Author Archives: ssibold

Energy Dept. Panel Warns of Environmental Toll of Current Gas Drilling Practices

Leave a reply

Source : ProPublica
by Nicholas Kusnetz, Nov. 10, 2011

A federal energy panel issued a blunt warning to shale gas drillers and their regulators today, saying they need to step up efforts to protect public health and the environment or risk a backlash that stifles further development.

“Concerted and sustained action is needed to avoid excessive environmental impacts of shale gas production and the consequent risk of public opposition to its continuation and expansion,” said members of the Energy Department’s Shale Gas Subcommittee in a draft report released today.

The seven-member committee, appointed in January by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, provides a way for the Obama administration to weigh in on gas drilling, which is primarily overseen by state regulatory agencies.

In August, the panel issued a lengthy set of recommendations to state and federal agencies and the gas industry for making gas drilling safer.

Today’s report – acknowledging that progress on the panel’s suggestions has been slow – sets out who needs to do what in order to turn recommendations into reality. The panel also stressed the importance of shale gas to the nation’s energy policy, noting that it already makes up 30 percent of domestic gas production.

The report calls on the EPA to revise a proposed rule on air emissions to include limits on methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and criticizes recent moves by the agency that have hindered efforts to get better data from the oil and gas industry, a crucial step toward improving controls.

The report also concludes that joint federal and state efforts to ensure water quality are “not working smoothly” and urges the EPA to move unilaterally to improve oversight as it carries out a study on potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.

The panel’s recommendations are not binding, but Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said they carry significant weight.

“We need more experts acknowledging publicly that there are real risks and they can be addressed,” she said. NRDC and other environmental organizations sent a letter to President Obama last week, urging him to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to carry out the panel’s recommendations.

Drilling companies have in the past resisted some policy changes that the panel is recommending, such more stringent federal limits on emissions. Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, would not comment on the specific recommendations, but said API members have begun to implement some of the panel’s recommendations, including working with state agencies to strengthen best practices on well design and minimizing water use.

The Energy Department’s advisory board will hold a public meeting on the draft report on Monday before finalizing it.

Correction (11/10): This story has been changed. An earlier version made it seem as if Reid Porter, an API spokesman, said that drillers have opposed some of the energy panel’s recommendations. Porter did not comment on that issue.

Myths in the Public Relations Messages from the Gas Industry

Leave a reply

Source : FrackCheckWV
by Duane Nichols on 12.20.2011

Four myths frequently reported by the gas industry were recently described by Professor Anthony Ingraffea, who is a Faculty Fellow at the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future at Cornell University:

Myth 1. Fracking is a 60-year-old, safe, well proven technology – -

Yes, fracking is 60 years old. But using this shorthand obscures the truth that what’s at issue here isn’t really just fracking. It’s the entire process of coaxing gas from shale using high-volume, slickwater fracking with long laterals from clustered, multi-well pads. Used together, they form a new process, having been introduced about five six years ago, the jury is still very much out on its safety.

Myth 2. Fluid migration from faulty wells is rare – – -

Fluid migration is not rare. For example, industry researchers Watson and Bachu, in a Society of Petroleum Engineers paper in 2009, examined 352,000 Canadian wells and found sustained casing pressure and gas migration. They found that about 12 per cent of newer wells leaked, considerably more than older wells. Also, EPA found benzene, methane and chemicals in water-monitoring wells in Pavilion, Wyoming.

Myth 3. The use of clustered, multi-well drilling pads reduces surface impacts – – -

Such pad sites are large and growing, up to 10 acres or more. Newer sites, in Canada, are bigger than 50 acres, and each will leave behind clusters of wellheads and holding tanks for decades. Cluster drilling facilitates and prolongs intense industrialization and leaves a larger, more concentrated, and very long-term footprint, not a smaller and shorter one.

Myth 4. Natural gas is a “clean” fossil fuel – – -

The newest evidence here is discouraging. NASA climate scientist Drew Shindell’s work, published in Science, shows that methane (i.e. natural gas) is 105 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming contributor over a 20-year time horizon, and 33 times more powerful over a century. Unfortunately, unconventional gas drilling techniques actually leak more methane than conventional ones. Leakage happens routinely during regular drilling, fracking and flowback operations, liquid unloading, processing, and along pipelines and at storage facilities.

Other myths were also mentioned in the article: “There are plenty of other myths swirling around this debate which require analysis: local job-creation versus the reality of imported expertise from Oklahoma and Texas; development of a home-grown resource versus selling gas on the world markets; revitalized, vibrant local economies versus boom-and-bust syndromes of strangled small business investment and profits sent to Norway or China; natural gas as a short-term bridge fuel to renewables, versus an impediment to developing the long-term sustainable energy future.

Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time

Leave a reply

Source : ProPublica, Dec. 8, 2011, 8:18 p.m.
by Abrahm Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz

In a first, federal environment officials today scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process.

The findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources.

In the 121-page draft report released today, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids.

“The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers … and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field,” the draft report states. “Alternative explanations were carefully considered.”

Continue reading →

EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer

4 Replies

by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, Nov. 10, 2011

As the country awaits results from a nationwide safety study on the natural gas drilling process of fracking, a separate government investigation into contamination in a place where residents have long complained that drilling fouled their water has turned up alarming levels of underground pollution.

A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The findings are consistent with water samples the EPA has collected from at least 42 homes in the area since 2008, when ProPublica began reporting on foul water and health concerns in Pavillion and the agency started investigating reports of contamination there.

Last year — after warning residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered — the EPA drilled the monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the extent of the contamination.

The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade that the drilling — and hydraulic fracturing in particular — has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment, loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants.

The gas industry — led by the Canadian company EnCana, which owns the wells in Pavillion — has denied that its activities are responsible for the contamination. EnCana has, however, supplied drinking water to residents.

The information released yesterday by the EPA was limited to raw sampling data: The agency did not interpret the findings or make any attempt to identify the source of the pollution. From the start of its investigation, the EPA has been careful to consider all possible causes of the contamination and to distance its inquiry from the controversy around hydraulic fracturing.

Still, the chemical compounds the EPA detected are consistent with those produced from drilling processes, including one — a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) — widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The agency said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame.

The wells also contained benzene at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people, as well as phenols — another dangerous human carcinogen — acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel.

The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.

EnCana has recently agreed to sell its wells in the Pavillion area to Texas-based oil and gas company Legacy Reserves for a reported $45 million, but has pledged to continue to cooperate with the EPA’s investigation. EnCana bought many of the wells in 2004, after the first problems with groundwater contamination had been reported.

The EPA’s research in Wyoming is separate from the agency’s ongoing national study of hydraulic fracturing’s effect on water supplies, and is being funded through the Superfund cleanup program.

The EPA says it will release a lengthy draft of the Pavillion findings, including a detailed interpretation of them, later this month.

Science Lags as Health Problems Emerge near Gas Fields

Leave a reply

Source : Propublica

On a summer evening in June 2005, Susan Wallace-Babb went out into a neighbor’s field near her ranch in Western Colorado to close an irrigation ditch. She parked down the rutted double-track, stepped out of her truck into the low-slung sun, took a deep breath and collapsed, unconscious.

A natural gas well and a pair of fuel storage tanks sat less than a half-mile away. Later, after Wallace-Babb came to and sought answers, a sheriff’s deputy told her that a tank full of gas condensate—liquid hydrocarbons gathered from the production process—had overflowed into another tank. The fumes must have drifted toward the field where she was working, he suggested.The next morning Wallace-Babb was so sick she could barely move. She vomited uncontrollably and suffered explosive diarrhea. A searing pain shot up her thigh. Within days she developed burning rashes that covered her exposed skin, then lesions. As weeks passed, anytime she went outdoors, her symptoms worsened. Wallace-Babb’s doctor began to suspect she had been poisoned.

“I took to wearing a respirator and swim goggles outside to tend to my animals,” Wallace-Babb said. “I closed up my house and got an air conditioner that would just recycle the air and not let any fresh air in.”

Wallace-Babb’s symptoms mirror those reported by a handful of others living near her ranch in Parachute, Colo., and by dozens of residents of communities across the country that have seen the most extensive natural gas drilling. Hydraulic fracturing, along with other processes used to drill wells, generates emissions and millions of gallons of hazardous waste that are dumped into open-air pits. The pits have been shown to leak into groundwater and also give off chemical emissions as the fluids evaporate. Residents’ most common complaints are respiratory infections, headaches, neurological impairment, nausea and skin rashes. More rarely, they have reported more serious effects, from miscarriages and tumors to benzene poisoning and cancer.

ProPublica examined government environmental reports and private lawsuits and interviewed scores of residents, physicians and toxicologists in four states—Colorado, Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania—that are drilling hot spots. Our review showed that cases like Wallace-Babb’s go back a decade in parts of Colorado and Wyoming, where drilling has taken place for years. They are just beginning to emerge in Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus Shale drilling boom began in earnest in 2008.

Continue reading →

Protect the Children

4 Replies

PEHSU Information on Natural Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing for Health Professionals

The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSU) Network encourage families, pediatricians, and communities to work together to ensure that children are protected from exposure to environmental hazards.

Background: Natural gas extraction from shale is a complex process which includes: 1) building access roads, centralized water and flowback holding ponds and of the site itself ; 2) construction of pipe lines and compressor stations; 3) drilling ; 4) hydraulic fracturing; 5) capturing the natural gas; 6) and disposal (or recycling) of, flowback water and drill cuttings.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as hydrofracking or fracking, uses a combination of water, sand, and chemicals injected into the ground under high pressure to release natural gas. The HF process is also used in some parts of the country for extracting oil. This process has become much more common in the US over the last decade. It was first used for natural gas in Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas. The practice has recently spread into other states, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York.

August 2011

Health Issues: Questions regarding the possible health effects of Natural gas extraction/Hydraulic fracturing (NGE/HF) have been raised about water and air quality. To ensure that children’s health is part of the ongoing evaluation of possible human health effects of NGE/HF, the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) network, which consists of experts throughout the country dedicated to preventing adverse pediatric health outcomes from environmental causes, developed this fact sheet. A distinct challenge in discussing these possible health effects is the lack of research regarding the human health effects of NGE/HF. Most of the research to date focuses on ecosystem health. Because many questions remain unanswered, the PEHSU network recommends a precautionary approach to toxicants in general and to the NGE/HF process specifically.

Water Contamination: One of the potential routes of exposure to toxics from the NGE/HF process is the contamination of drinking water, including public water supplies and private wells. This can occur when geologic fractures extend into groundwater or from leaks from the natural gas well if it passes through the water table. In addition, drilling fluid, chemical spills, and disposal pit leaks may contaminate surface water supplies. A study conducted in New York and Pennsylvania found that methane contamination of private drinking water wells was associated with proximity to active natural gas drilling. (Osborne SG, et al., 2011). While many of the chemicals used in the drilling and fracking process are proprietary, the list includes benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, ethylene glycol, glutaraldehyde and other biocides, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen treated light petroleum distillates. These substances have a wide spectrum of potential toxic effects on humans ranging from cancer to adverse effects on the reproductive, neurological, and endocrine systems (ATSDR, Colborn T, et al, U.S. EPA 2009).

Air Pollution: Sources of air pollution around a drilling facility include diesel exhaust from the use of machinery and heavy trucks, and fugitive emissions from the drilling and NGE/HF processes. These air pollutants are associated with a spectrum of adverse health outcomes in humans. Increases in particulate matter air pollution, for example, have been linked to respiratory illnesses, wheezing in infants, cardiovascular events, and premature death (Laden F, et al, Lewtas J, Ryan PH, et al, Sacks JD, et al). Since each fracturing event at each well requires up to 2,400 industrial truck trips, residents near the site and along the truck routes may be exposed to increased levels of these air pollutants (New York State DECDMR, 2009).
Volatile organic compounds can escape capture from the wells and combine with nitrogen oxides to produce ground-level ozone (CDPHE 2008, CDPHE 2010). Due to its inflammatory effects on the respiratory tract, ground-level ozone has been linked to asthma exacerbations and respiratory deaths. Elevated ozone levels have been found in rural areas of Wyoming, partially attributed to natural gas drilling in these locations. (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2010). In an air sampling study from 2005 to 2007 conducted in Colorado, researchers found that air benzene concentrations approached or exceeded health-based standards at sites associated with oil or gas drilling (Garfield County PHD, 2007). Benzene exposure during pregnancy has been associated with neural tube defects (Lupo PJ, et al), decreased birth parameters (Slama R, et al., 2009), and childhood leukemia (Whitworth KW, et al., 2008).

Noise Pollution: Noise pollution from the drilling process and resulting truck traffic has not been optimally evaluated, but since drilling sites have been located in close proximity to housing in many locations, noise from these industrial sources might impact sleep, and that has been associated with negative effects on learning and other aspects of daily living (Stansfeld SA, et al., 2003, WHO 2011).

Special Susceptibility of Children: Children are more vulnerable to environmental hazards. They eat, drink, and breathe more than adults on a pound for pound basis. Research has also shown that children are not able to metabolize some toxicants as well as adults due to immature detoxification processes. Moreover, the fetus and young child are in a critical period of development when toxic exposures can have profound negative effects.

Recommendations: In light of the lack of research investigating the potential adverse human health effects from gas and oil well operations located in close proximity to human habitation, as well as considering the unique vulnerability of children, the PEHSU network recommends the following:

  • Continuing the surveillance of water quality, noise levels, and air pollution in areas where NGE/HF sites are located near communities.
  • Monitoring the health impacts of persons living in the area, preferably with cohort studies.
  • Increasing the awareness of community healthcare providers about the possible health consequences of exposures from the NGE/HF processes, including occupational exposures to workers and the issue of take-home toxics (e.g., clothing and boots contaminated with drilling muds).
  • Disclosure of all chemicals used in the drilling and NGE/HF and product dewatering to ensure that acute exposures are handled appropriately and to ensure that surveillance programs are optimized.
  • Given the short half-lives of volatile organic compounds and the fact that many of the NGE/HF chemicals have not been disclosed, biologic testing should not be pursued unless there has been a known, direct exposure.
  • In addition to the annual testing for coliforms and nitrates recommended by the U.S. EPA and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the AAP guidance recommends that families with private drinking water wells in NGE/HF areas should consider testing the wells before drilling begins and on a regular basis thereafter for chloride, sodium, barium, strontium, and VOCs in consultation with their local or state health department.

As invaluable resources for their local, state, and regional communities, health professionals should advocate for human health effects to be a part of the discussion regarding NGE/HF.
For further information, please contact your regional Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, available at www.pehsu.net.

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Toxicological profile for Benzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Committee on Environmental Health and Committee on Infectious Disease. Drinking Water from Private Wells and Risks to Children. Pediatrics 2009;123:1599-1605.

Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M. Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective. IN PRESS: Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, September 4, 2010. Expected publication: September-October 2011.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Public Health Implications of Ambient Air Exposures as Measured in Rural and Urban Oil & Gas Development Areas – an Analysis of 2008 Air Sampling Data, Garfield County, Colorado. 2010.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Public Health Implications of Ambient Air Exposures to Volatile Organic Compounds as Measured in Rural, Urban, and Oil & Gas Development Areas, Garfield County, Colorado. 2008.

Etzel RA, ed., American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Committee on Environmental Health. Noise. In: Pediatric Environmental Health. 2nd ed. Elk Gove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003:311-321.

Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague WG. Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 2001;285:897-905.

Garfield County Public Health Department (GCPHD). Garfield County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Study June 2005-May 2007. G. C. P. H. Department. Garfield County, CO.
Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Association of fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in six U.S. Cities. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 October; 108(10): 941–947.

Lewtas J. Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects. Mutat Res. 2007 Nov-Dec; 636(1-3):95-133.

Lupo PJ, Symanski E, Waller DK, Chan W, Langlois PH, Canfield MA, Mitchell LE. 2011. Maternal Exposure to Ambient Levels of Benzene and Neural Tube Defects among Offspring: Texas, 1999–2004. Environ Health Perspect 119:397-402.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Mineral Resources. Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. 2009.

Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. PNAS 2011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100682108

Pandya RJ, Solomon G, Kinner A, Balmes JR. Diesel Exhaust and Asthma: Hypotheses and Molecular Mechanisms of Action. Environ Health Perspect 110(suppl 1):103-112 (2002).
Rodier, PM. Developing brain as a target of toxicity. Environ Health Perspect. 1995 Sept; 103(Suppl 6):73-76.

Ryan PH, LeMasters GK, Biswas P, Levin L, Hu S, Lindsey M, Bernstein DI, Lockey J, Villareal M, Khurana Hershey GK, Grinshpun SA. A Comparison of Proximity and Land Use Regression Traffic Exposure Models and Wheezing in Infants. Environ Health Perspect. 2007; 115:278-284.

Sacks JD, Stanek LW, Luben TJ, Johns DO, Buckley BJ, Brown JS, et al. 2011. Particulate Matter–Induced Health Effects: Who Is Susceptible? Environ Health Perspect 119:446-454.

Slama R, Thiebaugeorges O, Goua V, Aussel L, Sacco P, Bohet A, et al. 2009. Maternal Personal Exposure to Airborne Benzene and Intrauterine Growth. Environ Health Perspect 117:1313-1321.

Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68: 243–257.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Outdoor Air – Industry, Business, and Home: Oil and Natural Gas Production – Additional Information. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/oil- gas_addl_info.html. Last updated 06/05/09. Accessed 04/21/11.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health assessment document for diesel engine exhaust. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality; EPA/600/8-90/057F. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA; PB2002-107661, and http://www.epa.gov/ncea

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Private Drinking Water Wells. http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/well/faq.cfm. Last updated 05/04/11. Accessed 04/29/11.

Whitworth KW, Symanski E, Coker AL 2008. Childhood Lymphohematopoietic Cancer Incidence and Hazardous Air Pollutants in Southeast Texas, 1995–2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:1576-1580.

World Health Organization. Burden of disease from environmental noise – Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. 2011.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Ozone Nonattainment Information Proposed Ozone Nonattainment Area – Sublette County and Portions of Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties. Last updated January 2010. http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/Ozone%20Nonattainment%20Information.asp Accessed 6/17/2011.

This material was developed by the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC) and funded under the cooperative agreement award number 1U61TS000118-02 from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

Acknowledgement: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the PEHSU by providing funds to ATSDR under Inter-Agency Agreement number DW-75-92301301-0. Neither EPA nor ATSDR endorse the purchase of any commercial products or services mentioned in PEHSU publications.

Water Well Contaminated

3 Replies

Source : FrackCheckWV

Water Well Contaminated by Fracking, Under Conditions Prevailing in 1982

by DUANE NICHOLS on AUGUST 4, 2011

In 1982, the Kaiser Gas Company drilled a gas well on the property of Mr. James Parsons in Jackson County, WV, according to a 1987 EPA report to the US Congress. The well was fractured using a typical fracturing fluid or gel, common at that time.

The residual fracturing fluid migrated into Mr. Parson’s water well according to an analysis by the WV Environmental Health Services Laboratory of well water samples taken from the property. Dark and light gelatinous material (fracturing fluid) was found, along with white fibers. (The gas well was located less than 1,000 feet from the water well which was 416 feet deep. Four old gas wells were also nearby.)

The chief of the laboratory advised that the water well was contaminated and unfit for domestic use, and that an alternative source of domestic water had to be found. Analysis showed the water to contain high levels of fluoride, sodium, iron and manganese. The water, according to State officials, had a hydrocarbon odor, indicating the presence of gas. Mr. Parsons was unable to resume the use of the well as a domestic water source.

According to a recent report from the Environmental Working Group, “When you add up the gel in the water, the presence of abandoned wells and the documented ability of drilling fluids to migrate through these wells into underground water supplies, there is a lot of evidence that EPA got it right and that this was indeed a case of hydraulic fracturing contamination of groundwater. Now it’s up to EPA to pick up where it left off 25 years ago and determine the true risks of fracking so that our drinking water can be protected.”

Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas Pollutes Water Wells

2 Replies

Source: Scientific American

A recent study shows that hydraulic fracturing the Marcellus Shale for natural gas is contaminating drinking water wells.

By David Biello | May 9, 2011
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: A new technique for releasing natural gas in shale rock has contaminated at least some drinking water wells in Pennsylvania and New York State.

Drilling for natural gas is booming in Pennsylvania—thanks to fracturing shale rock with a water and chemical cocktail paired with the ability to drill in any direction. Despite homeowner complaints, however, research on how such hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is impacting local water wells has not kept pace. Now a new study that sampled water from 60 such wells has found evidence for natural gas–contamination in those within a kilometer of a new natural gas well.

“Methane concentrations in drinking water were much higher if the homeowner was near an active gas well,” explains environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University, who led the study published online May 9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “We wanted to try and separate fact from emotion.”

The researchers discovered methane in 51 of the 60 wells tested—that is not out of the ordinary. A small amount of methane from both deep and biological sources is present in most of the aquifers in this region of Pennsylvania and New York State. By measuring the ratio of radioactive carbon present in the methane contamination, however, the researchers determined that in drinking water wells near active natural gas wells, the methane was old and therefore fossil natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, rather than more freshly produced methane. This marks the first time that drinking water contamination has been definitively linked to fracking.

Continue reading →

Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking

2 Replies

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking
Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, May 9, 2011

For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.

The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks.

The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.

“Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale gas exploration worldwide,” the article states.

The group tested 68 drinking water wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale drilling areas in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York State. Sixty of those wells were tested for dissolved gas. While most of the wells had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells had on average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active drilling. The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.

The average concentration of the methane detected in the water wells near drilling sites fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department of Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent “hazard mitigation” action, according to the study.

The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.

But they were alarmed by what they described as a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.

“We certainly didn’t expect to see such a strong relationship between the concentration of methane in water and the nearest gas wells. That was a real surprise,” said Robert Jackson, a biology professor at Duke and one of the report’s authors.

Methane contamination of drinking water wells has been a common complaint among people living in gas drilling areas across the country. A 2009 investigation by ProPublica revealed that methane contamination from drilling was widespread, including in Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In several cases, homes blew up after gas seeped into their basements or water supplies. In Pennsylvania a 2004 accident killed three people, including a baby.

In Dimock, Pa., where part of the Duke study was performed, some residents’ water wells exploded, or their water could be lit on fire. In at least a dozen cases in Colorado, ProPublica’s investigation found, methane had infiltrated drinking water supplies that residents said were clean until hydraulic fracturing was performed nearby.

The drilling industry and some state regulators described some of these cases as “anecdotal” and said they were either unconnected to drilling activity or were an isolated problem. But the consistency of the Duke findings raises questions about how unusual and widespread such cases of methane contamination may be.

“It suggests that at least in the region we looked, this is a more general problem than people expected,” Jackson told ProPublica.

For those who live in the midst of this problem, the report serves as long-awaited vindication. “We weren’t just blowing smoke. What we were talking about was the truth,” said Ron Carter, a Dimock resident whose water went bad when drilling began there in 2008 and was later tested as part of the study. “Now I’m happy that at least something helps prove out our theory.”

Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion.

To determine where the methane in the wells they tested came from, the researchers ran it through a molecular fingerprinting process called an isotopic analysis. Water samples furthest from gas drilling showed traces of biogenic methane—a type of methane that can naturally appear in water from biological decay. But samples taken closer to drilling had high concentrations of thermogenic methane, which comes from the same hydrocarbon layers where gas drilling is targeted. That—plus the proximity to the gas wells—told the researchers that the contamination was linked to the drilling processes.

In addition to the methane, other types of gases were also detected, providing further evidence that the gas originated with the hydrocarbon deposits miles beneath the earth and that it was unique to the active gas drilling areas. Ethane, another component of natural gas, and other hydrocarbons were detected in 81 percent of water wells near active gas drilling but in only 9 percent of water wells further away. Propane and butane were also detected in some drilling area wells.

The report noted that as much as a mile of rock separated the bottom of the shallow drinking water wells from the deep zones fractured for gas and identified several ways in which fluids or the gas contaminants could move underground: The substances could be displaced by the pressures underground; could travel through new fractures or connections to faults created by the hydraulic fracturing process; or could leak from the well casing itself somewhere closer to the surface.

The geology in Pennsylvania and New York, they said, is tectonically active with faults and other pathways through the rock. They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned.”

The water was also analyzed for signs that dangerous fluids from inside the gas wells might have escaped into water supplies. The group tested for salts, radium and other chemicals that, if detected, would have signaled that the produced water or natural fluids in the well’s target zone were making it to the aquifers. But those types of fluids were not found. The group did not test for fracking chemicals or hydrocarbons like benzene, relying instead on the saline or radioactive compounds like radium as indicators.

In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.”

In a white paper the group issued along with the journal article, Jackson and the others acknowledged the uncertainty and called for more research. “Contamination is often stated to be impossible due to the distance between the well and the drinking water,” they wrote. “Although this seems reasonable in most (and possibly all) cases, field and modeling studies should be undertaken to confirm this assumption. … Understanding any cases where this assumption is incorrect will be important—when, where, and why they occur—to limit problems with hydraulic fracturing operations.”

A hydrogeologist closely affiliated with the drilling industry raised questions about the study. “It’s possible, assuming their measurements are accurate, that all they have done is document the natural conditions of the aquifer,” said John Conrad, president of Conrad Geosciences in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Conrad spoke with ProPublica at the suggestion of Energy In Depth, a drilling industry advocacy group, but said that he did not work for EID.

He said that the thermogenic methane—which many scientists say comes from the same deep gas layers where drilling occurs—could be naturally occurring. He also said the researchers didn’t test enough wells to support their conclusions, though he could not say how many wells would have been appropriate.

Conrad said the most likely cause for the contamination identified by the Duke researchers—that the gas was leaking out of faulty well casings—seemed implausible.

“For their assumptions to hold up there would have to be more than just the occasional bad cement job,” he said. “They are implying that where you see hydraulic fracturing you should expect to see elevated methane. We are aware of faulty cement jobs. But we don’t believe that it is common and we certainly don’t believe that it is universal.”

The Duke study precedes a national study by the Environmental Protection Agency into the dangers of hydraulic fracturing that is expected to be finished sometime next year. Last year the EPA found that some chemicals known to be used in fracturing were among the contaminants detected in 11 residential drinking water wells in Pavillion, Wy.—where more than 200 natural gas wells have been drilled in recent years—but that investigation is continuing and the scientists haven’t concluded that the contamination is linked with drilling or hydraulic fracturing.

The release of the Duke research could immediately shape the increasingly intense public debate over drilling and hydraulic fracturing, especially in some of the areas where the research was conducted. Pennsylvania, which holds drilling companies liable for drinking water contamination within 1,000 feet of a gas well, might consider the fact that the Duke researchers found the contamination extended to about 3,000 feet, Jackson said. New York State has a moratorium in place for hydraulic fracturing of horizontally drilled wells—which cover more area and require more chemicals—through the end of June to allow for more consideration of the risks. “I would extend that at least temporarily,” Jackson said.

Congress, too, is taking note.

“This study provides eye-opening scientific evidence about methane contamination and the risks that irresponsible natural gas drilling poses for drinking water supplies,” said Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. “It provides yet another reason why more study of the environmental and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing is needed.” Hinchey is one of several Democratic members of Congress who recently re-introduced the FRAC Act, which calls for public disclosure of the chemicals used underground. The bill, which is currently languishing in the House, would remove an exemption in federal law that prohibits the EPA from regulating hydraulic fracturing.

Gas Drilling Industry Makes Stunning Admission

Leave a reply

Source : CBS Pittsburgh

April 19, 2011 2:17 PM

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Officials with the Marcellus Shale drilling industry made a shocking admission Tuesday morning.

The president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents natural gas companies, said the group now believes the natural gas exploration industry is partly responsible for rising levels of contaminants found in area drinking water.

The group came to the conclusion after reviewing research from Carnegie Mellon University and the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority.

One of the major factors that led to the conclusion was the discovery of bromide in the water. It’s a salt that is also found in drilling wastewater.

Now, the DEP is calling on Marcellus Shale drillers to stop taking wastewater to 15 treatment plants in the state.