In PNAS: "Methane concentrations were detected generally in 51 of 60 drinking-water wells (85%) "

[kristopher]

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
aCenter on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment, bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and cBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011)

Abstract
Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dra- matically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsyl- vania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale- gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L␣1 (n  26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neigh- boring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L␣1 (P < 0.05; n  34). Average à13 C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (␣37`7‰ and ␣54`11‰, respectively; P < 0.0001). These à13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ra- tios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and à2 H-CH4 values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentra- tion samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/ thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contam- ination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or frac- turing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and— possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.


<snip>

Methane concentrations were detected generally in 51 of 60 drinking-water wells (85%) across the region, regardless of gas industry operations, but concentrations were substantially higher closer to natural-gas wells (Fig. 3). Methane concentrations were 17-times higher on average (19.2 mg CH4 L␣1) in shallow wells from active drilling and extraction areas than in wells from nonactive areas (1.1 mg L␣1 on average; P < 0.05; Fig. 3 and Table 1). The average methane concentration in shallow ground- water in active drilling areas fell within the defined action level (10–28 mgL␣1) for hazard mitigation recommended by the US Office of the Interior (13), and our maximum observed value of 64 mg L␣1 is well above this hazard level (Fig. 3). Understanding the origin of this methane, whether it is shallower biogenic or deeper thermogenic gas, is therefore important for identifying the source of contamination in shallow groundwater systems....


Download full study with this link
http://bit.ly/kaKyCo

[truedelphi]

1. Don't forget - the legislation that got voted in

By Congress during the Big Oil Salad Days of Cheney/Bush included provisions that the energy companies don't have to worry about any damage that they do to the environment.

[barbtries]

2. yeah and that needs to be reversed

watch Gasland, if you haven't yet. this is a fracking disaster.

[truedelphi]

6. Hey, barbtries, I certainly was not defending what is going on.

I was pointing out that the law exists to allow these F__wads to destroy our water table.

And who will bother to change it?

I haven't seen much from the current Administration except allowing their EPA to approve Corexit after a one week study of its "safety."
So much for the independence from the Big Oil people.

Watch the video in my sig line, if you wanna know more abt Corexit.

(And I loved Gasland - I am fully aware of how this is a disaster.)

[barbtries]

7. i didn't think you were

just throwing in my old 2 cents

[kristopher]

3. Look at how the fossil industry turns recent Dem committee finding on its head

This really isn't to be believed.

The committee clearly said that the questions about the safety of fracking haven't been cleared up by the committee's investigation, yet look at this headline about the committee findings:
Democrat report on natural gas fracking shows no health, environmental harms



Published: May 6, 2011


By Raymond G. Mullady Jr., Blank Rome LLP

On April 16, 2011, House Democrats representing the Energy and Commerce Committee (Henry A. Waxman), Natural Resources Committee (Edward J. Markey), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee (Dina DeGette) released a report that summarizes the types, volumes, and chemical contents of the hydraulic fracturing products used by the 14 leading oil and gas service companies in the U.S. The report purports to contain "the first comprehensive national inventory of chemicals used by hydraulic fracturing companies during the drilling process."


During the last Congress, the Committee commenced an investigation into the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on water quality across the United States, asking the leading oil and gas service companies to disclose information on the type and volume of chemicals used in this process between 2005 and 2009.

The Democratic Committee staff analyzed the data provided by the companies about their practices, finding that the 14 leading oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. The components used in the hydraulic fracturing products ranged from generally harmless and common substances, such as salt and citric acid, to toxic substances, such as benzene and lead. Committee staff found that between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are either (1) "known or possible human carcinogens," (2) "regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for their risks to human health," or (3) "listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act."

The Committee report states that some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing "could pose a severe risk to human health or the environment." Yet the Committee staff present no scientific data to support this assertion and ignore fundamental principles of toxicology, epidemiology, and risk assessment that would be needed to determine, scientifically, whether hydraulic fracturing chemicals could be harmful to people or the environment. The report's conclusion that "questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist" cannot fairly be drawn from the data presented....

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/6221286053/articles/powergenworldwide/gas-generation/o-and-m/2011/05/Fracking-chemicals-not-harmful.html

:mad:

[hootinholler]

4. Why haven't you heard?

Natural Gas is clean and safe! Pure as mother's milk!

Now we know that T. Boone Pickens was just getting ahead of the curve.

:grr:

-Hoot

[truedelphi]

5. Don't know if youhave read this when I posted as an OP -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/06/22/540267/-The-TRUTH-Versus-the-Mainstream-Media?via=blog_739635

Basically, I followed what happened to the "news"
regarding MTBE a gas additive for over three years.

And when the Big Oil people couldn't get the Blue Ribbon Science panel here in California to approve of the stuff, they just had the AP make up quotes attributed to the head of the panel, John Froines, that said what Big Oil wanted -- that the stuff was safe.

The consumer is damned if we do, and damned if we don't. The news media is fully controlled by Big Pharma, By Big Oil, By the MIC. (Maybe you'll start to realize that the vaccine information we are fed is manufactured as well. Which is why in France, when 80 million people there heard more of the truth than we get in the USA, only five million flu vaccine shots were administered there.)