Hydrofracking for natural gas in Catskills

[daxs]

The Delaware River Basin Commission published regulations on Tuesday regarding drilling in the river basin. There is a meeting on 11/21 in Trenton NJ where it is expected that these regulations will pass and limited drilling will be allowed to happen. The period for public comment of these regulations ended last April. I know there is a demonstration scheduled on that date to protest the drilling.

 

[Snowflea]

Bump.

More on the Nov. 21 Trenton vote and demonstration:
http://www.enviroblog.org/2011/11/save-the-delaware-river-1.html
(watch the video)

 

[Peakbagr]

Hearing in upstate NY going on yesterday,today and next couple of days.

 

[Craig]

- On Balance -

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is making available a plethora of factual information related to this issue. The EPA is continuing to update this information as factual information becomes available.

If you have the time or the interest in this subject, you may want to read some of this material.

For me, this is such a complicated issue, I don't have the time to research the issues enough to develop an informed opinion.

For now I'm relying on our regulatory institutions to do their jobs and protect our environment. If, in the future, it is determined that they didn't or haven't been protecting our environment the way they are mandated to do, then I'm sure heads will roll.

From my cursory review of the varies issue here, it seems the main issue on the table is what to do with the recovered fracking fluid. To this, the EPA says:

EPA’s directive followed an April 19, 2011 request by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) that by May 19, 2011, natural gas well drilling operators voluntarily stop taking gas extraction wastewater to 15 facilities in Pennsylvania.*
The companies were directed to report back to EPA by May 25, 2011 with information on disposal or recycling practices for the wastewater through the development of natural gas wells they own and/or operate in EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region.
In the letters, EPA required the companies to describe how they intend to handle gas extraction wastewater during 2011.* All six companies indicated their intention to employ reuse, disposal, and/or treatment rather than using any of the 15 wastewater treatment facilities referenced in PADEP’s April 19, 2011 request. Some companies expressed an intention to reuse over 90% of gas extraction wastewater in 2011.

I understand this is a emotional issue for some, and it's not my intention to “stir the pot” but to offer some balanced information for those interested.

Happy Reading

 

[Little Rickie]

It's not the treatment that's the major problem. They can't get back anywhere near as much water as they put down in the ground and can't contain the water they leave down there. They are unable or unwilling to change the chemicals they use now. So besides the surface water problem, which is tough enough to deal with, the water left in the ground is a much greater volume and problem.


FYI For the Upstate meetings the companies are saying if they are given too many restrictions they will just drill ($ & jobs) in another state.

So who will blink first? Best guess... $ wins.

 

[Peakbagr]

Exactly my hope when beginning the thread. Thanks.

 

[daxs]

The meeting in Trenton NJ scheduled for 11/21 to vote on the drilling regualtions for the Delaware River watershed has been cancelled. A new date has not been announced. NY, NJ, PA, DE and the feds all have a vote in this. NY and DE are expected to vote no on the regulations. PA and NJ are expected to vote yes. The Feds will be the deciding vote. Scary.

 

[Craig]

I had the opportunity to read 1 of the EPAs “request for information” addressed to 1 of the drilling companies, along with their answers.

There were numerous questions the drilling company refused to answer in addition to the chemicals used in their fracking fluid.

Overall, they appeared to use 2 arguments for not answering the EPAs questions.

1. Either the EPA didn't have the statutory authority to ask those questions
or
2. The EPAs questions were too vague making answering them impracticable.

Both arguments used, in the context of the legal community, are probably not uncommon.

Both arguments used, in the context of the court of public opinion, are probably shocking.

 

[1ADAM12]

Here are the some of the chemicals used in fracking. Some pretty bad stuff


FRACKING CHEMICALS
Chemicals used in fracturingWater is by far the largest component of fracking fluids. The initial drilling operation may consume from 65,000 gallons to 600,000 gal. Over its lifetime an average well will require an additional 5 million gallons of water for the initial fracking operation and restimulation frac jobs.

Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid. They are biocides, surfactants, adjusting viscosity, and emulsifiers. Many are used in household products such as cosmetics, lotions, soaps, detergents, furniture polishes, floor waxes, and paints.[37] Some are also used in food products. A list of the chemicals that have been used was published in a U.S. House of Representatives Report.[27] Some of the chemicals pose no known health hazards, some others are known carcinogens, some are toxic, some are neurotoxins. For example: benzene (causes cancer, bone marrow failure), lead (damages the nervous sytem and causes brain disorders), ethylene glycol (antifreeze, causes death), methanol (highly toxic), boric acid (kidney damage, death), 2-butoxyethanol (causes hemolysis). The report does not include the concentration of each chemical used or the amount used.

A 2011 study identified 632 chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature; and of these, more than 75% could affect skin, eyes, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; roughly 40-50% could affect the brain and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% were carcinogens or mutagens. The study indicated possible long-term health effects that might not appear immediately. The study recommended full disclosure of all products used, along with extensive air and water monitoring near natural gas operations; it also recommended that fracking's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.

 

[daxs]

Adam, Are they fracking by you? I was up on my property on Sunday and did not see anything new in the area; Millerton/Roseville. At least I saw nothing new on Bailey Creek rd or my Rd

 

[Raven]

A few points:

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed. The oil and gas industries are noticeably exempt from this regulation and hydraulic fracturing is specifically exempted.

The chemicals used in fracking (benzene, toluene, etc.) have been the poster-children of cancer-causing chemicals for decades. These are the solvents the industry doesn't mind telling you about (?). There are chemicals in the mix they will not divulge however. This begs the question, "how harmful are those they are not telling us about?"

The process of fracking causes cracks in the rock near oil and gas sources underground. These cracks may be near ground water sources. A crack connecting the two will clearly contaminate the water. However, if I (or any ordinary citizen) were to take a liter bottle of benzene and dump it in the local reservoir, I'm quite certain I could be charged federally with an act of domestic terrorism.

The question isn't whether fracking is harmful to drinking water and can contaminate drinking water. Some of the divulged chemicals in the fracking fluid are known carcinogens. The real question is whether we as as a society are willing to risk the safety of our water sources in the process of looking for and obtaining oil and gas. By exempting these industries from important environmental laws, this question may have already been answered for you.

In 2004, an EPA study was released, concluding that hydraulic fracturing did not threaten water supplies and that no further study of the practice was needed.Soon after, it was found the 7-member EPA panel that reviewed the decision had 5 members who stood to financially benefit from the decision in a clear conflict of interest. The decision sought to not only allow the continued exemptions for the industry, but also to block further study of the issue. EPA scientists have since come forward to denounce this finding and panel.

Question: Why are these industries not held to the same level of environmental responsibility and accountability as everyone else especially considering the increased potential damage they can cause?

Bear in mind: water filters do not remove toluene and benzene.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/oil-extraction.html

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Free-Pass-for-Oil-and-Gas/Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Exemptions

 

[DougPaul]

I read recently that underground migration of the chemicals has not been a problem so far. (But of course, such migration might be slow and show up in the future.) The big problems have been leakage around the vertical well shaft and methane leakage*. (The well pipes are sealed to the rock by a cement--this cement has failed allowing leakage up the shaft.)

* Natural gas is primarily composed of methane.

It has been suggested that tracer chemicals should be placed in the fracking fluid to allow tracing and leakage and spillage. There is also the (very high) risk of leakage from surface storage ponds. The fluids that come back up also contain toxic chemicals that have leached from the rock itself.

Vertical fracking (fracturing of vertical shafts) has been going on since the 1940s with limited problems. The current problems stem from horizontal fracking (fracturing of horizontal shafts) which requires far more water than vertical fracking.

Ref: Scientific American: "The Truth about Fracking", by Chris Mooney http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-fracking. A worthwhile read.

Doug

 

[Craig]

The most authoritative and thorough document I've been able to find on the subject of Shale Gas Extraction.

The Shale Gas Primer Prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council.

Definitely worth reading for those interested.

I read recently that underground migration of the chemicals has not been a problem so far. (But of course, such migration might be slow and show up in the future.)

A fundamental precept of oil and gas geology is that without an effective seal, gas and oil would not accumulate in a reservoir in the first place and so it could never be tapped and produced in usable quantities. These sealing strata also act as barriers to vertical migration of fluids upward toward groundwater zones.

Vertical fracking (fracturing of vertical shafts) has been going on since the 1940s with limited problems. The current problems stem from horizontal fracking (fracturing of horizontal shafts) which requires far more water than vertical fracking.

The primary differences between modern shale gas development and conventional natural gas development are the extensive uses of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The use of horizontal drilling has not introduced any new environmental concerns. In fact, the reduced number of horizontal wells needed coupled with the ability to drill multiple wells from a single pad has significantly reduced surface disturbances and associated impacts to wildlife, dust ,
noise, and traffic.

 

[Little Rickie]

I had the opportunity to read 1 of the EPAs “request for information” addressed to 1 of the drilling companies, along with their answers.

There were numerous questions the drilling company refused to answer in addition to the chemicals used in their fracking fluid.

Overall, they appeared to use 2 arguments for not answering the EPAs questions.

1. Either the EPA didn't have the statutory authority to ask those questions
or
2. The EPAs questions were too vague making answering them impracticable.

Both arguments used, in the context of the legal community, are probably not uncommon.

Both arguments used, in the context of the court of public opinion, are probably shocking.

There is right and there is wrong, then there is the law.

The spirit of cooperation speaks volumes if one is listens. Are they trying to listen? Must be $ stuck in some ears.

 

[Peakbagr]

From the original post that began the thread:

Non political thoughts are welcome, political commentary is not.

 

[daxs]

More articles about the Delaware river basin over the weekend. It seems the government vote is by the Army Corps of Engineers. THAT is concerning. Although NJ is probably a yes vote for drilling, Gov Christie indicated he does not want a total ban forever so maybe some wiggle room there. The gas companies seem to have alot of leases in the area and are just waiting for regualtions to pass. A simple majority is all that is required although the Commission wants "broad" support for the regulations.

 

[nietzschescat]

Even if the process is totally safe which does not seem to be the case, you still have the environmental impact of truck traffic and heavy industry in rural areas that don't have the best roads to begin with.

Fracking is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. It amazes me that we've survived so long as a species with the inability to see that what we do today impacts the future.

 

[DougPaul]

The most authoritative and thorough document I've been able to find on the subject of Shale Gas Extraction.

I read recently that underground migration of the chemicals has not been a problem so far. (But of course, such migration might be slow and show up in the future.)

A fundamental precept of oil and gas geology is that without an effective seal, gas and oil would not accumulate in a reservoir in the first place and so it could never be tapped and produced in usable quantities. These sealing strata also act as barriers to vertical migration of fluids upward toward groundwater zones.

This may be true of the undisturbed strata--the fundamental purpose of fracking of horizontal shafts is to create vertical cracks which brings the risk of breaching these sealing strata. (This would presumably less of a risk with fracking of vertical shafts because it would tend to create horizontal cracks.)

Vertical fracking (fracturing of vertical shafts) has been going on since the 1940s with limited problems. The current problems stem from horizontal fracking (fracturing of horizontal shafts) which requires far more water than vertical fracking.

The primary differences between modern shale gas development and conventional natural gas development are the extensive uses of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The use of horizontal drilling has not introduced any new environmental concerns. In fact, the reduced number of horizontal wells needed coupled with the ability to drill multiple wells from a single pad has significantly reduced surface disturbances and associated impacts to wildlife, dust ,
noise, and traffic.

I don't think fracking of horizontal shafts has introduced any new types of risk--it appears to have increased the magnitude of the risks.

Perhaps there are fewer wellheads (per amount of extracted gas), but each wellhead requires more services (fracking fluid etc). Fewer wellheads do not necessarily imply less surface impact.

Doug

 

[1ADAM12]

Adam, Are they fracking by you? I was up on my property on Sunday and did not see anything new in the area; Millerton/Roseville. At least I saw nothing new on Bailey Creek rd or my Rd

Hi Carol!

Yes, they are fracking righ up the road from me and all around me. Michels has big hub up the road from me too. They are actually the ones putting in the big pipeline.

Next time your up this way give me a holler. I have some cool areas I could take you too. A lot of small hikes in some pretty country!

Adam

 

[eddie]

Great Idea??

Hey Adam, could you do an analysis of the chemical content of Cheez Wiz and report back? That stuff could possibly be used as fracking fluid since it can go from gelatinous to solid, and it is bio-degradable too!