Here is a California sourced scientific report on (WST) Well Stimulation Technology.
I selected “excerpts” and boldfaced from an extensive shale study that you would not see done here in oil & gas soaked Texas. I only got a third of the way though that section 5 and while I was aware of a SURFACE spill into our drinking water source/reservoir at Lake Arlington back in 2010, the below study makes me shake to think what’s BENEATH the lake…..fracking laterals…see the black lines over the blue?…
Potential Direct Environmental Effects of Well Stimulation
Authored by Marc Fischer, William Foxall, Preston Jordan, Nathaniel Lindsey, Dev Millstein, Matthew Reagan, William Stringfellow, Ruth Tinnacher, Charuleka Varadharajan (LBNL) Heather Cooley, Kristina Donnelly, Matthew Heberger (PI) Laura Feinstein (CCST)
“In summary, numerous chemicals are used for well stimulation in California. A full assessment of the hazards associated with those chemicals is needed. The extensive list of possible WST chemicals provides only part of the information needed to assess risk; additional information on concentrations, synergistic interactions, exposures, and more are also needed to assess risks and environmental impacts from WST. A preliminary assessment, using mammalian acute oral toxicity as a screening criteria, suggests that only a few of the well stimulation chemicals can be considered highly toxic and most compounds are of equivalent toxicity to many commonly used industrial and household chemicals (such as anti-freeze). We note, of course, that many household and industrial chemicals also have potential toxicity under certain circumstance or in different combinations, and we recommend that all such risks be carefully assessed as part of future investigations of risks associated with WST. Numerous compounds can be classified as non-toxic and some are allowed as food additives or are found in food naturally. It is emphasized that mammalian oral toxicity is a very limited screening criteria and that a more complete hazard assessment must include physical, health, and environmental hazards. Other factors that must be considered to fully evaluate hazards associated with these chemicals include eco-toxicological effects, endocrine disruption, bioaccumulation, environmental transformation, and the properties of mixtures of compounds”.
Page 199 “……noted that the concentrations of NORMs in the flowback waters (226Ra and 228Ra) were high“.
Page 201 “Regarding matrix acidizing using mud acid, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids are expected to become consumed due to acid-mineral interactions over short penetration depths, while the remaining fluid often migrates over further distances. Assuming the rock is not fractured, acid penetration depths in sandstones have typically been reported to be on the order of 0.3 m (12 inches; Economides and Nolte, 2000)…”
Page 217 18.104.22.168.1 Formation of High Permeability Pathways
“One possible concern about hydraulic fracturing operations, in particular those using high-volume injections, is the degree to which induced fractures may extend beyond the target formation to connect to higher permeable aquifers, or to natural or man-made pathways such as faults, natural fractures, or abandoned wells. The current state of understanding about the formation of such permeable pathways due to hydraulic fracturing is surrounded by some controversy, due to concerns about groundwater contamination above hydraulically fractured reservoirs”.
OMG I had to stop there…TMI in knowing that our drinking water reservoir at Lake Arlington sits above horizontal casings that have been fracked (perforated) to get the gas below our drinking water source…I’m out.
Want more info on how Lake Arlington has been fracked? Click below to take yer pick…
https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/unintended-retention-pond-in-downtown-arlington-entertainment-district/ (lots of Lake Arlington pics here)
And finally, everything you don’t want to know about Arlington’s water.
I took this pic on a frigid day..yeah thats just steam that falls out into our Lake Arlington from the local power plant….thats what they say about those open hatch flowback tanks venting that white stuff that TCEQ refers to as being “under pressure”. And thats why that that kind of STEAM can not be contained in a closed hatch flowback tank environment….boom.
When a well is stimulated and then flowing back, who wants that frack above or below our drinking water source?
Here are two letters I sent today …
From: kim feil <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Buzz Pishkur <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:16 AM
Subject: At Arlington sponsored gas well forum “cement rot” came up in the discussion
From: Buzz Pishkur <Buzz.Pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
To: ‘kim feil’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: At Arlington sponsored gas well forum “cement rot” came up in the discussion
Kim: We monitor raw water at our intake on Lake Arlington twice per year. The testing includes VOC’s, metals, pesticides, and phosphate. We routinely monitor for Ph, temperature, etc. The raw water sample information is not on our website but is provided when requested by a resident.
From: kim feil <email@example.com>
To: “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:56 PM
Subject: PIR 4 list of drill sites exempt f/ annual emissions reporting/Arlington’s EXPOSURE TO LOOPHOLES in emissions reporting law
Now that Maintenance, StartUp, & ShutDown (MSS) emissions have to be reported, I want to be able to see those originally exempt from self-reporting their emissions (who consider themselves as small emitters) who may NOW exceed the thresholds. It will also answer my three year old question of to find out what these MSS emissions numbers and compressor blowdowns are“.