Comment

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.

Comment by Carol on April 7, 2010 at 1:36pm

Marie,
A treatment plant is also opening in Westmoreland County at the site of the former American Video Glass Company.

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