Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Brine Wastewater Leak Investigated

February 28, 2013

DALLAS — Officials want to know how 2,264 barrels of brine wastewater leaked from a storage pit into a local tributary of Big Wheeling Creek in Marshall County on Friday....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

TrollSlayer

Mar-01-13 5:11 PM

The radium content for three different studies of a total of 52 Marcellus wells was documented by the USGS in this paper.

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5135/

The median total Radium value for the three studies was 2460 picocuries per liter. The limit for drinking water is 5 picocuries per liter. That means if you dilute Marcellus-produced fluid with 500 parts water to 1 part flowback the mixture meets Radium standards FOR DRINKING WATER.

Basically, if you dump it in the river, the Radium content of the mixture BECOMES NEGLIGIBLE.

Facts beat anecdotes. Now go back to screaming RADIATION! again, since you have no point with actual numbers so fearmongering and pseudoscience will have to do.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-01-13 4:46 PM

WVUGEO “Doctors in Pennsylvania treating people who might have been poisoned by frack fluid have to sign a secrecy agreement before the fracking companies have to tell the doctors what they're made of.”

Well, then, it’s understandable that you can’t give names of all those people who have been poisoned by fracking fluid. How inconvenient. Seeing as how they’ve drilled and fracked THOUSANDS of wells here over the last decade, though, it would seem at least ONE member of that fracking holocaust would have spilled the beans. Considering how valuable ANY evidence of injury to just ONE person would be to your cause, and all.

Fracking conspiracy theories are so amusing.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Mar-01-13 2:58 PM

If anyone's still paying attention to this thread: Oldsteelmaker: the radium/uranium content of the ancient shale beds is well documented. We would post links to references, but this anal retentive rag won't allow it. Mikeyd/Troll: As far as what's in the frack fluids, they don't, according to what's commonly called the "Halliburton Loophole", an amendment added to the Safe Drinking Water Act after lobbying by then-VP Dick Cheney, have to reveal what's in them. Doctors in Pennsylvania treating people who might have been poisoned by frack fluid have to sign a secrecy agreement before the fracking companies have to tell the doctors what they're made of. Seriously, that is the law.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Mar-01-13 9:59 AM

if i'm not mistaken,don't they change the chemical compound for each well?and does anybody keep records of these chemicals for each individual well?results from 2009 are better than no results at all.this stuff won't affect us old people that had years of getting high just snorting up the coke plant.we've mutated.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-01-13 8:35 AM

Marcellus, are they STILL exceeding standards when disposing of waste water at Wheeling? If they are, of course they should be stopped and prosecuted. If they aren’t, why do you still consider that evidence we’re still being harmed? Is a single report from 2009 the best you can do? Better babble more pseudoscience, then. Otherwise mikeyd won’t take your false alarms seriously.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-01-13 8:34 AM

Of COURSE you don’t want to drink fracking fluid. You don’t want to drink sea water, either. Or gasoline, which is commonly carried on trucks over the same roads, every day. And is occasionally spilled, too. Are you going to shut down the petroleum fuel industry because petroleum products are occasionally spilled? Green nuts would argue YES if they thought they could get away with that. Since they have almost no real evidence of real harm they spew pseudoscience like “TDS, Flouride, Chloride, Sulfate, TPH-DRO, and pH,” and shout scary terms like “radiation” and “cancer,” and raise a following of low information commenters.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Mar-01-13 6:37 AM

the salt content we are not worried about in the least.been eating it forever.when i see with my own eyes some "official" drink a glassful of this stuff,keep it down and come out fine then i'll change my tune.until then this stuff is to be considered hazardous.the hush-hush on the chemicals is what makes this suspicious.it's been that way from the beginning.bleach has been in the drinking water around here as long as i can remember.no problem there.thanks marcellus for the info.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcellus

Mar-01-13 6:11 AM

As usual, this message 'bored' has turned into another political and insulting rant by the omnificent TROLLSLAYER, ALL HAIL! In order to get this discussion back to reality, one has to look no further than the testing done by the WV DEP on drilling wastewater hauled into LAD (Liquid Assets Disposal) in Wheeling that was tested April 21, 2009. While many more chemicals and compounds are listed, items exceeding primary drinking water standards were: Barium, Benzene, Gross Alpha, Radium 226, and Radium 228. Exceedances of secondary drinking water standards were: Iron, TDS, Flouride, Chloride, Sulfate, TPH-DRO, and pH. This isn't your common road salt.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 10:43 PM

Cations and anions? Did you read those terms in a paper you don't understand? You don't even know what those are. LOL

Let’s make this simple. You told us your Prius gets 78 mpg. Which proves either you’re an idiot or proves you grossly inflate numbers to push your green agenda. We no longer trust a word you say. Peddle your crap where your propensity to exaggerate isn’t common knowledge.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 10:42 PM

“Typical” TDS concentrations in Marcellus shale brines have 195,000 mg/L (Keister, 2010).

The average TDS concentration is 106,000 mg/L in flowback water from PA shale gas wells. (Ziemkiewicz, 2012) water.usgs.g ov/wrri/2011grants/progress/2011WV167B.pdf

Concentrations of TDS in five collected flowback water samples ranged from three to six times (110,000 to 210,000 mg/l) saltier than sea water (35,000 mg/l) (PWRRC, Penn State, 2009) water.usgs.g ov/wrri/AnnualReports/2009/FY2009_PA_Annual_Report.pdf

600,000 mg/l? LOL Source that whopper, Clean.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Feb-28-13 10:03 PM

Yeah, marcellus produced water can yield 600,000 mg/l. The data exists in DEP analyses. It doesn't matter that you lied to me showing values for just NaCl. What about all the cations and anions? Minnows? You could use an ecology lesson. There are hundreds of species of invertebrates in small NP streams. They work to purify water unless they're poisoned by brine. Green nazi? I support responsible shale development. Polluters should have to pay out the azz--only way to make it better.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 9:20 PM

And CleanWater, stop putting words in my mouth. “you don’t think this company deserves to be fined and these spills should be stopped”? I never said that, so that’s a lie, too.

Of course laws should be enforced, and spills should be stopped. But you green Nazis go far beyond that. You intentionally spread lies in an effort to kill an entire industry. Which kills jobs and kills our economy and kills our nation’s future. And THAT kind of destruction needs to be stopped, too.

600,000 mg/l? Seriously? Just had to up the lie another notch, didn’t you. Too funny.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 9:13 PM

Yeah. Let’s not bicker over numbers when your numbers are proven to be lies. Let’s focus on a few dead minnows. Oh, wait a minute. “No fish kill” - DEP. Well, maybe you could go out and throw a few dead fish in that stream and check again tomorrow. Because let’s not bicker over whether the brine or the fish market killed the fish. Because the cause is more important than the truth. Right? Right.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Feb-28-13 9:00 PM

I won't bicker over a couple hundred thousand mg/l when toxicity to many aquatic organisms is in the hundreds to a couple of thousand. This was a significant pollution event and you don't think this company deserves to be fined and these spills should be stopped? Assimilative capacity of the immediate receiving water body is critical in this discussion.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 8:49 PM

The point is you liberals stoop to shamelessly inflating numbers (78 mpg Prius? 500k mg/l brine?) and babbling out of context pseudoscience (“road salt pales in comparison to brine,” “No assimilative capacity”) and just spewing bold-faced lies (atomic weapons-grade uranium in the Marcellus? deadly radium concentrations?) because you believe your progressive agenda justifies it.

Consequently, nobody can believe a thing you lying leftists say any more. If you told me water was wet, I’d have to take three showers just to check, recheck, and recheck again. LOL

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 8:48 PM

364,000 mg/l at 100 F. LOWER at lower temperatures, like winter here.

w ww.alkar.c om/download/pdf/Sodium%20Chloride%20Brine%20Tables%20for%2060F.pdf

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Feb-28-13 8:33 PM

600,000 mg/l

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 8:28 PM

Hey CleanWater, now tell us about your 78 mpg Prius. The one the apparently you only drive downhill. LOL

Liberals should have to get a license to use numbers.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-28-13 8:20 PM

CleanWater “typical brine is 500,000 mg/l TDS”

Hey Einstein, SATURATED brine is less than 400,000 mg/l. And flowback fracking fluid is NO WHERE NEAR saturated. oldsteelmaker beat me to the punch at proving what a dolt you are when it comes to the rest of your “data.”

And the bottom line is that little spill is NOTHING compared to the salt the Ohio Valley dumps on the roads every time it snows. Not to mention the THOUSANDS of tons of chemicals FAR more noxious than salt and the other filth YOU and the rest of the HYPOCRITES like you dump into the Ohio Valley watershed every day.

Here you go. Don’t choke on your chew toy, puppy. LOL

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-28-13 8:09 PM

Calcium chloride is more soluble, but frack water salt is from the shale, and it's fossilized sea water in there, good old NaCl.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-28-13 8:07 PM

Geo, I keep hearing this stuff about the radium. What utter nonsense.

What is shale? It's fossilized MUD. Worn down rocks. Yes there is some uranium in there. How much is in the rocks around the area? After all, that mud was produced from the rocks in the area. The Shale Fairy didn't bring it from the Rockies or the White Mountains.

So if the original rocks contained parts per million of uranium, and radium is one of the breakdown products of uranium, and most uranium does NOT turn into radium, where the bleep do you think enough radium to be dangerous will come from????

A lot of people have been talking about the "low information voter" recently. We have a prime example here of the "no information commenter".

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Feb-28-13 8:05 PM

Thanks oldsteelmaker. Brine Salt already in solution though is conservative and will mix in any stream water. So that is not true for calcium chloride crystals. Thanks. Every flowing stream is created equal under the CWA. It was a tributary of wheeling creek that was polluted. The company will get fined as they should.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-28-13 7:54 PM

Clean, I think you are off by a factor of two. Actually probably more, since the solubility limit I used was for 68F, and it's a little chillier than that.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-28-13 7:48 PM

Clean, you are partially right, probably killed some minnows and crawdads. The population of both will probably be back to normal in a month or so. And once it's in the river, you won't ever notice it.

Let's see... 2264 barrels times 42 gallons per barrel, times 3 pounds of salt solubility limit at 68F per gallon is roughly 143 tons of salt.

You might want to check what Pittsburgh buys per winter, most of which washes into the Ohio. Tens of thousands of tons, and it barely raises the concentration level in the river enough to make any difference. Certainly not enough to make it any problem to drink, it passes Federal and state drinking water standards at it's peak every spring. Only people I ever heard any complaints from worked at Yorkville, where the higher chloride levels caused some surface problems on the tinplate.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Feb-28-13 7:35 PM

Troll this is a good chew toy for you. But rivers have something called assimilative capacity where they have some resiliency to pollution (able to take pollutants in diluted form over time). The spill was concentrated salt (typical brine is 500,000 mg/l TDS). Do some math and it comes out to 289 short tons of salt from this 1 spill of 2600 barrels. That's like dumping 29 trucks of salt into 1 stream in hours. No assimilative capacity. Just cuz I use gas to heat doesn't make this violation of water laws acceptable. You accept it cuz yer an idiot.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: