Possible fracking moratorium in NY

[iceyguides]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/02/new.york.fracking.moratorium/index.html?hpt=T2

I'm happy for new york, but i fear alot of damage has already been done here. I think it's foolish to jump into something so potentially harmful and unproven without proper research just to "give the economy a shot in the arm". "Only after the last tree has been cut down... Only after the last river has been poisoned… Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten"

 

[jdaddy]

The concerns have prompted an EPA study of the potential problems with fracturing and public hearings to help decide how to conduct the study are almost finished. The EPA -- which held public meetings this year in Binghamton, New York; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Fort Worth, Texas; and Denver, Colorado -- plans to begin its actual study in January 2011 and release initial study results by late 2012.

Two years? Really?

 

[David]

Iceyguides,

Here's hoping that the dangers of hydrofracking in its current form will be recognized by the NY goverment and a ban will result before May, when this present moratorium lapses!

Another thing to think about. Your article reminded me of the contentious issue in Chemung, NY on whether to permit PA drillers to dump extracted marcellus shale rock in a dump there due to the possible radioactivity of the rocks being dumped.

This link is from the EPA, and it takes you to a page called "Rad Town". Not sure if that's supposed to be "Cool"? Hey, my town is rad! How about yours?"

http://www.epa.gov/radtown/docs/drilling-waste.pdf

int:

Missy (still using Dave's account...)

Incidentally, Dave has told me that my attempt at humor caused him to get another beer.

 

[wsender]

The general consensus of the citizens, at least the ones I've talked to, in NY is very anti-fracking.

The gas industry is shelling out some serious cash running primetime pro-drilling adds here in NY though. I'm worried that if NY doesn't fix their budgetary concerns soon that they'll open up to the idea of hyrdofracking.

 

[David]

Wsender,
I'm hoping that NY can lead the way for PA with anti-fracking legislation. Here's hoping that budgetary concerns don't interfere with what the NY people want!
Missy

 

[Gone4Day]

David wrote:
Another thing to think about. Your article reminded me of the contentious issue in Chemung, NY on whether to permit PA drillers to dump extracted marcellus shale rock in a dump there due to the possible radioactivity of the rocks being dumped.

That's a crock. The Marcellus shale is no more radioactive then any other shale. Nor is there any high levels of radon gas. I've interpreted thousand of well logs, a hundred or more through the Devonian shales of the NE and there just isn't anything unusual about them. They have the same grain-size to gamma-ray distribution as nearly every sedimentary rock in the world.

That's not to say the cuttings aren't dangerous, its just radioactivity is not the problem. They're loaded with sulfides, so proper disposal is important. Compared to strip mining for coal however, the amount of waste is microscopic.

 

[David]

1-See the EPA link.

2-Seems that the Chemung information is mostly from environmental organizations that are opposing the landfill's acceptance of Marcellus shale rock cuttings.

3-BUT, this article from State of NJ offers insight into the possible radioactivity of rock cuttings from the creation of a Marcellus shale well and the possible radioactivity from liquid waste.

So should we be more concerned about the large reservoirs containing the waste water?

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/dockets/stone-energy/RadioactiveWasteManagement.pdf

A quote from the above link... "We agree with comments on the NYSDEC DSGEIS by Dr. Davies, a professor at Cornell
University and a licensed handler of low-level radioactive material, stating that, “It is imperative
that drilling wastes not be disposed of, by either on-site burial or land spreading, in areas that are
located close to residences or public facilities, or where they can contaminate water supplies.
Radioactive wastes must be taken to an appropriate facility that is designed to handle radioactive
waste.”

AND a WTF: "Since the amount of wastewater
produced by the drilling operations is so large, the companies are always looking for cost-efficient
ways to deal with it. Some of the practices that have been used in Pennsylvania include the
spreading of wastewater on the roads to control the dust in the summer and to melt the ice in the
winter."

What do you think?
-Missy

 

[Gone4Day]

1) The EPA link has nothing to do with Marcellus shale.
2) Correct.
3) The NJ link is from Radioactive Waste Management Associations.

Mr. Resnickoff can't read a well log. The gamma ray scale wraps around, that is when it goes off scale to the right it reenters from the left. The highest spike is about 380 GAPI but most is around 220 or less, again not at all unusual for an organic rich rock. You can get readings that high from a road cut.

He also assumes all the radioactivity is released, ignoring the fact that its locked up in minerals and organic matter were its not easily extracted. For example, to release the potassium and thorium its necessary to dissolve the mineral matter in concentrated HCl and then HF acids. Uranium is tied up in the organic matter and needs an organic solvent, like clorox to dissolve the organic matter and release the uranium. Most of the radioactivity in the water is thorium from the suspended clay minerals that settles out in the holding pond.

He also assumes all radioactivity is from radium when in fact almost none of it is. He then uses that erroneous assumption to exaggerate the actual threat by 10,000 fold. He plays a little fast and loose with his units too, comparing pCi/L concentrations to pCi/g limits, another 1000 fold error.

And finally, as always, consider the source. Mr. Resnickoff is from Radioactive Waste Management Associates and stands to make a nice profit by labeling as much naturally occurring radioactive material hazardous waste as possible. He does however, acknowledge its just his opinion.

As I said before, the real danger from MC cuttings is the high sulfide content, mostly pyrite. If exposed to air, pyrite oxidizes into iron oxide and sulphuric acid. That is the real threat that needs to be mitigated.

 

[osprey]

After the Bud Schuster "acid Rock" issue that had to be cleaned up at great cost , you would think the folks running the show would slow down and examine things a little more closely before they jump in with both feet , they tried to rush things and it cost them alot , but it doesn't seem like they learned anything.