Health Workers told to Put a Lid on it

fracking a well near a home in PA

Over the past few years many Pennsylvania residents living in the gas fields have registered a number of health complaints. They've called everyone from their own doctors to the state's Department of Health. The response: nothing.

Now we know why.The people charged with protecting the public health were told to zip their lips when it came to issues on Marcellus Shale Drilling. Two retirees from the PA Dept. of Health recently spoke to the media and said they were specifically instructed not to return phone calls from residents with health concerns. They were also told they couldn't speak about drilling and health issues at public meetings and were given a list of "buzzwords" identifying issued about which they were to remain silent. Read more here.

Meanwhile, a scientist at the University of Texas, Arlington, is collecting samples from more than 500 private wells to determine whether drilling for oil and gas - and burying chemical waste generated by the O&G exploration - is contaminating groundwater. The project is NOT sponsored by the state environmental regulators, nor is it sponsored by the gas industry. Looks like UT Arlington is shelling out the expenses for this all on its own.

Researcher, Kevin Shug, can't say anything about these samples - the data isn't in yet. However, in a 2013 analysis of samples from 100 wells in the Barnett Shale  he found that one third of the wells had elevated levels of heavy metals including arsenic and selenium.

So, while scientists are investigating health impacts, health professionals can't talk about it.

How Far is "Safe" when Protecting Aquifers?

Like land use, making pro-gas political statements is within a town’s rights. And the Joint Land Owner’s Committee is encouraging towns to do so. But the impacts of drilling don’t stop at municipal borders. That means that neighbors in the next town – even a town with a moratorium or a drilling ban – may feel the impacts of industrialized drilling.

A couple weeks ago I asked Don Barber, supervisor for the Town of Caroline what it’s like sharing a border with a “pro-drilling” town. Last March the Caroline town board passed a moratorium, and tonight they’re considering a ban.

“We anticipate that drilling activity will take place around us,” says Barber. The moratorium and ban effort are to allow the town more time to “address a number of impacts that the SGEIS (Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement) doesn’t address.” A big concern for Barber is road preservation. Most wells will be sited off a town road, he says. So those roads will see more traffic than ever before – traffic that the roads were not designed to handle.

 

Caroline also wants to look at site plan reviews, as drilling creates a lot of ancillary activities: transfer stations for drilling wastes and materials, gravel pits, staging areas and more. “These will be changes to agricultural land,” says Barber. “Our site plan review process needs to ensure that any development is done in a way that preserves the town’s character.”

Another big concern is groundwater protection. Whether there’s drilling in town or frack trucks passing through, there are many opportunities for spills and accidents, says Barber. So Caroline is developing an aquifer protection plan.

But part of Caroline shares an aquifer with Candor, a town that just last month passed a “pro-drilling” resolution. Drilling activity in Candor could potentially affect the water that Caroline residents drink, says Barber. “But there’s not anything we can do about it.”

As if to underscore this sort of quandary, some residents in Great Bend Township, PA found their water affected by drilling the next town over. The well is located in Liberty Township and feet from the township line. It is also about 2500 feet – a distance far enough that the affected residents were not notified about predrilling tests, nor did WPX, the drilling company, conduct any.

According to residents, their water turned black and stayed that way for at least three days. It eventually cleared up, but questions remain:

• Is there any contamination that residents should be aware of?
• If residents 2500 feet away are seeing effects, what about the protected aquifer areas along the Susquehanna River that is only 5200 feet away?
• And how far away is “safe”?

Fracking can Pollute Water .... Or Maybe Not

photo by Frank Finan

According to one media report, the newest study by Duke scientists (published on Monday) shows that gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania did not contaminate nearby drinking water wells with salty water.

But flip to a different paper and you learn that same study concludes that fracking does indeed put drinking water at risk from fluid migration.

The "truth" is more complex, and the study more nuanced. Introducing their paper, the Duke researchers mention that the drilling debate raises concerns about the potential for  methane, metal-containing brines and hydraulic fracturing fluids to migrate into drinking water aquifers. A critical question, they say, is whether there is any "hydraulic connectivity" between the deep shale gas formations and the overlying drinking water aquifers - and if so, to what extent.

Introducing their study the scientists say, "We present geochemical evidence from northeastern Pennsylvania showing that pathways, unrelated to recent drilling activities, exist in some locations between deep underlying formations and shallow drinking water aquifers." They show that salty water (brine) does indeed migrate, but is not correlated to the location of shale-gas wells.

"However," they add, "the presence of these fluids suggest conductive pathways and specific geostructural and/or hydrodynamic regimes in northeastern PA that are at increased risk for contamination, particularly by fugitive gases" because of the natural connections to deeper formations.So, yeah, the possibility of migration is there because the geology surrounding the Marcellus Shale is already fractured with pathways that could allow contaminants to move more freely than expected. You can read the study here.

Fortunately, the Department of Energy is conducting research that may provide some answers to the question of whether drilling fluids migrate and how far they travel. DOE researchers are working with a drilling company at a commercial well site in southwestern PA. The are adding tracing elements to hydro-fracking fluids and will conduct follow-up monitoring. They hope to see whether drilling fluids move upwards and/or sideways through the shale.



Using tracers isn't new - they're routinely used in hydrologic studies. Like the Duke study, the DOE tracer study will help researchers learn more about the geology surrounding the Marcellus shale. And like the Duke scientists, the DOE researchers caution that Marcellus geology is variable, changing from place to place.

DEP Gives Cabot 60 Days to Fix Water Supplies

Remember the little town of Dimock in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania? The place where, on January 1, 2009 residents lost their drinking water because of an explosion due to drilling?  It's been 19 months and they still don't have their water - but they are getting closer. Today, he PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) gave Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. an extension - they have 60 days to permanently fix the water supplies that were affected by the company’s natural gas drilling operations in Dimock.

According to DEP the directive is part of a modified consent order and agreement that requires Cabot to continue providing temporary water services until the permanent solution can be implemented. The additional 60-days comes as a result of homeowner dissatisfaction over Cabot's previous proposal to fix the water contamination issue.

Back in April , DEP and Cabot entered into a modification of the original consent order and agreement that was executed in November 2009. One of the provisions required whole-house water treatment systems to be installed in 14 homes as a permanent water supply resolution. But several residents didn't like the whole-house treatment systems.

Due to the resident reaction, Cabot requested an extension of the consent order and agreement time frame to install a permanent solution. DEP agreed to delay enforcement of that provision to allow for additional discussions with residents.

“This week’s modification to the consent order and agreement gives us more time to find a water supply solution that will address the needs and concerns of residents,” said DEP Secretary John Hanger. “Our goal is to find a permanent solution that will be agreeable to all parties.”

Also in April, DEP suspended its review of Cabot’s pending permit applications for new drilling activities statewide until the company fulfilled its obligations to plug and repair the wells that caused the gas migration, which caused the water contamination. In accordance with that agreement, Cabot has plugged three gas wells and has made repairs to another well. As a result, DEP will resume reviewing Cabot applications only for permits to drill gas wells outside of the affected area in Dimock Township.

Read the original DEP press release here.

Millions of Gallons of Frack and Drilling Fluids Spilled in Colorado over Past 2 1/2 Years

Gas and oil companies reported almost 1,000 spills to Colorado regulators over the past 2 1/2 years, reports Burt Hubbard of the Denver Post. The spills - some 5.2 million gallons of drilling liquids and oil - ranged from small valve leaks to thousands of barrels of contaminated water from faulty pits.

What leaked? Of the 981 company-reported spills, formation-produced water (brine) and frack fluid used in drilling accounted for nearly half - 461 - and about 85 percent (106,000 barrels) of the amount spilled. The 319 oil spills accounted for only 6,500 barrels of the total spilled.

One hundred eighty-two spills impacted groundwater, 82 contaminated surface water, and another 10 impacted both groundwater and surface water. While drillers in Garfield County reported about a quarter of the total spills (236), they accounted for the highest volume of material spilled - some 66,386 barrels, mostly drilling liquids and water used in natural-gas exploration. So far, Colorado officials have levied only two fines, totaling nearly $650,000. Both were against Oxy USA in 2008 for contamination of two springs near Parachute caused by leaks from pits containing drilling wastewater and hydrocarbons from oil and gas. State investigators found elevated levels of benzene in the springs.

David Neslin, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said many of the spills are small with no real environmental impact, while the state requires remediation for spills that affect the ground and water sources. "Our reporting requirements are very low," he said.

Companies are not required to publicly disclose the mix of chemicals used in frack fluids. But, Neslin added, Colorado's new regulations went into effect last year, and they require that companies disclose the content of frack fluids in spills if the state asks. 

Neslin said the state has concentrated its efforts on new rules designed to minimize the impact of spills. For example, keeping drilling operations farther from water sources and people.

Read Denver Post article here.