Energy industry develops nontoxic fracking fluids

Feb 03, 2013 by Kevin Begos

The oil and gas industry is trying to ease environmental concerns by developing nontoxic fluids for the drilling process known as fracking, but it's not clear whether the new product will be widely embraced by drilling companies.

Houston-based energy giant Halliburton Inc. has developed a product called CleanStim, which uses only food-industry ingredients. Other companies have developed nontoxic fluids as well.

"Halliburton is in the business to provide solutions to our customers," said production manager Nicholas Gardiner. "Those solutions have to include ways to reduce the safety or environmental concerns that the public might have."

Environmental groups say they welcome the development but still have questions.

The chemicals in fracking fluids aren't the only environmental concern, said George Jugovic, president of PennFuture. He said there is also concern about the large volumes of naturally occurring but exceptionally salty and air pollution.

It's premature to say whether it will ever be feasible to have fluids for fracking that are totally nontoxic, said Scott Anderson, a senior adviser for the Environmental Defense Fund.

"But we are encouraged to some extent by recent industry efforts to at least reduce the toxicity," Anderson said.

Fracking, short for , has made it possible to tap into energy reserves across the U.S. but also has raised concerns about pollution, since large volumes of water, along with sand and , are injected deep into the ground to free the oil and gas from rock.

Regulators contend that overall, water and air pollution problems are rare, but environmental groups and some scientists say there hasn't been enough research on those issues. The industry and many federal and say the practice is safe when done properly, but faulty wells and accidents have caused problems.

Halliburton says CleanStim will provide "an extra margin of safety to people, animals and the environment in the unlikely occurrence of an incident" at a drilling site.

Gardiner said Halliburton has developed a chemistry-scoring system for the fluids, with lower scores being better. CleanStim has a zero score, he said, and is "relatively more expensive" than many traditional fracking fluids.

Both Jugovic and Anderson noted that one of the most highly publicized concerns about toxic fracking fluids hasn't really been an issue: the suggestion that they might migrate from thousands of feet underground, up to drinking water aquifers.

"Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water, Anderson said. But he added that simple spills of fluid on the surface can cause problems.

"The most likely of exposure is not from the fracking itself. It is from spills before the fracking fluid is injected," Anderson said.

There also may be technical and cost issues that limit the acceptance of products such as CleanStim. There is tremendous variation in the type of shale rock in different parts of the country. For example, drillers use different even within the same state, and the specific mix can play a large role in determining how productive a well is.

Gardiner wouldn't say how widely used CleanStim is. "The customers who do use it certainly like the material," he added.

Terry Engelder, a geologist at Penn State University, said he visited a well in that state last year that used just water, sand and three additives in the fracking fluid.

But Engelder added that "green" and "toxic" can be "soft words without real meaning." He noted that consumers, businesses and farms use vast quantities of chemicals that can contribute to pollution, from cleaners and soaps to fertilizers and pesticides. Yet all those compounds are routinely flushed down the drain, ending up in nearby rivers and streams.

"Eventually industry would like to end up with a mix of just water, sand, and food-grade additives," Engelder said of fracking. "Companies are learning to deal with fewer and fewer additives."

Explore further: Climate rhetoric faces devil in the detail at Lima talks

3.6 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Hydro-fracking: Fact vs. fiction

Nov 05, 2012

In communities across the U.S., people are hearing more and more about a controversial oil and gas extraction technique called hydraulic fracturing – aka, hydro-fracking. Controversies pivot on some basic questions: Can ...

English tremors blamed on shale 'fracking'

Nov 02, 2011

(AP) -- The only company in Britain using hydraulic fracturing to release natural gas from shale rock said Wednesday that the controversial technique probably did trigger earth tremors in April and May.

Global protests planned over gas drilling process

Sep 22, 2012

(AP)—More than 100 protests against the natural gas drilling process known as fracking are scheduled to take place around the world on Saturday, building on public concerns but also using an overly simplified message to ...

Recommended for you

Gold rush an ecological disaster for Peruvian Amazon

10 hours ago

A lush expanse of Amazon rainforest known as the "Mother of God" is steadily being destroyed in Peru, with the jungle giving way to mercury-filled tailing ponds used to extract the gold hidden underground.

Australia out of step with new climate momentum

12 hours ago

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who rose to power in large part by opposing a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, is finding his country isolated like never before on climate change as the U.S., China ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2013
Well there you go, that wasnt so hard was it? Perhaps they could add carbonization and citrus to make groundwater taste more pleasant-
feynmansum
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2013
"Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water, Anderson said.

False

http://www.scient...-aquifer
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 03, 2013
False
Youre being disingenuous. The whole quote:

"Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water, Anderson said. But he added that simple spills of fluid on the surface can cause problems. "The most likely of exposure is not from the fracking itself. It is from spills before the fracking fluid is injected," Anderson said.

From your article:
"...at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing...The agency did not interpret the findings or make any attempt to identify the source of the pollution."

-And from the draft:
"The presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production. Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards."

-The source has not been established but the science tells us that migration from those depths is highly improbable; more likely from spills as indicated.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2013
..so, existing fracking fluids are toxic..
Estevan57
2.6 / 5 (30) Feb 03, 2013
Otto has his head in the .... sand.

"Still, the chemical compounds the EPA detected are consistent with those produced from drilling processes, including one -- a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) -- widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2013
Yes little bug and as the author says, this probably was spilled, not propagated. You are a loser by definition.
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (28) Feb 03, 2013
"The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground."

Next time read the article, Otto. Reading is FUNdamental.

You are still a stupid ass. You always have been.

You're a loser by birthright. Have a well medicated day.
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2013
What they actually use is not disclosed due to exemption to the Clean Water Act.

Everyone really ready to die? I ask this because it seems most people really have made the choice to give up and let all life die through their actions or lack of them, regardless of what they say. Tick tock...
DavidW
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2013
Youre being disingenuous.


We cannot be and are not our actions. Stick to the truth. You know better now. Every little bit counts.
Shootist
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2013
Too many hammerheads Otto, too many hammerheads.

Worry not, they will light their homes and heat their food with power provided by the evil petro-chemical industrial (we want to poison the world) complex.

And they will love it.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2013
..so, existing fracking fluids are toxic..

...and in other news: the Earth is round.

Notice how they only started looking for nontoxic alternatives once the protests started? They didn't give a damn before that (and probably still don't. Names like "CleanStim" smack of PR campaign)

DavidW
1 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2013
Notice how they only started looking for nontoxic alternatives once the protests started?


You mean the same protesters that have been wasting fuel by supporting needlessly raising livestock for consumption?

You mean the protesters that would have brought the USA to its knees had the majority of them pulled the strings that they knew about, like the small handful that got 30,000 to close the docks in Oakland, had they not questioned themselves about understanding that the point IS the truth at any demonstration?

The reality is that some people, given their education, exposure and underdstanding to key infrastructure, stopping certain services or products from reaching people is little more than putting a toothpick in the gears of giant machine and bringing it to its knees.

It's a good thing most have backed off, questioning, leaving only a few who have experienced the intolerable and who think people are evil to be left to try and get their way alone.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2013
Next time read the article, Otto. Reading is FUNdamental.

You are still a stupid ass. You always have been.

You're a loser by birthright. Have a well medicated day.
What you cite is called 'circumstantial evidence'. I am surprised that you did not remember this from your last appearance in court.

I am sure the experts mentioned in the article are well aware of this case, because they are experts, and still go on to state:

""Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water, Anderson said. But he added that simple spills of fluid on the surface can cause problems."

-and so I would tend to believe their opinions over those of lying, stalking, and uninformed trolls like yourself. Per my profile page.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2013
Notice how they only started looking for nontoxic alternatives once the protests started? They didn't give a damn before that (and probably still don't. Names like "CleanStim" smack of PR campaign)
Well you too are ass-uming that science didn't know what it was doing. Studies showed that propagation from depth was not possible. And so materials best suited for fracking were selected with the confidence that they would not enter the water table.

And, according to the experts (and not hothead protestors hungry for large cash settlements), this hasn't yet happened.

Of course you are welcome to provide sources refuting this instead of idle accusation. Unless it is too much trouble for you?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2013
Studies showed that propagation from depth was not possible
Which seems osrt of blue-eyed. We know that stuff like oil from deep oil deposits can leak into the oceans. Why would we assume that this doesn't hold true for fracking? Especially since fracking is DESIGNED to create ruptures (that's why it's called fracking, you know)

It just seems like one of these endeavours where stuff is just being done without a "plan B". Because once it's done - in the case that something does go wrong - there's no way to clean it up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2013
"Environmental Defense Fund or EDF (formerly known as Environmental Defense) is a United States–based nonprofit environmental advocacy group. The group is known for its work on issues including global warming, ecosystem restoration, oceans, and human health, and advocates using sound science, economics and law to find environmental solutions that work. It is nonpartisan, and its work often advocates market-based solutions to environmental problems.

"In 1991, The Economist called EDF "America's most economically literate green campaigners." The organization was ranked first among environmental groups in a 2007 Financial Times global study of 850 business-nonprofit partnerships, and received a four star-rating from Charity Navigator, the independent charity evaluator."

-Sounds pretty respectable to me? Sounds to me like they would be prone to exposing problems if any actually existed...?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2013
Which seems osrt of blue-eyed. We know that stuff like oil from deep oil deposits can leak into the oceans. Why would we assume that this doesn't hold true for fracking?
Well I dont know as I am not an engr. I do know that these things are very complicated. I DO know that the scientists and engrs involved decided, after much work and study, that it was safe.

I do know that, despite the complaints of scores of uninformed people who stand to gain a great deal from lawsuits, no one has yet proven ANYTHING.

This is in contrast to the 1000s of leaky gas station tanks they had to dig up not too long ago.
Victorious D
not rated yet Feb 04, 2013
You say you are not an engineer. You say no one has proven anything. How about you listen to an engineering professor who has worked for the industry in question?

Apparently a URL itself is enough to flag a comment for spam, so go to youtube and search for "Dr. Ingraffea Facts on Fracking."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2013
Dr. Ingraffea
Who, this guy?
"a civil and environmental engineering professor, whose studies have been debunked by his own colleagues...at he says is mostly outside his field of expertise and often just plain wrong, as noted by his fellow Cornell professors...Cornell: 'None of These Conclusions are Warranted'"
http://eidmarcell...d/13407/
http://www.energy...rranted/

-In contrast to scott anderson:
"Root Causes Of Water Pollution From Oil And Gas Operations
...It suggests that even if artificial channels created by hydraulic fracturing have not yet been shown to have caused drinking water pollution, action is required to correct pollution problems caused by other aspects of natural gas operations."
http://blogs.edf....rations/
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (28) Feb 04, 2013
Otto, what I cited is a direct quote from a reputable source (Scientific American) article. http://www.scient...-aquifer

I know you would prefer to sip from the "oily straw" of Haliberton, or EnCana, as the case may be, but when fracking coumpounds are found in aquifers, the oil company involved agrees to provide free water, the showers run black, the area is a superfund cleanup site, and more, the quote "Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" certainly rings false.

Which was my point.

The proposition that fracking is safe is not one I really care to follow, but like any proposition, the facts as found determine the reality.

2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) found in an aquifer monitering well - fact.
Acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel - more.

Perhaps there is now a confirmed case? Reason enough for Scientific American to go to print with it.
The Alchemist
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2013
Here's a link to what is supposedly in it: www. halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/disclosures/CleanStim_Pop_up.html
But neither this, nor the supposedly evil version they were using before will cause much harm.
It is the operation itself that is harmful, that nastiness in showers maybe fracking fluid, but more of it is just other chemical junk from the fracking. Changing fracking fluids is just window dressing.
I still maintain that whatever powers that be simply can't conceive of leaving fossil fuels. We could put a few wind-mills on the roof of our homes and take care of most of our power problems (above 40ft, with batteries for storage...), this is 1920's tech.. Why are we still mucking about with oil? It is really just stupid.
I hope someday government will realize they can tax wind power just as well as gasoline. This will usher in, if not prosperity, at least a cleaner world, with less global warming, and much less stupidity.
ValeriaT
not rated yet Feb 06, 2013
Cancerous deer lived near a stream, where fracturing water had been leaking (warning, graphic!).
ValeriaT
not rated yet Feb 06, 2013
BTW Nontoxic fracking fluid sounds like oxymoron for me, because the main source of fracking fluid toxicity are the heavy elements dissolved in it from underground. EPA's testing of fracking water revealed carcinogenic and neurotoxic drilling elements such as arsenic, radioactive radon, barium and manganese.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2013
Hello lying stalker troll
Which was my point.
No your point was to agree with the original post that says this stuff propagated from miles underground but you havent produced any evidence for this.
2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) found in an aquifer monitering well - fact. Acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel - more.
Correct. From spills and other sources as the environmentalist, who has studied the situation in depth, has suggested. The other guy has been denounced by his colleague as a crank, much like yourself.

Got any proof otherwise? Of course not. Maybe you should stick to lurking and stalking? But you are not very effective at these pursuits either. Are you esai?
Estevan57
2.6 / 5 (25) Feb 06, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto, you ignorant slut.
You have deliberatly confused (or are genuinely confused) the findings of the EPA, as carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey at the request of the state of Wyoming, with a casual remark from an environmentalist in this Physorg article about fracking fluids.

The website below can explain (in small words for a small man) the particulars of what agencies and methodology were involved.
http://www.usgs.g...hHXeDYlo

The report on the findings can be found here, O small brained one.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/718/

Since you still suggest there is no "proof" of what was or was not found, perhaps you can raise your game a little by actually READING the STUDY.

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer"

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells."

- Scientific American

You're a dumbshit Otto, through and through.

Take yer meds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2013
As usual esai you are not arguing with me but with experts who know lots more than both of us.

"Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water, Anderson said. But he added that simple spills of fluid on the surface can cause problems.
"The most likely of exposure is not from the fracking itself. It is from spills before the fracking fluid is injected," Anderson said."

-And Anderson is well aware of your links info, which nowhere confirm that this stuff migrated from depth. Because he is an expert. And you are an expert of -what-? Paying underage female relatives to stalk people? Per your own boasting as recorded on my profile page.

As if this were actually something to brag about. Pretty sad esai.
Estevan57
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 08, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto, you've gone all faith-based on science again.

"Most people..."
"The most likely..." These quotes are what you base your argument on? And how could I possibly contend against such hard cold evidence of .... what?

And from a lawyer too. Yes, a "Policy Advisor" without a degree in any science whatsoever. A lawyer.

From the EDF website: "Scott spent many years in the oil and gas industry prior to joining Environmental Defense Fund. He is the former Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO). He was the long-time Secretary of the LIAISON Committee of Cooperating Oil and Gas Associations and was previously a member of the governing Council of the State Bar of Texas Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Section."

I am so ashamed of believing the EPA, and the U.S. Geological Survey. They are obviously lying for some nefarious reason.

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" - Scientific American
Estevan57
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 08, 2013
Actually Otto, I am agreeing with the experts that have actually done sampling, found evidence, reviewed the evidence, and published in a respected worldwide periodical.

Not the oil industry schill. Anderson has NEVER said that fracking coumpounds have NEVER reached an aquifer. A lawyer.

By the way, Otto, I don't have any underage female relatives.

Have you quit fucking your dog yet? Accusation are easy, yes?

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells." - Scientific American

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells." - Scientific American

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells." - Scientific American

3 strikes, yer outta there. Get the point? Take yer meds
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
By the way, Otto, I don't have any underage female relatives.
But you are a liar. This is well-documented on my profile page. You bragged that you bribe your niece a nickel for every 1/5 she gives out. And then when I pointed out how demented it is to pay kids to stalk people, you made up a lie about her being 24. Who would be stupid enough to believe that a 24 yo would stalk people for nickels?

I posted many sources to accompany the articles claim that there is no evidence that fluids percolate up from miles underground. I am not going to post them again.
Have you quit fucking your dog yet?
See this is the kind of lowlife you are. And you do not hesitate to show it to the world. Is your little niece still reading the shit you post? Don't you care about that either?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
""EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells." - Scientific American

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells." - Scientific American

"EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer" "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in environmental monitoring wells." - Scientific American"

-And as I showed you, experts conclude that these were from spills. Please post something which shows otherwise. Can't? Well how come? How come esai? Don't know how?

Here try this
http://www.google.com/

-There are instructions there somewhere.
Estevan57
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 10, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto, these DO show otherwise.
Your profile page is only documentation of your frustration with me.

There is nothing but out of context, out of date, nonsensical ramblings of a wretched little hurt-man.

It was about Pussycat, and previously, about Ritchie Guy and Piroette and others. The same as can be found on lite, MagnificentMasturbator, and your others. "Documentation" lol
Typing horseshit don't make documentation.

"The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground."

If you read the report you will find that the sampling wells are MILES from any previous drilling activity and the ground was checked BEFORE drilling the sample well.

Estevan57
3 / 5 (18) Feb 10, 2013
Since you are refuting the evidence provided, the EPA - USGS study, I would like to see YOUR evidence that these monitoring wells are contaminated from a spill. You have stated this, but have shown NO evidence of this at all.

Name your experts or group (scientists please) that claim these particular wells are contaminated from a spill.

Any proof your environmentalist is aware of this particular study? He is actually an advisor, not a regular staff member.

"A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency." - Scientific American

Notice the word "deep".

For a person with at least 15 sockpuppets you sure bitch a lot.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
Let's see

"The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells."

-Would this be the same gas they are extracting through these wells? As Anderson explained, spills include subsurface leaks from well casings. He said that leaky casings are part of the problem. He also said ""Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water" which us what the original poster took issue with.

Say why don't you send Anderson an email? Anonymously you know, so you can insult his dead mother or something. Your forte yes?
Name your experts or group (scientists please) that claim these particular wells are contaminated from a spill.
Well I did. Anderson for one. And he states that most of the experts (and not lying stalking degenerate trolls like yourself) agree. You must include your objections in your email.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
Notice the word "deep".
Deep that is, until they bring it up to the surface through leaky well casings yes? Isn't this right esai?
Typing horseshit don't make documentation.
But googling it does, why do you forget this? Anyone can find your original shit. Still trying to lie eh? A compulsion I guess.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Your profile page is only documentation of your frustration with me.
Frustration little flea? Do I sound frustrated? I continue to enjoy myself here whether you are nipping at my ankles or not.

And people look at the long list of 1/5s you and pussytard give me, and the raving lunatic posts of yours, and they can see exactly the kind of small bug you are. This gives me some little satisfaction esai. But not much.
Estevan57
3 / 5 (18) Feb 10, 2013
So you have nothing...

Evidence of the well casings of a new water water well leaking?
None.

Not a fracking well, which is subjected to immense pressure but a plain old water sampling well.
None.

Someone sounds frustrated all right... take yer meds.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
So you have nothing...

Evidence of the well casings of a new water water well leaking?
None.
Well I'm not the one who collects the evidence, writes the papers, and offers the informed opinions am I? I only repeat what the people who do these things have to say. Read back through the thread if you're curious.

You only repeat the same puerile insults. Because that's all you got. Challenge me again and you will lose again. That's what matters here esai no matter how much you stamp your little feet.
Not a fracking well, which is subjected to immense pressure but a plain old water sampling well.
None.

Someone sounds frustrated all right... take yer meds.
Huh. So it didn't occur to you that they were sampling water contaminated by the high pressure well leaks? You really that dim esai?
Estevan57
3 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2013
"You only repeat the same puerile insults" Like pussytard and flea?
"Challenge me again and you will lose again." Says the loser.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2013
You didn't answer the question

"Huh. So it didn't occur to you that they were sampling water contaminated by the high pressure well leaks? You really that dim esai?"

-Well, are you?
Estevan57
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 13, 2013
It doesn't matter what I think, the sampling has been done by the experts. They chose areas that were as far away from surface contaminates as possible, and drilled new wells, read for yourself.

Any proof of this theory of yours? Nope, didn't think so.

Anything else for me to answer for someone else, because now YOU are arguing with the experts.

Otto, Otto, Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
They chose areas that were as far away from surface contaminates as possible
Well this is a lie. And as I showed you, experts include spills from subsurface well casings as sources for contamination.
and drilled new wells, read for yourself.
What - new test wells? New leaky high pressure fracking wells? Wishing wells? What??
Any proof of this theory of yours?
Again, not mine.

""Most people agree there are no confirmed cases so far" of fracking chemicals migrating up to drinking water" -an expert.

-ASK HIM and ALL the other experts who agree with him. Just how DENSE are you esai?

-I understand you having to lie to yourself. No, its ok. I am sure you are not a mite in your own mind.

Hey - show you care about the ecology:
http://www.natlal...p;ci_kw=

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.