[ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is government going?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:46:50PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> ### Methane leakage into well water is a common occurrence wherever
> there is shallow shale. So far there has been no proven impact of
> fracking on the frequency of such events. Even if there was an
> increase in methane leaks into potable water, this would not be a
> reason to prohibit fracking, although the operators could be expected
> to pay well-owners for methane gas traps to be installed in their
> wells.

I find it curious that you put the burden of proof on the other
side, while focusing on more trivial impacts of fracking.

Even cursory websearches lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

...

Environmental and health effects

Environmental and human health concerns associated with drilling by means of hydraulic fracturing include the contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste.[23] The potential costs associated with possible environmental clean-up processes, loss of land value and human and animal health concerns are undetermined. For the first time, in a study published in 2010, the EPA has discovered contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamanatanes. Many of these contaminants are known to cause a variety of illnesses such as cancer, kidney failure, anaemia, and fertility problems.[24] New technological advances and appropriate state regulations are working to study and safely implement the process.[25]

Arguments against hydraulic fracturing center around the extent to which fracturing fluid used far below the earth's surface might pollute fresh water zones, contaminate surface or near-surface water supplies, impact rock shelf causing seismic events or lead to surface subsidence. However, well casing failures and failures of the well grouting systems may have been responsible for gas migration into drinking water aquifers in Dimock, Pennsylvania.[26] The transport, handling, storage and use of chemicals and chemical-laden water can also cause accidents that release materials into the environment, though this does not occur during the hydraulic fracturing process itself.

It has been reported that the hydraulic fracturing industry has refused to publicly disclose, due to intellectual property concerns, the specific formulation of the fluids employed in the fracturing process. A "NOW on PBS" episode aired in March 2010 introduces the documentary film Gasland. The filmmaker claims that the chemicals include toxins, known carcinogens and heavy metals which may have polluted the ground water near well sites in Pennsylvania and Colorado. The film also makes a case for explosive gases entering private potable water wells, causing "flammable water".
[edit] Chemicals used in fracturing fluid

A number of chemicals identified in fracturing fluid are hazardous chemicals that may cause health risks that range from rashes to cancer. Some chemicals are identified as carcinogens. Some chemicals found injected into the earth identify as endocrine disruptors, which interrupts hormones and glands in the body that control development, growth, reproduction and behavior in animals and humans.[23]

Energy in Depth, an oil and gas industry organization has published a list of chemicals in a "typical solution used in hydraulic fracturing," but notes "The specific compounds used in a given fracturing operation will vary."[27]

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has published a list of chemicals used in fracturing fluids. The report addresses many issues with well fracturing.

The EPA has stated that on December 3, 2010, Halliburton has provided “written confirmation” that it will disclose hydraulic fracturing operations as per request. The EPA initiated a mandatory request for all operations to be disclosed. Halliburton is to provide the EPA with information by January 31, 2011. EPA’s mandatory request is subject to enforcement.[28]

A 2008 newspaper report states that medical personnel were inhibited in their treatment of workers injured in a fracturing accident because they did not know which specific chemicals were used. In the article, a nurse claimed she may have been exposed to the unknown chemicals on the patient's clothes.[29] Release of information, pertaining to hazardous components of any and all industrial chemicals, to medical and emergency personnel has been governed by OSHA since the 1974 Right-To-know legislation. If referenced by medical personnel, Material Safety Data Sheets will provide all information necessary for personal protection and the treatment of chemical exposure.
[edit] Water and Health

In April 2010 the state of Pennsylvania banned Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. from further drilling in the entire state until it plugs wells believed to be the source of contamination of the drinking water of 14 homes in Dimock Township, Pennsylvania.[30] The investigation was initiated after a water well exploded on New Year's Day in 2009. The state investigation revealed that Cabot Oil & Gas Company "had allowed combustible gas to escape into the region's groundwater supplies."[31]

One use of hydraulic fracturing is in stimulating water wells. In that case, the fluid used may be pure water (typically water and a disinfectant such as bleach).[32] Another use of hydraulic fracturing is to remediate waste spills by injecting bacteria, air, or other materials into a subsurface contaminated zone.[33]

In the United States, a 2004 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study concluded that the process was safe and didn't warrant further study, because there was "no unequivocal evidence" of health risks, and the fluids were neither necessarily hazardous nor able to travel far underground. That study, however, was not intended as a general study of hydraulic fracturing, but only of its use in coalbed methane deposits, and the study did not consider impacts above ground.[34] The EPA report did find uncertainties in knowledge of how fracturing fluid migrates through rocks, and upon its release service companies voluntarily agreed to stop using diesel fuel as a component of fracturing fluid in coalbed methane walls due to public concerns of its potential as a source of benzene contamination.[35] Environmental group Riverkeeper presented a report to the EPA of over 100 cases cases of contamination.[36] It has published a report of various environmental impacts using reports from federal and state regulators.[37]

The increased use of hydraulic fracturing has prompted more speculation about its environmental dangers. A 2008 investigation of benzene contamination in Colorado and Wyoming led some EPA officials to suggest hydraulic fracturing as a culprit. One of the authors of the 2004 EPA report states that it has been misconstrued by the gas-drilling industry.[34]

On 21 February 2011, the ABC's investigative journalism program Four Corners aired a program showing incidents of gas leaks into the water basin and evidence of contamination by hydraulic fracturing in Chinchilla, Queensland as a result of drilling carried out by a Queensland gas company, QGC.[38]

A 2011 study by Congressional Democrats found that, in the process of hydraulic fracturing, "oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005 to 2009," according to the New York Times.[39] A 2011 investigation by the New York Times based on various leaked EPA documents found that hydraulic fracturing had resulted in significant increases of radioactive material including radium and carcinogens including benzene in major rivers and watersheds.[40] At one site the amount of benzene discharged into the Allegheny River after treatment was 28 times accepted levels for drinking water.[39]

A 2011 peer-reviewed study found, on average, methane concentrations 17 times above normal in samples taken from water wells near shale gas drilling sites employing hydraulic fracturing. Water samples from 68 private water wells in the states of Pennsylvania and New York were tested and some were found to have extremely high concentrations of methane: 64 milligrams of methane per liter of drinking water, compared with a normal level of one milligram or lower. According to one of the authors of the study, "That sort of concentration is up at a level where people worry about an explosion hazard."[41][42] The average concentration of methane in the water wells near drilling sites lies within a range that, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior, is dangerous and requires urgent "hazard mitigation" action.[43][44]. The research was conducted by scientists at Duke University and what they found was that "levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself " [45] .

Methane contamination has been a common complaint among people who live near natural gas drilling areas. In 2009, a Propublica investigation revealed that methane contamination is widespread, "methane related to the natural gas industry has contaminated water wells in at least seven Pennsylvania counties since 2004" [46] . Because of this contamination, several homes have blown up after gas seeped into their water supplies; there have been reports of house explosions in Pennsylvania and Ohio [47] [48] . In one case in 2004, a methane leak caused an explosion that killed a couple and their 17 month old grandson [49] .
[edit] Well blowouts and spills

A well blowout in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania on June 3, 2010, sent more than 35,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the air and onto the surrounding landscape in a forested area. Campers were evacuated and the company EOG Resources and the well completion company C.C. Forbes have been ordered to cease all operations in the state of Pennsylvania pending investigation. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has called this a "serious incident".[50][51]
[edit] Natural gas drilling and seismic events.

Injection of fluid into subsurface geological structures, such as faults and fractures, reduces the effective normal stress acting across these structures. If sufficient shear stress is present, the structure may slip in shear and generate seismic events over a range of magnitudes; it is believed that natural gas drilling may have caused earthquakes in North Texas; Cleburne TX never had earthquakes in its recorded history until extensive fracking came into the area.[52] Subsidence is not directly caused by hydraulic fracturing but may occur after considerable production of oil or ground water. Subsidence occurs over reservoirs whether they have been subject to hydraulic fracturing or not because it is a result of producing fluids from the reservoir and lowering the reservoir pore pressure. The subsidence process can be associated with some seismicity. Reports of minor tremors of no greater than 2.8 on the Richter scale were reported on June 2, 2009 in Cleburne, Texas, the first in the town's 140-year history.[53]
[edit] Air and Health

A potential hazard that is commonly overlooked is the venting of bulk sand silos directly to atmosphere. When they are being filled, or emptied during the fracture, a fine cloud of silica particulate will be vented directly into atmosphere. This dust has the potential to travel many kilometers on the wind directly into populated areas. While the immediate personnel are wearing personal protective equipment, other people in the area of a well fracture can potentially be exposed.[54]. Many particulates and chemicals can be released into the atmosphere, such as sulfuric Oxide, nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOC), benzene, toluene, diesel fuel, hydrogen sulfide which can have serious health implications [55].
[edit] Other consequences

A 2011 Cornell University study found that, rather than being a bridge fuel, natural gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing may contribute as much to global warming as coal, or more so. The authors of the study acknowledge, however, that the data they used were not the best available, so this has left the study open to interpretation. The natural gas industry has noted significant problems with the study's methodology, including comments from the authors that acknowledge the data may be unreliable.[56]

There are also potential community complications as a result of fracking. When drilling companies move into a new area the population increases and with it comes problems related to population boom. There is the potential for noise and light pollution complaints, reports of crime can go up, motor vehicle accidents increase, sexually transmitted infections increase, and strain on schools are all some potential problems facing communities where gas drilling is nearby. In Garfield county, Colorado the Colorado School of Public Health released a second draft report released the Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment on March 1st, 2011 for public comment [57] .


Congress has requested that the EPA undertake a new, broader study of hydraulic fracturing. The report is due to be released in 2012.[58]