Health Professionals Release Compendium of Studies on Risks of Fracking

Here's a great resource for someone who wants a list of health studies related to unconventional drilling. A few days ago the Concerned Health Professionals of NY and the Physicians for Social Responsibility released their third edition of the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction).

 "The Compendium," say the authors, "succinctly summarizes key studies and other findings relevant to the ongoing public debate about unconventional methods of oil and gas extraction." It will be useful for people who want to "grasp the scope of the information about both public health and safety concerns and the economic realities of fracking that frame these concerns." For those who want to delve deeper, there are plenty of references to reviews, studies, and articles. Readers wanting more can dive into this fully searchable citation database of peer-reviewed journal articles pertaining to shale gas and oil extraction housed over at PSE Healthy Energy.

The report highlights health risks ranging from air and water pollution as well as risks associate with a newly emerging problem: leakage of methane and other toxic gases from compressors, pipelines, and other infrastructure.

In a letter to NY governor Andrew Cuomo and NY Dept. of Health commissioner Howard A. Zucker, the authors of the study note that more than 100 new peer-reviewed studies on the impacts of drilling and fracking have been published since New York’s high volume fracking ban was announced in December 2014.

They state that the evidence compiled in their report makes clear that residents of New York (and other places) are at risk from gas infrastructure projects. "As with hydrofracking, the evidence available to date confirms that New York’s DOH and DEC were right to note the potential for harmful air impacts, environmental impacts, and other risks from infrastructure," they write. "Compressor stations and pipelines are both major sources of air pollutants, including benzene and formaldehyde, that create serious health risks for those living nearby while offering little or no offsetting economic benefits."

Compressor stations in particular, are pretty much permanent facilities that pollute the air 24 hours a day with emissions and noise.  The health professionals cite particular concerns over a maintenance procedure known as "blowdown", which can last for hours, releasing plumes of gas into the air. These have been associated with short term effects such as nosebleeds, burning eyes and throat, skin irritation, and headache, and the health professionals are concerned about long-term effects such as asthma, heart disease, neurological effects and cancers.

The authors of the Compendium noted, in their comments to the press, that "the pace at which new studies and information are emerging has rapidly accelerated in the past year and a half: in the first few months of 2014, more studies were published on the health effects of fracking than in 2011 and 2012 combined." More than 80 percent of the available studies on the impacts of shale gas development have been published since January 2013, they say. In 2014, 192 peer-reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking were published, and in the first six months of 2015, another 103 studies appeared. "Given the rapidly expanding body of evidence related to the harms and risks of unconventional oil and gas extraction, we plan to continue revising and updating the Compendium approximately every six months," say the authors, noting that the studies cited in this third edition are current through July 31 of this year.

So, who funds this Compendium project? No one. The group states that the Compendium is written "utilizing the benefit of the experience and expertise of numerous health professionals and scientists who have been involved in this issue for years."

243 and counting... contaminated water cases in PA

Back in July the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) admitted that oil and gas operations damaged water supplies 209 times since end of 2007.

Finally – six years into the Marcellus gas boom – DEP has released details of 243 cases in which oil and gas companies were found to have contaminated private drinking water wells. This past week the agency posted online links to the documents. Names and identifying information has been redacted, but you can read the documents here.

Some of these cases date back to 2008 but, when you look at the dates, DEP never got around to responding to them until months - or in some cases - years later. The cases include some where a single drilling operation affected multiple water wells.

Problems listed in the documents include: spills (waste fluids and other pollutants); high levels of methane gas; ethane; heavy metals; and wells that went dry or were otherwise undrinkable. These documents cover drilling-related water well problems in 22 counties, but most of the cases come from Bradford, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Lycoming counties.

PA admits Oil & gas operations damaged water supplies

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection admits that oil and gas operations damaged water supplies 209 times since end of 2007. This picture is worth a thousand words, but you can read the entire  article in Post Gazette.

One Well Does Not a Study Make

according to some folks, this is A-OK water

Just ten days ago, on July 19, AP reported that fracking chemicals didn't contaminate drinking water. That article was supposedly based on a "landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing" conducted by the Dept. of Energy at their National Energy Technology Lab (NETL).

There's only one problem a couple problems:
1. The study, which has been going on for nearly a year, is incomplete. In fact, on the same day that AP broke its story, NETL released a statement to the press  noting that they are still in the "early stages" of this ongoing study. "While nothing of concern has been found thus far, the results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims."
Which seems to be what the AP article was trying to do: make firm claims. Claims that fracking doesn't pollute groundwater would be great news for the gas industry - and hundreds of landowners who'd like to lease their land on the chance of getting rich off gas.

2. The more important problem is that the study is based on one single well. A well that the gas drillers chose, and allowed DOE researchers to use in their study. Not only is the sample size too small but, as Duke University scientist Rob Jackson pointed out, the drilling company may have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with that particular site, since they knew it was being watched. Jackson, who was not part of that study, makes an important point: this study was neither representative nor unbiased. A true scientific study is designed to avoid sample bias (such as a drilling operator choosing one well over another because it has fewer problems). And a sample size of just one... the less said, the better.

One week to the day of the AP report, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington released news that their peer-reviewed study of 100 private water wells in and near the Barnett Shale shows elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, barium, selenium,  and strontium at levels exceeding  EPA's maximum contaminant limit.

One day after news of the UT study was released, the LA Times reported that EPA may have curtailed their investigations of contaminated water in Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY prematurely due to political pressure. Seems some of the PA staffers in the agency had data showing that there were contaminants in local water wells and had lobbied their superiors to continue with the study.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Thomas Reed, from upstate NY which sits atop the thin edge of Marcellus shale, recently testified that the biggest threat to Marcellus Shale development isn't the spills, broken casings, or methane migration - it's the anti-fracking movement.

National Energy Technology Laboratory

National Energy Technology Laboratory

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Newest Duke Study: Higher Methane Levels in Water Wells closer to Drilling

A new study out of Duke University, released today by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that people living closer to Marcellus gas wells have a higher chance of getting methane - and other chemicals - in their drinking water than people living farther away. This new study expands and confirms findings of an earlier Duke study two years ago.

The team sampled 81 new drinking water wells in six northeastern Pennsylvania counties, and combined data with results from 60 previously sampled wells in PA and Otsego County, NY. Researchers found methane in drinking water of 82% of the 141 homes - and concentrations were six times higher in those homes that were within a kilometer of a gas well. A kilometer is 3280 feet. Currently, many gas companies test water wells within 1,000 feet of proposed gas wells. Clearly not far enough, given Duke's study.

Not only did those homes have higher methane than "allowable" levels, but they also had higher levels of ethane and propane. These are components of the deep gas that shale gas drillers seek, not "biogenic" gas from upper layers.

Wetterling Well- short lived & leaky

photo provided - Wetterling well, Owego

Back in October, Owego residents living near McHenry Road were surprised to see a well rig in their neighborhood. The well was drilled, the rig and truck traffic disappeared, and that was the end of it - or so people thought.


By late October, Carrizo had their exploratory data and were preparing to plug the well. That's when they noticed some bubbling. Gas was leaking between two of the casings.

This new information comes from a pair of DEC inspection reports obtained through a Freedom of Information request submitted by an Owego resident. It makes for interesting reading.

On Oct 25 the DEC inspector notes that gas was leaking at a rate of 15-20 cubic feet a day. The well operator, Carrizo was  concerned about Hurricane Sandy and proposed monitoring the gas leak. A couple weeks later, on November 13, Al Owings of Carrizo calls DEC and asks whether they can abandon the well with a vent pipe.

Notes from DEC investigator: "I told him that I did not know and that NY has no specific regulatory guidelines about the matter."

Now there's a rig back on the pad, and it appears that Carrizo is going to plug the well - the first real "Marcellus" well in Tioga County. Granted, it was a vertical well and drilled primarily to extract data, not gas. Vertical wells, while allowed under current permits, are not the most efficient way to exploit shale gas - but they serve well for exploring the new formations.

The Wetterling well was drilled to 4745 feet, not as deep as some of the wells around the area (some go deep into the Trenton Black River formation around 10,000 or so feet below the surface). There was no horizontal drilling, no hydrofracking. And yet it still sprung a leak.

Methane leaks are not unusual for shale gas wells in Pennsylvania. In fact, citizen reporter Vera Scroggins recently compiled a stack of "Letters of Determination" from PA's Department of Environmental Protection advising homeowners that they have methane - and other contaminants - in their water wells, and that gas drilling activities in the area may have affected their water supply. This is not the kind of letter anyone living near a well wants to receive - whether they live in Bradford County, PA or Owego, NY.

Tom Wilber has posted more about this on his excellent blog, Shale Gas Review.

Drilling Won't Save the Family Farm

A couple years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Carol French, a dairy farmer in Bradford County, PA. She came to the town of Caroline, NY to share some of her experiences of living and farming in a drilling area. Since then I have heard her speak a couple more times. Since 2011 she’s seen health impacts to her cows and her family from water contaminated by nearby drilling activity. The photo is of rashes her cows have been suffering. That is only one of the health impacts she's seeing on her farm.

A couple days ago she posted a plea for New Yorkers. Here is a condensed version of her comments (full comments at Raging Chicken):

If I hear one more New York farmer or any Farmer tell me that they want Natural Gas drilling in their state or they signed a gas lease to “SAVE their FAMILY FARM” I will probably lose it!

Today I thought it’s going to be a good day. We didn’t lose power (from the big snowstorm). We made our way to the barn to only find that another cow aborts her calf. She was eight months into her pregnancy. Before I was done milking my cows, cow number three starts to abort her calf. She too is eight months into her pregnancy. In nine days we have had three cows lose their calves.

For people not familiar with farming I will explain the dilemma. A cow should be “dry” for two months before giving birth. A cow that aborts during this time of her pregnancy doesn’t “come into” her milk real well. This Farmer counts on the replacement calves to continue farming the same number of cows. I have heard from other farmers with “changed” water having similar problems. If this is true, the money from the lease, royalties, and signing other agreements will NOT offset the cost of:  1. Losing your health. 2. Losing your family business, 3. Losing the value of your property. With this stripped from you, what will you have?

A farmer claiming that this natural gas extraction is going to save the farm is sadly mistaken. Should that farmer count on this money and lose everything that I had mentioned … he definitely will lose his farm to the gas industry without a dime in his pocket!

Carol appreciates our concern – but what she really wants is us, her neighbors in NY, to stand up with her. She has written to her state agencies, DEP, state Dept. of Agriculture, and a host of other people, to no avail.

In the next few days the Governor of NY and state environmental regulators will likely determine whether and how to allow high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. This is the time, Carol says, for New Yorkers to stand up and speak.

Help Pennsylvania fight against Hydro- Fracturing and what it has done to its people living in Pennsylvania. Please remember, what my neighbor agrees to do on his property will affect me, just like what Pennsylvania will do in its state will affect New York, West Virginia, and Ohio. All of these states have become Pennsylvania’s drilling waste dumping grounds for the gas industry.

Dimock Water Still a Concern

Remember back at the end of July when the media announced that EPA had declared Dimock water "safe to drink"? Only problem was that EPA's statement that "no further action" was needed  left out an important bit of information: that their results were going to be factored into a broader health study by ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry).
 

The ongoing ATSDR investigation is looking at longterm risks of exposures to the contaminated water in Dimock. That's because water tests found elevated levels of heavy metals - aluminum, arsenic, barium, lithium and manganese - as well as ethylene glycol, phthalates and other volatile organic compounds, things that, notes ATSDR in a report, aren't healthy for human beings.

The ATSDR study will account for risks of long-term exposures to the water through showering, drinking, bathing and washing, as well as risks that might be compounded when people are exposed to multiple toxicants. And they will look at cumulative and synergistic effects, something that's been sorely lacking in many of the studies. Not sure when the study will be done, but you can learn more about the background in Tom Wilber's recent article.

EPA Tests Dimock Water Despite Industry Criticism

photo provided; EPA mobile lab in Dimock, PA

As promised, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is testing water in Dimock homes. As expected, the gas industry is fighting back, claiming whatever is in that water was already there. And to further complicate the picture, Cabot Oil and Gas CEO Dan Dingles is accusing the EPA of undercutting President Barack Obama’s “commitment” to developing the nation’s shale gas reserves.

If it weren’t in the news you’d assume this was the plot of a soon-to-be-released midwinter movie.

This week two teams of scientists began sampling well water from homes in Dimock, PA – or at least the homes they’ve been given access to. Of the 66 homeowners they contacted, EPA has received permission from 55 to conduct sampling.

EPA determined that further testing was warranted after reviewing results from testing Cabot conducted last fall. Although Cabot’s tests indicated methane may no longer be an issue, the results raised the Agency’s concern about the potential health threats posed by other contaminants in the water: arsenic, barium, a plasticizer known as DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, sodium and others. EPA admits that some of these occur naturally, but notes that all of them are associated with gas drilling.

So why aren’t the other 11 homeowners getting their water tested? For free by scientists with no ties to the oil and gas industry?

Peer pressure, say some Dimock residents. Email and Facebook comments mention intimidation and pressure from both gas industry representatives and other residents. And while industry criticism against EPA for what they consider “meddling” is to be expected, the outcry by fellow residents against their neighbors illustrates just how deeply gas drilling can divide a community.

There are residents who support Cabot’s drilling and who, either because they already have leases or are hoping to cash in on future activities, criticize the continued attention on water problems as “baseless” and “hyped-up allegations”. These are the same folks who were outraged that the PA Department of Environmental Protection ordered Cabot to build a water line to bring fresh water to Dimock – even though Cabot would foot the bill.

Apparently nixing the water line was not enough for Enough is Enough. Their most recent campaign is “Dimock Proud”, featuring signs proclaiming that “the water IS clean and the people are friendly.”

Industry-backed Energy in Depth has been posting up a storm, claiming that the water’s safe and the testing is nothing more than politics – a “decision by EPA to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying water to people who don’t need it.”

But, hey – didn’t the President of the United States just say, in his State of the Union address, that we should drill for more gas? Apparently that was the take-away message for Cabot CEO Dan Dinges. In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Dinges cited Obama’s support for domestic natural gas. He criticized EPA’s water testing in Dimock as an action that threatened to “undercut the President’s stated commitment to this important resource”.

Dinges later released another statement to the press, calling EPA’s work in Dimock “more of an attempt to advance a political agenda hostile to shale gas development rather than a principled effort to address environmental concerns in the area.”

But with a file full of Pavillion, WY tests to back them up, EPA responded that its actions are based solely on science – and the law.

As for that State of the Union comment? Anyone who was listening knows that the President emphasized that any drilling would be limited by “developing this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”