More News On Fracking?!

[ÜberFly]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-research-shows-fracking-fluids-cause-significant-harm-to-fish-1.3950539

 

Research has found that liquids released from fracked oil and gas wells can harm fish even at low concentrations.

 

"When we put these frack fluids in, the fluids themselves generate chemicals that have detrimental biological effects," said University of Alberta biologist Greg Goss.

 

It's long been known that chemicals used in fracking which uses fluids under high pressure to fracture rock formations and release oil and gas are environmentally toxic. Goss and his colleagues conducted a study intended to consider how toxic they are by using water that flowed from an actual fracked well.

 

"The real risk comes from the disposal process, where (companies) have to truck it to a new site or pipeline it to a new site," Goss said Tuesday. "If we do have a spill, what are the concerns they have to worry about?"

 

His paper notes that Alberta has experienced more than 2,500 such spills between 2011 and 2014.

 

Fracking criticism spreads, even in Alberta and Texas

New U.S. fracking report uncertain on risk to drinking water

The researchers exposed rainbow trout to "sub-lethal" levels of such fluids. The levels were intended to simulate exposure fish or other organisms would be subject to from a pipeline leak or a spill near a water body.

 

Even at dilutions as low as 2.5 per cent 2.5 litres of process water to 100 litres of fresh water fish showed significant impact on their livers and gills.

 

Goss calls the effect "oxidative stress." That means chemicals in the water force liver and gill cells to age and die more quickly.

 

"Oxidative stress is associated with damage to membranes," he said.

 

Some chemicals in the water, which have been shown to cause hormone disruptions in other studies, were absorbed by the fish.

 

"There are endocrine-disrupting effects potentially involved in some of the chemicals involved in that," Goss said.

 

"There's the potential that some of the fluids may be similar in the effects that you would see from municipal waste water, where you might see feminization of animals."

 

Alberta researchers say fracking triggered earthquakes near Fox Creek

Cracked walls, crumbling brickwork: The legacy of fracking

The effects were amplified by the presence of sediment in the water.

 

Goss said that could mean that organisms on lake bottoms or riverbeds could be more at risk than fish.

 

Filtering sediments out might be a way for industry to reduce the toxicity of its process water before it gets transported, he suggested.

 

The study points out that its tests were conducted on water from one specific well operated by Encana (TSX:ECA). The precise composition of fracking fluids varies from company to company and even from well to well and is a closely guarded commercial secret.

 

Goss said fluids used in the tests were common enough for the results to be widely applicable.

 

The next step, he said, is to figure out exactly how the chemicals damage livers and gills, as well as to further examine how they disrupt the endocrine system.

[DonAndersen]

Folks,

While frack fluids are something new in the oil fields of Alberta, for <50 years, fluids of all types have been moved by truck. Many of those fluids are a whole lot more toxic to aquatic life.

To single out frack fluids is to cause alarm when little should exist.

I suspect that several hundred truck loads of toxic fluids are moved through my town every day.

Toxic fluids will include: sweet crude oil, sour crude oil, sweet and sour hydrocarbon condensate, frack fluid additives, acids, propane, butane, battery acids, fertilizers, glycols, methanol, sour water, gasoline, diesel and on and on.

 

Do I need a "safe place"?

 

Don

[jpinkster]

Folks,

While frack fluids are something new in the oil fields of Alberta, for <50 years, fluids of all types have been moved by truck. Many of those fluids are a whole lot more toxic to aquatic life.

To single out frack fluids is to cause alarm when little should exist.

I suspect that several hundred truck loads of toxic fluids are moved through my town every day.

Toxic fluids will include: sweet crude oil, sour crude oil, sweet and sour hydrocarbon condensate, frack fluid additives, acids, propane, butane, battery acids, fertilizers, glycols, methanol, sour water, gasoline, diesel and on and on.

 

Do I need a "safe place"?

 

Don

 

I think Don is bang on here. I thought the tagline of the article was a bit misleading. Fracking is problematic in a lot of ways, but the real issue being discussed here is how we dispose of fracking fluids. The emphasis here should be on a higher priority for safe disposal and transportation of materials. Suggesting that fracking fluid is harmful for fish is a pretty obvious point to make.

[jksnijders]

Not to mention just keeping one eye on the ground when walking through any of the parking lots city wide, watching what comes out of dumpsters after a good rain, etc. etc.... Poorly maintained vehicles leak antifreeze/oil/diesel/gas in pretty appreciable quantities, which no doubt finds it's way in some amount into the watershed. Frac fluid isn't cheap (depending on the type obviously) and is, especially in this market, re-used if possible... same as drilling mud/invert type systems.

[Conor]

I'm so tired of journalism like this. The article itself is fine; just a summary of a recent scientific study. No better or worse than any other media coverage of a scientific study (i.e. piss poor). But the only reason CBC picked up on it is to facilitate public alarm on a hot button topic. I'm no expert on journalistic integrity, but my hunch is that this sort of fear propagation is irresponsible.

 

Did anyone think that completions fluids are good for fish? If you put 25000ppm of coca cola in a fish tank, nothing good is going to happen to them. And a lot of people drink that stuff. This is non-news.

[jpinkster]

I'm so tired of journalism like this. The article itself is fine; just a summary of a recent scientific study. No better or worse than any other media coverage of a scientific study (i.e. piss poor). But the only reason CBC picked up on it is to facilitate public alarm on a hot button topic. I'm no expert on journalistic integrity, but my hunch is that this sort of fear propagation is irresponsible. Did anyone think that completions fluids are good for fish? If you put 25000ppm of coca cola in a fish tank, nothing good is going to happen to them. And a lot of people drink that stuff. This is non-news.

In most cases it isn't the fault of the journalist. A journalist will go out and write a story, someone else writes the headline. Want an example? Take a look at the difference between The Calgary Herald and The Calgary Sun. Same journalist, same exact text, very different taglines. The article itself does a good job of sticking to the facts, but the headline sensationalizes it.

[DonAndersen]

Folks,

 

I re-thought the fracking fluids post. The "news" on fracking ain't new. Not by a long shot. The have been wells fracked in Alberta for >50 years.

The fluid of choice was hydrocarbon fluids generally derived from hydrocarbon condensates. A fractionation system NW of Rocky Mtn. House produced the product for many years.

The more recent fracs ( don't mean to confuse all you new folks but fracs it was for many years - kinda like tar sands ) are now often using water + various surfactants. The water recovered is either reused or injected into disposal wells of which I've operated two. One at 10,000 depth and the other near 14,000' deep.

 

The journalism that produced the article is crap. Do a net search. The crap has spread all over the place.

 

Now I'm heading to my basement retreat and contemplate the question: do more people in a pile make them progressively dumber"?

 

Don

[Pipes]

Don is correct on all accounts. The pressure pumping companies are doing there best to recover fluid after a job. On the high side they get 35% flowback.

 

There was the article posted about the salt we intentionally dump on roads in non-fishing section. These salts kill fish, but we dont complain about these.

[jksnijders]

I'm so tired of journalism like this. The article itself is fine; just a summary of a recent scientific study. No better or worse than any other media coverage of a scientific study (i.e. piss poor). But the only reason CBC picked up on it is to facilitate public alarm on a hot button topic. I'm no expert on journalistic integrity, but my hunch is that this sort of fear propagation is irresponsible. Did anyone think that completions fluids are good for fish? If you put 25000ppm of coca cola in a fish tank, nothing good is going to happen to them. And a lot of people drink that stuff. This is non-news.

 

 

Never even thought about that......... Coke, cleans toilets. dissolves nails, and tastes great as a mix.

[jpinkster]

and if you pour it down a fish's throat it stops it from bleeding!

[DonAndersen]

and if you pour it down a fish's throat it stops it from bleeding!

 

And then it dies

 

Wash throughly before cooking unless it is from the Bow.

 

Then bury it at the land fill.

 

 

Don

[trailhead]

When I read the article it made me wonder. Who funded the research?

[Conor]

Or if it was peer reviewed and published. Or repeated. Etc etc. Journalists aren't scientists, but a bit of information othe than a random summary of specific results would be helpful.

 

 

Rainbow trout are commonly used for bio assays of toxicity. I suspect this study had less to do with trout than general toxicity of completions fluids. It is more concerning that it sounds like the fluid would have passed for toxicity, which is more of a story than was reported on.

[bcubed]

Can you imagine the amount of a spill to get to 2.5% of an actual waterbody...

[reconwilly]

Pro Saudi oil propaganda nothing more.

 

Is it really safer to buy oil and ship it from the other side of the world and neglect our own supply?

 

Globalist nonsense.

[DonAndersen]

Recon....

 

Kinda like the Saudi stuff.

 

Oil produced in Alberta does effect air and water.

Oil produced by the Saudis do not.

 

Sorry but this is reality.

 

Don

[reconwilly]

%100 with ya Don!

 

It's time to release zero point.

[jgib01]

Quick ask of the google machine points out that this is likely research being supported through NSERC grants. A more balanced overview of what Dr. Goss is looking at is likely presented in the Edmonton Sun (don't often find me using "Edmonton Sun" and "balanced" in the same sentence). It's a big leap to suggest the research is pro-Saudi oil oriented or driven. A couple of The Sun article quotes frames it for me... "Everybody knows it’s not honey water, it’s an industrial effluent." Then he says "I’m a big believer that you can have industrial activity that’s good environmental management and that the trade offs are being adequately managed."