But should all the blame belong to the newly, widely utilized practice of Hydraulic Fracturing? As the case study by Richard J. Davis mentions, this contamination of methane into these water sources are likely to be caused by many other issues. He states that in Pennsylvania "184,000 wells were drilled before records were taken and there are another 8,000 orphaned wells that are still in need of P&A (plug and abandonment) ." This large number of wells that have been in regions of stated water contamination, were constructed when many of the current standards of operations were not in place. This means that sources of infiltration are likely to be from casing leakage or just purely seepage from nearby propagating natural cracks in formations that were not recognized due to lack of seismic data. Hydraulic fracturing which has been implemented for primarily only the last decade, has been proceeded with under operations of strict attention to detail through state of the art technology and with much data being recorded via seismic observation collections.
It is unfortunate that the Hydraulic Fracturing industry has such a negative connotation surrounding it but service companies such as Halliburton are working very hard and expending large magnitudes of money to make sure that future contamination does not take place, and that older, poorly constructed wells are remedied to negate this problem.
What should the industry do additionally to satisfy those who object to the practice? Stop drilling, fraccing and commit to a dependence on foreign resources?
-Bill
Do you know what kinds of research are going on to solve this problem? I have heard some claim that there is a difference between biogenic and thermogenic methane. Example: http://www.gaschem.com/determ.html Could this be used to identify the source?
ReplyDelete