Fire at Pennsylvania fracking site
Who knew "a mixture of water and sand" would burn.
An impoundment near a shale gas drilling operation caught fire last Wednesday in Washington County.
Prior to the explosion and fire, residents had spent three days attempting to contact the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to report noxious fumes emanating from the open pit.
At about 8 AM Wednesday, March 31st, residents heard a loud explosion and saw the impoundment pond on fire with clouds of black smoke. "I saw about about a 100-foot flame you could see it seven miles away," said resident George Zimmerman, reported last Thursday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution opposing any fracking pending an environmental impact study. Take a hint Texans!
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
Frac Fluids DONT burn…FLOWBACK does…know the difference? Seems you should if you are going to inform others.
Oh really? Last I checked, diesel fuel is flammable and so are aromatic hydrocarbons and Petroleum Distallate Blend, and… Oh hell, most of this stuff is flammable and this is not the first time there has been a frack fire.
So, is that all ya got?
you are aware that frac fluids are 99.99% water? Can you think of anything that I could add 1/10 th of 1% to water and make it burn?
Please let me know, because if you can…we just solved the worlds energy problem..we just burn water
Also, I just read the entire article that you link to with this post. Nowhere in the article can I see where it says what caught fire are 'frac fluids"?…Please show me if I am wrong-Thanks!
Oh, so now you're changing your story. First you said frack fluids don't burn but I proved that they do so now you change your argument to something different.
Now, how the hell would I know what the percentage of your oh-so-safe, super secret just like Coca-Cola frack fluid is? Chesapeake says it's 99% water and sand. That means some portion of that water is actually sand which is actually silica, a serious lung irritant.
So, let's just say that of the 3 to 8 million gallons of water used in a Barnett Shale frack, 1% is chemicals. You are aware that 1% of 5 to 8 million gallons is about 88,000 lbs or more of chemicals.
That's a whole lot of flammable chemicals and obviously there are some opportunities for that stuff to catch fire because it has more than once.
Keep in mind that ingredients added by volume can add up to more than 100%.
But back to the point at hand: Take a nice cold glass of drinking water. Now drop a turd in it. Fish the turd out. The water is probably more than 99% "not turd". Still want to drink it?
The fact is that what goes down the hole often does have dangerous additives like solvents, gellants, pesticides, breakers, preservatives, etc. Diesel was used a lot to dissolve the gel for ease of transport.
Our air and water resources are shared, and nobody has the right to contaminate.
I agree nobody has a right to comtaminate our air and water to any point beyond what the EPA and States regulate.
Still waiting on 1 confirmed instance of the water table being contaminated with fracing…are you going to share the link?
I see you have not allowed my reply where I ask you to show me in the story you quote here…"Where does it say frac fluids were on fire?"
I still have not found it..are you just ASS-U-ME ING IT WAS FRAC FLUIDS? I think you get the jest of it..its not in the article, your heading misinforms your followers and you even have the character to say in your post
"If I have made a mistake I will admit it"
You are just an environmental hyprocrit…worlds full of them at the moment
so far there has been no peer reviewed study. hopefully, we'll get one now.
Ahm, I've allowed all your comments no matter how foolish so I don't know what you're talking about.
Seriously, take care. You have a dangerous job and people in your line of work usually die young…lots of cancer.
Thanks…the post that is missing conderns the frac sand being a lung irritant…something about removing all the beaches and sand traps at local golf courses because if its an irritant 2 miles under the earth…imagine what sand could do to you at the surface…
Anyways, thanks for the banter…the exhaust of your economy car is loaded with pollutants also…I hope we can keep that tank full for ya
I saw that comment and I clicked on publish but I don't know where it went. FYI silica acts on the lungs like asbestos and it's not the same as sand on the beaches.
Sure, car exhaust is a pollutant and as soon as a less polluting alternative is available, I'll switch. BUT my car has to conform to regulations and emission controls.
Industry can do a lot better job. They can use vapor recovery devices, pneumatic valves and scrubbers to prevent 95% of the emissions. They can use green completions and closed loop systems. And they CAN use green fracks.
Anonymous:
http://www.propublica.org/feature/broad-scope-of-epas-fracturing-study-raises-ire-of-gas-industry
"An 18-month investigation by ProPublica, however, has shown more than 1,000 cases [6] in which various aspects of the fracturing lifecycle have affected water supplies, including spills of fracturing fluid waste, cracking of underground cement and well casings meant to enclose the fracturing process, and methane gas traveling large distances [7] underground through faults and fractures. "
Propublica is not a study or unbiased look at the claims…it is a self interest group and has no scientific evidence of their claims…Kind of like what is posted in this blog…Please show me results of an honest to goodness study…I appreciate your response
You're back at it awfully early, Curtis, but your reading skills are not improved. Notice how the quote says "investigation" NOT peer reviewed "study".
You might want to read what Lee Fuller says about the criterion used to determine if fracking has contaminated water. It sheds a very bright light on how and why industry continues to claim no water has been contaminated.
Again, Curtis, I'm confident that fracking has contaminated water and the truth will surface eventually.
I'm curious: If you are so disgusted by this blog, why are you spending so much time here? Of course, you are welcome anytime.
I am always surprised how little industry people actually know about what they do everyday. Their arguments are facile and designed to shift the focus off what is truly the question onto something irrelevant. As to your point about peer reviewed scientific studies, I find it interesting that NO studies have been forthcoming from the industry to disprove any of the allegations which have been made about air, water, fracking, etc. If I were running PR for these companies I would have wanted to nip that one in the bud early on. I think it is telling that industry cannot or will not provide scientific evidence that they are so "green".
How will people react when food sepulips also peak? Modern agriculture is almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. Fertilizers, pesticides, and high water usage is the hallmark of modern crops. Our current population is not sustainable without high usage of petroleum, natural gas. What will happen when the inevitable decline in crop yields occur?
That’s just not true at all, Mary. People will have to make changes, that’s for sure but if you put change in one hand and cancer in the other guess which one most people will choose.
The industries "Study or Evidence" is 60 years of clean ground water around oil and gas wells…millions of wells…all over the world! 60 years of studies and monitor wells with the same pristine results…What I find truly amazing is that you make claims you cannot substantiate…Next you will be advocating a system where people and corporations are guilty until proven innocent
Again, I restate my comment that it is frightening how little industry knows about their jobs. Oil and gas has one of the most dismal track records in the world for environmental debacles, health of their workers and safety issues. Explain the Niger Delta. Explain cancer clusters near wells in Iran, the Amazon Basin and the Houston Ship Channel just to name a few. Explain OSHA's determination that oil and gas extraction workers are in the highest risk category for catastrophic illness and injury. Perhaps you should think about educating yourself before you make anymore statements.
Curtis you rock,Sharon I have worked on a swabbing unit since 1976 thats 34-years of methane,frac.fluid,acid and H2S.OSHA has never told us anything about cancer and no one that I know has died from on the job chronic illness.I do know of deaths from acciedents.We have to post OSHA 300 logs every year never seen any chronic illness. always has zero.