The Shale Network This image gives us a reason to discuss one of the largest changes in earth scienc

The Shale Network This image gives us a reason to discuss one of the largest changes in earth science-based industries over the last 8 years; the development of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”technologies that allow extraction of previously unavailable oil and gas resources. Pennsylvania and the surrounding states are one center of this boom due to the presence of a unit called the Marcellus Shale at depth. The Marcellus is a hydrocarbon-rich shale that has formed reasonable amounts of natural gas, but little of that gas has migrated to areas where it could be recovered. Fracking is a technique to get around this problem. A mixture of fluids is pumped into the ground at high enough pressures to fracture the rocks, opening new pore spaces and connections which allow the gas to migrate to the pumping station. If you’ve heard about this method, you’ve probably heard many reasons why it is controversial; pumping high-pressure fluids into the ground has been known to cause small earthquakes, the composition of the fluids is generally not shared with the public as they are industrial secrets, and there are worries that either the gas or fracking fluids could migrate through the new cracks or through the cement liners of wells to contaminate groundwater resources. It’s fair to say that the drilling industry has denied that these are major issues and stated that the process is generally safe, although there have been at least 7 reported spills of fracking fluids at the surface in Pennsylvania over the last few years. However, there are plenty of anecdotal cases suggesting greater issues. Anecdotes suggest newly contaminated groundwater after drilling or, memorably, reports of tap water that explodes when exposed to flame due to natural gas leaking into the water. It would be really nice if there were a way to evaluate the quality of claims on both sides from a scientific perspective, but there’s a huge issue here; this problem is very data-starved. Take a look at this plot. Pennsylvania is the focus of most of the current drilling efforts in the Eastern U.S., but there is virtually no data on methane concentrations in wells from Pennsylvania. N o one has done the measurement. How can you tell in a scientific sense whether there is a significant increase in groundwater contamination before and after the drilling if there’s no data either before or after? In that case, you wind up relying on anecdotes…which from a scientific perspective is unacceptable. That’s where the Shale Network comes in. The Shale Network is a new organization funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) which teams up researchers, government employees, and citizen scientists to try to solve this gigantic hole in our data. The Shale Network has invited property owners in these areas to undergo brief training in how to properly collect water quality data and developed a website where that data can be submitted. If you’re a property owner or reside in these areas and have access to groundwater, I’d encourage you to consider contributing at http://www.shalenetwork.org/. A major problem for people trying to establish whether or not their water has been contaminated by drilling is that there is no data on the water beforehand. Streams and groundwater can be contaminated by many pollutants, including runoff from cities and farms or mine drainage and it’s very possible people simply never tested their water before drilling. Solid, baseline measurements of the springs, streams, and wells in an area is the only way to really understand what the impacts of this process will be on the people living in those areas. -JBB Image credit and source info: EOS transactions AGUhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO450002/pdf -- source link

More pics about