Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Gas drilling in Appalachia yields a foul byproduct

Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:57 PM EST
us-news, health, us, gas, drilling, risks
Marc Levy, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>Map shows the Marcellus Shale formation in the Eastern U.S.</p>

Map shows the Marcellus Shale formation in the Eastern U.S.

Advertise | AdChoices

HARRISBURG — A drilling technique that is beginning to unlock staggering quantities of natural gas underneath Appalachia also yields a troubling byproduct: powerfully briny wastewater that can kill fish and give tap water a foul taste and odor.

With fortunes, water quality and cheap energy hanging in the balance, exploration companies, scientists and entrepreneurs are scrambling for an economical way to recycle the wastewater.

"Everybody and his brother is trying to come up with the 11 herbs and spices," said Nicholas DeMarco, executive director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association.

Drilling crews across the country have been flocking since late 2008 to the Marcellus Shale, a rock bed the size of Greece that lies about 6,000 feet beneath New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Geologists say it could become the most productive natural gas field in the U.S., capable of supplying the entire country's needs for up to two decades by some estimates.

Before that can happen, the industry is realizing that it must solve the challenge of what to do with its wastewater. As a result, the Marcellus Shale in on its way to being the nation's first gas field where drilling water is widely reused.

The polluted water comes from a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in which millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are blasted into each well to fracture tightly compacted shale and release trapped natural gas.

Fracking has been around for decades. But the drilling companies are now using it in conjunction with a new horizontal drilling technique they brought to Appalachia after it was proven in the 1990s to be effective on a shale formation beneath Texas.

Fracking a horizontal well costs more money and uses more water, but it produces more natural gas from shale than a traditional vertical well.

Once the rock is fractured, some of the water — estimates range from 15 to 40 percent — comes back up the well. When it does, it can be five times saltier than seawater and laden with dissolved solids such as sulfates and chlorides, which conventional sewage and drinking water treatment plants aren't equipped to remove.

At first, many drilling companies hauled away the wastewater in tanker trucks to sewage treatment plants that processed the water and discharged it into rivers — the same rivers from which water utilities then drew drinking water.

But in October 2008, something happened that stunned environmental regulators: The levels of dissolved solids spiked above government standards in southwestern Pennsylvania's Monongahela River, a source of drinking water for more than 700,000 people.

Regulators said the brine posed no serious threat to human health. But the area's tap water carried an unpleasant gritty or earthy taste and smell and left a white film on dishes. And industrial users noticed corrosive deposits on valuable machinery.

One 11-year-old suburban Pittsburgh boy with an allergy to sulfates, Jay Miller, developed hives that itched for two weeks until his mother learned about the Monongahela's pollution and switched him to bottled or filtered water.

No harm to aquatic life was reported, though high levels of salts and other minerals can kill fish and other creatures, regulators say.

Pennsylvania officials immediately ordered five sewage treatment plants on the Monongahela or its tributaries to sharply limit the amount of frack water they accepted to 1 percent of their daily flow.

"It is a very great risk that what happened on the Monongahela could happen in many watersheds," said Ronald Furlan, a wastewater treatment official for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. "And so that's why we're trying to pre-empt and get ahead of it to ensure it doesn't happen again."

Regulators in Pennsylvania are trying to push through a new standard for the level of dissolved solids in water released from a treatment plant.

West Virginia authorities, meanwhile, have asked sewage treatment plants not to accept frack water while the state develops an approach to regulating dissolved solids.

And in New York, fracking is largely on hold while companies await a new set of state permitting guidelines.

For now, the Marcellus Shale exploration is in its infancy. Terry Engelder, a geoscientist at Penn State University, estimates the reserve could yield as much as 489 trillion cubic feet of gas. To date, the industry's production from Pennsylvania, where drilling is most active, is approaching 100 billion cubic feet.

Wastewater from drilling has not threatened plans to develop the nation's other gas reserves. Brine is injected into deep underground wells in places such as Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma, or left in evaporation ponds in arid states such as Colorado and Wyoming.

However, many doubt the hard Appalachian geology is porous enough to absorb all the wastewater, and the climate is too humid for evaporating ponds. That leaves recycling as the most obvious option.

Entrepreneurs are marketing portable systems that distill frack water at the well site.

Also, in southwestern Pennsylvania, Range Resources Corp., one of the gas field's most active operators, pipes wastewater into a central holding pond, dilutes it with fresh water and reuses it for fracking. Range says the practice saves about $200,000 per well, or about 5 percent.

In addition, a $15 million treatment plant that distills frack water is opening in Fairmont, W.Va. The 200,000 gallons it can treat each day can then be trucked back for use at a new drilling site.

For years, regulators let sewage treatment plants take mining and drilling wastewater under the assumption that rivers would safely dilute. But fracking a horizontal well requires huge amounts of water — up to 5 million gallons per well, compared with 50,000 gallons in some conventional wells.

"In this case," said John Keeling of MSES Consultants, which designed the Fairmont plant, "dilution is not the solution to pollution."

___

Vicki Smith reported from Morgantown, W.Va.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Marc Levy's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: conservation-vine
  • Regions: United States , Harrisburg/Lancaster/Lebanon/York
  • Public Discussion (21)
eriq samson

Is dilution ever the solution to pollution?

You aren't really reducing pollution at all, just making it easier to flow. Back when the first car pollution standards were made the term PPM meant Pollutants Per Mile - Detroit attacked this as large cars mean large pollution so the EPA changed the standard out from under the acronym - PPM became "Parts per million" meaning you just pumped more air and got fewer pollutant particles per million particles but lots more millions of particles - suddenly a 500 cu in engine ws lower PPM than a 100 inch engine because it pumped more air

This is just more of the same craziness that keeps on dumping industrial pollution on the taxpayers lap - WE have to pay to clean up THEIR mess - from which they make big profits

Robin hood in reverse - steal from the poor to give to the rich

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 6:10 PM EST
nyghtshayde

All the pollution from all the energy industries is catching up with us in ever increasing ways.

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 8:51 PM EST
goldminor

The problem also grows with population and the increased use of technology that requires more energy to sustain itself.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 9:09 PM EST
MoCowgirl-1193719

The water polluters are in this for the money...only the money.

The business owners do not have to live where they pollute.

People MUST have clean drinking water, and the soil may NEVER recover from such abuse.

Is there going to be anywhere in the US that people can live by the time the "energy" people get done exploiting the Earth for their own gain?

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 12:35 AM EST
eriq samson

Gold - we can and have engineered technology that uses less energy; nobody paid attention to that before when the belief was that energy is unlimited but this is one of those "law of diminishing returns" type of things where each new technology or better design makes additional change so much harder

MoCowgirl - this is much the same problem - in the 60's no one paid attention to things like pollution - the earth was boundless. The first "Earth Day" was 1970, no one was paying attention; even most scientists did not pay attention

Even into the 70's and 80's no one paid attention to what they could not see - that if you dump your pollution into the ground it gets into the aquifer and comes out in someone else's well

It's not just energy, it's everything

  • 5 votes
#1.4 - Sat Feb 6, 2010 3:13 PM EST
goldminor

There were some of us who talked about this back then, but you are right in that many didn't.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Sat Feb 6, 2010 3:29 PM EST
Reply
mstanley2265

Of course not, the little old lady down the street uses natural gas for heat. The problem is the drilling methods and etc. There are always consequences.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 8:24 AM EST
goldminor

Sounds like on-site filtering solutions would be the most practical way to solve this problem. The main point is don't dump this in a river system. Build a pipeline to the coast if nescesary. This is a long term field, so spend the extra time and capital to do it right the first time. Saving money for your company now, means that you will pass the costs down to society at a later date. That kind of expediency is mainly what has led to many of our nations problems.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 1:30 PM EST
eriq samson

Gold - this is poinoning a river - so you want to dump in in the ocean insttead?

Do you not get the word POISON?

recycle the water if possible or find another way that doesn't involve pollution; moving the pollution is not an answer

  • 3 votes
#3.1 - Sat Feb 6, 2010 3:17 PM EST
goldminor

The worst effect of this waste water is that it is salt/brine water. If they were to pipe it to the ocean and filter out whatever chemicals were added, or filter the chemicals for reuse prior to piping it to the ocean, the brine solution itself can go into the ocean. The brine solution cannot be dumped in freshwater or on land without adverse effects.

    #3.2 - Sat Feb 6, 2010 3:39 PM EST
    eriq samson

    Brine does not mean it can go into the sea; "Salt" includes poisons, bruine may contain poisons (e.g. Arsenic Chloride - is a salt and could be the salt in a "brine")

    I think you are confusing the term "Brine" with people referring to sea water as "briny"; NO they are not the same thing

    • 3 votes
    #3.3 - Sun Feb 7, 2010 1:47 AM EST
    goldminor

    Thats why I pointed out that there shoud be a filtering plant on one end of the pipeline. They can't make the water disappear. Once its filtered, it will still have some level of salt concentration. They mention the dissolved solids in the solution as being the problem. The end product liquid after waste treatment will be dumped somewhere.

    • 1 vote
    #3.4 - Sun Feb 7, 2010 5:46 AM EST
    eriq samson

    It doesn't have to be dumped it can be recycled (used again) if the solids are removed; This is NOT table "salt" (Sodium Chloride) but "salts" ( chlorides, bromides, etc. of potassium, arsenic, etc.) - i.e. it will always be poisons

    • 4 votes
    #3.5 - Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:12 PM EST
    MoCowgirl-1193719

    it will always be poisons

    Thank you, eriq, for clearing this up.

    I am not real well versed in chemistry, but I suspected that once something was poisonous that it remained that way.

    It saddens me that the corporations making billions for themselves while polluting / poisoning the living environment of other people / wildlife / plants are allowed to continually "spin" half-assed science and get by with it.

    • 3 votes
    #3.6 - Sun Feb 7, 2010 8:31 PM EST
    goldminor

    You might want to consider that these gas resources can be used to convert coal fired plants to natural gas. Coal is many times more polluting than gas. Coal also distributes mercury, arsenic, and other poisons into the air, soil and water over a large area. This is not even considering the release of huge amounts of ghg,s from coal. So, if you think that it is better to release 50 times or more pollutants into the enviroment vs developing relatively clean burning natural gas, then your rationale escapes me.

    • 1 vote
    #3.7 - Mon Feb 8, 2010 12:20 AM EST
    MoCowgirl-1193719

    I would like the emphasis on solar and wind energy technology to be developed first and foremost.

    I know this won't make the fossil fuels guys happy at all, and they will continue to shout that there is no way that any other technology will EVER work but if not then what is going to happen when there are no more fossil fuels?

    • 2 votes
    #3.8 - Mon Feb 8, 2010 2:13 PM EST
    goldminor

    Solar and wind are being pushed at an increased rate. Solar is the stronger force of the two and is more consistent for energy production. This will make it the leading renewable vs wind. What is really needed is the technology that will allow for sufficient storage from both systems, so that energy needs can be better maintained on a 24/7 basis. One solar company is currently building two large installations of 750mw and 850mw, or taken together 1.6 gigawatts. Using their system will require the placement of 64,000 solar modules, and the estimated buildout time is 2 to 3 years for completion. Looking up 2006 electric production for the US, shows approx 1,000 gigawatts of plant capacity. This means that we would need to build 630 similar installations to equal 100% of 2006 US electrical needs. This underscores the need to use every resource available, as it will take a good part of this century to make a major dent in our use of fossil fuels. Natural gas is clean when comapred to coal. Coal fired plants can be converted to natural gas. So by developing this particular resource, we can reduce ghg,s by a good percentage.

      #3.9 - Mon Feb 8, 2010 7:54 PM EST
      MoCowgirl-1193719

      This means that we would need to build 630 similar installations to equal 100% of 2006 US electrical needs.

      Do you think that we are just in the beginning even really exploring solar capabilities and as time goes on it will become more energy efficient and affordable? Kind of like the computer for example?

      Why isn't passive solar house/building designs being made a requirement in the interest of national defense, if nothing else?

      Passive solar does not have to be expensive and just makes good energy sense and should be a selling point.

      • 1 vote
      #3.10 - Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:46 PM EST
      goldminor

      New solar technologies are closer to coming to market, with the prospect of newer panels having twice the efficiency of older styles. This will be great for homeowners, as the return on the investment made will make them more attractive. Costs of different systems will decrease as the market grows just like any other product. Still the nation as a whole will need large scale systems to maintain the power grid for individual and corporate users. It will always be nescesary to have a strong, reliable, national power grid.

        #3.11 - Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:01 PM EST
        MoCowgirl-1193719

        China is putting time, effort and energy into solar research and production. I would hate to think that the US won't at least match the effort. I really hope that we lead in innovation in this field instead of follow behind others.

        The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW, i..e merely 0.01% of the nation's power generation capacity.[5] However, rapid expansion is planned: China revised its 2020 target for solar power capacity from 1.8 GW to 20 GW [6]

        About 50 MW of installed solar capacity was added in 2008, more than double the 20 MW in 2007, but still a relatively small amount. According to some studies, the demand in China for new solar modules could be as high as 232 MW each year from now on until 2012.

        If Chinese companies manage to develop low cost, reliable solar modules, then the sky is the limit for a country that is desperate to reduce its dependence on coal and oil imports as well as the pressure on its environment by using renewable energy.[8]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

        • 2 votes
        #3.12 - Mon Feb 8, 2010 11:03 PM EST
        goldminor

        Yes, they need it for the same reasons that we need it. Perhaps even more so, due to the drastic pollution they suffer from at the moment.

        • 2 votes
        #3.13 - Tue Feb 9, 2010 12:00 AM EST
        Reply
        hsdfhsdfhDeleted
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com