ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Fracking worst-case scenario | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Fracking worst-case scenario

Tribune-Review
| Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:00 a.m

The worst-case scenario for a fracked deep gas well is when the gas somehow escapes the confinement of the casing pipe and ends up outside of it. This gas, which is under great pressure, then blasts its way to the surface and creates a plume hundreds of feet high. This situation in a deep well is called a blowout.

Think of the Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone National Park, which is a plume of high-pressure steam. In the case of a deep fracking well, this plume contains all the nasty stuff inside the fracked well: fracking fluids, saline water, drilling mud, VOCs (volatile carcinogenic organic carbons such as benzine), radioactive particles, etc., and, of course, a highly explosive blast of natural gas.

This is what nearly happened on a Utica fracking well on the property of Westmoreland Municipal Authority’s Beaver Run Reservoir. If a blowout had happened here, the plume of contaminants would have rained down into the reservoir and contaminated it, and the flow of potable water to 130,000 customers in four counties would have had to stop. Fortunately, the blowout gas found a path of least resistance halfway up into porous strata containing old conventional gas wells. Instead of blowing its way to the surface, the gas vented through these old wells, which had to be flared.

Larry Josephs

Penn Township, Westmoreland County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.