Fracked Trout Habitat
- This topic has 41 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated Oct 15, 2010 at 3:51 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Zach,
Thanks for writing the above article in American Angler. You did a great job of explaining what is going on and the potential dangers. I live in the Marcellus Shale area and have several friends who will appreciate your article,
It seems as if people who don’t fish are not aware of what damage has already been done and the possible catastrophic problems that could happen in the future.
David NybergI havent read the article but I think the drilling up here in the NE part of the country is a whole different animal than in the south…for one I think deeper and the water they are using to drill is from Exceptional Value (EV) waters b/c most of the areas lie within pristine forests….It’s going way too fast, NY has stopped drilling but PA has not…they need to slow down and learn from this process. thats my take anyway….
jeff
Not to be political, but just stating the obvious. The “FRAC Act” as proposed is sponsored by only Democrats and Republicans are projected to gain control of the House this fall.
I’ll definitely check “Gasland” out….My buddy’s mom is leasing some of her property for drilling in NE Pennsylvania and even with putting the enviro impact aside, you should see the conditions of all the roads up there….hurrendous man.
Not to make excuses for anyone, but lets look at some of the exaggeration in this matter. We have a lot of discussion of the 8-9 million gallons of water, possibly, removed from streams. For those that are familiar with the Nantahala DH, it flows at 100 cfs (per NCDNR personnel). That amounts to 64.6 million gallons per day. Or we could do one well per day (1/7 of the Nans flow) and you would not notice it when on the river. BTW, during the latest drought, the Nan got down to about 40 CFS and still fished well. Yes, 9 million gallons is a lot of water, but there is a lot of water to take it from. In other words, that is not as bad as it sounds. Also, we have the descriptions of surface scaring at these wells. From the air, it kind of looks like what we do to the pristine mountains when a developer comes in and builds a new subdivision.
Yes, this needs to be looked at and monitored. Our biggest problem is that there will be a lot of financial resistance to adequate monitoring.
Roy –
If you removed 8-9 million gallons from the headwaters of the Nantahala it would be a more significant impact than down in the designated harvest area. The DH is a much, much bigger stream than the areas which are being hydro-fractured (not on the Nantahala per se, but using your example).
But that’s not really the main concern; the primary issue is the use of proprietary chemical blends which are mixed with that water and then injected into the earth (near the water table) in order to fracture the gas-containing shale deposits.
That liquid slurry is then recovered to a degree (the rest goes into groundwater), where the gas companies assert that it is “treated” and returned to the same streams it came from.
All well and good if true; we need gas and if the water is only being borrowed and then cleaned, not that big a deal. The trouble is, the chemical blends in question are protected trade secrets. The regulatory agency in charge of inland mining (the Mine Safety and Health Administration) is not allowed access to the contents of the blends and therefore doesn’t know what to test for.
Moreover, this is the same MSHA which is tasked with regulating companies like Massey Energy, who have the audacity in the wake of mining disaster after mining disaster to claim (pardon my french) this bullshit.
here is the other sickening problem we are dealing with…
Roy –
I am in favor of a mining industry, I just want it to do the least damage possible.
Zach
Zach, this is where you and I must disagree, for I what them to do the least damage reasonably possible.
Roy
Zach,
I fish the northeast and the Delaware drainage in particular. We have an ongoing issue with low stream flows in the summer as a result of NYC conserving water in their reservoirs. To draw off enough water for drilling just a few wells will stress an already stressed fishery. And, as you accurately note, the chemicals that accompany the water in the fracturing process are “secrets.” That is because they use such compounds as acrylamide. These could easily end up in the main Delaware River and find their way into the water supply of a significant number of people.
Zach, thanks for raising the awareness level on this issue a little higher. We need to drill for gas, but in a safe and responsible manner.
watched Gasland and it was a good piece….it’s obvious the “fast tracking” that was allowed to these companies was a big f-up. I read an article where The PADEP stated in an article that it will “create economic growth”…why the hell is the DEP worried about that?…total BS..
I know im new posting here but ive been listening to the podcasts for a couple years and they have made work easier…thanks…Zach, you should try and get that guy from the documentary on….
jeff
Zach,
Reports can be accessed via http://www.rangeresources.com; press release from 8/12 here http://www.rangeresources.com/Disc2/Range2010-20%20-%20Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Disclosure%20Forms.pdf.
Why I do greatly appreciate the efforts of Range Resources to disclose what they are using, the fact remains, some caustic poison is being blasted into our aquifers and streams. Not to mention the enormous amount of water it takes for each well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.