Questions Emerge On EPA's Wyoming Fracking Study

Questions Emerge On EPA's Wyoming Fracking Study

 

 

 

1) Why a outrageous disproportion between what EPA found in a monitoring wells and what was rescued in private wells from that people indeed get their water?

â–ª Contrary to what was reported yesterday, a compounds of biggest regard rescued by EPA in Pavillion weren’t found in H2O wells that indeed supply residents their H2O â€" they were rescued by dual “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outward of town.

â–ª After several rounds of EPA contrariety of domestic drinking water wells in town, usually one organic devalue (bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found to surpass state or sovereign celebration H2O standards â€" an addition in plastics and one of a many ordinarily rescued organic compounds in water. : “Detections in celebration H2O wells are generally next determined health and reserve standards.”

▪ Bruce Hinchey, boss of Petroleum Association of Wyoming: “Let me be clear, a EPA’s commentary prove that there is no tie between oil and healthy gas operations and impacts to domestic H2O wells.” (PAW press release, )

▪ In contrast, EPA found “a far-reaching accumulation of organic chemicals” in a dual monitoring wells, with larger concentrations found in a deeper of a two. The usually problem? EPA drilled a monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Think it’s probable that could explain a participation of hydrocarbons?

▪ According to director of Wyoming: “The investigate expelled currently from EPA was formed on information from dual test wells drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those exam wells are deeper than celebration wells. The information from a exam wells was not accessible to a rest of a operative organisation until a month ago.” (Gov. Mead press release, released )

 

2) After reviewing a information collected by Region 8, since did EPA director Lisa Jackson tell a contributor that, specific to Pavillion, “we have positively no denote now that celebration H2O is during risk”? (video accessible )

â–ª Of note, Administrator Jackson offering those comments to a contributor from energyNOW! a full week after Region 8 of Pavillion data. In that interview, Jackson indicates that she privately analyzed a commentary of a report, and was privately concerned in conversations and consultations with staff, internal officials, environmental groups, a state and a operator.

▪ After reviewing all that information, and conducting all those interviews, if a director believed that exam formula from EPA’s monitoring wells acted a risk to a community, since would she contend a conflicting of that on television?

â–ª And if she believed that a state of Wyoming had unsuccessful to do a job, since would she â€" in that same speak â€" tell energyNOW! that “you can’t start to speak about a sovereign purpose [in controlling fracturing] but acknowledging a really clever state role.” () A week later, since did she select to double-down on those comments in an speak with Rachel Maddow, revelation a wire horde that “states are stepping adult and doing a good job”? (9:01, aired )

 

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to cavalcade a monitoring wells impact a results?

â–ª Diethanolamine? Anionic polyacrylamide? Trydymite? Bentonite? Contrary to required wisdom, chemicals are indispensable to cavalcade wells, not only detonate them â€" even when a purpose of those wells has zero to do with oil or healthy gas development.

▪ In this case, however, EPA’s preference to use “dense soda ash” as partial of a routine for drilling a monitoring wells could have valid a bad one.

â–ª One of a categorical justifications EPA uses to implicate hydraulic fracturing as a source of intensity decay is a high pH readings it says it found in a monitoring wells. But unenlightened soda charcoal has a available pH (11.5) really identical to a turn found in a low wells, formulating a probability that a high pH available by EPA could have been caused by a really chemicals it used to cavalcade a possess wells.

▪ According to Tom Doll, administrator of a Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “More sampling is indispensable to order out aspect decay or a routine of building these exam wells as a source of a concerning results.” (as quoted in governor’s press release, )

 

4) Why is a author so assured that fracturing is to censure when many of his tangible news focuses on intensity issues with casing, concrete and bequest pits?

▪ The news singles-out aged bequest pits (which a user had already willingly placed in a state remediation module before to EPA’s investigation) as a many apparent source of intensity contamination. These decades-old pits, that are apparently no longer used, have zero to do with hydraulic fracturing.

▪ From a news (): “Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline operation organics, diesel operation organics, and sum purgeable hydrocarbons in belligerent H2O samples from shoal monitoring wells nearby pits indicates that pits are a source of shoal belligerent H2O decay in a area of investigation. Pits were used for ordering of drilling cuttings, flowback, and constructed water. There are during slightest 33 pits in a area of investigation.“

▪ From a report’s final paragraph: “[T]his review supports recommendations done by a U.S. Department of Energy Panel on … larger importance on good construction and firmness mandate and testing. As settled by a panel, doing of these recommendations would diminution a odds of impact to belligerent H2O and boost open certainty in a technology.” ()

 

5) 2-BE or not 2-BE? That is a question.

▪ EPA indicates that it found tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate in a few domestic H2O wells. What a organisation doesn’t discuss is that this chemical is a common glow retardant found in plastics and cosmetic components used in celebration H2O wells. It’s not 2-BE, which, nonetheless also a common material, is infrequently compared with a completions process.

â–ª According to EPA, in one of a 8 samples collected, a tiny volume of 2-BE was detected. Interestingly, dual other EPA labs that totalled for a same accurate devalue reported not being means to detect it in a transcribe samples they were given.

▪ According to Wyo. director Mead: “Members of a [Pavillion] operative organisation also have questions about a devalue 2-BE, that was found in 1 representation … while other labs tested a accurate same H2O representation and did not find it.” (Mead press release, )

 

6) Is EPA removing adequate potassium?

▪ Several times in a report, EPA records that potassium and chloride levels were found to be towering in a monitoring wells. But only since we have potassium and chloride doesn’t meant you’ve got potassium chloride, a opposite chemical wholly and one that’s infrequently compared with fracturing solutions. Nowhere in a news does EPA advise that potassium chloride was detected.

â–ª According to several USGS studies of groundwater peculiarity in a area, non-static â€" and in some cases, high â€" concentrations of potassium and chloride have been rescued in Pavillion-area groundwater for some-more than 20 years. (USGS , )

▪ Interestingly, a potassium levels rescued in EPA’s initial monitoring good declined by some-more than 50 percent from Oct 2010 to Apr 2011, while a potassium turn in EPA’s second monitoring good increasing during that same period. Only healthy variations in groundwater upsurge and/or combination could have accounted for this disparity.

via .

News referensi http://news.yahoo.com/questions-emerge-epas-wyoming-fracking-study-163334220.html