Comment

Comment by CJK on April 8, 2010 at 12:04am

Cities Push Back as EPA Begins Study of Fracking's Impact on Water

Philadelphia Moved to Ban Fracking in Its Watershed, Pittsburgh Sees Problems
by Dave Levitan - Apr 7th, 2010
in

The Environmental Protection Agency’s science advisors meet today to begin studying the impacts on drinking water of the gas drilling practice known as hydraulic fracturing.

While the gas industry argues that the chemical-infused technique is perfectly safe and vital to reaching vast gas supplies, concerns about its potential impact on water supplies is spreading outward from New York, where an environmental review process has held up gas drilling in parts of the Marcellus Shale, a gas-rich formation that underlies several states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.

The city of Philadelphia is also now attempting to block gas drilling near the Delaware River watershed, which supplies about half of the city’s tap water. The City Council unanimously passed a resolution in late March that calls on the Delaware River Basin Commission to deny any hydraulic fracturing permits.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting large quantities of water along with secret mixes of chemicals deep underground in order to break up gas-containing rock formations. The technique has been used for decades, but in the Marcellus Shale region, it is combined with horizontal drilling and other methods that environmentalists fear could pollute groundwater sources and cause severe problems downstream.

“The EPA study is a really great start to answer some questions,” said Erika Staaf, clean water advocate for the non-profit PennEnvironment. “If drilling is moving forward, which it is, we want to make sure that it happens in a way that fully protects the environment, aquatic life, habitats, our forests and public health.”


Pennsylvania Fracking

Fracking is already under way in parts of Pennsylvania , and oil and gas companies such as Exxon and BP are lobbying Congress to keep all potential obstacles ­ including regulators ­ out of the way. The Marcellus Shale holds about 350 trillion cubic feet of natural gas ­ enough to keep the country going for 15 years at present consumption rates.

“Ideally, what they would be doing is either slowing down the drilling or stopping the drilling until they have a better sense of what the science is,” said Deborah Goldberg, a managing attorney with Earthjustice’s Northeast office.

“There have been no signs of that happening in Pennsylvania , and in New York , it’s happening only because of the environmental review process, and when that’s over, we expect there will be huge pressure to drill.”

So far, most of the documented connections between fracking fluid and drinking water involve individual wells. In Western Pennsylvania , however, there is some indication of larger dangers.

During drought conditions in the summer of 2008, a drinking water advisory was issued covering about 350,000 people in the Pittsburgh area citing high levels of “total dissolved solids,” or TDS, in tap water coming from the Monongahela River . TDS can cover a number of substances, including salts and some potentially more dangerous chemicals.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection listed a number of potential sources ­ including increases in “non-conventional drilling.” The DEP instructed sewage treatment facilities that had been accepting wastewater from fracking wells to reduce the amount they treated, from 20 percent of the total down to 1 percent.

Elsewhere, fracking projects in Wyoming have apparently resulted in contamination of some drinking water wells, although officials said the presence of chemicals like 2-butoxyethanol could come sources other than gas drilling. Pittsburgh ’s TDS levels remain the only documented case of a large water supply with contamination potentially associated with hydraulic fracturing.

Drilling companies generally keep the contents of their “fracking fluid” private, but mixtures of chemicals including benzene and other carcinogens have been used. Wastewater from wells can contain traces of those chemicals as well as naturally occurring substances that are pulled up from deep underground; these tend to include salts, and wastewater has been found to be as much as five times as salty as seawater.


Will Study Lead to Regulation?

Goldberg said it is unlikely that the EPA will step in and strictly regulate fracking in the Marcellus Shale area, in spite of the study starting now.

“To do a really serious study of the impacts on drinking water is a monumental undertaking, because it really requires some very serious hydrological studies that either are not being done or are being done only by industry and are not being shared,” she said, adding that if drilling near the Delaware River’s headwaters does move forward, drinking water could be at risk in New York and Philadelphia.

“I think that the likelihood of their protection increases with the vigilance of the citizens who care about this,” she said. “I think the people in New York , the people in Pennsylvania , need to take the responsibility to ensure that their governments are stepping to the plate and protecting their water supply even while this is going on.”

Such action seems to have worked, at least for the moment, in the Philadelphia area. The non-profit group Delaware Riverkeeper Network was among many to applaud the City Council’s move to block hydraulic fracturing permits. Deputy Director Tracy Carluccio said, “We’re putting their feet to the fire in our watershed, and that’s one of the reasons there are no wells yet. It has been held up even though the rest of Pennsylvania is going like gangbusters.”


Industry Response

For its part, the oil and gas industry maintains that fracking is a proven process with a long track record of environmental safety. An industry group called the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which is made up of dozens of companies, said it will participate and aid in the EPA’s study “as appropriate.” Generally, the industry claims that fracking is already appropriately regulated by states, even though those regulations vary drastically around the country.

There are currently twin bills, dubbed the FRAC Act, in both houses of Congress that would bring regulation of fracking under some federal oversight. The legislation would give EPA authority to regulate fracking, and it would also require that companies disclose specifically what chemicals are in the fracking fluids used. A Bush administration decision in 2005 exempted fracking from regulation under the Clean Water Act, and since then industry has been slow to reveal the chemical concoctions used in the wells.

"There have been no identified groundwater contamination incidents due to hydraulic fracturing, as noted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, other state regulators and the U.S. Groundwater Protection Council,” the coalition said in a statement. “Our industry is confident that an objective evaluation of hydraulic fracturing will reach the same conclusion as other studies – that it is a safe and well-regulated process that is essential to the development of natural gas."

Environmentalists disagree, but it is unlikely the EPA will come to any conclusion on the issue until 2012. And even if threats to drinking water don’t move regulators to act against the practice, Goldberg noted a number of other environmental impacts fracking can have as well.

“It’s really only a part of the problem,” she said. “The transmission pipelines are known to have a lot of leakage of methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas. There are huge amounts of diesel fuel used for both the trucks and drilling rigs, and the emissions from those combine with sunlight and tend to create big ozone problems in areas where you would never expect to see it. From a health perspective, the air problems are probably even more important than the water problems.”

Comment by CJK on April 7, 2010 at 11:59pm

http://lewisvilleblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/04/federal-gas-d...
Federal gas drilling study may expand scope
9:58 AM Wed, Apr 07, 2010 |
Wendy Hundley/Reporter






The DMN Washington Bureau reports today that a federal study looking at gas drilling's impact on groundwater may also examine air emissions. Here's the full story:



07:30 AM CDT on Wednesday, April 7, 2010
By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News
dmichaels@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON - A federal study of risks posed by natural-gas drilling may examine whether residents near well sites are exposed to toxic contaminants through the air.

The study was originally prompted by concerns that a process used to extract gas could contaminate drinking water sources. That process, hydraulic fracturing, is widely used in North Texas ' Barnett Shale.

There are no documented cases of hydraulic fracturing causing groundwater contamination in Texas, according to the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas activity. But state environmental regulators have confirmed a separate concern - elevated levels of cancer-causing benzene in the air near some wells.

Gas producers say air emissions shouldn't fall within the scope of the study, which was urged by Congress. But an EPA document outlining its approach says the "potential exposure pathways to be addressed by this study include ingestion, inhalation, dermal exposure through water, air, food and environmental exposures."

The Independent Petroleum Association of America said that language sounded troubling. In a letter to the EPA, the association's vice president, Lee O. Fuller, wrote that the agency appeared ready to evaluate "emissions issues, community health and environmental justice issues, and many others that would distract the study from its congressional intent."

The scope of the EPA study is scheduled to be discussed Wednesday and Thursday at public meetings in Washington. The EPA will lay out its approach to a panel of scientific advisers, including Robin Autenrieth of Texas A&M University and Danny Reible of the University of Texas.

Environmental groups have been encouraged by the EPA study, which will begin this year. The EPA plans to offer initial findings in 2012, according to materials it made public last month.

"We applaud EPA for undertaking a serious and wide-ranging study of these issues, which we view as an important step toward proper state and federal regulation of this industry," the Sierra Club wrote in comments to the EPA.

The oil and gas industry opposes federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which is used in 90 percent of U.S. natural gas wells, according to the independent petroleum association. The Obama administration has agreed to take another look at the practice, which was exempted from federal review by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

State regulators currently oversee hydraulic fracturing, which involves shooting fluids underground to fracture rock formations that contain natural gas. The industry argues that state regulation is superior because local regulators are more familiar with the specific geology of drilling sites.

Environmental groups and some congressional Democrats say the state watchdogs haven't demanded enough information from gas producers. Their concerns have been fueled by reports that fracturing chemicals have found their way into drinking water in states such as Pennsylvania and Colorado.

Even if Congress doesn't write new laws that restrict drilling, it may demand more disclosure about what chemicals are used, analysts say.

"That resonates with people on Capitol Hill," said Jason Hutt, a partner in the environmental strategies group at law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

"And it's beginning to resonate in the industry that something may need to be done there," he said.

Hutt said the most controversial subject during the EPA meetings is likely to be how broad the study becomes.

"If you want to talk about storage of waste on the site, I think that is related to whether the [industry] practices are protective of drinking water," he said. "If you want to talk about air emissions, I don't see how that is related."

Comment by CJK on April 7, 2010 at 10:54pm

Dan:
Another point of information is that while the volume of water is substantial for the 3-9million gallons of water per well only 8-20% of that amount is actually recovered the rest remains in the subsurface. So we are dealing with less volume per well. At this time I do know how they are disposing of the drilling sludge that is produced from each site. Does anyone know? I have heard that this can have radioactive materials in it, if so where is this going? I would hope to an appropriate disposal site.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 7, 2010 at 4:48pm

CJK's point is well taken, and John's thought would be most probable. Of course we won't know for certain, but we can keep our antennae up.
We also need to keep in mind that there are big numbers in play here.
3-9 million gallons of water/well and if memory serves it is anticipated that as many as 2700 wells will be in operation when this gets really going. The ability of the waste water treatment plants will have to have an enormous capacity to handle it.

On the O & G side, they are looking at profits of 60 million dollars per well per year so the return can be there for them (and us).

We just need to make sure that they are good neighbors, and to hold them to fulfill their responsibilities.
Dan

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 3:21pm

I would think any facility seriously considering treating the waste water would want full disclosure. In addition the articles below indicate the incoming frac water will be tested to determine if the facility will accept or reject the waste.

Comment by CJK on April 7, 2010 at 3:17pm

first we need to know what they are putting in their frac mixture to know if the facilities can treat it. Every company puts in different chemicals- knowing what they are is crucial when determining the capability of appropriate treatment.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 7, 2010 at 2:00pm

Dear John,
That is a very interesting website. Presumably then, there are treatment approaches that can be considered. We need to be aware of them and to make others aware as well. Very well done guys.
Dan

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 1:52pm

http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/pollution-...

Trying to cut and paste this. Also, may be a viable sollution going forward.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 7, 2010 at 1:43pm

Dear John,Marie & CJK,
Your focus is now on the frac water and how best to deal with it. You've identified some possible approaches. Are there any government overseers that we ought to be contacting? Any representatives(Senate,House, city & State) that we ought to be alerting to our concerns? Perhaps if we can bring some light to them they'll be able to bring appropriate oversight to accomplish all/some of our goals.

Frac treatment is a specialized case- would any of the academics previously contacted have some input here?

John's principled position against having a frac pond is enlightened. Too many of our neighbors weren't aware of that as an option.

Guys, I do think we're starting to cook in the right direction.
All good thoughts,
Dan

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 1:41pm

By Rory Sweeney rsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer


The Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority is investigating the feasibility of treating wastewater created from natural-gas drilling.


Read more Natural Gas Leases - Marcellus Shale articles


It hopes to offset some cost increases the authority will soon incur to make pollution-reducing renovations.

The authority published a request for proposals earlier this week, seeking bidders who could supply at least 500,000 gallons of wastewater daily for at least three years and pay at least 5.5 cents per gallon. Using both minimums, that would create daily revenue of $27,500.

Drilling for gas in the Marcellus Shale creates millions of gallons of wastewater that must be treated.

“The good part of that is that, instead of paying for fresh water from the Susquehanna (River), we would pre-treat this and they would reuse that to fracture new wells,” said Fred DeSanto, the authority’s executive director. “We know drilling’s going on; we are a wastewater treatment facility. That’s our business to treat it. We just don’t want time to go by as there’s water to treat.”

That means that, for now, the plant is seeking a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection to treat up to 150,000 gallons per day in its sewage stream. The company, however, is reserving the right to inspect for pollutants in incoming drilling wastewater.

It requires pre-testing for “total dissolved solids” and “suspended solids” – generally a measure of the amount of minerals and chemicals in the water – and reserves the right to deny it.

DeSanto said that protects the authority’s equipment, which would “probably” be damaged by heavy loads of solids.

All testing and transportation costs would be paid by the drilling company, which also must carry $2 million in liability insurance, indemnify the authority from all risks associated with hauling the waste and provide a “blanket statement” that it isn’t “hazardous waste.”

The long-term goal is to build a million-gallon-per-day, closed-loop facility to “pre-treat” the water enough that it could be reused in industrial capacities and resell it to the companies that brought it in.In its bid request, the authority is looking to get at least half a cent per gallon for that water. That water would never touch the sewer operation or be discharged into the river.

“It’s the preferred method of disposal by DEP,” said John Minora, the president PA NE Aqua Resources, which is consulting on the project. “We’re left with a sludge cake that gets either landfilled or incinerated. … The water that’s left, it looks a little milky because it’s high in salt.”

That waste could then be mixed with effluent from the plant’s sewer operation to reduce solids levels, thus preventing more discharges to the river, he said. As pollution discharge credits, which would set a limit for how much facilities can discharge, become a reality, the reduced discharges could provide more revenue.

“I think the people who are environmental should be very happy about that,” Minora said. “Recycle and reuse, I don’t think it has to be an us-against-them” situation.

The revenue would go toward the millions the authority will have to spend to upgrade its system for upcoming requirements to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and to fix stormwater overflows that currently spill untreated sewage into the river whenever it rains heavily.

Potential revenues are “unknown right now because we don’t exactly what the treatment cost is going to be,” DeSanto said. “We feel that there’s enough there that we could make a profit to help our operating budget in the future, help our ratepayers.”

Bids are due by Nov. 16.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page