Fracking with Propane Doesn't Solve those Fracking Problems

Photo of a gas-frack operation (from Jessica Ernst's blog about gas-fracking)

My little town, famous for being the "small town in mass society" is hopping on the bandwagon to support gas-fracking.

No. Let me clarify: the town board has proposed a resolution to support a private corporation in another town to drill a well and frack it with highly explosive propane.

The idea is that fracking with gelled propane will solve all the problems that plague hydrofracking:

• using millions of gallons of water
• pouring toxic chemicals into the ground
• methane and other chemicals "communicating" with abandoned wells or drinking water wells
• surface spills of frack-related wastes coming back up from well
• all those water trucks on the road
• PLUS- you can use the propane when it comes back out with the gas.

 Sounds ideal. But here's the problem: fracking with propane isn't any cleaner or less polluting than fracking with water. And it won't produce a lot of local jobs. According to Dr. Ron Bishop, a professor at SUNY Oneonta, using propane to frack wells "wouldn't deal with some real technical challenges." In order to suspend the sand or other proppants used to hold open the fractures, liquid propane needs to be thickened - so foaming agents will need to be added. Fracking crews will also need to add corrosion inhibitors and biocides, too.

Then there are some new problems, such as controlling a pressurized liquid that quickly turns to gas, and the use of a fracking agent that itself is a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. And gas-fracking does nothing to solve the toxicity of deep brines that flow out of the gas well bores - the brines that, in Marcellus shale, bring up radioactive elements in addition to salts. So there's still the issue of waste disposal.

Dr. Tony Ingraffea, engineering professor at Cornell, has his own list of problems with gas-fracking. In addition to using large quantities of chemicals, gas-fracking requires compressors at the drill site to re-condense returned propane for reuse. The process is so fraught with danger that the gas-fracking process is now "nearly robotic" because of risks to personnel on the well pad, he says. Then there's transportation. Instead of trucking water to frack jobs, trucks will be transporting hazardous material.

Once downhole, pressurized propane can still migrate back to the surface (and to water wells) via faults and abandoned wells. So can any chemicals used with the propane, and methane released from the shale. That means that drinking water supplies are still at risk.

An added danger of propane is that it is heavier than air, and can pool in low spots near the well pad in large amounts, causing an explosion hazard - not to mention an air quality hazard to neighbors. Add to that, the only substantive information about the gas-fracking process comes from the company (GasFrac) - there has been no independent empirical analysis of the complete process.

 The bottom line, says Ingraffea, is that "no science is available to evaluate either the environmental impacts of LPG fracking or the safety thereof." Supporting gas-fracking, he says, is nothing more than grasping at straws for a solution to problems the industry claims don't even exist.

So, why is my town board so gung-ho to support gas-fracking? We don't even have a horse in this race... but read on for some insight into how small town politics works.

The backstory:
 Back in June the DEC finalized their years-long study of hydrofracking and determined that, no, it was not gonna happen. Some landowners, believing that they have untapped mineral wealth beneath their feet, decided that there was more than one way to extract fossil fuels from the ground.

So in early July, a handful of farmers formed "The Snyder Farm Group" and filed an application with the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for a permit to fracture shale using gelled propane. It's not high volume hydraulic fracturing, said their lawyer - so DEC should be able to allow it under the 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (written before gas-fracking was born).

About a month later, the Tioga County legislature adopted a resolution supporting the Snyder Farm group's efforts to frack with gas. Soon after that this same resolution began showing up on the agenda of Tioga County towns, including Candor. On Aug 11, Snyder Farm Group spokesman Kevin "Cub" Frisbie called  Candor town supervisor Bob Riggs and asked the town to support the same resolution (he emailed the resolution later that same day). That very night, the town board considered the resolution, with Riggs stating (incorrectly), “By current law this is all approved and they’re just asking the surrounding municipalities to endorse that.”

At the last board meeting (September 8), the town board and the town planning board got into a heated discussion about language regarding fracking in the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan. “We’re not opposed to fracking, just fracking carte blanche,” said planning board member Art Cacciola after the meeting.

The next town board meeting will be Tuesday, October 13. It promises to be interesting, as the board intends to vote on the Comprehensive Plan (and maybe change the language to include fracking)  - and may, or may not, vote on the resolution written for them by the Snyder Farm Group. Agenda should be posted here prior to meeting.

Air Pollution from Fracking Affects areas where there is No Drilling

A new study finds that air pollution from industrialized drilling and hydrofracking can likely travel hundreds of miles, even to states with little or no drilling. The study, published in the June issue of the journal, Atmospheric Environment, shows that emissions associated with hydraulic fracturing and shale gas operations could be polluting air in cities far from the drilling pads.

Scientists from the University of Maryland looked at levels of ethane in the air of Baltimore and Washington DC. They used hourly measurements of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) from Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) in the Baltimore and DC areas. The PAMS don't collect data on methane but they do measure ethane, which can be used as a tracer for fugitive natural gas production emissions. While composition varies from site to site, ethane makes up a significant portion of gas produced from Marcellus shale.

Analyzing data collected between 2010 to 2013, the researchers noticed that "daytime ethane concentrations have increased significantly since 2010, growing from around 7 percent of total measured nonmethane organic carbon to around 15 percent in 2013."

It is important to note that neither Baltimore nor Washington DC have fracking operations in or around their metropolitan areas and, until late last year, the state of Maryland did not allow fracking. So where did this air pollution come from? The trend in increased ethane, say the researchers, appears to be linked with the "rapidly increasing natural gas production in upwind, neighboring states, especially Pennsylvania and West Virginia."

They compared the Baltimore/DC data with a control site outside of Atlanta, GA, a region without new, widespread gas drilling operations. The PAMS site in Georgia did not show the same trend in increased methane as seen in the northeast.

The scientists conclude that the increasing amount of ethane in the air indicates that "a substantial fraction of natural gas is escaping uncombusted" and traveling downwind. As shale gas production expands, this trend will continue in downwind regions, they say, noting a disappointing trend in regional air quality. Also, this observable increase in ethane corresponds to a regional increase in methane - a critical greenhouse gas.

More Gas Wells = More Hospital Visits

Bradford County, PA

A new study out of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine shows that people who live near hydraulically fractured wells end up in the hospital more than people who don't live near wells.

Researchers used databases that contained more than 198,000 hospitalizations (including multiple hospitalizations for the same person) for the years between 2007 - 2011. They looked at the top 25 medical categories cited, and the patient's proximity to active wells.

What they found: people living in Bradford and Susquehanna counties ended up in the hospital more frequently than residents of Wayne county. Both Bradford and Susquehanna Counties saw a significant increase in drilling activity over the same five-year period, whereas Wayne County had no drilling activity due to a ban on drilling in the Delaware River watershed.

 The biggest difference was found in hospitalizations for heart conditions and neurological illness. Where there was a well density greater than 0.79 wells/square kilometer, residents experienced a 27% increase in cardiology visits compared to where there were no wells. Residents living near wells also experienced higher rates of hospitalization for cancers, dermatological problems, and a host of other health problems.

 Senior author, Dr. Reynold Panettieri told the press that this study is one of the most comprehensive ones, to date. But there are still questions. "At this point, we suspect that residents are exposed to many toxicants, noise, and social stressors due to hydraulic fracturing," he said. But he cautioned that more study is needed to determine how specific toxicants or combinations might increase the hospitalization rates. For example, cardiac issues could be related to a variety of environmental stressors, including air pollution resulting from diesel exhaust and fine particulate matter, like the sand used in fracking.

While they can't say that fracking causes heart attacks, the authors do say that the increased hospitalizations over such a short time suggest that health care costs of fracking must be considered when looking at economic impacts/benefits of unconventional gas and oil drilling.

DEC says NO Fracking

It's true. New York is officially banning hydrofracking from the state.

This afternoon the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation released its official Findings Statement concluding the seven-year environmental impact study on high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing.

In remarks to the press, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said, "After years of exhaustive research and examination of the science and facts, prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the only reasonable alternative.” Fracking, he said, "poses significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated."

Significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated.

The finding, says Martens, is "consistent with DEC’s mission to conserve, improve and protect our state’s natural resources, and to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state." 

There are no "feasible or prudent alternatives" that adequately avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts, he notes. Likewise, there are no "feasible or prudent alternatives" that address risks to public health from fracking.

DEC based the Findings Statement on the huge amount of research included in the Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FSGEIS) that they released last month. That 2,000-page document included responses to public comments and the state Department of Health’s Public Health Review, which concluded that, given the uncertainty regarding potential health impacts from high volume hydro-fracking, that technology should not move forward in the state.

The 44-page Findings Statement details widespread potential impacts from fracking including impacts to water and air resources, ecosystems and wildlife, community character and public health.You can read it online at the DEC's website.

EPA study does NOT say Fracking is "safe"

Five days ago, that would be Thursday, June 4, the EPA released its "Draft Assessment on the Potential Impacts to Drinking Water Resources from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities". [You can download the complete study - nearly 1,000 pages of it - here.]

This is what some  pro-drilling interests picked up from the press release: "Assessment shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources and identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources." They would like to believe that the EPA study shows that fracking is "safe".  In fact, "no proven contamination" has been their motto for years.

Unfortunately, early media reports simply parroted what they saw at the top of the EPA press release without reading the details or delving into the executive summary.

Dive in a bit deeper and you learn what the EPA study really says: there are cases in which fracking has impacted drinking water resources, but it is not "widespread and systematic" yet. 

The EPA study found that fracking activities have the potential to impact our drinking water in these ways:

• fracking directly into underground water resources
• withdrawing water in areas affected by droughts or periods of low water availability
• spills
• below-ground migration of liquids and gases
• inadequate treatment and discharge of waste fluids

 The EPA study found “specific instances” where fracking-related activities contaminated drinking water, including water wells. They didn't find it everywhere, but they only studied a handful of communities. EPA admits that their study is limited by the lack of pre- and post-drilling water quality data. They say their study is limited by the lack of long-term systematic studies. They also say that certain information on fracking was not made accessible to them.

If you need a visual image to help you, check out this map that William Huston pulled together from data in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale region.

Map: (C) 2015 WilliamAHuston@gmail.com Share: CC-BY-NC -- All other rights reserved.

This map shows 313 cases where families in the north eastern part of the state reported water contamination. Just six counties. The red areas indicate where the most reports came from. 

Three hundred thirteen might not seem "widespread and systematic", but it demonstrates part of the problem with how the EPA study is interpreted. The impacts are localized. But they are systematic, when you compare where the pollution is with where the drilling occurs.

Further reading:

•  EPA finds drinking water vulnerable to fracking 
• EPA says new study doesn’t show fracking is safe
• Fracking Does Cause ‘Widespread, Systemic’ Contamination of American’s Drinking Water

 

EPA investigators said that they did find “above and below ground mechanisms” through which various stages of what they called “fracking activities” can “have the potential to impact drinking water resources.”
Among those mechanisms: Fracking directly into underground water resources, water withdrawals in areas with or in times of low water availability, spills of various fluids used in or produced by fracking processes, below-ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA said its investigators found “specific instances” where one or more mechanisms affected drinking water, including contamination of wells. The agency report said the number of identified cases “was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” but conceded it wasn’t sure why.
“This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors,” the EPA said. “These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150607/GZ01/150609432#sthash.kYK3RUTA.dpuf

EPA investigators said that they did find “above and below ground mechanisms” through which various stages of what they called “fracking activities” can “have the potential to impact drinking water resources.”
Among those mechanisms: Fracking directly into underground water resources, water withdrawals in areas with or in times of low water availability, spills of various fluids used in or produced by fracking processes, below-ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA said its investigators found “specific instances” where one or more mechanisms affected drinking water, including contamination of wells. The agency report said the number of identified cases “was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” but conceded it wasn’t sure why.
“This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors,” the EPA said. “These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150607/GZ01/150609432#sthash.kYK3RUTA.dpuf

EPA investigators said that they did find “above and below ground mechanisms” through which various stages of what they called “fracking activities” can “have the potential to impact drinking water resources.”
Among those mechanisms: Fracking directly into underground water resources, water withdrawals in areas with or in times of low water availability, spills of various fluids used in or produced by fracking processes, below-ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA said its investigators found “specific instances” where one or more mechanisms affected drinking water, including contamination of wells. The agency report said the number of identified cases “was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” but conceded it wasn’t sure why.
“This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors,” the EPA said. “These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150607/GZ01/150609432#sthash.kYK3RUTA.dpuf