161 Pennsylvania homes, farms, churches and businesses were damaged by fracking

Finally, government officials are doing research on the effect of fracking. Pennsylvania is where the damage in this post's title occurred. It came from oil and gas development over the period from 2008 to 2012. Last year DEP's Oil and Gas Program issued a determination letter concluding that the high chemical levels in the water near Donegal, PA were caused by nearby fracking activity. 

There are two primary causes of the damage - leaks of drilling fluids and other contaminants from well casings and waste water produced during fracking. According to Anthony Ingraffea, an engineering professor at Cornell University, "One in 20 wells leak immediately, and over time the percentage increases." Millions of gallons of waste water are produced during fracking.

It is not and open-and-shut case, however, as Pennsylvania has a history of mining and oil and gas drilling, which could have caused the problem or part of it. Whether fracking is responsible could be revealed by using tracing fluids to track fracking fluids and waste water throughout a region's water system. But the industry won't do it. Another complication was introduced in 2005 when the EPA expempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Does fracking increase the number of earthquakes?

The latest study seems to indicate that is the case. The study looked at wells and fracking in Ohio last year and tentatively concluded that fracking built up subterranean pressures that repeatedly caused slippage in an existing fault as close as a half-mile beneath the wells. In the area they concentrated on, there were 77 well-related earthquakes from March 4 to March 12, two of which were fairly serious. However, Michael R. Brudzinski, a professor and seismologist at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, said. “It appears you have to be quite close to the fault for fracking operations to trigger earthquakes. Having that sort of information helps us to see that this stuff is pretty rare.”

McKibben on Fracking

I was surprised to learn that Bill McKibben, a very staunch environmentalist, has not always condemned fracking.  In a book review for the NY Review of Books he writes, "I was originally encouraged at the thought of major natural gas finds as well, because they seemed, as I mentioned in passing in my 2010 book Eaarth , to extend slightly the short time we have to get off fossil fuel without doing more climate damage." But that was then, now he is very strongly opposed to fracking, mainly for reasons of climate change.  He is not the only environmentalist to have changed his mind, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is another.

In addition to climate change issues, McKibben discusses what are now recognized - at least by those with no financial interest - as problems related to fracking: damage to water wells, underground aquifers, rivers, streams; air pollution; lax regulation.

A small first step

The EPA has issued its first regulations on fracking.  They don't cover the biggest problem of water pollution and they really don't go into effect until 2015, but it's a start.  One reason that ground water could not be covered is that our esteemed Congress exempted fracking from the provisions of the Safe Water Drinking Act back in 2005; attempts to remove this exemption have failed.

The big question is when the EPA will protect us from the other risks of fracking.  The ability of the industry to postpone the regulation's implementation for three years is not a good sign that more rules will be forthcoming soon.

Does fracking lead to earthquakes?

A study of the Youngstown, Oh area leads Won-Young Kim of Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to answer the question "Yes".  The study, which was conducted from January 2011 to February 2012,  concluded that there were 109 small earthquakes in the area (note he measured quakes as small as 0.4 on the Richter scale and as large as 3.9); they all occurred near a fracking site (a deep fluid injection well).  There were no previous recordings of earthquake activity in the area prior to the beginning of fracking.

Fixing Fracking?

One of the major problems with fracking is the leaking of methane, which is the primary ingredient in natural gas, and, when it is burned, is considerably less dirty than coal. However, before it is burned if it should get into the atmosphere (which is just about a certainty), it is 84 to 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year span.

Studies have shown that there are forty separate types of equipment - such as Loose pipe flanges. Leaky storage tanks. Condenser valves stuck open. Outdated compressors. Inefficient pneumatic systems. Corroded pipes. - that can produce methane emissions during the production and processing of natural gas and oil by fracking.

Lowering methane emissions does not require enormously expensive new technology. It can be done with technology that already exists and at fairly minimal cost, perhaps as low as a penny. Furthermore, a 50 percent reduction in methane emissions is the equivalent to closing 90 coal-fired power plants, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.

One state, Colorado, is doing something about it. They have imposed regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions. And industry has gone along with them. Some quotes “we could see the benefit of the rules.” “It really puts a very disciplined process around regular maintenance.”

Selecting the right words is important

I'm probably overstepping my boundaries by questioning an article by one of my betters, a Pulitzer prize-winning and best-selling author, who serves on the U.S. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and chaired the US Department of Energy’s Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development - Daniel Yergin. He went to Yale and earned a PhD from Cambridge.  He mixes with people like Bill Gates, appears on television as an energy expert. And I, an old man from East Cambridge, find Dr. Yergin's article in the NY Times somewhat lacking in considering the environmental costs of "America's New Energy Reality".

It's quite interesting that the word "fracking" is not used in the article, yet the reason for our new energy reality is, in fact, the arrival of fracking on the scene.  Yergin speaks of the natural gas market having been "transformed by the rapid expansion of shale gas production".  As for the increased availability of oil, Yergin attributes it to " tight oil. That is the term for oil produced from tight rock formations with the same technology used to produce shale gas."

Fracking is a real cost of our new energy reality.  Is the cost worth it?  Yergin does acknowledge in a somewhat off-hand way that there may be environmental costs, but you have to read the article a couple of times to pick this up.

Premature Announcement?

The EPA has begin investigating the fracking situation in Pennsylvania.  They began with the town of Dimock, which has been attracting attention re fracking since 2009.  The EPA planned to study the water situation in 60 homes.  After receiving lab results for 11 of these homes, the EPA decided to announce these results, which did not present a health concern.  Why they made this announcement with less than 80% of the results still to be analyzed is an interesting question.

The EPA has provided more information to many of the home owners.  It appears that there are a number of nasty things in the water of Dimock, but these nasty things have not yet been definitively explained.

Chemicals found at fracking sites

ProPublica has a good summary of the chemicals and links to the CDC site which explains the hazards of particular chemicals found in places where fracking has occurred.Among the chemicals found are crystalline silica, methanol, isopropanol, diesel, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, benzene, kerosene, etc.

Fracking and Climate Change

Two Cornell professors claim that natural gas wells created by fracking leak 40 to 60 percent more methane than conventional natural gas wells.This is not good for dealing with climate change. The professors assert that within the next 20 years, methane will contribute 44 percent of the greenhouse gas load produced by the U.S. Of that portion, 17 percent will come from all natural gas operations.

Other Cornell professors disagree. How do we mortals come to a decision? Looking at some previous posts on the subject may help you decide.

Fracking does not cause ground water contamination

That's what a University of Texas study claims. The study thinks the contamination is caused by "casing failures or poor cement jobs" or is the result of above-ground spills or mishandling of waste water.  One concern that I have about this study is that is was done by the Energy Institute at the university. It would be nice to know how the Institute is funded. Here are some other views on fracking.

Arsenic and Old Water

The question of fracking's effect on water contamination is still up in the air as far some UTexas researchers are concerned. In a recent study they found groundwater near natural gas fracking sites in Texas’ Barnett Shale contained arsenic, selenium and strontium which were above EPA’s maximum contaminate limit for drinking water. Previous tests of the same area did not find the same level of metals, far from it. At the same time they found uncontaminated water near some gas wells.  The researchers do not believe that they have a smoking gun.  The EPA agrees with them, despite water contamination having been reported in more than a thousand places where drilling is happening. 

Today it's Texas

On Thursday I reported on the large numbers of earthquakes in Ohio that seemed to be related to fracking activity.  Well, Irving, Texas, had ten earthquakes yesterday and a total of  twenty-six since October. The most severe quake measured at 3.6 on the Richter Scale.  

The U.S. Geological Survey issued the following, “Activities that have induced felt earthquakes in some geologic environments have included impoundment of water behind dams, injection of fluid into the earth's crust, extraction of fluid or gas, and removal of rock in mining or quarrying operations.”

What The Frack Is Going On?

Here is an interesting video explaining fracking, which is polluting many water sources. The video was made by students at NYU's Studio 20. It doesn't start out well, but picks up quickly.

Texas oil wells

The EPA believes that there is a "significant possibility” that recent earthquakes in North Texas are linked to oil and gas activity. The state regulators won’t say one way or the other. Texas has thousands of injection and disposal wells that dot state oilfields — underground resting places for millions of gallons of toxic waste from fracking and other drilling activities. It is the third-most at-risk state for man-made earthquakes, according to the U.S. Geological Survey — behind only Oklahoma and Kansas.

A study is just that

In the 21st century scientific studies are published just about every day. And some are recalled because the evidence is faulty or the logic weak. A recent study in Science seems to be a little different in that the scientists do not come to a definitive conclusion.

The study was based on the fact that there has been a forty-fold increase in the rate of earthquakes in Oklahoma between 2008-13. About 20% of these earthquakes greater than magnitude 3.0 have occurred around the small town of Jones since 2008. Researchers have linked this increase to a near doubling in the volumes of waste water disposed of in the central Oklahoma region between 2004 and 2008.

The scientists speculate that the disposal of water in four high-volume wells could be responsible for a swarm of tremors up to 20 miles away. They concluded that the injection of wastewater is "likely responsible" for the swarm with the caveat,"There are thousands of these wells in the US, so only a few appear to be problematic. The difficulties can be avoided but we need to know more about the process so we can give proper guidance to the authorities."

Is fracking the problem?

Moving beyond oil

Charles Mann has a fascinating but lengthy article about the world's supply of energy and the various forms we have used - wood, coal, oil, natural gas, wind, sun.  Surprisingly, he does not mention nuclear energy.  Nor does he say very much about the environmental costs of such techniques as fracking.

One of the primary points he makes is that we have consistently been able to develop new techniques for extracting energy from the earth.  It does take a long period time to develop the technologies, but we have done so up to now.  The problem is that climate change is moving so fast that we may not have time today.

One example of the effect of technology on the development of energy is the Kern River oil field in California.  Drilling of the field began in 1899.  In 1949 analysts estimated there were 47,000,000 barrels left in the reserve.  In the next 40 years, 945,000,000 barrels were produced.  At that point, 1989, the estimate of the reserve was increased to 697,000,000 barrels.  In the next twenty years 1.3 billion barrels were produced and the estimated reserve was still close to 600,000,000 barrels.  These analysts are obviously not stupid people, yet they were fantastically wrong here and in many other places.

Land is not the only area to mine for energy.  Since the 1970s we have been trying to mine the sea for crystalline natural gas known as methane hydrate.  Estimates of how much methane hydrate exists in the oceans range from 100 times more than America's current annual energy consumption to 3 million times.  Some expect we will be producing methane hydrate within ten years.

Another issue Mann discusses is oil as both an energy source and a source of political power.  Would we pay any attention to Saudi Arabia if they were not an oil power?  If the world does move to methane hydrate, what would the oil nations do to preserve their political power?

And then if we are mining the seas, what are the risks of conflict between nations?

We are currently lucky because of the boom in natural gas.  But, it too has problems.  Mann is a believer in renewable energy.  However, the costs of converting to renewables is astronomical and conversion cannot happen overnight.  Just think of the effort and money needed to revamp the electrical power grid.  Can we do it in time to save the planet?

Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide

Our attempts to minimize the effects of climate change have focused on carbon dioxide. The boom in natural gas was triggered, in part, by its ability to reduce carbon emissions. Thus, there has been a slight decline in CO2 emissions. But, if you accept the findings of a recent paper by Harvard researchers, we still have a problem - the leaking of methane. 

Between 2002 and 2014, US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent, accounting for 30 to 60 percent of an enormous spike in methane in the entire planet’s atmosphere. Why is this a problem? Methane traps heat in the atmosphere much more efficiently than CO2. And you need not burn methane to have a problem; it escapes into the air before it can be captured in a pipeline, or anywhere else along its route to a power plant or your stove. The situation has been aggravated by fracking.

So, what do we do now?

Smog in Wyoming? Wyoming?

It's been reported that on some days the ozone level in Wyoming exceeds that of LA. The level has reached as high as 124 parts per billion; the EPA limit is 75 and LA has hit 114. The culprit is thought to be the production of natural gas, our old friend fracking.

It's getting to be a habit with me

Yes, I know the title is a line from a popular song of the 1940s, but this post will be another about the Pope. The following photo really sums up this post.

Yup, he's against fracking.  And well he should, as Argentina is fourth in shale gas reserves and second in shale oil.  So, the pressure is on there.  The oil companies are meeting a fair level of opposition and things have gotten violent on occasion.