Peer-review panel for EPA fracking study includes six Pa. scientists
Peer-review panel for EPA fracking study includes six Pa. scientists
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: January 18, 2011
A panel of geologists, toxicologists, engineers and doctors that will peer-review a high-profile Environmental Protection Agency study of hydraulic fracturing will include six scientists from Pennsylvania, more than any other state.
The panel will review the techniques and analysis the EPA uses to draft a study of the potential environmental and health impacts of hydraulic fracturing – the process used in natural gas exploration of injecting a high-pressure mix of chemically treated water and sand underground to break apart a rock formation and release the gas.
The panel might also be called on to review the conclusions of the study, which are slated for release in 2012.
The board, called the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan Review Panel, was narrowed to 23 members from a list of 88 nominated candidates, some of whom were criticized in public comments submitted by industry or environmental groups for being biased.
All but four members selected for the panel are affiliated with research universities and none is currently employed by an oil or gas company.
Five of seven members of a previous peer-review panel involved in a 2004 EPA study of hydraulic fracturing in coal-bed methane wells were current or former employees of the oil and gas industry. That study’s findings, that hydraulic fracturing poses “little or no threat” to drinking water aquifers, has been touted by the industry but challenged by an EPA whistle-blower.
In a memo announcing the new panel, the EPA found “no conflicts of interest or appearances of a lack of impartiality for the members of this panel.”
It will be led by David A. Dzombak, professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, and include Michel Boufadel of Temple University; Elizabeth Boyer of Penn State University; Richard Hammack, a Pittsburgh-based roject manager for the U.S. Department of Energy; Jeanne VanBriesen of Carnegie Mellon and Radisav D. Vidic of the University of Pittsburgh.
Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/gas-drilling/peer-review-panel-for-epa-fracking-study-includes-six-pa-scientists-1.1091757#axzz1BD70q5Rd
Departing DEP secretary says more rules needed for Marcellus Shale
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/departing-dep-secretary-says-more-rules-needed-for-marcellus-shale-1.1091068#axzz1BD70q5Rd
Departing DEP secretary says more rules needed for Marcellus Shale
By Laura Legere (staff writer)
Published: January 16, 2011
The maximum fines that environmental regulators can issue to violators of the state’s oil and gas law are “way too low,” and the bonds drillers post to guarantee plugging of all their natural gas wells are “scandalously low,” the departing secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection said last week.
State law does not currently give regulators the right to ban gas drilling in floodplains nor has it mandated a large enough distance between gas wells and drinking water reservoirs, Secretary John Hanger said.
And state legislators need to amend sections of the oil and gas law to give regulators clear legal authority to deny permits to drillers that habitually cause significant environmental and safety problems.
“Right now the department really has very questionable authority to tell a company you operate so badly we’re not going to give you any more permits,” he said.
Hanger led the state’s environmental oversight agency during two-and-a-half years when Marcellus Shale drilling grew from an infant industry in Pennsylvania to an established one, and the department under his guidance made substantial updates to the Oil and Gas Act and other environmental laws to respond to that growth.
But in an interview last week with Times-Shamrock newspapers about the past and future of Marcellus Shale oversight, Hanger said many more changes are necessary to ensure proper regulation of the industry, and many of those changes must come from the Legislature.
Despite the prominence of Marcellus Shale drilling as an environmental issue during his tenure, Hanger put it in the context of other environmental threats facing the state, including air pollution from coal-fired power plants, climate change that is contributing to the warming of the state’s rivers and thousands of miles of streams that remain dead from acid mine pollution.
“Marcellus Shale is both an environmental threat and an environmental opportunity,” he said.
The state should tax the industry and use some of the money to clean up legacy environmental problems that otherwise do not receive enough funding, and it should transition to using natural gas in fleet vehicles and power plants, he said.
“The worst case for Pennsylvania would be to be the host of natural gas and not use more natural gas to make electricity and to replace dirty diesel buses and trucks,” he said.
The state also must work to avoid creating future environmental problems from shale drilling by increasing the blanket bond for natural gas wells to make sure they are properly plugged at the end of their lives.
Currently, a $25,000 bond covers as many wells as a company wants to develop. Plugging one Marcellus Shale well costs about four times that much, he said.
“During the Rendell administration, we spent $16 million of taxpayer money to plug 1,600 oil and gas wells that had been abandoned by companies in the past,” he said. “We have these abandoned oil and gas wells with no money to pay for them because we didn’t require the gas companies decades ago to post a reasonable bond.
“We’re in the process of repeating the same mistake.”
Gov.-elect Tom Corbett included increasing well bonds in the environmental position he outlined as a candidate, and State Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, plans to re-introduce legislation to restrict drilling within floodplains and prohibit hydraulically fractured or horizontally drilled wells from being drilled under or within 2,500 feet of a drinking water reservoir.
Hanger also offered advice to Environmental Hearing Board Judge Michael Krancer, who has been nominated for the DEP secretary post.
“The single most important thing” is for the agency to be a “professional, independent watchdog,” he said, and echoed the words Corbett used to describe the appropriate role of the department: a “cop.”
“Sometimes I hear some in the industry and some in business say DEP should be the partner of the gas industry, or should treat the gas industry as a customer or a client,” Hanger said. “That’s not correct. The gas industry companies have partners. They’re called investors.”
If the agency falls short of being an independent, professional watchdog “it doesn’t matter how much staff you have, and it doesn’t matter how tough or weak the words on the rule page are,” he said. “The regulatory role won’t work.”
llegere@timesshamrock.com
Marcellus Shale Program set for Center Carbon Environmental Education Center, Carbon County PA
http://marcellusprotest.org/node/596
Marcellus Shale Program set for Center Carbon Environmental Education Center, Carbon County PA
March 30, 2011 – 6:00pm
The Carbon County Environmental Education Center [ http://www.carboneec.org/ ] is planning a program on Marcellus shale basics for the general public on Wednesday, March 30th, at 6:00 pm.
“Getting the Waters Tested: The Marcellus Shale Factor” will be presented by Brian Oram, a licensed Professional Geologist. Oram teaches at Wilkes University [ http://www.wilkes.edu/water ] and is a volunteer with the Carbon County Groundwater Guardians [ http://carbonwaters.org/ ]. He is familiar with water issues in our area, and plans to explain the basics of Marcellus shale, natural gas drilling, groundwater, and related issues- Free Booklet for Private Well Owner (download your pdf today !).
[ http://wilkes.edu/Include/WaterResearch/PDFs/Waterbooklet070610.pdf ]
For more information or to register, call (570) 645-8597. CCEEC is located just outside Jim Thorpe, at the west end of Mauch Chunk Lake Park along Lentz Trail.
Carbon County Environmental Education Center
151 East White Bear Drive
Summit Hill, PA 18250
United States
Phone: (570) 645-8597
See map: Google Maps [ http://maps.google.com/?q=151+East+White+Bear+Drive%2C+Summit+Hill%2C+PA%2C+18250%2C+us ]
Analysis of Marcellus Shale natural-gas legislation offered in webinar
http://live.psu.edu/story/50593#nw69
Friday, January 7, 2011
Analysis of Marcellus Shale natural-gas legislation offered in webinar
University Park, Pa. — An online seminar offered by Penn State Cooperative Extension at 1 p.m. on Jan. 20 will provide expert analysis of state legislation enacted and considered related to the exploration and production of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.
Although the General Assembly was active during the 2009-10 legislative session in discussing and considering legislation, many issues remain unresolved regarding development of the Marcellus Shale, according to Ross Pifer, clinical professor and director of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center at Penn State. The center is a collaboration between the University’s Dickinson School of Law and College of Agricultural Sciences.
In the webinar, titled “Marcellus Shale Legislation: What Was Accomplished in the 2009-10 Session and What Issues Remain to be Addressed,” Pifer will review the legislative session that ended Dec. 31 and preview the current session.
“I will discuss the details of natural-gas legislation enacted during the most recent legislative session as well as the various topics that were the subject of legislation introduced in, but not enacted by, the General Assembly,” he said. “I will then look forward to the legislative session that has just begun and discuss issues that are likely to be the subject of further legislative debate.”
In the 2009-10 session, legislation was enacted to provide for greater public accessibility to production data from Marcellus Shale wells. Legislation also was enacted to address the impact of natural-gas development on land that is enrolled in the Clean and Green preferential tax-assessment program.
“Through this legislation, counties across the state will be addressing this issue in a uniform fashion,” Pifer said. “Prior to the enactment of this legislation, counties across the commonwealth were treating this issue in a disparate manner.”
The topic that received the most attention throughout the conclusion of the last legislative session was whether or not Pennsylvania would implement a severance tax on natural gas. Ultimately, the General Assembly did not enact legislation providing for this tax, but the subject may be revisited.
“One issue that likely will be discussed in the new session is compulsory pooling,” Pifer said. “This has been a controversial topic as many landowners are concerned about the impact that such a law would have on their property rights. On the other hand, the state has a legitimate policy interest in ensuring that development occurs as efficiently as possible.”
The webinar is part of an ongoing series of workshops and events addressing issues related to the state’s Marcellus Shale gas boom. Information about how to register for the webinar is available on the webinar page of Penn State Cooperative Extension’s natural-gas impacts website.
Additional one-hour webinars will be held at 1 p.m. on the following dates:
— Feb. 16: “Dealing with Gas Tax Issues: What You Need to Know.”
— March 17: “Natural Gas Well Development and Emergency Response and Management.”
Previous webinars, publications and other information on topics such as water use and quality, zoning, gas-leasing considerations for landowners and implications for local communities also are available on the Cooperative Extension natural-gas impacts website.
For more information, contact John Turack, extension educator in Westmoreland County, at 724-837-1402 or jdt15@psu.edu.
No fracking way
http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/554737/No-fracking-way.html?nav=5047
No fracking way
By NICOLE GUGINO
OBSERVER Staff Writer
January 9, 2011
Hydraulic fracturing – also known as hydrofracking or just fracking – may not sound familiar, but this process of extracting natural gas is becoming a household term as controversy emerges.
Hydrofracking is a complicated process of extracting natural gas from rock formations like the Marcellus Shale in the New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. This process can be vertical or horizontal – both of which may pose a threat to drinking water.
Hydrofracking uses three ingredients to access the gas – water, sand and fracking fluid. Water and sand alone are harmless enough; the fracking fluid is the reason groups are rallying against the drilling process. Fracking fluid is a mixture of 500 or more chemicals used for different purposes in the process that allows the drilling of a well and the fracturing of the rock to occur, releasing gas.
Fracking fluid has been described by different sources as very different things – from a detergent to a carcinogenic concoction.
SPRINGVILLE
Hydrofracking of gas wells has moved from the west to the east and has moved north from Pennsylvania to New York.
A meeting of anti-fracking groups in Springville last month brought a concerned crowd to hear about what may come to the area.
A woman in the audience warned that a gas company had surveyed Sprague Brook Park, north of Springville, for gas drilling.
The main concerns of anti-fracking groups center around a loophole in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which exempts the gas industry and specifically hydrofracking from about 10 environmental regulatiosn including the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Another concern is contamination of ground water. In many places across the country people sign leases with gas companies. In most cases the companies extract the gas and nothing goes wrong. However, reportedly for some this is not true. If a well is not properly sealed from the water table during drilling, then natural gas and fracking fluid can leak into the ground water residents use in wells for drinking water.
“My husband and I didn’t know what was going on with our water until we watched this documentary on HBO called GasLand. After we watched GasLand he went to check our water to see if it lit on fire and it did,” Natalie Brant of Springville said.
Brant later had her water tested and was told not to drink, bathe or wash dishes or clothes in the water. Brant is frightened for the health of her eight children.
“Gas companies lead you to believe that drinking this is as safe as drinking laundry detergent. Who here thinks that drinking laundry detergent is safe?” she asked.
Another concern is that after a well has been fracked, the water (mixed with fracking fluid) is left over. The gas companies are supposed to have this water treated, but allegedly in the past have not done so. Instead, according to the documentary, gas companies allegedly evaporate the water (and chemicals) into the air or secretly dump it on dirt roads.
GASLAND
GasLand is a documentary on hydrofracking, written and directed by Josh Fox, a Pennsylvania native. This documentary has received notice from many for its disturbing images of water that lights on fire and the health and property damage allegedly caused by hydrofracking across the country.
In the documentary Josh Fox, who lives in the New York City Watershed, begins an investigation into hydrofracking after receiving a letter asking if a gas company could lease his land for gas drilling.
Fox tours the country and hears similar stories in many states of water contamination, heath problems and legally helpless land owners.
He brings the story back to his home where he fears that drilling will effect his childhood home and which has a creek that feeds into a water supply that distributes fresh water to over 15 million people in three states.
PROFESSOR WEIGHS IN
Since the release of the film GasLand, some organizations have tired to debunk the claims made in the documentary and others to affirm them. SUNY Fredonia Professor Gary Lash, an expert on the Marcellus Shale, had a few criticisms of the film himself.
“My problem with that whole thing is that there is no scientific backing to that whole movie and of course it’s a pretty complicated process that they are trying to do, but again the physics behind fracking are pretty inconsistent with cracks coming up the water table,” he explained the cracks made by the fracking in the shale will not work their way back up thousands of feet to the water table.
“But having said that, there is nothing wrong with regulating. Any responsible operator wants oversight because they don’t want to be blamed for something if anything goes wrong.”
He explained concerns with the left over water from fracking. “What they are doing now is these closed loop systems where they’re sending the water through a treatment system on site and then using that water again.”
He also explained that natural gas flowing in creeks is natural and can be found in creeks all over including the Canadaway creek. He explained that the pictures of the dead fish and birds in waterways near Pittsburgh in the film was not caused by natural gas.
“Some of the chemical fingerprints that they have found and which wasn’t addressed in the film, is chemical runoff from (coal) mining.”
“Just about any well that is drilled any more is fracked. You’ve got to break up the rock to release the gas from it. The water tables are generally no more than a couple hundred feet and their targets are at thousands of feet. What they will do is, when they drill, they will case the well, they put multiple layers of metal casing and each layer is separated by cement, so the goal there is to not allow anything that is going down into the well or coming out of the well to interact with the water table,” he explained.
“When they fracture they use water and a very small amount of chemicals, with things like detergent to reduce the surface tension of the water and there is some biocides in there to kill any microbes and some other things and then they pump in sand after that to hold the cracks open and the gas migrates out the cracks.”
Murphy’s law is still applicable to fracking process according to Lash. “There is a chance that anything could go wrong in anything we do,” he admitted.
When asked if residents should worry about their water if they have a gas lease, he said to do your homework.
“The question they would ask (the as company) is ‘what does the operator plan to do to protect the aquifer?’ and make sure they follow all of the state guidelines for casing the well … people entering into a lease have every right to make sure that’s going to be followed.” He recommended baseline testing before and after drilling.
It takes a great amount of pressure and high temperatures to create natural gas. Chautauqua County, according to Lash, is undesirable for fracking. However the Marcellus Shale near Binghamton, Cayuga and Chemung counties is a mile down and thick – perfect for drilling.
Lash originally estimated 1,500 trillion cubic feet of gas in the marcellus Shale, but new research may show that that is a low estimate. “This takes on more meaning when you know that the U.S. uses 19 trillion cubic feet of gas per year,” Lash explained the potential of the shale.
“I’m as much of an environmentalist and liberal politically as anybody but I think this is something that can done responsibly. I think that there is an awful lot of misinformation out there right now and if we look at this scientifically, and it is a scientific and engineering problem, I think with the proper safeguards in place that it can be done responsibly. And if you combine natural gas with wind and solar I think we are moving in the right direction,” he added.
WHAT LANDOWNERS CAN DO
Due to the lack of action at the federal and state level, groups at the meeting in Springville recommended bringing the fight to a more local forum.
Sarah Buckley, of Wales in Niagara County, recommended going to local town boards and recommending water bans to prevent drilling in areas.
“Where I have some hope for protecting ourselves is in the towns … Some towns in New York state and Pennsylvania have passed bans … a small town in Pennsylvania has passed a ban that is a water rights ordinance … they said they would not allow the companies to source the water to frack, they won’t allow the water to be transported in to do the fracking … So, this in a sense prohibits the fracking,” Buckley said.
As a private land-owner Buckley recommended baseline water and foundation tests – which can be costly, just in case gas drilling on a property goes wrong and needs to be litigated. Buckley also recommended baseline tests of roads for towns to protect themselves.
Sarah Buckley can be contacted at 713-7780 or at ssbuckley@gmail.com for information on water testing and town level bans on hydrofracking.
The non-profit organization Western New York Land Conservancy offered help with conservation easements on land to protect land from anything that may harm its quality, like hydrofracking. The group can be contacted by phone at 687-1225 or on the their website www.wnylc.org.
Albert Brown of Frack Action Buffalo also noted that although Josh Fox was offered almost $100,000 to drill on his 19 acres, some who have leased their land in Western New York have sold their mineral rights away for $5 an acre.
Brown cited a Cornell University study that reported the towns drawn in to the fracking scheme with the promise of money in return, did not benefit at all from allowing gas companies to frack in their towns.
“If you look at increased truck traffic, for one fracking job you’re talking over 1,000 trucks and each of the wells on those paths can be fracked up to ten times. So 1,000 times 10 for one well and if there are 10 wells on that path, it’s just astronomical the number of trucks coming in and out,” Brown said.
According to Brown, because old wells are not producing gas like they used to, gas companies can use this new method of fracking to drill deeper, but are not obligated to notify residents if the company owns the mineral rights.
Frack Action Buffalo is trying to reach out to the Southern Tier and can be contacted through Albert Brown by e-mail at beingsamadhi@gmail.com.
There will be a follow-up meeting on hydrofracking in the Concord Town Hall, 86 Franklin Street, on Thursday Jan. 13 at 6 p.m.
IN SUMMARY
As one side argues that hydrofracking is safe and good for jobs and U.S. energy interests, the other side argues that the health and environmental risks are to great to continue.
The film GasLand is clearly lobbying for one side of the issue, however after viewing the documentary, some facts stood out.
The first, federal and state level regulation are lacking. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hyrdofracking from environmental safety laws and in a recent veto by former Gov. David Paterson. The moratorium to stop vertical and horizontal drilling in New York until it was further investigated was shot down. Instead, Paterson gave an executive order which only bans horizontal fracking and excludes vertical, which has been said to be the more popular of the two in New York state.
The second, expressed by John Hanger, the Secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, in his interview with Josh Fox. He said no form of energy is perfect.
Whether it is fossil fuels, solar panels or wind mills, there is always a drawback.
Prof. Gary Lash agreed with this statement. “No, they aren’t. You aren’t going to get anything for free and what we are trying to do is reduce our impact on the environment. Even if you take something like windmills, for example, use light earth elements which are coming from countries that aren’t very friendly with us, and there are finite amounts available, there production is rough on the environment … the same thing with solar panels the rare earth elements that we need for solar panels are what they call ‘endangered elements’ and they are again in countries that aren’t very friendly to the United States … but if (fracking is) regulated and we do it responsibly I think it helps in the long run,” he said.
The Marcellus Shale is said to hold ‘an ocean’ of natural gas. For landowners with gas leases, the best policy appears to be, stay informed and be prepared. Both the anti-fracking groups at the meeting in Springville and Lash said that landowners have the right to ask questions and should do baseline testing, just in case.
Comments on this article may be sent to ngugino@observertoday.com
EPA considers using Dimock, Pa. for case study
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110107/NEWS01/101070383/EPA+considers+using+Dimock++Pa.+for+case+study
EPA considers using Dimock, Pa. for case study
By Jon Campbell •jcampbell1@gannett.com • January 7, 2011, 8:55 pm
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came to Binghamton last year for two days of hearings on hydraulic fracturing, it was looking for suggestions on where to do a case study.
The response heard over and over? Dimock, Pa., the tiny township in Susquehanna County where state officials say faulty gas drilling operations led to 18 methane-contaminated water wells and a community divided.
Those voices were apparently heard.
EPA officials have been in contact with some Dimock landowners, and an agency spokeswoman confirmed the once-sleepy hamlet that has gained national attention is under consideration to be a part of a $1.9 million study which is expected to last at least two years.
“We received many nominations for case studies,” said Betsaida Alcantara, the EPA spokeswoman. “We are evaluating the nominations, including Dimock, to determine which of them we will undertake as case studies.”
Last year, the EPA launched a study on fracking — a gas-stimulation technique that involves the use of a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals blasted deep underground — and its possible effect on groundwater.
Supporters of the process say it’s safe and crucial for extracting massive amounts of gas from shale formations. Critics say it could wreak havoc on the environment and taint water.
Robert Puls, director of research for the EPA’s Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division, met a month ago with a number of Dimock homeowners whose water wells had been contaminated with high levels of methane, according to Victoria Switzer, a resident who took part in the meeting.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has held Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. responsible for the contamination, but the company has denied responsibility, instead opting to settle with the department to end nearly two years of legal wrangling.
Switzer is one of about a dozen Dimock residents who have sued Cabot for damages, claiming their drilling operations led to their ruined water wells.
“(Puls) met with us and asked us if we would be interested in the possibility of a being a case study,” Switzer said. “It would be great. To me, my goal has always been to protect my home and my land. I now know that the DEP isn’t going to do that, and Cabot certainly isn’t going to do that. I’m hopeful, and maybe I’m naïve, that the EPA can help us if they take us as a case study.”
Cabot spokesman George Stark said the company would be more than willing to cooperate with the EPA.
“Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation will participate in a fact-based hydraulic fracturing study regarding any locality where it currently operates,” Stark said. “It is Cabot’s opinion that too much misinformation exists today regarding hydraulic fracturing. Studies aimed at collecting valid facts and evidence regarding hydraulic fracture technologies, operations and practices are welcome.”
Dimock was the overwhelming choice of speakers at the September hearings at the Forum. Some from environmental groups pointed to the site as an example of the consequences of natural gas drilling, while landowners and industry representatives asked the agency to investigate the site and dispel myths.
If the township is going to be included in the EPA study, it may be contingent on how wide of a scope the agency takes.
A directive from Congress that kick-started the study asked the agency to look at the relationship between hydrofracking and groundwater. Many at the public hearings, however, urged it to take a wider approach, including all of the drilling activities that take place before and after the fracking process.
The DEP concluded the Dimock water well contamination was caused by faulty well casing and drilling operations and not the hydrofracking process, though a spill of a fracking solution made its way to a local stream.
“Should the community of Dimock be chosen as a community to be studied, Cabot notes for the record that the (Pennsylvania DEP) has stated that Dimock does not have a hydraulic fracturing issue,” Stark said.
Switzer said she’s hopeful the EPA will include Dimock, calling the agency her “last hope.”
“We’re waiting. I don’t have any assurances that they’re going to do it, but I’m in prayer mode,” Switzer said. “I’m hopeful that if EPA were involved, that they would gain from the experience. I don’t have anywhere else to go. They’re our last chance.”
Pa. official defends rules on gas drilling waste
http://online.wsj.com/article/APf1a0b0069bef43808fc2f7cde2c1a7bb.html
JANUARY 4, 2011
Pa. official defends rules on gas drilling waste
Pennsylvania’s top environmental enforcement official said Tuesday that he is confident that wastewater discharged into rivers and streams by the booming natural gas industry hasn’t degraded the state’s drinking water.
At least 3.6 million barrels of the ultra-salty, chemically tainted wastewater produced by gas drilling operations were discharged into state waterways in the 12-month period that ended June 30, according to records reviewed by The Associated Press. Drinking water for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians is drawn from those rivers and streams.
Those discharges have troubled some environmentalists. Most of the big drilling companies digging thousands of new wells in Pennsylvania have committed to curtailing or ending the practice.
John Hanger, the outgoing secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, said he believes the new regulations are adequate to protect water supplies.
“The drinking water at the tap in Pennsylvania is safe. It has not been contaminated by drilling,” he said.
The state set new standards in August governing discharges by any new drilling waste treatment plants, but allowed existing operations to continue putting partially treated wastewater into rivers and streams, as long as the water body’s quality does not fall below federal drinking water standards.
Hanger said state officials have been using a network of sensors operated by his department and water supply companies to monitor for signs that rivers may have sustained a significant drop in water quality.
So far, he said, they haven’t found any.
Many researchers have been particularly concerned with how the high levels of salt and dissolved solids in drilling waste might affect rivers, especially those that have already picked up unhealthy amounts of pollution from other sources, including abandoned coal mines.
If a river’s total load of dissolved solids gets high enough, it can make the water taste bad, leave a film on dishes, corrode equipment and could give people diarrhea. Researchers, some of them working under the auspices of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, are still trying to determine if Pennsylvania’s river discharges, at their current levels, are dangerous to humans or wildlife.
Hanger said no river used for drinking water has exceeded the EPA standard for dissolved solids for an extended period, although there have been some instances of seasonal spikes that can last for a few days.
“We are watching it very closely,” he said.
Pennsylvania is rare among gas-producing states in that it allows the wastewater that flows out of natural gas wells to be disposed of in rivers.
In most states, drillers are required to send the liquid back down deep shafts so it can’t pollute surface water.
Drilling companies use about 2 million gallons of water a day in Pennsylvania to help get at the gas locked in its vast underground Marcellus Shale gas field. During a process called hydraulic fracturing, the water — mixed with sand and chemicals, some of them toxic — is forced into the wells at high pressure, shattering the shale and releasing trapped gas.
There has been a fierce debate over whether the wastewater that returns to the surface is hazardous.
It can contain high levels of some toxins, like barium, strontium and radium, but the treatment plants handling the bulk of Pennsylvania’s gas drilling waste remove most of those substances before discharging the water.
State officials and industry participants say the amount of waste put back into waterways, while significant, is also safely diluted by the massive volumes of water in the rivers, reducing both any residual toxins and the salt to safe levels.
An AP review of state records found that the state couldn’t account for the disposal method for 1.28 million barrels of drilling wastewater, about a fifth of its total, because of incomplete record keeping.
Hanger said the state is working to improve its methods for tracking wastewater, including making recent hires of additional staff.
“There’s always room for improvement,” he said.
It also found that in 2009 and part of 2010, about 44,000 barrels of drilling waste produced by the energy company Cabot Oil & Gas were improperly sent to a treatment facility in Hatfield Township, a Philadelphia suburb, despite regulations intended to keep the liquids out of the watershed. The liquids were then discharged through the town sewage plant into the Neshaminy Creek, which flows through Bucks and Montgomery counties on its way to the Delaware River. Customers in 17 municipalities get treated drinking water from that creek.
Water quality test results reviewed by the AP also showed that some public water utilities downstream from gas wastewater treatment plants have struggled to stay under the federal maximum for contaminants known as trihalomethanes, which can cause cancer if people drink tainted water for many years.
Trihalomethanes can be created during the water treatment process by dissolved solids in drilling waste, but other types of pollution are just as often to blame for the problem.
Hanger said those trihalomethane readings are “of concern,” but he couldn’t say definitively whether there was any link to gas drilling waste.
Faced with opposition to river dumping and tightening state regulations, all of the state’s biggest drillers say they are now recycling a majority of the wastewater produced by their wells in new fracturing jobs, rather than sending it to treatment plants.
Hanger said about 70 percent of the wastewater is now being recycled, which he credits to the tighter state regulations.
Still, with dozens more energy companies drawn to the Marcellus reserves — more than 2,400 wells have been drilled and work has started on 5,400 more — operators of the largest of the state’s 16 most commonly used treatment plants say they haven’t lost much business. In midwinter, records will be available to verify company claims of any major drop-off in river disposal.
Pa. allows dumping of tainted waters from gas boom
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11004/1115432-454.stm
Pa. allows dumping of tainted waters from gas boom
Companies insist there’s little risk, but now recycle
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
By David B. Caruso, The Associated Press
Jim Riggio, plant manager for the Beaver Falls Municipal Authority, shows a sample of solid materials removed from the Beaver River during treatment Dec. 15 at his plant.
The natural gas boom gripping parts of the United States has a nasty byproduct: wastewater so salty, and so polluted with metals like barium and strontium, that most states require drillers to get rid of the stuff by injecting it down shafts thousands of feet deep.
But not in Pennsylvania, one of the states at the center of the gas rush. In Pennsylvania, the liquid that gushes from gas wells is only partially treated for substances that could be environmentally harmful, then dumped into rivers and streams from which communities get their drinking water.
In the two years since the frenzy of activity began in the vast underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania has been the only state letting its waterways serve as the primary disposal place for huge amounts of wastewater produced by a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. State regulators, initially caught flat-footed, tightened the rules this year for any new water treatment plants, but let existing operations continue discharging water into rivers.
At least 3.6 million barrels of the waste were sent to treatment plants that empty into rivers during the 12 months ending June 30, state records show. That’s enough to cover a square mile with more than 8 1/2 inches of brine.
Researchers are still trying to figure out whether Pennsylvania’s river discharges, at their current levels, are dangerous to humans or wildlife. Several studies are under way, some under federal Environmental Protection Agency auspices.
State officials, energy firms and treatment plant operators insist that with the right safeguards in place, the practice poses little or no risk to the environment or the hundreds of thousands of people, especially in Western Pennsylvania, who rely on the rivers for drinking water.
But an Associated Press review found that Pennsylvania’s efforts to minimize, control and track wastewater discharges have sometimes failed.
For example:
• Of roughly 6 million barrels of well liquids produced in a 12-month period The Associated Press examined, the state couldn’t account for the disposal method for 1.28 million barrels, about one-fifth of the total, due to a weakness in its reporting system and incomplete filings by some energy firms.
• Some public water utilities downstream from big gas wastewater treatment plants have struggled to stay under the federal maximum for contaminants known as trihalomethanes, which can cause cancer if swallowed over a long period.
• Regulations that should have kept drilling wastewater out of the important Delaware River Basin, the water supply for 15 million people in four states, were circumvented for many months.
The situation in Pennsylvania is being watched carefully by regulators in other states, some of which have begun allowing some river discharges. New York also sits over the Marcellus Shale, but former Gov. David Paterson slapped a moratorium on high-volume fracking while environmental regulations are drafted.
Industry representatives insist that the wastewater from fracking has not caused serious harm anywhere in Pennsylvania, in part because it is safely diluted in the state’s big rivers. But most of the largest drillers say they are taking action and abolishing river discharges anyway.
All 10 of the state’s biggest drillers say they have either eliminated river discharges in the past few months, or reduced them to a small fraction of what they were a year ago. Together, those firms accounted for 80 percent of the wastewater produced in the state.
The biggest driller, Atlas Resources, which produced nearly 2.3 million barrels of wastewater in the review period, said it now recycles all water from its wells in their first 30 days of operation, when the flowback is heaviest. The rest is still sent to treatment plants, but “our ultimate goal is to have zero surface discharge of any of the water,” spokesman Jeff Kupfer said.
Still, with dozens more energy firms at work in Pennsylvania’s surging gas industry — more than 2,400 wells drilled and work starting on 5,400 more — operators of the largest of the 16 treatment plants they most commonly use say they haven’t lost much business.
Records verifying industry claims of a major dropoff in wastewater discharges to rivers will not be available until midwinter, but John Hanger, secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, said he believed that the amount of drilling wastewater being recycled is now about 70 percent — an achievement he credits to tighter state regulation pushing the industry to change its ways.
“The new rules, so far, appear to be working,” he said. “If our rules were not changed, … we would have all of it being dumped in the environment, because it is the lowest cost option,” Mr. Hanger said.
But he cautioned that rivers need to be watched closely for any sign that they have degraded beyond what the new state standards allow. “This requires vigilance,” he said. “Daily vigilance.”
University of Pittsburgh scientist Conrad Volz, who has been studying the environmental effect of the wastewater discharges, said he had student researchers in the field this fall documenting a steady flow of brine-filled tankers arriving at plants on the Monongahela River south of Pittsburgh, and on the Blacklick Creek, 17 miles northwest of Johnstown.
“We’ve been taking pictures of the trucks,” he said. “We know it’s still happening.”
He said researchers are still trying to figure out whether the wastewater discharges, at their current levels, could cause serious environmental harm.
The municipal authority that provides drinking water to Beaver Falls, 27 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, began flunking tests for trihalomethanes regularly last year, about the time a facility 18 miles upstream, Advanced Waste Services, became Pennsylvania’s dominant gas wastewater treatment plant.
Trihalomethanes aren’t found in drilling wastewater, but there can be a link. The waste stream often contains bromide, a salt, which reacts with chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water systems to kill microbes. That interaction creates trihalomethanes.
The EPA says people who drink water with elevated levels of trihalomethanes for many years have an increased risk of getting cancer and could also develop problems of the liver, kidney or central nervous system.
Gas drilling waste isn’t the only substance that can cause elevated trihalomethane levels. Pennsylvania’s multitude of acid-leaching, abandoned coal mines and other industrial sources are also a major factor in the high salt levels that lead to the problem.
Beaver Falls’ treatment plant manager Jim Riggio said he doesn’t know what is causing the problem, but a chemical analysis raised the possibility that it might be linked to the hundreds of thousands of barrels of partially treated gas well brine that now flow past his intakes every year.
“It all goes back to frack water,” he said.
Natural gas drilling has taken off in several U.S. states in recent years because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, techniques that unlock more methane than ever before from ancient shale sea beds buried deep underground. Fracturing involves injection of millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals and sand deep into the rock, shattering the shale and releasing the gas trapped inside.
When the gas comes to the surface, some water returns, along with underground brine that exists naturally. It can be several times saltier than sea water and tainted with fracking chemicals, some carcinogenic if swallowed at high enough levels over time.
The water is often laden with barium, found in underground ore deposits and also used by drillers as a bit lubricant. It can cause high blood pressure if someone ingests enough of it over a long period of time.
It also is often tainted with radium, a naturally occurring radioactive substance, and strontium, a mineral abundant in rocks, earth, coal and oil.
The amount of produced water varies from well to well, but in Pennsylvania it has been running about 1 to 2 gallons for every 10 injected into the ground.
In some Pennsylvania locales, there have been fights over whether the drilling process itself has the potential to contaminate nearby drinking water wells.
When firms recycle wastewater, they lightly treat it for particles and other substances, combine it with fresh water and reuse it in a new fracturing job.
Operators of the treatment plants handling the bulk of the waste still being discharged into Pennsylvania rivers say they can remove most toxic pollutants without much trouble, including radium and barium.
“We have been able to do it carefully. We have been able to do it safely,” said Al Lander, president of Tunnelton Liquids, one of the state’s busiest treatment plants. The facility, near Saltsburg, east of Pittsburgh, treats both drilling water and acid draining from abandoned mines.
“In some respects, its better than what’s already in the river,” he said of the water his plant discharges into the Conemaugh. “What we are putting into the river now is far cleaner, and far more eco-friendly than what was running in naturally from acid mine drainage.”
What can’t be removed easily, except at great expense, he said, are dissolved solids and chlorides that make the fluids so salty. Those usually don’t pose a health risk to humans in low levels, said Paul Ziemkiewicz, director of the West Virginia Water Research Institute at West Virginia University in Morgantown, but high levels can foul drinking water’s taste, leave a film on dishes and cause diarrhea.
In 2008, workers at two plants that draw water from the Monongahela River — U.S. Steel Corp. in Clairton and Allegheny Energy — noticed that salt levels had spiked so high that equipment was corroding. State regulators suspected it was related to gas drilling waste being discharged through sewage treatment facilities. But it remains unclear today how much of a role wastewater had in the salt spike. Some research has suggested that abandoned coal mines, which release far more polluted water into state rivers than gas drilling, were predominantly to blame.
Monongahela salt levels have spiked again since 2008, though relatively little drilling wastewater is being discharged into it.
In the Barnett Shale field in Texas and the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana, fracking has also ignited a gas bonanza, but the main disposal method for drilling wastewater there and in other big gas-producing states such as West Virginia, New Mexico and Oklahoma is injection wells. Regulated by EPA, these are shafts drilled as deep as those that produce shale gas.
When Pennsylvania’s gas rush began a few years ago, the state had only a few injection wells in operation. Ohio had more, but trucking wastewater there from Pennsylvania was expensive. River dumping turned out to be the easy answer.
The Environmental Protection Agency requires all polluters to get a permit before they can discharge wastewater into rivers and streams. In theory, the permits limit how dirty the effluent can be when discharged into a river and ensure that the water quality doesn’t degrade.
But Pennsylvania, which administers the EPA permit program within its borders, initially lacked a clear regulatory scheme to deal with the big increases in volume created by the gas boom and wasn’t initially aware that some facilities had begun handling the waste.
Since then, the state has enacted tougher water quality standards. The new rules, adopted last summer, allow existing treatment plants to continue operating with few changes, but will require new facilities to meet strict targets for dissolved solids and chlorides. Essentially, the water they discharge must be no saltier than tap water.
Operators of several of the public water utilities closest to the biggest plants say they are testing for any signs of degradation in the quality of the raw water flowing into their intakes.
Much of the drilling wastewater legally discharged in Pennsylvania eventually flows into the Allegheny or Monongahela rivers and ultimately past Pittsburgh’s drinking-water plants.
Along the way, it passes more than 20 public drinking-water intakes from Emlenton and Clarion, halfway between Pittsburgh and the New York line, to the Tri-County Joint Municipal Authority on the Monongahela in Fredericktown, 20 miles from West Virginia.
Chemists for the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority have been monitoring river water and testing for salt levels and a variety of other contaminants.
At the Buffalo Township Municipal Authority in Freeport, 23 miles northeast of Pittsburgh — which is closer to more gas wastewater treatment facilities than any other municipal water supplier in the state — plant manager Don Amadee said he was “not aware of any issues” with his water quality. But he added that, as a small supplier, the authority doesn’t have much expertise in drilling waste and may not be testing for every contaminant that could be in the effluent.
Area waterworks, he said, have been communicating more about the problem and keeping in touch with chemists downstream at the bigger water suppliers.
Shifting industry practices have, at times, made it hard for the public officials and researchers monitoring the potential environmental impact of the discharges. For a time, many focused attention on the Monongahela River after drilling waste was suspected of contributing to an unusually high load of chlorides and dissolved solids on the waterway in 2008.
But state records show very little drilling waste was discharged to plants on the Monongahela in 2009 or early 2010. They show 55,257 barrels sent to treatment plants in that river’s watershed over the 12-month period The AP analyzed, compared with 1.2 million barrels sent to facilities on the Conemaugh River and a tributary, the Blacklick Creek.
Pa. residents worried about fracking, poll shows
http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x1742862593/Pa-residents-worried-about-fracking-poll-shows
December 21, 2010
Pa. residents worried about fracking, poll shows
Drilling industry questions findings
Kathy Mellott kmellott@tribdem.com
JOHNSTOWN — A majority of the Pennsylvania residents surveyed in a recent poll are concerned about potential harm to drinking water as a result of the fracturing process used in drilling for Marcellus Shale natural gas.
Of the 403 adults surveyed in the late November poll by Infogroup/Opinion Research Corp., 81 percent said they are somewhat or very concerned about fracking’s potential to contaminate water.
Three of five state residents questioned in the poll are aware of the controversy over the gas-drilling technique.
The poll, conducted on behalf of the Civil Society Institute, showed that 62 percent of those concerned think state and federal agencies are not doing as much as they should to require proper disclosure of the chemicals used in the process.
The institute, based in Newton, Mass., describes itself as a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank. Its goal is to serve as a catalyst for change by creating problem-solving interactions among people and between communities, government and businesses that can help to improve society.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry-based group supported by gas drillers and businesses that benefit from the industry, described the survey as a “push poll.” The term is used to describe a technique often used in political campaigns to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.
Kathryn Klaber, coalition president, said the questions in the poll were overwhelmingly structured to generate predetermined outcomes.
“One thing is clear: Our industry must continue to educate communities about the steps we’re taking each day to protect and strengthen the environment while delivering clean-burning, job-creating energy to American consumers,” Klaber said in a statement.
Klaber said the institute purposely omitted critical facts about shale development, including information that fracturing is a 60-year-old technology used more than 1.1 million times.
Fracturing has never impacted ground water, something Klaber said can be confirmed by state and federal environmental agencies and the Groundwater Protection Council.
But Pam Solo, founder and president of the institute, said in a statement: “Clean energy production is strongly favored by Americans over energy sources that create a danger to human health and safe drinking water in particular.”
Fracking is a process that pumps large amounts of water along with sand and chemicals into the shale bed under high pressure to release the natural gas.
In addition to the polling in Pennsylvania, similar questions were asked of residents in New York and other areas of the United States, the Civil Society Institute said.
Penn State Extension offering natural gas taxation, finance workshops
http://live.psu.edu/story/50501#nw69
Friday, December 17, 201
Penn State Extension offering natural gas taxation, finance workshops
Marcellus shale natural-gas drilling rigs dot the northcentral part of the state.
University Park, Pa. — Penn State Cooperative Extension will be holding three Natural Gas Taxation and Finance Workshops across the state in January 2011.
The first will be Jan. 12, at the Westmoreland County Cooperative Extension office, 214 Donohue Road, Greensburg; the second will be Jan. 19 at the Genetti Hotel and Suites, 200 West 4th Street, Williamsport; and the third will be Jan. 26 at the Riverstone Inn on Route 6 in Towanda.
The programs will run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and will be geared for financial advisers, such as attorneys, accountants, financial planners, tax preparers and small-business owners. Landowners also are welcome.
“Gas taxation is extremely complicated, and it’s important for landowners to get the best advice possible to save money and avoid unnecessary taxes,” said Michael Jacobson, Penn State associate professor of forest resources. “But these programs are for educational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice — if you need that, consult a tax professional or an attorney.”
Besides Jacobson, instructors will include Tim Gooch with the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants and ParenteBeard LLC; Dale Tice, attorney with Marshall, Parker and Associates; Jeffrey Kern, president of Resource Technologies Corporation; and Ross Pifer, director of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center at Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law.
The registration fee is $120 if paid a week or more prior to the programs; registration will cost $150 after that. The fee will cover breaks, lunch and all course materials. The workshop will provide eight hours of continuing-education credits for attorneys, accountants and professional foresters.
Additional information and registration may be found online at http://guest.cvent.com/d/wdqt61. Questions related to course content may be directed to Mike Jacobson at 814-865-3994 or mgj2@psu.edu.
Penn State encourages persons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. Those who anticipate needing special accommodations or have questions about the physical access provided should contact Jacobson in advance of their participation or visit.