem is with the “fracking” fluids which contain some very poisonous chemicals. It won’t take much to completely contaminate the many aquifers and watersheds within our area. I have a suspicion that the earth quake we experienced is related to the amount of drilling.

4

I have been totally heartbroken since I first heard about this. I’ve signed a number of online petitions, hope that’s enough to keep fracking out of DE. When I visited Ohio this summer, there were all sorts of yard signs everywhere demanding that the state not frack their waterways. I can only hope that Markell does not vote in favor, we have too many sensitive water sheds and wet lands that cannot be sacrificed so… willie nilly, for lack of a better word, lol.

5

Theeres a lot of miss information or no information floating around about Fracking. actually, its been going on for half a century in most oil and gas wells. Just not in shale formations. The fracking occures down in the shale strata, the horizontal run of the drill hole. the vertical mile and a half is pipe lined and sealed with concrete on the otside, like all wells, to prevent seepage of the drill fluids and oil/gas/brine into the above layers. the reason the oil/gas i down there a mile deep is its seal from the surface by impervious layers of clay, and rock. the same with layers of aquifers.

when you drill for a water well around here, the well goes through a shallow surface aquifer, then more clay and then the patomic aquifer a few hundred feet down. those wells need to be sealed too the prevent contamination of the patomac with the dirtier near surface water.

There has been a lot a experimenting with mixures of all kinds of stuff, to see what works. but there are new, non toxic fluids coming into use now . like this one, the CEO drank a glass of at some conferences.
http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?pageid=4184&navid=93&AdType=JPTCSTC
and another new form of fracking that uses LPG.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-shale-propane-idUSTRE7AL1ML20111122?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+(News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment)

In general, what gets pumped down the hole under extreme pressure, will come back up with the oil/gas when you start production. there is always the drilling mud with the ground rock that comes up, and brine water mixed with the oil that gets separated and ponded. these need to be contained and processed for safe disposal or recycling. fortunately theres a great company that does just that. Clean Harbors. good investment these days.

or if we really dont like oil and gas, we can always go back to walking.
/

6

[quote=“kaptken, post:5, topic:4865”]
if we really dont like oil and gas, we can always go back to walking.[/quote]

Very well said Ken.

7

The problem is the method used during the fracking process . . . millions of gallons of water are forced down the shaft to break up the shale bed, and left there when the shaft is sealed. Currently (correct me if I’m wrong, Ken) they aren’t processing these wells . . . they are just drilling, fracking, and sealing them. Companies are trying to drill as many wells as possible before legislation is passed to prevent them from doing so. Processing facilities are soon to come, whether they construct pipelines leading to each well is beyond me.

Specific processing facilities MUST be constructed to handle the fracking water, that needs to be pumped out of the wells before processing. This water contains many heavy metals (mercury, uranium, lead, etc) that normal treatment plants cannot handle. The EPA is tackling the problem, so that these companies don’t pump the water directly into the watershed. Here is where beaurocracy plays its ONLY beautiful hand . . . more water processing plants = more money for the EPA, and another way for localities to tax a necessary business . . . so there is plenty of motivation to put legislation into place to require these companies to process their “heavy water” (<-- totally inaccurate use of “heavy water”, but it’s still funny).

So:
New wells being drilled = money in land owners pockets
Natural gas being tapped = lowering the cost of natural gas
New plants and pipelines being constructed = more jobs and stimulation for economy
New water processing facilities = less pollution, more jobs, economy stimulation
New plants + processing facilities + interstate pipelines = More working capital for local/state socialistic programs that “we all love so much” ie-state unemployment extensions

I know that tapping into the shale causes concern for most people, but with proper implimentation of safety procedures in handling the waste water, I feel that there is no need to fear this at all. Stipulation: Legislation MUST be enacted to require companies to process the water they use during the fracking process.

I hope that this was easy to follow.
That is all.

8

[quote=“Cdangel0, post:6, topic:4865”]

[quote=“kaptken, post:5, topic:4865”]
if we really dont like oil and gas, we can always go back to walking.[/quote]

Very well said Ken.[/quote]

The alternate options available to power our society have been around for almost 100 years. It has only been the subversive practices of specific companies to force hydrocarbons upon us all. Riding a bike and or walking would do many people some good. Think of Ford buying the Southern California Subway, only to intentionally run it into the ground. There are many other examples within our society. The more recent manifestations are directly related to lobbying and corporate control of our politicians. Peak Oil is alive and well. The famous geologist Hubbert quantified the limited hydrocarbon resources in the 1800’s, with his Hubbert Curve.

9

On a tangent . . . I was looking up heating oil prices today, and the trending week to week for the past 10 years. Interesting read, especially considering how they match up with elections, contract awards, and legislation . . . .

Dependency on oil hasn’t quadrupled in the past 6 years (as indicated by it’s price), and it’s easy to see that it has done so due to greed.

10

Yes, there has been a lot of drillers dumping used fracking fluid water to streams, sewers, or in holding ponds. those are the bad players who need to be straightened out. But most do hire the likes of clean harbors to collect and treat and dispose of the frack fluid, and the drilling mud. the drill mud is the lubricant and vehicle to get all the thousands of Cubic yards of drilling fines out of the well hole. every pound of ground dirt , sand and rock that comes up with the mud also brings any heavy metals, oil, sulfur and who knows what with it. mud is expensive so they do a pretty good job of filtering out the fines, and recycling it back down the hole. so we have to insist on full compliance to keep the waters clean. mostly the problem has been from surface dumping. but some wells have leaked below ground in aquifers. that is possible in any type of well. oil, gas, water, geothermal. lots of solvent and acid chemicals have been tried to induce better cracking of the shale. but mostly its hydraulic pressure. most previous oil/gas wells are produced in sand beds way down there with a salt dome above locking it in. sand is porous, shale is not. ergo more fracking.

yup, mineral leasees are required to drill and develop a minimum amount of wells to keep the lease. but they usually flow test them for a month before capping. to determine how long it will last. a gas well will have a very high initial flow rate and then drop off. gas wells deplete in a few years. so that helps them figure how to throttle it to get the max out of it over time.

Coal mines are nearly as bad, with the arsenic, iron and sulfur that comes out with all the seapage water. as a kid, i remember yellow sulfur creeks all over Pa, from mine pumping. but they cleaned all that up at the mines now.

You know, its taken us 100 years to build the current power plant, grid, and transport and fuel systems we have today. Its going to take a very long time to convert all that to something different. Wind and Solar are picking up steam, but are still a very small amout of the Quad drillions of BTUs of energy we use each year. so oil, gas and coal wont be going away anytime soon. right now the alternatives cant even keep up with demand growth, let alon work on replacing the baseload. Its going to be a long time.

But we have to keep trying, because fossils will run out. the world is now burning 90 million barrels of oil per day. one day supply wont meet growing demand. we aare close, which is why its getting expensive.

11

[quote=“kaptken, post:5, topic:4865”]
There has been a lot a experimenting with mixures of all kinds of stuff, to see what works. but there are new, non toxic fluids coming into use now . like this one, the CEO drank a glass of at some conferences.
/ [/quote]

Yep, drinking your product in front of naysayers is always a good selling point. A very enthused solicitor at Concord Pets sprayed concentrated Nature’s Miracle in his mouth; sold.
Regardless, it all sounds pretty sketchy to me. I’ve grown up here for 24 years, which is a long time for me lol, and I don’t really want it to go to crap, environmentally speaking. We already have a beautiful Salem skyline, lets not push it with the three-eyed fish and weird sea foam. No one likes the sea foam >.<

  • jess
12

The Delaware bay went to crap a long time ago. before our time. now it just getting worse. in the late 1800s the delaware bay was the caviar capital of the world. there was a short boom in catching the 800 pound 15 foot sturgeon that spawned and lived here. It was the best caviar in the world. they caught 2000 tons of sturgeon a season. they fished them out in 10 years. since then pollution, development, loss of marshes, and dredging of the bay shipping channel have kept them from rebuilding any noticeable stock the past 100 years.

Striped bass, sea trout, flounder, and crabs are limping along on life support. and way back then, the oyster beds actually had oysters.

OH WOW! Just stumbled on Halliburton’s fracing fluid formulas.

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

and what other common products they are used in. Yumm, all looks pretty much edible to me!
What does the chemist guy think?

13

“Hey mom, can I have a snack?”
“Sure, how about some trademarked corrosion inhibitor? It was on special this week.”
“Mmm. Sounds good, thanks!!”

:~S

14

This is a great book which covers Haliberton’s systemic and consistent role in environmental destruction along with geopolitical influence. This is a classic example of short vs long term goals. It is great to create jobs; but at the expense of our water supply? I personally cannot conceptualize the trade off.