B
Brownout
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 252
Not a very informative article, but worth investigating.
Zoning board says no
Zoning board says no
JackM wrote:
Let's get this investigation under immediately! Now, who do we investigate?
JackM wrote:
You mention an investigation, but don't identify anyone "under suspicion." Alarmist? Not necessarily. But the article doesn't help one understand the situation and your comments didn't add anything to the mix. So where do we start digging for someone to blame?
RLeep2 wrote:
Here's something that makes you go hmmmm (made me go hmmm, anyway). Let's say the state did "sell" the top foot of water from the 4 lakes and lets say it roughly equals a billion gallons.
Then let's say (just for calculation purposes) that the 3 sites inquired about on Big Pine would involve the withdrawal of 5 million gallons/day between them (likely conservative given the amount they want to take out of Big Fishing Creek and the comparative size of the streams).
OK...
Total the daily proposed withdrawals from the three streams at 8.5 million/gpd and assume this water would come from the lakes.
Do the math..
The lake withdrawal would replace the need for withdrawals from the 3 streams for 117 and 2/3 days of operations.
That's all it would do. A little less than 4 months. And this is based only on the 3 streams listed (God knows how many other withdrawals are in progress/proposed from streams throughout the region) as well as on the likely conservative hypothetical that they would only be asking for 5 million gpd from Pine.
That's spooky. And speaking only for myself, it really makes me go hmmm.
This is rape. There has to be a better way.
JackM wrote:
I didn't check your math, but I also didn't see the source for a lot of your assumptions. Particularly how you arrived at a translation to cfs in a given stream. Maybe if you can flesh that out a bit....
Gone4Day wrote:
OK, lets do some math.
As of last Friday, there were 89 active rigs in PA. 10 conventional, vertical rigs and 79 horizontal rigs. Each horizontal rig can drill 6 wells over a 9-12 month period. Each well requires 5 million gallons of water. In 9-12 months they will drill 474 wells using 2,370 million gallons of water or about 6.5-8.6 million gallons a day.
The equivalent of 10-13.3 cfs.
That supplies all the water needed for every Marcellus well being drilled across the entire state. I'm starting to think this whole water thing is a red herring being used to scare the crap out of people. And it seems to be working nicely.
Brownout wrote:
Gone4Day wrote:
OK, lets do some math.
As of last Friday, there were 89 active rigs in PA. 10 conventional, vertical rigs and 79 horizontal rigs. Each horizontal rig can drill 6 wells over a 9-12 month period. Each well requires 5 million gallons of water. In 9-12 months they will drill 474 wells using 2,370 million gallons of water or about 6.5-8.6 million gallons a day.
The equivalent of 10-13.3 cfs.
That supplies all the water needed for every Marcellus well being drilled across the entire state. I'm starting to think this whole water thing is a red herring being used to scare the crap out of people. And it seems to be working nicely.
I think you stating that the volume of water being used is the primary reason for concern is a red herring. If we were building a water park with all the water, obviously there would be less alarm. People want to know what it is being mixed with, and how many of these toxins will find their way into all water supplies. The water initiates the process and the problems that follow, such as air pollution from processing and movement of gas, and deforestation and run-off. The sheer tonnage of initial water removal would only scare the crap out of fisherman, if they happened to be fishing for a fish that was particular about its environment.