Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
52. Krancer's letter was about methane migration, a different issue
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 10:02 PM
Feb 2012

I think the jury is out on that. I'm aware of two studies that were done in Pennsylvania on methane migration. One study, done by Duke University concluded that methane migration was related to fracking with higher concentrations being seen nearer the wells. Another, later study, done by Penn State University found no such correlation. I believe more study is needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

A couple of points to consider. There other potential sources of methane that could come into play, such as coal bed methane and biogenic methane. Given that Pennsylvania has no standards governing private water wells, it's possible that the methane is seeping up from coal beds that are close to the surface - that phenomenon is known to occur in Pennsylvania. Biogenic methane (caused by rotting organic matter in the ground) could find its way into a poorly constructed well.

The shale that is being fracked is thousands of feet below the surface, whereas a water well is at most a few hundred feet. It's hard for me to see how methane could seep through thousands of feet of rock to contaminate ground well. The only way I can see is if the gas well were improperly cased and the methane was leaking from the well. The Penn State study points out that the Duke study was done in 2010 before Pennsylvania upgraded the casing requirements for gas wells.

I personally think more study is needed about methane.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The law seems reasonable and fair to me badtoworse Feb 2012 #1
Hopefully ... GeorgeGist Feb 2012 #2
Have they even commented on it? badtoworse Feb 2012 #4
Huh....!!?? CanSocDem Feb 2012 #3
The law mandates that the information be made available to doctors. badtoworse Feb 2012 #6
...and that 'doctors' cannot share... CanSocDem Feb 2012 #10
They can share their concerns with regulators such as OSHA and the DEP badtoworse Feb 2012 #11
I'm confused. grntuscarora Feb 2012 #13
See No. 11 badtoworse Feb 2012 #14
I'm assuming grntuscarora Feb 2012 #16
No matter. grntuscarora Feb 2012 #17
I don't know the answer to your question about a patient being being bound by the confidentiality badtoworse Feb 2012 #18
After being poisoned by grntuscarora Feb 2012 #23
Perhaps... badtoworse Feb 2012 #24
There is a recent study called "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Animal and Human Health" grntuscarora Feb 2012 #34
I imagine many people believe that... LanternWaste Feb 2012 #65
Different frack formulas Frack Glop Feb 2012 #63
The problem is with the verbiage used as the medical profession sees it siligut Feb 2012 #5
There are already "right to know" laws on the books that deal with what you describe badtoworse Feb 2012 #7
They are making it very difficult for medical professionals to do their job. siligut Feb 2012 #8
I don't see a problem here badtoworse Feb 2012 #9
They are not forthcoming with the information, it is the equivalent of jumping through hoops. siligut Feb 2012 #12
You may not like it, but there are valid reasons why trade secrets exist - nt badtoworse Feb 2012 #15
Well, you just said it all right there..."trade secrets." blue neen Feb 2012 #19
There are situations where state law should preempt local law. This is one of them. badtoworse Feb 2012 #20
Really? blue neen Feb 2012 #26
The EPA is currently investigating Dimock badtoworse Feb 2012 #32
I think that no matter what damage to people, the water supply, or the environment TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #38
That is not true badtoworse Feb 2012 #46
In post 20 you are saying that we should trust the state to take care of regulating fracking. blue neen Feb 2012 #39
In Post 20, I was referring to local governments being preempted by state law. badtoworse Feb 2012 #44
Tom Corrupt's hand-picked crony, Krancer has been quite active in keeping the EPA out. blue neen Feb 2012 #50
Krancer's letter was about methane migration, a different issue badtoworse Feb 2012 #52
The article actually states that Krancer has tried to block the EPA. blue neen Feb 2012 #56
If the gas industry has their way PA Democrat Feb 2012 #54
You're quite welcome. blue neen Feb 2012 #58
Those fucking trade secrets take a back seat to public health MattBaggins Feb 2012 #27
Gassers are Exempt from RIGHT TO KNOW in PA under this bill Frack Glop Feb 2012 #64
Protection is for those who are victims of fracking, not the companies. Avalux Feb 2012 #21
Has it even happened where a doctor needed to know the makeup of fracking fluid to treat a patient? badtoworse Feb 2012 #22
Do you work for Marcellus Shale? Avalux Feb 2012 #25
You didn't respond to my question, but I'll respond to yours anyway badtoworse Feb 2012 #29
Medical professional; public health advocate. Avalux Feb 2012 #33
How many cases have you treated for exposure to fracking fluids or even heard of? badtoworse Feb 2012 #35
There are anecdotal cases - Avalux Feb 2012 #36
Should we wait for a cancer epidemic? PA Democrat Feb 2012 #37
Here's an example: blue neen Feb 2012 #40
Very good link - thank you badtoworse Feb 2012 #47
Yes we can find out what is in those rail cars MattBaggins Feb 2012 #28
DEP and OSHA already have access to the MSDS sheets under existing law badtoworse Feb 2012 #30
You're kidding, right? me b zola Feb 2012 #41
How do you take your fracking fluid? badtoworse Feb 2012 #42
Well, right now I'm drinking mine in my glass of water. blue neen Feb 2012 #43
How do you know that? Has the water been tested? badtoworse Feb 2012 #48
We're still waiting for the results. Geez, I wonder why it's taking so long. blue neen Feb 2012 #57
Gee, what could possibly go wrong here? PA Democrat Feb 2012 #60
It makes your hair stand on end, doesn't it? blue neen Feb 2012 #61
I'll speak slower for you me b zola Feb 2012 #45
As I understand the new law, it provides a way for doctors to find out badtoworse Feb 2012 #49
But denies them the ability to warn the public of a huge health risk me b zola Feb 2012 #51
Does the law prevent them from notifying DEP, EPA, CDC, OSHA, etc.? badtoworse Feb 2012 #53
badtoworse Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #31
I was thinking the same thing Tsiyu Feb 2012 #55
Those with nothing to hide... BeHereNow Feb 2012 #59
Tom Corbett: More Than a Sandusky Player. WinkyDink Feb 2012 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Natural Gas Industry hams...»Reply #52