Free Water For the Public (Sometimes)

There is a move afoot in some of the larger cites to re-purpose their old, or outdated infrastructure.  If you think about it, the possibilities are endless.  I ran across this example from Lima, Peru - a free water station.

It had been an advertising billboard, but was designed and converted (re-purposed) by the University of Engineering and Technology into a fresh water collection facility - converting the moist air (very moist air at 98% relative humidity) into drinking water.  As the air moves through the contraption's reverse-osmosis collectors, it is condensed and filtered to produce as much as 25 gallons of water per day.  This bounty is kept in tanks along the old basewalk, and is dispensed by a faucet at the bottom of the old billboard.  Simple, but effective.

I guess it won't be long before someone wants to advertise on the unit once again, so this particular old infrastructure is almost surely going to go full circle soon.  And they'll probably start charging for the use of the faucet, too.

Of course, such a unit would do no good at all here in Colby, Kansas where our average humidity hovers somewhere around 14% - and that's only when all the corn is transpiring full bore.  We'd be lucky to produce a cup-full of water each week, I'm afraid.  And I'm also afraid it'd evaporate on the way down to the faucet.  Maybe we'd just better leave the water in the air!

$10.00's Best (Heaviest) Buy

I ran across a Reddit thread the other day that was discussing the query:  "What's the heaviest thing I can buy for $10.00?"

The ensuing discussion was quite entertaining with all the suggestions - from potatoes, to lead to sand.  It even got more philosophical in the suggestion that $10.00 would easily buy you 218 square feet of land (at $2,000/acre).  Owning this 218 square feet of land to the center of the earth would give you a hefty weight.  But the discussion degenerated into whether the mineral rights went with the land or not.  And of course, some land is considerably cheaper.

Next came the concept of valueless, or even negative value items.  With some work you could own all the garbage you wanted for free, or even make money taking it.  But most of the engaged folks stood fast on the fact that you had to "buy" the material.  The one suggesting this stood fast as well and retorted that he'd offer them $1.00 to take the garbage - thus buying it.  The rest didn't buy that at all.

There were some other interesting suggestions, but in the end the consensus correct answer was "tap water".  At $1.50 per 1000 gallons (offered as the average price for tap water) you would be buying some 55,600 pounds of material.  Here in Colby, our household rates for the 1" supply line or less is $1.05 per 1,000 gallons.  We'd get 79,492 lbs of water for $10.00!  BUT, Colby has a minimum monthly $20 charge (for the first 3,000 thousand gallons) so you couldn't actually buy any water here for $10.00.  Most places also have minimum charges.

But all this rhetoric really isn't the point that I've decided to make.  This point is that tap water is pretty darn inexpensive, and you can get a lot of product for not very much money.  And this discussion thread will undoubtedly lead us off in many different directions...   

Desalination - An Historical Note

I ran across a 1791 report by Thomas Jefferson (as the Secretary of State) concerning a petition by one Jacob Isaacks of Newport, Rhode Island who was trying to sell his invention of obtaining fresh water from salt water to the U.S. Government to aid in all pursuits maritime.  All he wanted was "..to convey to the Government of the United States a faithful account of his art, or secret, to be used by or within the United States, on their giving him a reward suitable to the importance of the discovery, and, in the opinion of the Government, adequate to his expenses and the time he has devoted to the bringing it into effect."

Jefferson's report is a classic.  He begins by noting that Sir Francis Bacon had already observed "...that, with a heat sufficient for distillation, salt would not rise in vapor, and that salt water distilled, is fresh. And it would seem that all mankind might have observed, that the earth is supplied with fresh water chiefly by exhalation from the sea, which is in fact an insensible distillation effected by the heat of the sun."  

Jefferson goes on to note that initially filtration and congelation were both tried - unsuccessfully.  So you're thinking there might be some hope for Mr. Isaacks.  He then notes that Sir Richard Hawkins in the 16th century, and Glauber, Hauton and Lister in the 17th century, and Hales, Appleby, Butler, Chapman, Hoffman and Dove in the 18th century had all been successful in producing fresh water from sea water - and with only common items normally found on virtually every ship on the high seas.

Jefferson notes that "With this apparatus of a pot, tea-kettle, and gun-barrel, the Dolphin, a twenty-gun ship..in 1761, from fifty-six gallons of sea water, and nine pounds of wood and sixty-nine pounds of pit-coal, made forty-two gallons of good fresh water, at a rate of eight gallons an hour."   He also notes the Dorsetshire's 19 quarts of pure water in four hours with 10 pounds of wood in 1769.  And the Slambal's 10 quarts from six gallons in 3 hours in 1773.  Finally mentioning Dr. Irvin and Dr. Franklin's experiments.

There were ultimately two killers for Mr. Isaacks.  First, Jefferson discovered that Dr. Irvin had actually obtained a premium of 5,000 pounds from the British parliament for advances in sea water distillation twenty years earlier in 1771, and, controlled experiments of Isaack's process - which included "a mixture, the composition of which he did not explain" actually yielded the same amount of fresh water, over a slightly longer period of time, but with slightly less fuel required.

Jefferson concluded that "On the whole, it was evident that Mr. Isaack's mixture produced no advantage, either in process or result of the distillation.".  He also wrote:  "The distilled water in all these instances was found, on experiment, to be as pure as the best pump water of the city.  Its taste, indeed, was not as agreeable, but it was not such as to produce any disgust.  In fact we drink, in common life, in many places, and under many circumstances, and almost always at sea, a worse tasted and probably a less wholesome water."

Out of all this research and experimentation, Jefferson discovered that far too few sailors were even aware of this potentially life-saving process, and as such, he recommended:  "Let the clearance for every vessel sailing from the ports of the United States be printed on paper, on the back whereof shall be a printed account of the essays which have been made for obtaining fresh from salt water, mentioning briefly those which were unsuccessful, and, more fully, those which have succeeded; describing the methods which have been found to answer for constructing extempore stills of such implements as are generally on board of every vessel, with a recommendation, in all cases where they shall have occasion to resort to this expedient for obtaining water, to publish the result of their trial in some gazette on their return to the United States, or communicate it for publication to the office of the Secretary of State, in order that others may, by their success, be encouraged to make similar trials, and be benefited by any improvements or new ideas which may occur to them in practice."

There you have it.  Don't try to fleece the U.S. Government on Thomas Jefferson's watch!  And I have to believe that given a few more years, he would have also been promoting such a process for all the less-than-pure groundwater sources, as well.  What a remarkable American!

Haven't Been Fracked Yet But Are Concerned?

The question was posed to the SW Kansas GMD 3 as follows:  "If I were a concerned domestic well owner in an area where hydraulic fracking operations were to begin, what should my initial, pre-fracking, water quality sampling protocol include?" 

This is actually a very astute question and one that many folks may want to think about as the oil and gas industry ramps up and dives deeper and deeper for extra hydrocarbons.  A baseline, pre-oil activity, water sample (or set of samples) seems like a very smart idea that is more likely to give you a starting point should groundwater quality problems crop up after these areas become active.  Turns out GMD 3 contacted the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) and asked their opinion, which is recounted here in this blog.  Thanks, Mark!  Click this link to the KGS if you want to review their website.

The KGS approached the question in an interesting way, beginning with "If someone wishes to at least have some basic, affordable, analysis made of his/her ground water, I would suggest...".  How thoughtful and actually dead on this approach was.  Anyway, they go on to suggest some basic inorganic tests including:  pH, specific conductance, calcium, magnesium, sodium, alkalinity or bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations.  They like this suite of tests in that it will provide a background quality that will be helpful in distinguishing the pre-activity water quality from any post-activity quality should there be the more common problems of:  oil or gas brine leaking from waste at the surface; or through a faulty production or injection well; or through a poorly plugged (old) oil or gas well nearby that may have been affected by the fracking process.

They continue on to say that the other fracking chemicals are organic and will be much more expensive to include in a testing protocol - but none-the-less are as important.  While many of the organic constituents of fracking activities are none that landowners or farmers would be normally using, there are some that are - like ethylene glycol (antifreeze), methanol (antifreeze, windshield fluid and denatured ethanol) and isopropanol (glass cleaners and fuel additives).  Unfortunately, these are the same 3 organics they recommend being tested for because they are also the most commonly used in the fracking process.  If they show up in the post-activity testing, be prepared to prove that they're not yours!  If they show up before oil operations and you've been using these products, perhaps you have a leak in your septic system or have had poor storage and disposal practices on the farm already.

In any case, KGS recommends you contact a company certified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for whatever testing you decide on.  This link or This link can be used to find a KDHE qualified lab.

They also indicate that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) are working with the industry to obtain samples of actual fracking fluid being used in Kansas horizontal wells, but I have not confirmed this.  Presumably this would yield a fairly accurate fingerprint of these water qualities for future reference and comparisons.  There is also an understanding that other fracking operations in different formations in Kansas will require a different fracking brew, so this may be a long and involved process.

I have to reference the industry FracFocus website at this time as well.  This is a voluntary site where drilling companies can choose to list the chemical constituents of their fracking formulas along with a lot of other information on the listed well.  A breeze through this site for fracking wells close to your area could give you far more specific information about what is most likely being used.  You could then choose to test accordingly.  Some companies use this site more than others, and some states have required its use, like Texas.  Kansas has not.  Might be something to talk to your legislators about...

Anyway, I hope this gives some direction on how landowners can approach a water quality sampling effort that gives them some peace of mind yet doesn't require their entire life savings.

[Update: October 26, 2011]

KGS has offered an interesting alternative to those who have not yet leased land for oil and gas operations that makes sense to me.  Thanks, guys.  In their own words:

"Dave Newell at the KGS had an excellent suggestion concerning negotiating an analysis for a new lease and I have added some procedure to it that you might consider adding to your blog:

If a land owner is being approached to lease their land, a baseline laboratory analysis paid by the oil/gas company could be negotiated as part of the leasing agreement. This is not costly compared to the total leasing agreement and drilling, and in some ways, it could protect both the property owner and the company. In this case, a third party could collect and submit a water sample to an independent certified laboratory and both the oil/gas company and landowner should receive the results."

Use of Freshwater for Oil & Gas in Kansas

Wow, I find of late that I actually misspoke in an earlier post on this issue.  Recall that on February 2, 2011 I said in my coverage of hydraulic fracking in Kansas:  "...the state is not allowed to approve any water right for fresh water when other, lesser quality waters are available to be used. Presumably this would find very small (if any) amounts of fresh water being used for fracking, or any other oil & gas purpose, in Kansas."

Turns out this is not exactly the case.  KSA 82a-711 actually says:  "...except that the chief engineer shall not approve any application submitted [for a water right] for the proposed use of freshwater in any case where other waters are available for such use and the use thereof is technologically and economically feasible."  And this same language shows up in KSA 82a-727 dealing with approvals by the chief engineer of temporary permits - most often used by the oil & gas industry for well drilling purposes.  So, seems the operable words are "technologically and economically feasible".

I then did a quick search of my temporary and term permits for their water sources.  (Yeah, I know, I should have done this back in February!)  From January 1, 2011 to September 21, 2011, within GMD 4, I found 32 oil & gas permits issued.  Thirty-one were for groundwater and one was for surface water.  All were for freshwater.  I didn't expect to see this.  I called the division of water resources to ask:  Had they issued a blanket ruling that Dakota Aquifer waters (and all other waters below the Ogallala Aquifer) were too difficult to use?; or, Were they not aware of the lesser quality water requirement?; or, What?  Moreover, the small number of permits issued thus far in 2011 in our area has me wondering what percentage of drilling activity is even bothering to secure the water rights required by law.  I'll look into this later (and likely blog about it as well).

Anyway, I don't think the industry can argue that Dakota, Cheyenne, Cedar Hills or other brackish waters below the Ogallala are technologically out of reach - as they drill through them routinely on every well completion.  This only leaves the possibility of these waters being economically challenging.  Comforting, isn't it?  The good news is all 32 permits were for drilling wells - a relatively small amount of water.  There were no water flood projects or the kind of operations that use huge quantities of water over many years.
 
Turns out the state was aware of the rule, and indicated that it was an aspect of their regulatory duties that needed, and was slated for, more attention and broader discussions in the near future.  And they promised my question and comments would be included in these discussions.  While use of freshwater in some oil and gas operations is probably justified, we just need to have the smarts to determine which operations are justified and which are not, and then the guts to enforce this law more closely.  My prediction is that the oil and gas industry in Kansas may want to start preparing to better justify their water use needs and start planning on the use of more brackish waters.

New Water?

For the past 10 years or so a huge iceberg that split from the Ross ice shelf has been drifting in the sea - more or less toward SW Australia.  This berg is reported to be 87 square miles in size, and looks from the pictures to be about 100 feet high   (this picture is NOT the iceberg we're speaking of).

Anyway, if my calculations are right, this berg contains about 261,106,187,294 (261.1 billion) gallons of fresh water.  Since its drifting northward anyway, I'm thinking Australia should latch onto it, tow it to port, insert a melting device and start producing its water.  At the very least someone could mine the water into tankers in-situ and sail the tankers somewhere. 

I have no idea how fast an 87 square mile chunk of ice that is likely 900 feet thick can be towed - if at all, and no idea how much of it would melt on its way to Australia, but I'm certain some engineer has worked this all out because towing icebergs has been contemplated many times before.  This one, however, seems virtually "shovel-ready" and half way home!  I also have to wonder if anyone owns this berg and its valuable supply of fresh water?  Being a groundwater manager in Kansas, I'm not really up on all these technical issues!