You say that I should tell you when you state a falsehood. Well, the first false assumption that you made is that I did not read the paper. I read the paper and I was compelled by the data. That does not mean that I accept it without question or that I do not expect the authors to release more information. It means that the data is compelling and deserves to be considered when thinking of where we should go with the hydraulic fracturing process. As it stands, there seems to be a considerable conclusion to be drawn that could ultimately reflect badly on the hydraulic fracturing industry.

That you and I disagree on the interpretation of the data, does not suggest that I did not read the paper. Without going one sentence further, I can make the argument that if my interpretation, which I feel is the most rational and least affected by motivated reasoning, is proven to be correct through more testing and additional release of information, then you will have a difficult time in a few months supporting your arguments and ultimately my “correct” interpretation of the data will be justified. If your interpretation proves to be correct, which I highly doubt judging from the authors’ “complete” paper, then I will be very surprised and will reconsider my position. However, given the title of the paper “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing,” I think the author’s feel confident they have established a real correlation between fracking and methane contamination of drinking water.

Now, to more specifically address your concerns:

Chris Salmon says,

“Maybe I’m mistaken but weren’t you referring to anyone who criticizes the Duke study as follows: “the next anti-science movement” – “driving a wedge between the public and the scientific community as observed in the evolution and climate debates” – “there is only one anti-science playbook” ??

Actually, no. Those who criticize the PNAS paper on unbiased terms without anything to personally gain would be most trustworthy and deserve to have their criticisms considered. Those who work in the fossil fuel industry or for interests thereof should be viewed with skepticism. If their criticisms prove to be objective, then they should also be considered.

Chris Salmon says,

“Then the entire list of ” tactics I expected to find” indicates that anyone who criticizes the Duke study is nothing but a dumb, reality denying, fact ignoring anti-scientific one-dimensional industry cheerleader, doesn’t it?”

Absolutely not. Dumb, reality denying, fact ignoring anti-scientific one-dimensional industry cheerleaders have a way of revealing themselves without making that assumption.

Chris Salmon says,

“Also doesn’t number 4 in that list indicate to your readers that they should view any science presented that is not in agreement with the Duke study as bad or “completely false” science?”

Again, no. Any science that is based on traditional scientific method without personal bias or industry interference and sheds light on the Duke study should be considered. Monday morning quarterbacking from behind a computer does not constitute “science.” If someone has a problem with the results of the Duke study, they should gather the funding to do the follow-up work.

Chris Salmon says,

“Cite ambiguous scientific sources that were very likely funded by the industry ” – isn’t this DIRECTLY saying that all scientists that work in the oil business are not to be trusted, that they’re to be considered as lacking in ethics and scientific integrity, that they dishonestly report observations and falsify results?”

No. Science is science. If you produce science that meets the peer review process and holds up to the test of time and repetition, even industry scientists can be trusted just as any other scientist. Sarcasm intended. I know plenty of industry scientists who maintain perfect scientific integrity. However, I must admit when I see the funding sources for some science, I go to extra lengths to ensure that it meets the smell test. Obviously, you understand the concept of “conflict of interest statements.” There’s a reason, scientists must include these in most of their publications.

Chris Salmon says,

“So can’t you understand why I might find this insulting and offensive? Do you really think it’s only “due to [my] personal investment in the fossil fuel industry?””

No. Yes.

Chris Salmon says,

“This is a false statement for a couple of reasons. Number one, they did not establish, or claim to establish, that environmental damages had occurred.”

I would classify methane contamination in drinking water to be environmental damages.

Chris Salmon says,

“this was a natural occurrence unrelated to man’s activities was one of three possibilities that the authors specifically listed.”

Now, I must ask if you really read this paper, because the natural occurrence of which you speak was dismissed based on the data.”

Chris Salmon says,

“They looked for environmental damage from Marcellus Shale formation water and saline frac fluid, but were unable to find it in any sample.”

This is an inaccurate statement. The authors did not test for frac fluids. Should I call you a liar as you have called me? I won’t be waiting for your apology. I shall go on.

Chris Salmon says,

“they did not establish, or claim to establish, a cause. They listed three possible causes. They did not quantify or put any weighting on these three causes”

Actually, you’re wrong again, Mr. Salmon. They write, “The first [possible mechanism] is physical displacement of gas-rich deep solutions from target formation. Given the lithostatic and hydrostatic pressures for 1-2 km of overlying geological strata, and our results that appear to rule out the rapid movement of deep brines to near the surface, we believe that this mechanism is unlikely.” Each of the explanations require failures during the process (hydraulic fracturing generates new fractures or enlarges existing one above the target shale formation) or during the extraction of gas following hydraulic fracturing (leaky gas-well casings). Either way, if there was no fracking, it is unlikely there would be increased levels of methane in the drinking water. Seems someone needs to re-read the article.
That they recommend more research is the responsible message considering that this evidence points to a potential risk of contaminating drinking water due to the hydraulic fracturing process.

Chris Salmon says,

“Next, you state: “It seems to be the smoking gun many have been awaiting on this issue, particularly those who are working to pass the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. ”
This is a false statement, also for a couple of reasons. First, a quick Google search shows that “smoking gun” is defined as: “A piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence.” The study reached no conclusions at all as to why they found the values they found in the sample set they acquired. Therefore it is not possible for the study to be deemed a “smoking gun,” as they did not establish incontrovertible evidence of anything other than their sample values.”

OK. Let’s play lawyer. “It seems…” is much too ambiguous and leaves open the possibility that it is not the smoking gun. However, I will argue that this “is” the smoking gun and I challenge you to do the science to disprove it. Good luck.

The rest of your comments are even more petty than those to which I have replied.

I’ll finish by stating for the other readers that they should take notice that Chris Salmon is doing exactly what we would predict in a case of motivated reasoning. When faced with strong evidence that supports a finding that challenges his “beliefs,” he has chosen to question the science (which is honorable), but his arguments are neither objective nor sufficient to overturn the evidence. He has a vested interest in the arguing for fracking. After all, he benefits directly from oil and gas industry. He has attacked me by questioning my credentials as a scientist (a trademark of the denialist movement). Finally, he has attempted to create an unrelated controversy where there is none, yet, by complaining that the Duke scientists have not yet released all their data.

The obvious next step in this process is to do additional research. Mr. Salmon argues that there is no need to exercise caution or consider that this report makes a very strong case that the hydraulic fracturing process might lead to environmental damages. We may later find that only certain areas of the country with specific geological formations are at risk, but we must do at least three things as we move forward,
1) take action to inform the public
2) do the necessary research to identify at-risk areas
3) slow the expansion of this practice within the U.S.

That is all.

First, your defensiveness in response to my post is probably due to your personal investment in the fossil fuel industry. I don’t believe I have been particularly insulting or offensive.

Second, I challenge you to find a false statement in my post.

I wasn’t “harping” on it. I mentioned it as an oddity, and moved on to the real question, which was gaining an understanding of how the groundwater flow worked to get these high concentrations so far from the wells. I’ve only been discussing it further because you made a particular point of it.

“the samples are collected under pressure and put in bags that are immediately sealed and put on ice”

Excellent. Now tell me how elastic these bags are, the volume/proportion of air that can be included with the sample, and how much the bag can expand for any given pressure change. Because otherwise that’s meaningless.

Pressure-sensitive samples obviously need to be kept in rigid pressure vessels and fully filled – whereupon temperature is irrelevant. “Bags” are clearly not ideal for that.

“Despite your own “doubts”, the 64 mg/L concentration is hardly unprecedented.”

I haven’t suggested it is.

“it is certainly possible that a sample that came from depth (as the report indicates, one of the wells was 190m deep) and hence higher pressure”

Is that depth below the surface or depth below the water table? If the former, why does that imply high pressure? If the latter, what is the purpose in drilling a well that deep? And how did they get the sample bag in?

“If you are actually under the impression that asking uninformed questions without even bothering to read what you are supposedly “questioning””

Asking questions is the way to learn. Not asking questions, and just assuming that all the unstated details and background works out fine, is the way to miss serious mistakes. Questioning a result doesn’t mean that one thinks it is mistaken, it is the way you ensure that it isn’t.

And while I have no problem with you questioning my assumptions and checking my reasoning, I’m unimpressed at the way that you’re assuming ignorance on my part and failing to read what I say while jumping to conclusions and accusing me of the same thing. Being civil about it works better.

This is the same debate we have all the time, just a different technique being debated. And, as usual, the lines are drawn politically. One side (liberals) that overstate the risks, and the other side (conservatives) that understate the risks. Hmmmm, where have we seen this before?…

We can’t create dams because it will harm the fish.
We can’t have nuclear power due to risk of nuclear waste.
We can’t drill for oil in Alaska due to risk of spills.
We can’t drill off-shore due to risks of spills.
We can’t ship oil in due to risk of spills.
We can’t mine for coal due to damage to environment.

I understand where this comes from, it’s using the tactic of “we are all going to die” as a way of gaining traction against well financed big business propaganda. But when a film like Gasland comes out, and the propaganda machine shoots it down, it doesn’t mean that the film or the take down was correct. From what I can tell, the film overstated the facts as much as the gas industry’s response did.

It’s a sad world we live in that the only voices we hear are from the far ends of any debate. Doesn’t anybody want the straight facts anymore?

Perhaps you should spend more than ten minutes reading (but only if you don’t want to sound uninformed, of course)

Frankly, based on your questions/statements, I seriously doubt you read more than the abstract.

Your focus (harping) on the “64 mg/l” sample (the maximum) is simply misguided

Looking at the abstract, they say they found peak values of 64 mg/l, which sounded a bit high to me. A quick check indicates methane solubility in water is about 30-40 mg/l in water, depending on temperature, so that’s an oddity.

It’s odder still since the water was collected, stored for transport, and tested later in the lab. Even stored on ice, one wouldn’t expect solutions to remain supersaturated. Was this loss compensated for, and if so, how?

This also means that the methane solution remains saturated, even a kilometre from the nearest well.

Had you read the report, you would have followed the link to the collection methodology that explains that the samples are collected under pressure and put in bags that are immediately sealed and put on ice.

Furthermore, it is certainly possible that a sample that came from depth (as the report indicates, one of the wells was 190m deep) and hence higher pressure could contain a concentration of gas above the saturation level at 1 atm and room temp,.

But your assumption that the 64mg/L sample was necessarily a “supersaturated” solution is simply not warranted.

If the sample was collected at a point where methane gas was actively bubbling up through the well water, the sample could contain a methane concentration that exceeds the saturation concentration without it being a saturated solution. Gas bubbles that were not in solution would be collected along with the liquid (which might or might not be saturated with methane) and the net effect could be a concentration higher than the saturation concentration at STP.

Despite your own “doubts”, the 64 mg/L concentration is hardly unprecedented.

A few minutes searching on google produced the USGS report (Jan 2006), Methane in West Virginia Ground Waterwhich found

Methane concentrations in ground water for the 170 wells ranged from not detected to 68.5 mg/L.

In other words, USGS found a concentration even higher than the maximum found in the PNAS study.

Finally, you have completely missed the forest for the trees in this case (perhaps quite purposely). Your obsession with one sample which had the maximum concentration has led you to ignore the most important conclusion of the study:

Methane concentrations were 17-times higher on average (19.2 mg CH4 L−1) in shallow wells from active drilling and extraction areas than in wells from nonactive areas (1.1 mg L−1 on average; P < 0.05; Fig. 3 and
Table 1).

If you are actually under the impression that asking uninformed questions without even bothering to read what you are supposedly “questioning” (and trying to cast doubt on the report based on your uninformed assumptions about “How that 64mg/L sample could be possible) is somehow useful (or even skeptical), then there is not a lot I or anyone else here can do to help you.

Those weren’t the questions I was asking.

I only spent about ten minutes skimming through the report, but I couldn’t see any modelling or explanation of the gas dispersion pattern underground. Do you have a more specific page/paragraph reference?

After you educate yourself about the very basic gas chemistry involved, you might want to actually read the report — in which the researchers describe such things as the depth of the wells from which samples were taken (36 m to 190 m) and reference (and provide a link to) the sampling and sample collection methods.

…as opposed to simply speculating about “water pressure”, “percolation speeds” and the rest.

The latter is pointless.