Natural Gas Flame

Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Resident Farmer, Jane Lew, Lewis County, WV

America’s Natural Gas Alliance and Energize WV with Natural Gas held another of its Town Hall information meetings in Buckhannon Wednesday evening, May 22. The presentation and room decoration were similar to a one I attended at Bridgeport a year or so ago, perhaps a little less elaborate.

There was a talk by a good female speaker emphasizing the points the industry wishes the audience to accept: economic effect, fracking is not new technology, everything is done to avoid water contamination, they are thoroughly regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection, gas is the coming thing, and basically no one is harmed. Then a well prepared video give much the same points with pictures and (very few) graphics. The visual displays around the room were much more limited than the previous meeting I attended. But the obligatory sweet food bar was present.

A little over half the 100 or so seats available were occupied. Quite a few industry people present. They were office workers in casual clothes, heavy labor was conspicuously absent. The rest of the crowd was “civilians.”

After the presentation, the floor was opened for questions to a panel of four central West Virginia management employees. The first few questions were soft, but after the first hard question was asked a flood of more pointed questions came out. One involved the “Halliburton loophole,” another recent research in water contamination, and still another was “Isn’t our water being destroyed?” Property rights questions were popular, several coming from people who appeared to be having problems on property they own.

After the meeting there was a friendly conversation between the people in the panel and the woman who gave the first talk, on one hand, and people from the audience, on the other, all very polite and reasonable. Both the higher level of comprehension and questions by the audience and the conversations afterwards were in sharp contrast to the earlier meeting at Bridgeport.

I read about how land and minerals are being expropriated in many countries by governments for the benefit of foreign investors, simply kicking the previous owner-users out without recourse and without an alternative way to make a living. The civility of a meeting like this makes you glad to be in the United States. You may feel you and your heirs (in the broadest sense) are losing something valuable, but it is not being taken at gunpoint.

Open Letter From the Society for Conservation Biology, February 28, 2013

The Society for Conservation Biology sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Interior requesting that those three agencies conduct research on the biodiversity-related impacts of unconventional natural gas exploration involving hydraulic fracturing technology as part of a larger federal effort to determine how best to regulate and manage this rapidly-growing industry.

Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is the process by which oil or natural gas is extracted from dense geologic formations through fractures created with pressurized fluid. The recent development of horizontal drilling technology has made it profitable to scale-up natural gas production in areas where it was previously uneconomical to develop natural gas. Projections estimate that natural gas production by this method will double in the next 30 years, with an additional 60,000 wells to be constructed in the Marcellus shale region of the eastern U.S. alone.

In response to this rapid development and general concerns about the possibility that fracking may contaminate freshwater supplies both above and below ground, the EPA, DOE, and DOI signed a Multi-Agency Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in April of 2012 to ensure “the prudent development of energy sources while protecting human health and the environment.” The MOU called for a prioritized research agenda that will identify critical knowledge gaps related to fracking impacts, as well as an explicit timeline for developing this document. Thus far, the three agencies have failed to meet the MOU’s mandate, which called for a draft research plan being published for public review and comment by October of 2012 and a final research plan being published by January of 2013.

Among the 1,261 peer-reviewed studies of fracking currently published, there appear to be only a few that directly focus on the impacts of fracking on biological diversity or ecosystem health. Because of the potential risks and scientific uncertainties surrounding unconventional fracking practices, SCB suggested research priorities to address biodiversity for the multi-agency research collaboration.

While fracking is exempted from meeting the regulatory requirements of some environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal government still retains authority under other environmental protection laws to help prevent environmental contamination or other damage caused by fracking. Accordingly, SCB also recommended to the agencies interim policy measures that can help to ensure the health of the nation’s aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by affording additional regulatory protection pending the completion of those studies. States also have the ability to control most of these risks but in many cases have not enacted such measures.

Read the full letter HERE.

Weill Cornell Medical Center

The Need for Proactive Public Health Policies

From the Review Article by Madelon L. Finkel, Jake Hays, and Adam Law, Weill Cornell Medical College and Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE).

A modern form of natural gas development has become a global “game changer” in the quest for energy. Natural gas, abundant around the world, has a clean reputation compared to other fossil fuels since it burns less carbon when used. It is easy to transport, reasonably economical, and requires comparatively quick construction timelines and low capital costs.

Traditionally, natural gas was extracted using a method that bores a vertical well in single gas reservoirs close to the surface (conventional natural gas drilling). However, drilling for natural gas in shale rock was not particularly economical, primarily because shale typically has insufficient permeability to allow significant fluid flow to a well bore. With technological advances and unconventional methods (i.e., horizontal hydraulic fracturing), gas extraction from tight formations (e.g., shale) is now feasible.

This type of unconventional natural gas development relies on clustered, multi-well pads and long, horizontal laterals. Wells are drilled vertically (often thousands of feet) and horizontally in multiple directions. The method entails injecting large volumes of fluid consisting of chemicals, water, and sand into the well to fracture the shale rock that releases the natural gas. The internal pressure of the rock formation also causes a portion of the injected fracking fluids to return to the surface (flowback fluids); these fluids are often stored in a tank or pit before being pumped into trucks for transport to a disposal site. Flowback has been shown to contain a variety of formation materials, including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides, and organics, which can make wastewater treatment difficult and expensive.

Further, other studies found that 20% to 85% of fracturing fluids may remain in the formation, which means the fluids could continue to be a source of groundwater contamination for years to come. By 2009, there were more than 493,000 active natural gas wells across 31 states, almost double the number in 1990, of which approximately 90 percent have used hydraulic fracturing to extract gas.

Whereas shale gas has the potential to become a significant, economical energy source, the potential for harm and the potential of giving a false sense of energy security are often dismissed by its proponents. The process is potentially polluting and damaging not only to human and animal health but also to the environment, as a result of clearing of land for well pads, drilling the wells, extracting the gas, storing the byproducts of the extraction, transporting the gas by diesel trucks, and the final capping of the well. The potential for harm to children is especially worrisome. This article focuses on a literature review of unconventional natural gas development and its potential impact on human health.

Conclusions

The health impacts related to unconventional natural gas development may not be evident for years, as medical conditions with long latency periods will present over time. While the potential long-term, cumulative effects will not be known for years, we argue that it would be prudent to begin to track and monitor trends in the incidence and prevalence of diseases that already have been shown to be influenced by environmental agents.

Meanwhile, the natural gas industry needs to address the risks to human and animal health and take steps to limit, preferably to eliminate, the exposure pathways. We need far greater transparency and full chemical disclosure. There needs to be an end to discharging effluent into rivers, streams, and groundwater.

There needs to be much more attention paid to curtailing or preferably eliminating spills and leaks of radioactive wastewater. There needs to be an end to the disposal of radioactive sludge from drilling sites in landfills. There needs to be a safer way to develop this resource to limit the exposure to silica, which can cause silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. Banning the practice of burning off the initial flow of natural gas (flaring) needs to be mandated sooner than 2015, the date when EPA ruling goes into effect.

And, perhaps most importantly, there needs to be a well-designed epidemiologic study conducted to empirically assess health status among those living proximate to active development compared to those living in areas where development is not occurring.

Article from EcoWatch, May 16, 2013

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed an updated set of rules governing hydraulic fracturing, on public lands today. The controversial oil and gas development technique—in which drillers blast millions of gallons of chemically treated water into the earth to force oil and gas from underground deposits—has been linked to air and water pollution and public health problems.

“Comparing today’s rule governing fracking on public lands with the one proposed a year earlier, it is clear what happened: the BLM caved to the wealthy and powerful oil and gas industry and left the public to fend for itself,” said Jessica Ennis, legislative representative at Earthjustice. “Our public lands—and the people who live near them—deserve the highest level of protection. Today’s rule could have set the gold standard. Instead the BLM is settling for shoddy protections peddled by the oil and gas industry.”

The updated proposal eliminates protections included in the version proposed last year and fails to include safeguards demanded by environmental and public health advocates.

Among the problems identified in the updated regulations:

• The proposed rules do not require an evaluation of the integrity of cement barriers in individual wells—the critical barrier between toxic fracking chemicals and groundwater—instead allowing oil and gas companies to test one well and allow those results to guide the development of other similar wells.

• The updated proposal does not require fracking companies to disclose chemicals before they are pumped into the ground—a critical measure that would give nearby communities time to test and monitor water supplies for any fracking-related water pollution.

 Across the country, fracking has wrought widespread environmental damage—contaminating drinking water sources and turning treasured landscapes into industrial zones. And now, the oil and gas industry has designs on key areas of America’s natural heritage, including sources of drinking water for millions of Americans:

• White River National Forest–Located in Colorado, White River is the most visited national forest in the nation. Its pristine streams also provide drinking water to nearby communities, and feeds the Colorado River.

• Delaware River basin–The basin spans New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware, is home to three national park areas, and provides drinking water to 15 million people.

• Wayne National Forest–Part of the beautiful Hocking Hills region in Ohio, most of the acres in the forest are to be leased for drilling near the sole drinking water source for 70,000 people.

• George Washington National Forest–this area hosts streams in Virginia and West Virginia that feed the James and Potomac Rivers, which provide the drinking water for millions of people in the metro D.C. area.

• Otero Mesa–A vital part of New Mexico’s natural heritage, Otero Mesa is home to wildlife and what is perhaps the largest untapped freshwater aquifer in this parched Southwestern state.

“Today we were counting on Secretary Jewell to protect our natural heritage and environment from dirty drilling. She didn’t do it,” said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America.

“Fracking is posing a staggering array of threats to our health and environment—especially to our drinking water,” Rumpler concluded. “If Secretary Jewell is not willing to confront these threats, then we urge President Obama to step in and protect our natural heritage—and our drinking water—from dirty drilling.”

Last year, tens of thousands of Americans submitted comments urging the administration to adopt a much stronger rule to curb damage from dirty drilling in or around our forest, parks and other treasured lands. Yet, the fracking rule proposed today is very limited and its provisions are exceedingly weak:

• Toxic chemicals: Instead of barring the use of toxic chemicals (including diesel), the BLM’s rule merely proposes disclosure of such chemicals, in a scheme even weaker than originally proposed last year.

• Well construction: The proposed rule falls short of even the American Petroleum Institute’s own standards for fracked wells.

• Wastewater: The rule has drillers submit management plans, but fails to ban waste pits.

“There is no requirement for baseline water testing and no setback requirements to govern how close to homes and schools drilling can happen. The new rules also continue to allow the use of toxic diesel fuel for fracking, as well as open pits for storing wastewater—two practices that we know to be environmentally hazardous,” said Jessica Ennis.

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.

From an Article of Forbes.com, April 24, 2013

A truck carrying drill cuttings from a hydraulic fracturing pad in the Marcellus Shale was rejected by a Pennsylvania landfill near the end of April after it set off a radiation alarm. The truck was emitting gamma radiation from radium 226 at almost ten times the level permitted at the landfill. The MAX Environmental Technologies truck was first quarantined at the landfill, which is operated by MAX, and then sent back to the fracking pad—Rice Energy‘s Thunder II pad in Greene County—to be redirected to a site that can accept higher levels of radiation.

“It’s low-level radiation, but we don’t want any radiation in South Huntingdon,” Tom Cornell, a township supervisor where the landfill is located, told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. The cuttings in the truck were found to emit 96 microrem per hour of radiation, and the landfill is required to reject materials that emit more than 10 microrem. The EPA’s standard for air pollution is 10,000 microrem per year (also known as 10 millirem/year).

Originally this story stated the radiation level in the truck was below EPA’s air-pollution standard for radium-226. But Pennsylvania measures radiation in hourly emissions and EPA’s standard in terms of yearly emissions. The radiation level in the truck is roughly 84 times higher than EPA’s standard.

Radium 226 is a naturally occurring radioactive material that forms from the decay of uranium-238. It emits alpha and gamma radiation, and it tends to accumulate in bone if inhaled or ingested, according to EPA:

“Long-term exposure to radium increases the risk of developing several diseases. Inhaled or ingested radium increases the risk of developing such diseases as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic anemia. These effects usually take years to develop. External exposure to radium’s gamma radiation increases the risk of cancer to varying degrees in all tissues and organs.”

Radium is a well known contaminant in fracking operations, particularly in the Marcellus Shale formation.

“The material in question was radium 226, which is what we expect from shale drill cuttings,” said John Poister, spokesman for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. “Every landfill in the state has radiation monitors, and this showed the system did work.” MAX has applied for a permit to accept a higher level of radiation at its South Huntingdon landfill.

Pennsylvania claims to be “the only state that requires through regulation that landfills monitor for radiation levels in the incoming wastes.”

The location of Rice Energy’s Thunder 2 well pad is just a few miles north of Monongalia County, WV, and a few miles east of Marshall and Wetzel counties in the far southwestern corner of Pennsylvania.

“Should waste trigger a radiation monitor, the landfill must use a conservative and highly protective protocol that DEP developed to determine if the amount and concentration of the radioactive material can be accepted. This protocol ensures that the materials, such as Marcellus Shale drill cuttings and other sources of naturally occurring radiation in the waste stream, do not pose a risk to public health during disposal.”

Radium is also perceived as a threat to water quality. The brine that returns to the surface after hydraulic fracturing has been found to contain up to 16,000 picoCuries per liter of radium-226 (pdf). The discharge limit in effluent for Radium 226 is 60 pCi/L, and the EPA’s drinking water standard is 5 pCi/L.

In January the Pennsylvania DEP announced it would undertake a year-long peer reviewed study of radiation contamination associated with fracking wells.

“The agency will collect samples of flowback water, rock cuttings, treatment solids and sediments at well pads and wastewater treatment and waste disposal facilities,” according to a DEP news release. “The study will also analyze the radioactivity levels in pipes and well casings, storage tanks, treatment systems and trucks.”

Climate Change Conversations⁽¹⁾

Commentary from Officials of the American Chemical Society , Science Magazine, April 5, 2013

Submitted by S. Thomas Bond, Professor of Chemistry (Retired), Lewis County, WV.

“Climate change affects everyone, so everyone should understand why the climate is changing and what it means to them, their children, and generations to follow,” they say. They encourage scientists to engage groups they are already a member of, such as neighborhoods, school boards, religious groups, service clubs, political organizations, to “engage in respectful conversations on climate change and on the policies and actions individuals, communities, and nations might take to mitigate and adapt to what is happening to our planet.” This seems good advice for informed non-scientists, too.

The evidence is overwhelming. “The concentrations of greenhouse gases are higher and increasing faster than any time in the past million years. The average temperature of Earth is increasing, ice is melting, oceans are acidifying, and extreme weather events are more frequent. Human activities, principally the combustion of fossil fuels, are a major source of greenhouse gases and a major driver of climate change.”

Some of the U. S. institutions and societies, including the National Academies, Environmental Protection Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the American Institute of Physics  have prepared materials that are on the web, useful for the public understanding of these issues.

Last year the American Chemical Society released a toolkit on greenhouse gases atmospheric and planetary warming, and the Earth’s energy balance, among other topics. the toolkit is elementary, but suitable to an introduction to more advanced topics. Implicit in this resource is the message that the world much make adaptations to changes that have already occurred, and that reducing emissions is required to avoid a warmer planet.

The take home for those of us that are not daily engaged in the practice of science is that the overwhelming evidence for climate change cannot be denied. WE need to inform ourselves and discuss it in exactly the same groups the authors of this editorial suggest for scientists – most people never come in contact with working scientists, but take their convictions from those they consider better informed than themselves. Speak up!

(1) Science Vol. 340, April 5, 2013, page 9.

(2) Bassam Z. Shakhashri, Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin. President of the American Chemical Society in 2012.

Jerry A. Bell, Emeritus Professor, Department of Chemistry, Simmons College, Boston, MA. Chairman of the ACS Presidential Working Group on Climate Science.