Simms
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    690
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    Chats
    683
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Oh wait a minute... my bad... NOTHING startling...

    All the horrible chemicals didn't even affect the micro organisms that digest the human wastes...

    Watertown Daily Times | City says fluid had nothing startling

    City says fluid had nothing startling
    WELL FLOWBACK: Plant performance not affected by waste

    By ROBERT BRAUCHLE
    TIMES STAFF WRITER
    MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010
    ARTICLE OPTIONS

    The 35,000 gallons of flowback fluid treated in January at the Watertown sewage treatment plant had little or negligible effects on the plant and the Black River, according to documents about the testing process made available by the city Friday.

    "There is nothing in that fluid that this plant was not designed to treat," plant Supervisor Michael J. Sligar said.

    The city received permission from the state Department of Environmental Conservation in late December to accept the flowback fluid from the Ross No. 1 well drilled in the town of Maryland. The vertical well, operated by Gastem Inc., Quebec, uses the controversial hydro-fracking process to extract natural gas from the Utica Shale rock formation.

    While vertical wells produce far less wastewater than horizontal wells also using the hydro-fracking process, drillers are hampered by the limited options to treat the fluid. Companies can either ship it to municipally owned treatment plants, store it underground or find a way to reuse it.

    "The sampling results presented in this report show that the loading indicated was not significant as compared with routine daily loadings at the sewage treatment plant and that the plant's performances were not impacted in any manner by them," Mr. Sligar wrote in a memo to the City Council.

    "Further, the relevant conclusion of the toxicity testing is that nomortalities or effects were noted in any ofthe treatments testsfor either the vertebrate species or the invertebrate species."

    Environmental protection groups have said that large quantities of flowback fluid introduced in sewage treatment plants can kill the organisms used to digest waste. The groups also have stated that municipal treatment plants are not equipped to treat the fluid, which has a high salt content.

    "The question never was what is in the fluid. We knew that before we accepted it," Mr. Sligar said. "The question was how much is in it?"

    Mr. Sligar said DEC asked him to monitor whether the chlorides and toluene, which is commercially used as a solvent, in the fluid affected the plant's digestion.

    "There was such a small amount of this stuff that it didn't even realize it was there," Mr. Sligar said, referring to the flowback fluid.


    The plant treats an average of 12 million gallons of sewage each day and is rated to treat 16 million gallons. Any criticism that the plant is not equipped to treat salts is disingenuous, Mr. Sligar said, because the plant uses about 700 pounds of chlorides each day to treat phosphorus found in household sewage.

    The plant typically treats about 25,000 pounds of chlorides daily, according to information provided to the Times.

    The tankers hauling the fluid pumped 2,294 pounds of chlorides into the system over a two-day period, meaning the flowback fluid increased the amount of chlorides in the plant by 4.8 percent.

    The city also tested for the nuclear content of the fluid, which Mr. Sligar said was below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's threshold for drinking water.

    "It's incumbent on these plant operators to not allow this fluid to overwhelm their processes," Mr. Sligar said. "I am aware of the threshold that this plant can deal with and what it's designed to do."

    He said he has talked with Gastem's president, Orville R. Cole, to treat any further fluid produced at the Otsego County site.

    "They're permitted for five wells there," Mr. Sligar said. "So, yeah, I think it's a foregone conclusion."

    Any additional fluid treated at the Watertown plant must be approved by DEC.

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    815
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    556
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    123
    Thanked in
    87 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Waste treatment was one of my biggest concerns over the drilling process. If this holds true for flowback from other wells then this is good news.

    "The two best times to go fishing is when it's rainin' and when it ain't."--Patrick McManus.

    www.creekaddict.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    I hope that's true...I'm waiting for the drilling to start


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    704 Hauser Street
    Posts
    3,690
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,266
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,140
    Thanked in
    807 Posts
    Chats
    1619
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 40 Times in 37 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Big deal if some raw sewage gets in the water, the fish crap in there right?


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hamlin Pa/Deposit NY
    Posts
    3,220
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    982
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    850
    Thanked in
    625 Posts
    Chats
    3358
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 28 Times in 28 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    35,000 gallons in a 12,000000 millon gallon a day plant equates to 2.9% of its daily flow. Any operator will tell you that at that percentage it too small to make a negative impact. Oh well i guess dilution is the solution to pollution.

    To look good is to fish good

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    690
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    Chats
    683
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WBDluver View Post
    35,000 gallons in a 12,000000 millon gallon a day plant equates to 2.9% of its daily flow. Any operator will tell you that at that percentage it too small to make a negative impact. Oh well i guess dilution is the solution to pollution.
    It's hard to get a bead on you guys... Here I thought you guys believed that Frack fluid was something mixed by the devil and able to drop elephants in their tracks just by smelling it. But then I read that a 2.9% solution of this "is too small to make a negative impact". So how much does that mean can go into say a system of 550 billion gallons, before having an impact?

    Anyway, if you believe this water treatment guy KNOWS what he is talking about AND you believe he is telling the truth, dealing with 35,000 gallons of frack fluid at this treatment site was just another day at the office for him. He WILL be treating more, and why not?

    "There is nothing in that fluid that this plant was not designed to treat," plant Supervisor Michael J. Sligar said.

    "The sampling results presented in this report show that the loading indicated was not significant as compared with routine daily loadings at the sewage treatment plant and that the plant's performances were not impacted in any manner by them," Mr. Sligar wrote in a memo to the City Council.

    "Further, the relevant conclusion of the toxicity testing is that no mortalities or effects were noted in any of the treatments tests for either the vertebrate species or the invertebrate species."

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lehighton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,088
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    One of the concerns (at least in PA) on this issue has been that not all treatment facilities that fracking fluid may end up at have the same capabilities or capacity.

    TU Life Member, Forks of the Delaware Chapter

    NRA Life Member

    "Where the air's a little cleaner, the trees a little greener and the road don't go through your town."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hancock
    Posts
    553
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Only DEC approved facilities can process the production fluid.

    The problem is that there are not enough of them and why a large number of companies are turning to onsite close loop and reprocessing plants, reusing all the waste water.

    A good well with a trouble-free delivery system is more comfort than a healthy bank account... water will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no water.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    690
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    Chats
    683
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Fanatic View Post
    But then I read that a 2.9% solution of this "is too small to make a negative impact". So how much does that mean can go into say a system of 550 billion gallons, before having an impact?
    Well, I just couldn't wait around...

    A 2.9% non-negative impacting solution of frack fluid in the NYC reservoir system equates to some 15,950,000,000 gallons of the stuff. That would mean, one second, let me sharpen my pencil, it would mean that we could line up 1,772,222 tanker trucks full of frack fluid over the reservoirs and open the spigots with NO HARM to any vertebrates or invertebrates in the system.


    Given that this would NEVER happen, given that anywhere near these concentrations would only happen in the case of some horrible localized accident... I think the trout are safe, don't you?

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Warwick, Ny
    Posts
    1,157
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    15
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    114
    Thanked in
    73 Posts
    Chats
    131
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 6 Times in 6 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    \/.... no not really, still going to have development happen, still going to be increased erosion problems, increased traffic, gas, oil or other spills. you just care about money.

    side with trout not money

    "...,he who does not put a padlock on his basket ought to put one on his mouth"
    The Practical Angler
    C.W. Stewart
    Circa 1847

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    690
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    Chats
    683
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Catskill Mountain Man View Post
    you just care about money.
    I chose to live in a perennially economically depressed area of upstate NY.
    I chose to be a teacher.
    I own a farm.
    I pay taxes on land that does nothing but grow some hay and trees.

    Does your conclusion make ANY sense what so ever?

    I guess putting me in that category makes it easy for you to demonize me and justify in your own mind NOT thinking too hard about the difference between fact and fiction.

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    11,859
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,614
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,079
    Thanked in
    694 Posts
    Chats
    3104
    Groans
    28
    Groaned 33 Times in 33 Posts


    Re: Frack water contents startle treatment plant!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Fanatic View Post
    I chose to live in a perennially economically depressed area of upstate NY.
    I chose to be a teacher.
    I own a farm.
    I pay taxes on land that does nothing but grow some hay and trees.

    Does your conclusion make ANY sense what so ever?

    I guess putting me in that category makes it easy for you to demonize me and justify in your own mind NOT thinking too hard about the difference between fact and fiction.
    Yes Yest but we know this is all a ruse for your master plan to take over the world...Dr Evil!!!

    "Angling is extremely time consuming. That's sort of the whole point." - Thomas McGuane

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Participants: 10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •