New Study shows Methane from Fracking Sites can flow to Abandoned Wells

USGS photo/ public domain ~ Fracking site on Marcellus Shale in PA

Last week the University of Vermont released a new study showing that methane from active fracking sites can escape through faults that connect to preexisting, abandoned oils and gas wells. The study, to be published in Water Resources Research on October 20, showed that methane release measured at abandoned wells near fracking sites can be significant but did not investigate how the process occurs.

In August, the EPA proposed measures that would cut methane and VOC emissions from the oil and natural gas industry and clarify permitting requirements. These regulations would help combat climate change, reduce air pollution that harms public health, and clarify Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the oil and natural gas industry, says EPA.

Since then, the industry has been hotly debating the proposed regulations on limiting release of methane during fracking operations. That debate, says James Montague, an environmental engineering doctoral student at the University of Vermont who co-wrote the paper, “needs to take into account the system that fracking operations are frequently part of, which includes a network of abandoned wells that can effectively pipeline methane to the surface.”

The researchers studied an area in New York state underlain by the Marcellus Shale formation, which had been fracked until a ban went into effect in the state in the summer of 2015. They used a mathematical model to predict the likelihood that the hydraulically induced fractures of a randomly placed new well would connect to an existing wellbore, putting that probability between .03 percent and 3 percent.

Since then, industry-sponsored information published vastly increased assumptions about the area impacted by a set of six to eight fracking wells known as a well pad - to two square miles -- increasing the probabilities cited in the paper by a factor of 10 or more.

Not all abandoned wells provide a pathway to surface for methane. But given the large number of abandoned wells, even a small percentage can potentially pose an environmental risk. You can read their abstract here.

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."

Gas Fracking Resolution Provides Opportunity for Civic Involvement

In a previous blog I mention that my little town, famous for being the "small town in mass society" is hopping on the bandwagon to support gas-fracking. In their August meeting they proposed adoption of a  resolution to support a private corporation in another town to drill a well and frack it with highly explosive propane. (You can read all about how they were spoon-fed that resolution by a representative of the party the resolution benefits - all on that earlier blog).

I am not the only one who thinks this move to adopt a pro-fracking resolution smacks of politicking. Others do, too - and on Tuesday October 13, they plan to submit a letter to the town board telling why they are not only fed up with this political nonsense, but also enumerating the ways that fracking with gas will NOT solve the issues of health, safety, contamination, etc that the "pro-gas-frac" contingent wants us to believe. (note: update 10/12 re: Van Etten does NOT pass this resolution. see below)

After years of scientific study, the DEC determined that high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing is not healthy to children and other living things. They back that up with a report released by the NY State Dept. of Health.

"LPG/ propane gel fracturing warrants the same extensive review before our community condones the use of technology," say the citizens. Propane/LPG fracking isn't the "safe and proven technology" that our town board would like it to be. The People would prefer that our town board remain neutral until DEC has a chance to study the matter, and then comment at the appropriate time, and within their given expertise.

Furthermore, our town already has a "pro-drilling" resolution on tap. And this particular resolution isn't so much about pro-drilling as it is about supporting a group in another town to do something that may or may not be allowed.

Politicking.

While the surface talk is all about how gas-fracking is "green" or "more environmentally friendly", remember that the decision to ban HVHF was not just based on the use of mass quantities of water, but also on:

•  impacts to public health, including low birth weights,  premature births, and increased hospitalizations of people living near drilling sites;
• decreased  air quality even if you live hundreds of miles away,
•  potential human-induced seismic activity,
• and decreased water quality.

IF you live in Candor, and you would like to sign on to the letter that asks the town board to NOT pass the resolution, you may contact beccarodomskybish[at]gmail[dot]com.

UPDATE: It sounds like one local community is passing on the resolution. Last Thursday the Van Etten town board voted to NOT approve this same resolution. A Van Etten resident who attended that meeting gives her town board credit, saying that they "asked to hear from residents before they voted," and that they decided to NOT pass the resolution "citing unwillingness to stir up the divisiveness of the 2012 election."

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.