Merry Christmas-Happy Holidays
To All!!
Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group Updates December 19, 2013
* For articles and updates or to just vent, visit us on facebook;
* To view permanent documents, past updates,
reports, general information and meeting information
http://westmorelandmarcellus.blogspot.com/
* Our email address: westmcg@gmail.com
*
To discuss candidates: http://www.facebook.com/groups/VoteProEarth/
* To contact your state
legislator:
For the email address, click on the envelope
under the photo
* For information on PA state gas legislation
and local control: http://pajustpowers.org/aboutthebills.html-
WMCG
Thank You
* Thank you to contributors to our Updates: Debbie Borowiec, Lou
Pochet, Ron Gulla, Marian Szmyd, Bob Donnan, Cynthia Walter, Gloria Forouzan, Elizabeth
Donahue, and Bob Schmetzer.
Donations- Our
Sincere Thanks For Your Support!
The
Paluselli family
Jan
Kiefer
Mary
Steisslinger
Wanda
and Joe Guthrie
Lou and Dorothy Pochet for donating to group
printing costs.
Joe
and Judy Evans for printing costs of fracking tri-folds.
Jan
and Jack Milburn for donating to group printing costs.
Harriet
Ellenberger for donating to group printing costs.
Calendar
***
WMCG Steering Committee Meeting We meet the second Tuesday of every month at
7:30 PM in Greensburg. Email Jan for
directions. All are very welcome to attend.
Volunteers Needed!!
Flyercise-This is a good way to
work to protect your family from fracking and get exercise.
Flyering helps to
inform your area. If you want to
distribute information on fracking in your neighborhood, WMCG and the Mt
Watershed have handouts for you. Some rural areas are best reached by car and
flyers can be put in paper boxes (not mailboxes) or in doors. Please contact Jan if you would like to help.
Meetings are also good venues for distributing flyers as well—church meetings,
political, parent groups, etc. If you can only pass out fifteen, that reaches
fifteen people who may not have been informed.
***Volunteers Needed
to Map Frack Pits- Skytruth
You Can Support a Public
Health Study By John Hopkins At Home At Your Computer
Volunteers
Needed: Crowd sourcing Project to Map Fracking in Pennsylvania for a Public Health Study and National Mapping
Initiative
(You
are given a window to examine by Skytruth. . Your job is to Click on all the
frack pits you see in that square and the data will be processed by Skytruth.
jan)
Who:
SkyTruth
What:
FrackFinder PA - Project Moor Frog is crowd sourcing (using the public to help
do the work) project that needs cyber-volunteers to find fracking ponds on
aerial photographs.
Where:
Online at frack.skytruth.org/frackfinder
Why:
Data produced by the crowd will be
complied into series of maps identifying the location of fracking ponds in
Pennsylvania, and support a public health study with partners at the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health.
SkyTruth will be launching the second phase of
a crowd sourcing project to map the impact of unconventional drilling and
hydraulic fracturing using aerial imagery. We need your help to engage even
more volunteers so that, state by state, we can build a nationwide, multi-year
map of fracking.
FrackFinder
is a web-based tool that presents cyber-volunteers, or skytruthers, with aerial
photos of permitted or active drilling sites, and asks users to perform a
simple image analysis task. In this phase of the project, we are asking volunteers to find all the fracking ponds at Marcellus
Shale drilling sites in PA. Learn more about our first FrackFinder project
here.
We are doing this work to support
a public health study with our partners at the Bloomberg School of Public
Health at Johns Hopkins. Additionally, we have arranged to have a reporter from
Wired magazine (a tech magazine with an audience of 3 million) cover the launch
of the effort, which we are calling FrackFinder PA – Project Moor Frog.
We are asking for your help to
promote this sky truthing project as we get nearer to the launch. Please feel
free to contact me if you would like to learn more and to coordinate efforts to
engage the public in this effort to produce a nationwide, multi-year map of the
impacts of fracking.
David Manthos: Outreach
& Communications Director http://frack.skytruth.org/frackfinder
Office: 304-885-4581 | Cell:
240-385-6423 |
david.manthos@skytruth.org”
Take Action!!
***As always letters to the editor are
important and one of the best ways to share information with the public. Pick
any frack topic and get it in the public eye.***
1. NPR
-Post Your Complaint on Facebook
“Great
news! Thanks to your hard work, we've got a meeting tomorrow with the NPR
ombudsman. The ombudsman works on behalf of us, the listeners, to make sure the
reporting we hear on public radio is accurate, balanced, and compelling.
This is an amazing chance not
only to talk about the offensive gas industry-sponsored ads airing on NPR, but
also to move overall news coverage about fracking in a critical direction.
We're bringing fracktivists from effected communities and experts in the
dangerous drilling practice (thanks to your support.) Of course I'll also have
your 40,000 signatures and copies of the radio ad you helped make to drive home
the message.
However, for this meeting to
really succeed we need to include your voice as well. Click here to leave a message on the Facebook wall of NPR ombudsman
Edward Schumacher-Matos, telling him what you think of NPR's coverage of
fracking and the sponsored messages from the gas industry.
You can suggest stories NPR
should have covered, or tell us about times a local or national story you heard
got fracking really right or really wrong.
Thanks
for making this possible,
Drew Hudson, Director, Environmental Action
2. Comments on
Proposed Oil and Gas Regs
Environmental Quality Board Opens Public Comment Period on
Proposed Oil and Gas Regulations, Will Hold Public Hearings
Harrisburg – The Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) and the Environmental Quality Board announced today that the public
comment period for a proposed regulation for environmental protection
performance standards associated with oil and gas activities will open on
Saturday, Dec. 14.
The
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is a
20-member independent board chaired by the Secretary of DEP that adopts all of
the department’s regulations and considers petitions to change regulations.
During the public comment period, the EQB will be hosting seven public hearings
across Pennsylvania and offer multiple ways to submit comments.
Along
with the EQB hearings, DEP will be holding two webinars on Thursday, Dec. 19,
from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and Friday, Jan. 3, from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m., to
present information and answer questions on the proposed regulation.
“Public participation is a key part to forging
the best regulations possible,” DEP Secretary Chris Abruzzo said. “An
exceptional number of hearings are being offered by the EQB to gather
information and to be sure that people’s voices are heard.”
The proposed regulation implements key
provisions of Act 13 of 2012, including further consideration of impacts to
public resources, such as parks and wildlife areas; the prevention of spills;
the management of waste; and the restoration of well sites after drilling.
Additionally,
the draft rulemaking also includes standards affecting the construction of
gathering lines and temporary pipelines, and includes provisions for
identifying and monitoring abandoned wells close to proposed well sites.
Public
Hearings
People wishing to present
verbal testimony at a hearing are requested to contact the EQB at least one
week in advance of the hearing to reserve a time. Those who wish to present
testimony at the hearing may use the address below or call the EQB at
717-787-4526 to reserve time to testify. All relevant written and oral comments
that are received at a public hearing will be considered when finalizing the
regulation.
Witnesses
are limited to five minutes of
testimony and are requested to submit three written copies of their testimony
to the hearing chairperson at the hearing. Organizations
are limited to designating one witness to present testimony on their behalf
at each hearing.
Online Comments
The public is being invited to
submit comments to the EQB regarding the proposed rulemaking by Feb. 12, 2014.
Along with their comments, people can submit a one-page summary of their
comments to the EQB. Comments, including the one page summary, may be submitted
to EQB by accessing the EQB’s Online Public Comment System at
http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/RegComments.
Written Comments
Written
comments and summaries should be mailed to Environmental Quality Board, P.O.
Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477.
The summaries and a formal comment and
response document will be distributed to the EQB and available publicly prior
to the meeting when the final rulemaking will be considered.
Email Comments
People
can also submit comments to RegComments@pa.gov.
Online
and email comments must also be received by the EQB on or before Feb. 12.
If an acknowledgement of comments submitted online or by email is not received
by the sender within two business days, the comments should be re-sent to the
EQB to ensure receipt.
For
more information or to register for DEP’s Informational webinars, visit
www.dep.state.pa.us, keyword: Webinars. After registration, an email will be
sent containing a link to the webinar. The webinar will be recorded and posted
on the Oil and Gas webinars webpage for future viewing.
To view materials for the proposed regulation,
visit www.dep.state.pa.us and click the “Proposed Oil and Gas Regulations”
button.
Media Contact: Lisa Kasianowitz, DEP,
717-787-1323
Editor’s Note: The public hearings will be
held at 6 p.m. A list of locations and dates follows: (I copied those in our area. Jan)
Washington County
Jan.
22, 2014, Washington and Jefferson College’s Rossin Campus Center / Allen
Ballroom, 60 South Lincoln Street, Washington, PA 15301
Indiana
County
Jan.
23, 2014, Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Convention and Athletic Complex,
711 Pratt Drive, Indiana, PA 15705
CONTACT:
Lisa
Kasianowitz, Department of Environmental Protection
717-787-1323
3. Tell FERC---Stop Rubber-Stamping Frack Pipelines
On September 29, Steven Jensen, a farmer in North
Dakota, discovered a massive 865,000-gallon fracked oil spill in a wheat field
on his land. The spill, which is one of the largest inland oil-pipeline
accidents in the United States ever, may have gone on for weeks unnoticed
before it was discovered.
The spill in North Dakota is not an isolated incident.
Every week there are news reports about pipeline leaks and explosions that
contaminate our land and water and sometimes kill. But instead of fixing its
crumbling infrastructure, the oil and gas industry has embarked on a reckless
spending spree. It wants to build thousands of miles of new pipelines so
that it can frack America and make us dependent on dirty fossil fuels for
decades to come.
We have to speak out now to stop it. The petition,
which is to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, says the following:
America doesn’t need endless pipelines and related
infrastructure that impact local communities and that choke off the development
of clean, renewable energy supplies. It is time for FERC to put down its
rubber stamp and place a moratorium on new fracking and oil- and gas-related
infrastructure projects.
Tell the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission: Stop approving oil and gas infrastructure.
Private land is seized by eminent domain. Dangerous
and polluting compressor stations are constructed in the middle of residential
neighborhoods. One gas pipeline is slated to cut through the Gateway National
Recreation Area. And now there’s a plan to build another large and potentially
explosive pipeline near a nuclear reactor in one of the most densely populated
areas of the country.
How can this happen? Isn’t anyone looking out for the
public’s safety and welfare?
That "someone" should be FERC, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. It’s supposed to consider “public convenience and
necessity” before permitting projects like these. But it’s fallen down on the
job. Instead of critically examining all the impacts associated with oil and
gas infrastructure, it’s become a rubber stamp for an industry that has shown
that it doesn’t give a damn about the health and safety of the American people.
Tell FERC that America doesn’t need endless
pipelines and related infrastructure that impact local communities and choke
off the development of clean, renewable energy supplies.
Will you join me and add your name to my petition to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to demand that it stop approving oil
and gas infrastructure?
Thank you for your
support.
Jill Wiener
**Westmoreland Activity**
North Huntingdon Report from Marie Moore The
meeting last week had a nice turn out considering the very short notice and
several of us spoke. They are of course
only looking at the money and think it’s a good thing for the community. They
feel that since no equipment will be in the surface of the park that this will
keep the park safe. We know it will not. They also have the attitude that
everyone around us is doing it- why not us. A reporter was there from the local
paper and normally her recaps get published the next day. Her story has still
not been published. I reached out to her and she said that is up to her editor.
I find it curious that it has not been published yet considering the impact of
their actions can have. They have yet to publish the agenda for tonight's meeting. If you have any questions just ask.
And report from Kathryn North Huntingdon Commissioners Special
Meeting 12/12- According to Commissioners, they are meeting with Huntley &
Huntley to negotiate a subsurface lease for Oak Hollow and Braddock’s Trail
behind closed doors. Some terms the
Commissioners revealed were: a 10yr
lease; bonus payment: $1,500acreX275acres=$411K; 16% royalties; no surface
activities. Approx. 10 residents of NHT
came to the meeting and spoke in opposition.
I am meeting with some of these residents on Thursday 12/19 at 7pm in
Bob Evans, NHT (conference room) to strategize on how to keep this proposal
from coming to fruition (If you have an
interest in attending you are welcome, please let me know
kathryn@mtwatershed.com).
Commissioners have bought into the idea that drilling is definitely
coming to NHT and since it is coming, they may as well allow more and get money
off it…..it’s going to take a major show of township support to prevent
this. We can mobilize! If we look at
Protect Our Parks in Allegheny County, it is working!
A few relevant details:
1. Huntley&Huntley has 336 traditional
wells with 41 reported violations since 2008, and 155 reported violations since
they began extraction activities in 1995.
2. In Allegheny County, Range Resources and
Huntley&Huntley are working to lease park lands at $3,000 /acre bonus and
17% royalties.
3. Park Drilling is NOT on the agenda for the
Regular Commissioners Meeting tonight. A
decision will not be made until after the new year.
4. From previous interactions with
Huntley&Huntley they do not necessarily have plans to begin drilling
immediately, thus the 10yr lease. I
think part of this is due to their lack of experience, but also the lack of
infrastructure to get the gas to market.
–Which was indicated in a landowner meeting in Burrell months ago.
5. Huntley&Huntley is a PA
company. They’ve been around since 1912,
but only began their own extraction in 1995.
They have interest in Marcellus/Utica wells, but according to DEP
reports have themselves not drilled one in PA.
Happy Holidays,
-Kathryn Hilton 724-455-4200 ex. 4#
Fracknation Screening-- from Kathryn Hilton, Mt Watershed Assoc.:
Attendance at the showing in Indian Head was not good, which is
good. The film was long and
sensationalized- the audience picked up on this. Q&A was abbreviated. It was clear to many that while I was invited
to participate in the panel I was not given the opportunity to actively do
so. I corrected WPX representative,
Susan Oliver’s attempts to obfuscate twice! Which was pulling teeth- I had to
raise my voice and interrupt to even have the opportunity of being heard.
Unfortunately, I did not get to respond to most of the statements made.
There was a good showing of
informed citizens. I’d say all in all it
was as “successful” as one might hope.
This event was put on by the Mountain Laurel Chamber of Commerce. Feel
free to contact them and say that you do not support gas activities in the
Laurel Highlands!
Frack Links
***WTAE- Affects Of the Gas Industry Some
notes: “Many gas industry workers
are not local people but are from out of state. There have been increased
criminal cases and abuse problems, and housing has become unaffordable especially
for low income families . In Greene County, the influx of workers spiked
housing costs--a $350 apartment may now be $700. Greene has had the highest
peak in protection from abuse orders in more than a decade. Nearby counties had
similar increases. The Washington County DA notes a steady increase of 700
criminal cases each year since the industry arrived 5 years ago. He attributes this to a rise in drug abuse and
also more people coming in from the oil and gas industry.
In West
Virginia (Ohio County), calls for emergency
service nearly doubled. Larceny increased more than 50% and criminal citations
more than quadrupled. During the same period in Green County, larceny climbed
50% and Fayette County drug abuse violations by 20%. In Westmoreland County
curfew and loitering increased by 55% . Two out-of-state industry workers were
recently charged with murder in the beating death of a Wheeling Jesuit University
athlete. No one is tracking whether it is oil and gas workers who have led to
these increases. However, in Bradford County, the DA does say they see a 40%
increase in criminal cases mostly due to the gas industry. Bradford County has
asked a Senate committee for more state police resources
To view the video:
***To sign up for notifications of activity and violations for your area:
*** List of the Harmed--There are now
over 1600 residents of Pennsylvania who have placed their names on the list of
the harmed when they became sick after fracking began in their area. http://pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.wordpress.com/the-list/
***New Penn Environment Video
PennEnvironment, along with the federal
organization, EnvironmentAmerica, released a new video exposé on fracking.
Narrated
by Martin Sheen and filmed on location in Pennsylvania, the piece will allow
public television viewers to hear from:
· A Pennsylvania family whose well water
was contaminated and granddaughter became ill after fracking operations
commenced nearby;
· Dr. Poune Saberi, who has examined
health data from nearby residents and workers and believes that the numerous,
documented cases of residents becoming ill near drilling operations are likely
"the tip of the iceberg;" and
· Lou Allstadt, former Executive Vice
President of Mobil, explaining why he now sees fracking as inherently fraught
with environmental destruction.
A couple of facts from the video: In 3 years there have been
more than 3,000 violations and 1.3 billion gallons of toxic waste produced
The
segment has the potential to reach up to 60 million households this year. In addition, we have <http://youtu.be/ljHCJfkZ308> a shorter
commercial-length version of the video that is being rolled out to other networks
like CNN and MSNBC starting this month.
***Pipeline/Eminent
Domain Factsheet-Handout
Food and Water Watch
***Frackademia
Handout-Industry’s influence on Education:
***Orange You
A'Peelin'? Guide to PA Fracking Permit Appeals
You can print this booklet off the site.
***Video-- Dr
Ingraffea Speaks at Butler Community College
Published on Nov 22,
2013
The
science of shale gas: The latest evidence on leaky wells, methane emissions,
and implications for policy. A.R. Ingraffea Ph.D, P.E.; M.T. Wells, Ph.D,
Cornell University; R. Santoro, R. Shonkoff, Ph.D, Physicians, Scientists and
Engineers for Healthy Energy, Inc. Butler Community College, Butler Pa,
November 21, 2013.
The
latest evidence on leaky Gas wells.
Fracking News
1.
Why Drilling UNDER
a Park is a Bad Idea
by
Kathryn Hilton, Mt. Watershed Assoc. (summarized)
“Drilling
under a park means the well must be sited within 3 miles of the park, (to my knowledge, no horizontal leg has ever
exceeded 3 miles). The area within that 3 mile radius is recognized as the area
of greatest exposure by the Environmental
Health Project. Truck traffic will
still impact the area and contaminants will still make their way onto park
property. This idea of not drilling on
parklands is only pushing the burden to the surrounding community. Furthermore,
well integrity remains a concern because the drilling, perforating and fracking
will occur under park property. The
potential for methane migration and chemical contaminants to taint waters in
any given park is still present.
Furthermore, the infrastructure required for getting this gas to market
will still be required. Not locating
the well pad on park property does not protect the park from compressor
stations or pipelines unless that is explicitly written in an agreement.
In fact, if one is going to
exploit a park, some would say it might make more sense to put the rig in the
most isolated part of the park and shut the park down for the construction of
well pad, drilling, fracking, completion and restoration time as to isolate
more folks from exposure instead of putting it on property next to residents.
Thank you,
If you have
additional questions or would like more information I am generally in my office
10-6pm. Call anytime 724-455-4200 ex. 4#
Kathryn Hilton
Community Organizer, Mountain Watershed Association
2. Communities Fight
Back on Fracking
From Sierra Club Allegheny
“While
Allegheny County Council has been faced with the prospect of fracking in County
Parks since August, here is what other communities have been doing during the
same time period. In New Jersey on Sept. 17 Highland Park banned fracking, as
did New Brunswick on Oct. 2. At the Nov. 5 elections fracking bans were passed
in three Colorado communities: Bolder, Fort Collins, and Lafayette. On Nov. 30
a Massachusetts Statehouse committee approved a bill calling for a 10-year statewide
fracking ban. On Dec. 10 the Erie County (NY) legislature banned fracking on
County owned land, banned shipment of frack waste on county roads to municipal
treatment plants, and banned the use of frack waste water on county highways.
Note that in New York State there were already bans against fracking in 68
municipalities and moratoria in 107. Finally, on Dec. 11, Dallas County Council
in Texas (!) passed a county-wide ban fracking within 1,500 feet of homes, a
move that the industry claims is a de facto ban on fracking in the county.
And by
the way, Pittsburgh was the first city to ban fracking, back in November 2010.
That action saved the city parks so why are County Council members reluctant to
also keep fracking away from the county parks?
Link to speak at Allegheny County
Jan 14. meeting on fracking in parks.” http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/council/meetings/recomm.asp
3. Rep., Jesse White calls For investigation Of Unreported 21,000-gallon
Frack Water Spill
“Washington/Allegheny/Beaver,
today called on state, federal and Washington County authorities to investigate
an unreported spill of at least 21,000 gallons of Marcellus Shale flowback
water, based on internal emails from a Marcellus Shale water hauling company in
Washington County
The emails between employees of Red Oak Water Transfer, now operating
as Rockwater Energy Solutions, were obtained from a civil court filing in the
Washington County Court of Common Pleas case concerning impacts of drilling
activities at a natural gas drilling site operated by Range Resources in Amwell
Township. Rockwater was operating as a subcontractor of Range Resources,
purportedly moving drilling wastewater to and from drilling sites and waste
impoundments in the region. The internal
emails between Rockwater employees and executives, which were first
reported Saturday by the Marcellus Monitor
website, explicitly
detail a spill of gas well flowback water on Dec. 6, 2010, with a minimum of
500 barrels, or 21,000 gallons, of flowback water spilling into an
environmentally-sensitive waterway that empties into a trout-stocking stream.
The emails describe
black water pouring out of a pipe into the ground, and then into a nearby
stream. However, the exact location of the spill was not specified, and sworn
deposition testimony from a Rockwater executive, who was included in the
emails, now denies any spill ever occurred.
“Based on the seriousness of this incident and the uncertain impacts to
the people and habitat of Pennsylvania, I am asking county, state and federal
officials to thoroughly investigate this matter without delay,” White said.
“Considering that Range Resources has
admitted they don’t even know what chemicals they are using in their drilling
operations, a spill of this magnitude represents a potentially serious concern
for humans, animals, fish and the habitat near this stream."
White said that more disturbing than the spill is evidence that
Rockwater apparently engaged in a "cover-up" of the incident.
Emails between Rockwater executives indicate the spill might not have been
reported because the company was concerned about losing business as a result, and
that employees were instructed to keep quiet about the incident.
Furthermore, personnel files obtained from the filed
pleading show that a Rockwater employee was suspended without pay in connection
with a “flowback spill ‘cover-up,’” which was further detailed as “not
reported” and a “serious violation.”
“The spill is bad
enough, but the compelling evidence of a cover-up demonstrates a callous
disregard for the health and safety of the people of Pennsylvania,” White said.
“Conduct this egregious is a textbook example of how some operators in the
Marcellus Shale have no concept of earning a social license to operate in our
communities."
In September, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane filed charges
against XTO Energy Inc. in relation to another 2010 spill of flowback water in
Lycoming County. In order for the attorney general to take the case, it must be
referred by the DEP, the Washington County district attorney or the Fish and
Boat Commission. White urged all three to refer the case to the attorney
general immediately. According to White, authorities should take seriously
all such incidents when it comes to protecting Pennsylvania’s residents and
natural resources.
“With the companies
involved still operating every day in southwestern Pennsylvania, the people
deserve immediate action and real answers about what really happened out
there,” White said. “Identifying and punishing bad actors is the only way to
put the natural gas industry on notice that their commitment to environmental
safety must be more than industry talking points. You have to practice what you
preach."
4. House Of
Representatives Votes to Block Federal Fracking
Rules
Republicans argue that regs will slow down energy production
By Pete Kasperowicz
“The
House passed legislation Wednesday
evening that would block the Department
of the Interior from regulating fracking in states that already have their own
regulations in place.
Members
passed the bill 235-187 with the help of 12 Democrats; two Republicans voted
against it.
The bill, H.R. 2728, is one of three energy bills House
Republicans brought up this week to
speed up the process of extracting and moving energy across the country,
which the GOP said would help lower energy costs and create jobs.
President
Obama's veto threat against the bill, and the likelihood that the Senate will
ignore it means it stands almost no chance of becoming law. Nonetheless,
Republicans argued that pending rules from Interior would only slow down energy
production and job creation in states that are already regulating fracking.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/190977-house-votes-to-block-federal-fracking-rules
5. U.K.--54-foot Wind
Turbine Blade Wrapped in Large Red Bow Blocks Frack Site
(Please note the quote, “The Government and big energy companies are
planning to build a new wave of gas-fired power stations, partly fed by
thousands of fracking wells… This
would lock us into using this expensive and dirty fossil fuel for decades to
come.”
That is
exactly what is happening with the Tenaska plant proposed in Westmoreland
County, pipelines being built, and Gov Corbett pushing for natural gas fueling
stations. We are being locked into long- term dependence on gas and
consequently accompanying air and water pollution. Jan)
“The
growing protest movement against the "new wave" of gas-fired power
stations and fracking test sites around the U.K. added a festive spirit to its
campaign on Monday when a group of demonstrators delivered a 54-foot wind
turbine blade to a drilling site near the city of Manchester, blockading
workers from entering the site.
"This morning fifty pro-renewables campaigners delivered a 17 meter, 1.5
tonne wind turbine blade as a 'Christmas gift' for fracking company IGas,"
announced No Dash for Gas, the UK-based anti-fracking group behind the action.
After wheeling in the massive
piece of equipment and assembling it on the spot, protesters left it in front
of the entrance of the site wrapped in a large red Christmas bow.
IGas, the gas company which was
carrying out exploratory drilling at a site in Barton Moss, just outside the
city of Manchester, was forced to stall production before police eventually
managed to move the blade out of the way.
No Dash for Gas protester Sandra
Denton, who participated in the action, stated:
We’ve delivered this early
Christmas gift to IGas to remind them that
we don’t need damaging, risky and polluting energy sources like oil and gas to
power the UK.
The Government and the big energy companies are planning to build a new
wave of gas-fired power stations, partly fed by thousands of fracking wells
across the British countryside.
This
would lock us into using this expensive and dirty fossil fuel for decades to
come, trapping us in a future of spiraling energy prices and disastrous floods,
storms and droughts as climate change kicks in.” - Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
6. Extremely Important Study
Fracking Sites Tied to Hormone Disruptors
Published: Dec 16,
2013
By Salynn Boyles, Contributing Writer, MedPage
Today
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor,
Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania
“The majority of water samples collected
from sites in a drilling-dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic,
anti-estrogenic, or anti-androgenic activities than reference sites with
limited nearby drilling operations, a study found.
Testing of a subset
of natural gas drilling chemicals revealed novel anti-estrogenic, novel
anti-androgenic, and limited estrogenic activities.
Surface and ground water samples taken from hydraulic fracking sites in
a drilling-dense area of Colorado showed higher levels of estrogenic,
anti-estrogenic and anti-androgenic chemical activity than reference sites with
limited drilling, researchers found.
Evidence of
endocrine-disrupting activity in a selected subset of chemicals used in the
controversial oil and natural gas extraction process was also shown in a study
published online ahead of print in the journal Endocrinology.
Fracking Spill
Sites Had Twice the EDCs
Water samples from drilling sites in Garfield County, Colo. that
experienced fracking spills or accidents showed moderate to high levels of the
endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) activity, while samples from sites with
little drilling showed very little activity, wrote Susan C. Nagel, PhD, of
the University of Missouri in Columbia, and colleagues.
"We found no significant anti-androgenic activity at any of our
control sites and significant anti-androgenic activity at all of the spill
sites," Nagel told MedPage Today.
On average, water at fracking spill sites had double the amount of
total endocrine-disrupting activity compared with control sites, she said.
Nagel characterized this association as strong, and said the study is
the first to show an association between fracking and endocrine-disrupting
activity.
Around 750 chemicals have been reported to be used in hydraulic
fracking, including more than 100 known or suspected to be
endocrine-disrupting.
Fracking Exempt From Water Protection Regulations
But the permanent
underground injection of chemicals used in fracking is not regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and has been exempted from multiple federal
regulatory acts, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act,
and the Clean Air Act.
And there is no federal spill site registry, although some state
regulatory agencies keep some information on spills, Nagel said.
"There are many
pathways for chemicals used in natural gas (fracking) operations to contaminate
surface and ground waters: spills during transport before and after extraction,
the drilling and fracturing processes, disposal of waste water, failure of well
casings, and from structural issues surrounding abandoned wells," Nagel
and colleagues wrote.
The researchers'
goals were twofold. They sought to measure the estrogenic, anti-estrogenic,
androgenic, and anti-androgenic activities of 12 suspected or known EDCs used in
fracking, and they compared these activities in surface and ground water from
fracking and nonfracking sites.
They chose Garfield
County, Colo., which has more than 10,000 active natural gas wells, as their
primary sample location.
Water samples were collected
from ground, surface, and artisan water sources in September of 2010 from five
distinct sites with 43 to 136 natural gas wells within one mile and a spill or incident related to natural gas
drilling occurring within the previous 6 years. Surface water samples were
also collected from the Colorado River, which is the drainage basin for this
drilling-dense region.
Reference samples were collected from areas without drilling in Boone
County, Mo. and in areas with little drilling in Garfield County.
Most Chemicals
Showed Anti-Estrogenic Activity
Among the findings from the chemical analysis:
Anti-estrogenic,
anti-androgenic, and limited estrogenic activities were observed in the 12
natural gas drilling chemicals tested, while no androgenic activity was
observed. At 10 mcgM, anti-estrogenic activities ranged from 24% to 65%
suppression of 10 pM 17beta-estradiol (E2), and anti-androgenic activities
ranged from 0% to 63% suppression of 100 nM testosterone.
The chemicals
exhibited IC10s (concentrations required to suppress 10% of the maximal
activity of the positive control) ranged from 0.15-6.33 mcgM. Of note, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (IC10 = 0.60 mcgM) and
ethylene glycol (IC10 = 0.15 mcgM) exhibited the greatest potency for
anti-estrogenic activities, and ethylene
glycol (IC10 = 0.50 mcgM), n,n-dimethylformamide (IC10 = 0.50 mcgM), and cumene
(IC10 = 0.62 mcgM) exhibited the greatest potency for anti-androgenic
activities.
Estrogenic activity was observed for bisphenol A, which exhibited
supra-agonistic activity and an EC50 of 2.00 mcgM (concentration required to
exhibit half of its maximal activity).
"To our
knowledge this is the first report of anti-estrogenic activity of ethylene
glycol monobutyl ether, 2-ethylhexanol, ethylene glycol, diethanolamine, diethylene
glycol methyl ether, sodium tetraborate decahydrate,
1,2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, n,n-dimethyl formamide, cumene, and styrene;
and novel anti-androgenic activity of 2-ethylhexanol, naphthalene,
diethanolamine, sodium tetraborate decahydrate,
1,2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, and cumene," the researchers wrote.
Drilling Sites Had More EDC Activity
Among the findings from the drilling-site analysis:
Ground water at three drilling sites in Garfield County with spill
histories exhibited near maximal estrogenic activities and low to moderate
anti-androgenic activities, while both Garfield County and Missouri
reference sites with little or no drilling exhibited low levels of estrogenic
activities.
Colorado River samples exhibited activities at moderate levels, while
Missouri reference sites exhibited low estrogenic, very low anti-estrogenic,
and no anti-androgenic activities.
Estrogenic activities were observed in both ground and surface water at
drilling-dense sites and in Colorado River samples. Low estrogenic
activities were also observed in Garfield County and Missouri reference sites.
Ground water samples collected from three of the drilling-dense sites exhibited
higher estrogenic activities than both Garfield County and Missouri reference samples
(P<0.0001).
Anti-estrogenic activity was observed in
surface water at four drilling-dense sites and in Colorado River samples,
while little to no anti-estrogenic activity was observed in Garfield County or
Missouri reference sites. Ground water samples exhibited little to no
anti-estrogenic activity, with three drilling sites tending to exhibit greater
additive agonist activities than reference sites, likely due to the high levels
of estrogenic activities exhibited by these samples.
Anti-androgenic
activity was seen in ground and surface water at four drilling sites and in
Colorado River samples, while no anti-androgenic activity was observed in the
Garfield County or Missouri reference sites. Surface water samples collected
from three drilling sites displayed greater anti-androgenic activity than
Missouri reference sites (P<0.05) and surface water samples collected from
the Colorado River displayed intermediate anti-androgenic activity that did not
differ from the drilling sites but were significantly greater than the Missouri
reference sites (P<0.05).
Study
strengths included the measurement of total EDC activity, and study limitations
included the lack of direct identification of fracking chemicals in the tested
water, Nagel said.
She
added that more comprehensive sampling of the Garfield County drilling sites is
warranted to confirm that natural gas drilling operations contribute to
elevated EDC activity in ground and surface water.”
Funding for this research was provided by the
Passport Foundation Science Innovation Fund, the University of Missouri, and
the STAR fellowship Assistance Agreement awarded by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The researchers declared no competing financial
interests.
7. GASP Works For Better Pollution Controls
Jupiter Compressor Station
“In response to
comments submitted by GASP, Group Against Smog and Pollution, Pittsburgh, the
DEP aggregated the Jupiter gas
compressor station, in Green County ,
operated by EQV with a nearby well site
for air permitting purposes. DEP policy states that sources located within ¼
mile of each other are presumed to be adjacent and sources located at a greater
distance can be considered adjacent on a case-by-case basis. However, in practice, DEP has tended to ignore
any sources located beyond ¼ mile, even though EPA has clearly stated that
there should be not bright line rule about how far apart sources can be located
and still be considered adjacent.
This station is the
first example where DEP aggregated a compressor station with a nearby well site
in response to public comments.
Kriebel
Compressor Station
In a response to an appeal
filed by GASP, the Allegheny County Health Dept and Kriebel agreed to reduce
NOx emissions from the Rostraver Compressor Station by 87%
GASP appealed the permit
arguing that greater engine emission reductions were technically and
economically feasible and required as a matter of law.
Kriebel will install a more
effective engine exhaust catalyst and maximum allowable NOx emissions from the
engine will be reduced from 5.12 tons per year to .66 tons per year.
While the engines operating
tat the facility are relatively small, emissions from this type of source are
worth the attention because there are so many
small stationary engines in operations and add controls to reduce their
emission are incredibly cost effective.”
From: GASP Hotline, Fall 2013
8.
Chamber of Commerce Wants Fracking Study Locked
The chamber is the largest
business lobbying group in the US
(The study might result in better
regulation of the industry)
“(Reuters)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President
Thomas Donohue said an EPA study due next year could be used to justify clamping
down on fracking.
"This could
short-circuit America's absolute explosion in energy opportunity that is
creating millions of jobs," he told a meeting of business executives.
A major force in
U.S. politics, the Chamber of Commerce is the biggest business lobbying group
in the country and has been a steady critic of President Barack Obama.
The White House
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The EPA's study, first requested by Congress in 2010, may prove pivotal
in the government's regulation of fracking.
Currently, fracking
is largely regulated by states, rather than the federal government. In its
first major regulation on the energy boom, the EPA finalized a rule last year
that targets smog-forming pollutants from fracking wells. It allows drillers to
flare the gases until 2015.
Critics of fracking,
including many environmentalists, worry that drilling operations near schools
and homes could pollute water and air.
The United States
overtook Russia as the top producer of natural gas last year and surged past
Saudi Arabia this year as the world's biggest oil producer.”
(Reporting by Jason Lange;
Editing by Paul Simao
9. U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell Tells Industry to Inform Public That Fracking Is Safe
(We’re just confused)
“Interior Secretary
Sally Jewell delivered a proclamation that only served to highlight just how
much misguided faith the Obama administration has invested in the oil and gas
industry, and its quest to keep the American public hooked on fossil fuels.
Jewell cited what she called “confusion” in the fracking debate, implored the oil and gas industry to clear
up “misinformation,” about the process, and asserted that industry should “make
sure the public understands … why it’s safe.
And
when members of the public sent one million comments to President Obama and
the Bureau of Land Management condemning their permissive approach to fracking
on federal lands, Secretary Jewell simply ignored them and chose to offer
public relations advice to the oil and gas industry, rather than work to
protect communities and public lands that belong to all of us. Hardly a month
goes by without the release of a new study that highlights one aspect or
another of the harmful effects of fracking. Given these headlines, it’s no
wonder that despite the untold millions of dollars being spent by the oil and
gas industry to promote the process, Americans are increasingly rejecting it. A recent poll released by the Pew Research
Group finds that opposition to fracking has grown significantly across most
regions and demographic groups. Overall, 49 percent are opposed to increased
fracking, up from 38 percent six months ago, while only 44 percent support it.
Americans are turning against this practice not because they are
confused, but because the evidence of fracking’s harmful effects continues to
swell. In just the last few months, a Duke University study linked fracking
to elevated levels of methane, ethane and propane in groundwater; a study out
of University of Texas, Arlington found high levels of arsenic and other heavy
metals in samples from water wells near active natural gas wells; and last
month, a study in Environmental Science and Technology found concentrations of
radium in the Allegheny River 200 times normal levels, as a result of fracking
waste disposal.
Recent studies also
confirm that the common practice of shoving fracking waste down underground
injection wells causes earthquakes. According
to new a study in Science, deep-well injection of slippery fracking waste
primes geological faults in ways that make them reactive to distant natural
earthquakes.
Secretary Jewell is right about one thing: there is a lot of misinformation
out there. Unfortunately, it’s being spread by the oil and gas industry and has
penetrated the talking points of President Obama and top administration
officials
In the unconfused
words of Filipino environmental leader Von Hernandez, “every investment in
fossil fuels is an investment in death and destruction.”
10. Activists In Milford PA Lead Fight Compressor Station
By Charles Reynolds
“MILFORD — A group concerned about Pennsylvania becoming "just an
extraction colony" for gas companies held an informational meeting last
week.
The problem is
growing exponentially, they say. A
proposed new compressor station in Milford will be 13 times the size of the
existing facility. And in the past ten years, they say, construction of new gas
plants in the state has increased 200 percent.
About 40 people
piled into the Pike County Library in
Milford on Dec. 4 for a meeting about the Columbia Gas Pipeline's compressor
station. The meeting was informational, as well as a call for residents to file
as intervenors.
Columbia Gas is
owned by parent company NiSource. Its current compressor station up Fire Tower
Road — which is more of a metering station at the moment — at 620 hp is
inadequate for the company's needs, the gas company says. They plan on replacing it with a two engine, 9400 hp station and using
it to help transport gas from the Marcellus fields to the proposed expanded site in the Dominion
Cove Point Natural gas plant in Lusby, Md..
In pre-filing documents, the company had originally asked for a 6600 hp
upgrade.
The
group, headed by Alex Lotorto and Jolie DeFeis, has no official name yet, but is
building public awareness and — they hope — public resistance to yet more
construction that they say is “a regional explosion of midstream pipeline
construction” that would be used to “send methane gas overseas for foreign
consumption.”
“We've
become a sacrificial town for the gas industries,” DeFeis lamented.
Lotorto explained to the assembled residents that
the sole goal of the pipeline and gas companies is to “make money."
Help
from governmental bodies is not coming, the group says. Governor Corbett is
pro-gas, pro-fracking and pro-pipeline.
He
went on to say that local residents, who will be so deeply affected, will not
even see any benefits. They will see no decrease in their own energy costs.
'No logical justification'
Lotorto and DeFeis briefly talked about how
to file as an intervenor and asked all those present to get their friends and
neighbors to do so as well.
Most of the meeting was taken up by concerns about
the new facility. Lotorto and others said noise will increase significantly
because the station will run 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
And
what is called a “blowdown" — when
gas must be released during routine maintenance — comes without any announcement
beforehand, said Lotorto. He said the sound is equivalent to “ten jet
engines.”
An informational flyer the group handed out
listed possible chemical emissions from the proposed plant, such as nitrous
oxide (8.58 tons per year), carbon monoxide (3.29 tons per year), volatile
organic compounds (5.39 tons per year), sulfur oxides (three one-hundredths of
a ton per year), and formaldehyde (1.5 tons per year).
Some
in the audience do not want the compressor station built at all, saying there
is no logical justification for it. Others want the station moved to a
different location. But all agreed that if the station is going to be built, is
should be done in the "safest, most environmentally friendly way
possible.”
Milford Township Supervisor Gary Clark said his
goal was to get Columbia Gas (NiSource) in for a conditional use hearing before
work begins on the project, and insisted the company demonstrate it would be
building the station in a manner that did not harm residents. But until
that time, he said, the supervisors would not express an opinion publicly one
way or the other.
Clark
said Columbia Gas has set precedents in the past by coming to the township for
such hearings involving work on the old station. The company has also gone
through the conditional use process in other townships. The township has yet to
hear from the company in response to a letter sent last month.
The
meeting ended with DeFeis calling on everyone to get and stay involved,
especially through the use of social media. She said updates could be found on
the “Air, Soil and Water” Facebook page, as well as the soon-to-be renamed
“Stop Tennessee Gas from devastating Cummins Hill Road” page.
Anyone
can sign onto the FERC website and subscribe to all the comments and papers
filed, as well as follow the progress once construction begins, by registering
(free) and subscribing to Docket CP14-17. (At
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.)”
11. Brine Injected
Deep Underground Did Not Stay Put
“The East Poplar oil field
started up in 1952 on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana, just a few
miles north of the city of Poplar.
When oil
(or gas, jan) is produced, brine or produced water rich in salts and toxic
metals also comes out of the ground. The
oil companies injected the wastes back underground to a depth of between 800
and 1,000 feet, where it was assumed the material would stay put. It did not.
In 2004,
Bruce Smith, a geophysicist at USGS, flew a helicopter over a 100-square-mile
area on the reservation. Dangling from
his ride was a magnetic beam that could detect the presence of salty water
below ground.
"It
is kind of like a CAT scan of the Earth of very small areas as we fly
over," Smith said.
Smith found two potential plumes covering
12 square miles that seemed to be migrating closer to Poplar's water supply.
The scientists drilled 40 boreholes, tested
the water on the reservation and found it was significantly contaminated.
In 2010, they tested three public wells Poplar draws its water from and found
that all were contaminated with brine. The pollution was due to a well casing
failure of an injection well, Smith said.
Meanwhile,
farther north in North Dakota, the Bakken boom was continuing apace and the
USGS directed its efforts there. Smith
and his colleagues found at least 292,745 wetlands and 4,440 miles of streams
were within a mile of an oil or gas well. Spills of oil and produced water
were common in the state, which reported 1,129 incidents in 2012 (EnergyWire,
July 8). A snowy winter in 2011 caused several waste pits containing brine to overflow
in the spring.
These
spills are noted in official databases, but the extent of brine contamination
in the subsurface is unknown. Once a
spill happens, there is some remediation of the soils, but the movement of
brine below ground is not tracked.”
12. Big Oil Funds Attack On EPA Air Pollution Standards
DeSmogBlog By Farron Cousins
“The
EPA’s health standards on industry air pollution are under attack from two separate
fossil fuel backed lawsuits.
The EPA is currently
battling two major legal obstacles in the courts over its authority to enact
and enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act. the U.S. Supreme Court had already
ruled this was not only within the agency’s jurisdiction, but a duty that it
had to perform for the American public.
At the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit, the EPA
defended its work to limit the amount of mercury and arsenic that energy
companies are allowed to release into the air. According to the
Natural Resources Defense Council, these health standards that are under attack
from the dirty energy industry have the potential
to save as many as 45,000 lives a year.
Based on the D.C.
Circuit’s previous rulings regarding the Clean Air Act, it is likely that the
EPA will be the victor in this case.
In
2008, the D.C. Circuit castigated the EPA for failing to develop mercury
emission standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. So the industry’s attempt
to challenge the agency for actually following the Court’s orders seems
unlikely to go in the industry’s favor. The Circuit Court had also admonished
the former Bush administration for their lack of efforts to protect the public
health with their cross-state pollution rules.
And it is the same
issue of cross-state air pollution that sets the stage for the EPA’s other
judicial fight. Earlier this week, the U.S.
Supreme Court heard arguments from a team of lawyers representing the dirty
energy industry and the EPA on whether or not the agency has the authority, and
the ability, to monitor cross-state air pollution. The question at hand is
whether or not the pollution can be traced back to its original source—without
a confirmed source, there can be no liability.
The Washington Post explains the issue in the case:
The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule affects mostly the eastern
two-thirds of the country and requires
power plants in more than two dozen states to clean up nitrogen oxide and
sulfur dioxide pollution that contribute to soot and smog elsewhere.
According to the EPA, eliminating the pollution would prevent 13,000 to
34,000 premature deaths and 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks as well as decrease
emergency room visits and the number of respiratory disease episodes.
Conservative
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from this case, leaving the
Court split four to four on ideological lines. The case is predicted to go in
favor of the EPA, largely due to Alito’s absence taking away a certain vote in
favor of the industry.
Both of these cases are backed by science showing that air pollution
can be deadly, and that reducing this pollution is a no-brainer when it comes
to the health and safety of the American public. But inconvenient science has
never stood in the way of the industry’s agenda, and that has opened up an
opportunity for them to take their case all the way to Congress.
the House
Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing in which subcommittee chairman Lamar
Smith (R-TX) invited a climate change denier to cast doubt on the science of
climate change.
During the hearing, members of Congress were fed denial whoppers that
included a claim by University of Alabama professor John Christy that only 52
percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change. According to Raw
Story, there was only one witness called during the hearing who appeared to
believe that anthropogenic climate change not only existed (he pointed out that
more than 97 percent of peer-reviewed scientific research on the subject
confirmed it), but that it was a threat.
Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith has taken
in more than $550,000 from the oil and gas industries, his second largest
industry campaign contributor.
It’s
unlikely that anything will come from Rep. Smith’s circus of a hearing, but it
will solidify his position as a worthy recipient of dirty energy industry cash.
It also shows that science, in all
forms, is facing some very serious attacks in America, and the attackers all
have one thing in common—significant funding from Big Oil.”
http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/16/science-on-trial-big-oil-funds-attacks-air-pollution-standards/
13. 230 Businesses and
Politicians Call on Obama to Harness Offshore
Wind
“A massive coalition of nonprofit
organizations, businesses and General Assembly members banded together today
for a single cause—pushing the Obama Administration for offshore wind
development in the U.S.
The 230-plus-member group wrote a
letter to the president arguing that he should “redouble” support for offshore
wind projects. The group says offshore wind is in line with Obama’s Climate
Action Plan as well as his recent demand to triple federal use of renewable
energy. There are no offshore projects in the U.S., though a handful of
proposals exist.
The U.S. has
potential for its own offshore wind developments like one in the Baltic Sea off
the coast of Copenhagen, Denmark, a 230-plus-member coalition says. According
to the group, there are more than 4,000 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind
potential along U.S. coastlines. About 1,300 GW are along the Atlantic coast
alone, which is the equivalent of powering 85 million American homes and
removing more than 100 million cars from U.S. road.” by Brandon Baker
14. ALEC Official Calls Solar Users ‘Freeriders’
At The
American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) December
summit , the organization’s
anti-renewable energy resolution has been a major focus.
Backed
by fossil fuel titans like Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, ALEC has been
trying all year to roll back renewable
portfolio standards (RPS) in states across the country with little success.
In addition to figuring out how to win back
corporate sponsors following the controversial backing of Stand Your Ground gun
laws, ALEC’s December agenda
includes further discussion on its resolution, which could possibly kill net
metering and/or impose a fee on solar users like Arizona did last month.
John
Eick labeled some solar users “freeriders.”
ALEC
works for its utility member companies to make it prohibitively costly for
homeowners to put solar panels on their rooftops and feed extra electricity
then generated back into the grid—a process spurred by “net metering” laws,
which exist in most states. ALEC’s new resolution could be used to lower or
outright kill those net metering payments, or to add fixed charges to solar
customers.
John
Eick, who is temporarily running ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture
task force now that Todd Wynn jumped ship for Edison Electric Institute, accuses homeowners that feed solar energy
back into the grid of being “freeriders,” despite making their own capital
investments in rooftop solar and producing a surplus of electricity that then
supplies the entire grid:
“As it
stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the
system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect,
all the other non direct generation customers are being penalized,” he said.
Eick
dismissed the suggestion that individuals who buy and install home-based solar
panels had made such investments. “How are they going to get that electricity
from their solar panel to somebody else’s house?” he said. “They should be
paying to distribute the surplus electricity.”
ALEC’s
utility members fear the revolution that is distributed solar generation. The
effort to make rooftop solar energy more costly in Arizona has been led by ALEC
member utility Arizona Public Service, which lied to the public in attempts to hide
its funding of groups affiliated with the Koch brothers that have run ads
against incentives for rooftop solar production. APS recently rejoined ALEC
after a short year where it had distanced itself.
Ultimately, ALEC’s battle against clean
energy, and the jobs that come with it, fits into their decades-long role in
the climate change denial movement. ALEC has consistently fought to deny
the science of climate change, force teachers to misrepresent climate science
to their students, and churned out copycat state bills to block regulations of
greenhouse gases.
http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/05/alec-solar-reeriders-december-summit/
Brandon
Baker
15. Fracking Hell: Living Next to a Shale Gas Well
“Nausea,
headaches and nosebleeds, invasive chemical smells, constant drilling, slumping
property prices – welcome to Ponder, Texas, where fracking has overtaken the
town.
Veronica Kronvall can, even now, remember how
excited she felt about buying her house in 2007. What Kronvall did not imagine
at the time – even here in north Texas, the pumping heart of the oil and gas industry – was that four years later
an energy
company would drill five wells behind her home. The closest two are within
300ft of her tiny patch of garden, and their green pipes and tanks loom
over the fence. As the drilling began,
Kronvall, 52, began having nosebleeds, nausea and headaches. Her home lost
nearly a quarter of its value and some of her neighbors went into foreclosure.
"It turned a peaceful little life into a bit of
a nightmare," she says.
. More than 15 million Americans now live within a mile of an oil or gas
well, 6
million of them in Texas.
In
north Texas, where Kronvall lives, the number of new oil and gas wells
has gone up by nearly 800% since 2000. It's impossible to drive for
any length of time without seeing the signs, even after the rigs have moved on
elsewhere: the empty squares of flattened earth, the arrays of condensate
tanks, the compressor stations and pipelines, and large open pits of waste
water. Virtually no site is off limits. Energy companies have fracked wells on
church property, school grounds and in gated developments. Last November, an oil company put a well on the campus of the
University of North Texas in nearby Denton, right next to the tennis courts and
across the road from the main sports stadium and a stand of giant wind
turbines. In Texas, as in much of America, property owners do not always
own the "mineral rights" – the rights to underground resources – so
typically have limited say over how they are developed.
The
crews proceeded to flatten the earth and install a 200ft red and white drilling
tower that loomed high above their homes. Convoys of articulated lorries
rumbled down the main road. "It was terrible," Kronvall says.
"There was a lot of banging and clanging. The number of trucks was just
phenomenal, and the exhaust, the fumes in the air, it was 24/7."
She
says the activities on the other side of her fence deposited a layer of white
powder on her counter tops. The sound of the crew shouting into megaphones
invaded her bedroom. Bright lighting pierced her curtains and made it difficult
to sleep. The rumble of trucks and equipment rattled the glasses in her
cupboard, and the smell – an acrid blend of chemicals – was all-pervasive.
"My
wife was pregnant the whole time the rig was there," Wesley says. There
was the din of diesel generators belching soot, and a nauseating mix of
chemicals competing with the aroma of dinner. The noise and smells penetrated
to the next street over, where Christina Mills lives. Like the Howards and
Kronvall, Mills, 65, was attracted to Ponder because of its sleepiness, and
bought the fourth house built in the entire development when she moved to the
town in 2001. "But when that derrick was up, you would have thought you
were in Las Vegas," she says, "and I live one street over."
Two
doors down, Kronvall says, her eyes watered constantly when she was at home,
stopping only after she had been at work for an hour or two. As well as bouts
of nausea and low, throbbing headaches, there was blood when she blew her nose.
"I had nosebleeds pretty much throughout the entire process," she
says.
As
the neighbors soon discovered, both they and the developer who owned the meadow
behind Kronvall and the Howards were powerless because they did not control the
mineral rights. The local authorities had already changed the zoning
regulations to allow fracking close to their homes, and fought attempts to hold
a public meeting about the drilling. Even now, Mills is furious at the way
the council treated Remington Park: "They continued to allow them to build
and sell homes, knowing full well that they were getting ready to drill
behind us."
She
is, somewhat to her surprise, angry with the energy company, too. This is
a first for Mills. An accountant, she started her career carrying out audits in
the oilfields of Oklahoma. She considered herself a supporter of oil and gas. "In 17 years in Oklahoma, never did
I see them intrude on a heavily populated area. They made it personal
here, and that's when I had a problem… They came into the back of our neighborhood,
300ft from the back fence. That is so intrusive."
All
the neighbors could do, for the eight months it took to put the wells into
production, was watch. Eventually, the rig was dismantled and moved on,
leaving two oil wells and three waste tanks in the area just behind their
homes. Another three wells, six more waste tanks and a large open pond
were erected on the other side of the meadow. Heavy trucks still pull up almost
every day to empty the tanks beside the well pad.
Mills now
uses an inhaler after developing asthma. "I am not ever sick," she
says, "but in the past 18 months I've had pneumonia three times." She
has missed about eight weeks of work.
He goes on: "It's always
different but, sooner or later, it is always the same."
16. New Study-- U.S. Fugitive Methane Emissions Exceed EPA’s Data
Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States
Scot
M. Millera,1, Steven C. Wofsya, Anna M. Michalakb, Eric A. Kortc, Arlyn E.
Andrewsd, Sebastien C. Biraude, Edward J. Dlugokenckyd, Janusz Eluszkiewiczf,
Marc L. Fischerg, Greet Janssens-Maenhouth, Ben R. Milleri, John B. Milleri,
Stephen A. Montzkad, Thomas Nehrkornf, and Colm Sweeneyi
A new study led by
researchers from Harvard University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sheds light
on a question that continues to vex industry executives and policymakers alike:
How significant are fugitive methane
emissions from oil and gas production?
The study claims that U.S. methane emissions may be as much as 50
percent higher than estimates in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
annual Inventory – the equivalent to adding 2.3 million cars to the road.
Most significantly, the study’s authors assert that methane that is leaked or vented during oil and gas production—aka
“fugitive methane”—may be up to five times greater than current estimates. If
these results are correct and applicable to oil and gas development nationwide,
it would fundamentally alter the scale of the fugitive methane problem and
seriously undermine any climate advantage natural gas possesses over coal.
It was the oil and gas sector – the largest source of methane emissions
in the United States – where the variance was greatest, and which is the
greatest cause for concern.
What Are the
Implications of this Study? And What Are the Caveats?
If fugitive
methane emissions from oil and gas systems are indeed five times greater than
previously estimated, that would imply a leakage rate in the range of 5-15
percent of total production. Not only is this a substantial quantity of
product vanishing into the air (natural gas is primarily methane), it is also
significantly higher than most previous estimates – including from industry –
and would reduce or eliminate any
advantage natural gas has over coal from a climate standpoint. While
natural gas emits roughly half the CO2 of coal at the point of combustion,
because methane is such a powerful greenhouse gas, any fugitive methane that
escapes during the drilling, processing,
or transmission of natural gas serves to lessen that benefit.
However, it’s
important to note that much has changed since Harvard researchers took their
measurements in 2007 and 2008. The boom in natural gas development due to
hydraulic fracturing had not yet begun in earnest; there are now hundreds of
thousands of hydraulically fractured wells across the United States. How their
emissions compare to those of conventional wells is still an open question
Despite these caveats, this is nonetheless a valuable and important
study—one that sheds light on an issue that remains all too murky. The EPA Inventory uses bottom-up estimates
and engineering calculations in determining emissions levels. While this data
is still the definitive source for all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it’s far
from perfect. Any direct measurement data helps bring clarity to the confusing
world of fugitive methane emissions.” by
Michael Obeiter - December 02, 2013
http://www.wri.org/blog/new-study-raises-big-questions-us-fugitive-methane-emissions
17. World is Watching Mora County Battle Against Fracking
“It is a script
destined for a Hollywood movie: A rural,
low-income, mostly Hispanic New Mexico county passes a community rights
ordinance, bans oil and gas drilling, and is sued by rich, greedy oil and gas
barons. "We’re protecting our water," say two Mora County
commissioners. Santa Fe, New Mexico.”
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/world-is-watching-mora-county-battle-against-fracking/article_edc8353d-3c1e-5ce1-ba74-d8c12d682fab.html
18. Most Toxic Ingredients Used In Coal, Oil and Gas Production By Don Lieber
“The
production of major fossil fuels each use hundreds, if not thousands, of
chemicals—often not disclosed—many of which are highly dangerous to human
health.
Perhaps
the most important historical legacy of fossil fuels, however, will be their
collective role as the chief protagonist behind what may be the most urgent
long-term global crisis in human history: greenhouse gas–induced climate change.
It
is my hope that this list, focusing on immediate public health risks (apart from
climate change), serves as an adjunct to the myriad other reasons to end the
use of fossil fuels—all of them—completely.
The
ten “ingredients” listed in this article are not intended as an exclusive list.
The major fossil fuels (oil, coal,
gas) each use hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals—often not disclosed—many
of which are highly dangerous to human health. Attempting a comprehensive list
of all the harmful chemicals used willingly by the oil, coal and gas industries
would be far beyond the scope of this blog series.
This
article, rather, represents some of the more commonly cited toxic ingredients
in the public literature; a starting point in reviewing the overall public
health dangers inherent across the spectrum in all three major fossil fuel
extraction industries: oil, coal and natural gas.
1. Benzene
Fossil Fuel Use: Oil, Coal and Natural Gas
Benzene is a well-established carcinogen
with specific links to leukemia as well as breast and
urinary tract cancers. Exposure to
benzene reduces
red and white blood cell production in bone marrow; decreases autoimmune cell
function (T-cell and B-cells); and has been linked to sperm-head abnormalities
and generalized chromosome aberrations.
Benzene
is one of the largest-volume petrochemical solvents used in the fossil fuel
industry. It is a major component in all major fossil fuel
production: oil, coal and gas.
People
are exposed to it from inhaling automobile exhaust and gasoline fumes,
industrial burning such as oil and coal combustion, and exposure to fracking
fluids.
Studies
linking Benzene from fossil fuel combustion to cancer and other severe health
problems are increasingly reported from around the world. In Atlanta,
scientists from Emory University earlier
this year reported a “significant increase” in non-hodgkins lymphomas in
regions close to oil refineries and plants that release benzene. In Canada,
scientists reported unusually high rates of
leukemia and non-hodgkins Lymphoma among residents living “downwind” from the tar sands
fields in Alberta—corresponding with high benzene levels found in the same
locations. In Calcutta (India) researchers recently linked sudden
“spikes” in certain cancers to a corresponding rise in Benzene emissions since
2007.
The Colorado School of Public Health last year published a report which warned
that the benzene from fracking operations gives local residents higher long-term cancer risks. “Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risks”
for people living near fracking wells, said Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, lead
author of the study.
The
damage benzene inflicts on the human body, however, often takes many years to
develop—but those effects are catastrophic. As the fossil fuel industry
blankets the U.S. and Canada with recently invented, highly profitable
extraction methods such as fracking gas and tar sands oil production, long-term
consequences have not been well considered. The story of Camp Lejune is worthy
of study:
Over a period of thirty years from the 1950s to
the 1980s, troops stationed at the U.S. military base at Camp Lejune, NC,
unknowingly drank and bathed in highly contaminated water containing benzene
(and a host of other toxic chemicals, originating from leaked fuel tanks and
other commercial sources both on and off the base).
Starting
in the 1970s, unusual forms of cancers associated with long-term exposure to
benzene became rampant among the camp’s residents. Mary Freshwater was a
military wife who lived on the base for many years.
“I
was very active with the Officers’ Wives Club. We were at a party at one of my
friend’s house one night. There were five of us in different stages of
pregnancy. Every one of us lost their baby to a birth defect,” she told ABC
news in this 2012 report,
part of which I’ll repost here:
On
Nov. 30, 1977, Freshwater gave birth to a son, Russell Alexander Thorpe, but
the baby was born with an open spine. He died one month later. At the time, few
people were aware of the chemicals in the drinking water, nor the long-term
health effects of those chemicals. Doctors suggested to Freshwater that she try
to get pregnant again—and she did. Her second son, Charlie, was born without a
cranium, and died the same day. Today, Freshwater is 68 years old and has been
diagnosed with two different kinds of cancers, acute myeloid and acute
lymphoma. She says doctors told her the diagnosis was consistent with exposure
to chemicals such as benzene, which she was exposed to during her time at Camp
Lejeune.
The full story of the contaminated water at Camp
Lejune is told in the documentary, Semper Fi: Always Faithful.
The
use of benzene, like other toxins used in oil and gas, is particularly
insidious because the effects—as seen in the children of the military families
at Camp Lejune—take many years to manifest. And due to lax regulations, these
products have been rushed into use long before any long-term testing has been
possible.
“It
takes about 20 years, let’s say, for solid tumors to develop after exposure to
a chemical,” said Brian Schwartz, an environmental epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.
The
fossil fuel industry actively suppresses benzene disclosure and regulation. In
April 2001, the Koch Petroleum Group (now Flint Hills Resources—still
owned by the Koch brothers)
“pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to the government about
its benzene emissions.”
The Koch brothers reported 1/149th of
their actual benzene pollution to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission. The company was fined $10 million and ordered to fund an additional
$10 million in costs for environmental cleanup in South Texas.
2. & 3. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Fossil Fuel Sources: Oil, Coal and Gas
Sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are two primary examples of
particle-forming air pollutants (particulate matter) from coal power plants.
Particulate matter is known to contribute to
serious health problems, including lung cancer and other cardiopulmonary mortality. SO2 and NOx are both highly toxic to
human health, and contribute directly to thousands of hospitalizations, heart
attacks and deaths annually.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health, for example, labels sulfur dioxide
“extremely toxic.” At high concentrations, it can cause life-threatening
accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema); and it is linked to
respiratory ailments including chronic lung disease and asthma, as well as heart disease. It can be fatal upon
inhalation at high exposure rates.
SO2 is particularly dangerous for
children. Studies correlate SO2 emissions from petroleum refineries—even in
lower exposure levels over time —to higher rates
of childhood asthma in
children who live or attend school in proximity to those refineries. Similarly,
small particles of NOx can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases.
Inhalation of such particles is associated with emphysema and bronchitis.
The
largest sources of combined global SO2 and NOx emissions are from fossil fuel
combustion at power plants and other industrial facilities.
The American Journal of Public Health published
reports in 2009 that high levels of sulfur dioxide, associated with oil
refining, was found indoors in residential homes in Richmond, CA—a community
which straddles four major oil refineries, including the massive Chevron oil refinery.
The refinery processes up to 240,000 barrels of crude oil per day. In 2010
alone, it released some 575,669 pounds of chemicals, including SO2, into air,
water and waste facilities. It may be no surprise, then, that residents of
Richmond suffer statistically significant higher
risks of dying from heart disease and strokes and
are more likely to go to hospitals for asthma than any other nearby county
residents.
Conversely,
one study in France reported
a significant reduction in hospital visits related to SO2 exposure
during the period of a national oil-refinery strike in France—when oil
production ceased temporarily, and SO2 emissions dropped.
SO2 and NOx emissions represent a known and
significant health risk from routine oil, gas and coal production—yet these
emissions from oil and gas accidents pose additional—and unforeseen—risks.
Worse, many oil- and gas-related accidents are not reported to the public at
all—such as the 300 oil pipeline spills in
North Dakota, which, since 2010, have never been reported. Accidents, whether
reported or not, are a significant contributor to SO2 contamination and
represent a serious public health risk. More than 42,000 tons of SO2 were
released from oil and gas accidents—in Texas alone—between 2009 and 2011.
This
raises the question: just how much SO2 and NOx is emitted from fossil fuel
sources, and exposed to the public, without anyone ever knowing about it?
4. Petroleum Coke (Pet Coke)
Fossil Fuel Source: Oil (particularly tar sands bitumen)
Pet
coke is an increasingly abundant by-product of tar sands bitumen oil
processing. It is a heavy dust which resembles coal. It contains dozens of dangerous chemicals and
heavy metals, including chromium, vanadium, sulfur and selenium. Research on
its risks to public health have been scant; the little research so far is
inconclusive. As explained by Chris Weisener, a researcher at the University of Windsor: “there is not much information about
pet coke available, so its effects are not conclusively known.”
Does, in fact, pet coke represent a public health
threat?
“From the air perspective, as long as
it’s not being burned, the only concern would be fugitive dust,”
said Chris Ethridge of
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (As if “fugitive dust”—laced
with toxins—would be perfectly harmless floating freely in the air.)
In
fact, it is burned. The huge expansion of the tar sands oil
mining in Alberta has created an unprecedented abundance of
pet coke, which is now being used instead of coal in coal-powered power plants.
It has become a huge export commodity in its own right. From Jan. 2011 to Sept.
2012, the U.S. exported more than 8.6 million tons of pet coke to China, most
of which was likely burned in coal-fired power plants. (The largest pet coke
trader in the world is Oxbow Corporation, owned by William Koch—brother of
known fossil fuel industrialists David and Charles Koch.)
The
burning of pet coke not only poses significant health risks—it is also an
egregious contributor to global climate change. When burned, pet coke
emits five to 10 percent more CO2 even than coal.
But
pet coke’s dangers are hidden from the public. The industry classifies it
as a “refinery byproduct,” which allows it to be excluded from most assessments
of the climate impact of tar sands oil production—ignoring completely its
dangerous end-use effects.
As
tar sands oil production in Alberta has increased exponentially in the past
decade, its waste stream can no longer be hidden away in the remote Canadian
hinterland. Piles of pet coke this year turned up in Detroit and Chicago, ”exported”
from the tar sands production fields in Alberta, where it is now stored for
subsequent export.
Dark,
rising clouds of pet coke have sparked public protests in
Detroit and Chicago, lawsuits (the Koch brothers are
accused of illegal pet coke storage, to nobody’s surprise), health complaints and
charges of environmental racism (it’s dumped, like much industrial waste,
in low-income,
mostly non-white neighborhoods).
Nevertheless,
as an increasingly abundant by-product of the expanding tar sands oil industry,
it is becoming a “profitable” fossil fuel product in its own right, even
spawning its own industry support groups: the 13th annual Petcoke Conference is
being held in San Diego in Feb. 2014, hosted by “The Jacobs Group”—one of the
leading “pet coke service industries.”
The
industry ignores the public health dangers, the environmental hazards and the
dramatic climate implications of pet coke; it is instead presented—as seen in
the industry website snapshot below, as an exciting element of an expanding new
energy industry. In truly Orwellian language, climate-killing pet coke is
presented in attractive terms with these words: “amid accelerating change,
standing still is not an option.”
5. Formaldehyde
Fossil Fuel
Source: Natural Gas
Formaldehyde is a carcinogen with
known links to leukemia and rare nasopharyngeall cancers, according to
the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Formaldehyde is highly toxic regardless
of method of intake. It is a potent allergen and genotoxin. Studies have linked
spontaneous abortions, congenital malformations, low birth weights, infertility
and endometriosis to formaldehyde exposure. Epidemiological studies link exposure to formaldehyde to DNA alteration. It is also
contributes to ground-level ozone.
Formaldehyde is commonly used in
fracking— although, the industry does not report the
details of its use.
In
2006, the fracking industry was granted waivers from federal clean air and
water regulations (known as The Halliburton Loophole)
— since then, it has operated with few, if any, reporting requirements
regarding the chemicals it uses. (The waiver was promoted by the Bush-Cheney
White House; Cheney, of course, was the former CEO of Halliburton).
Independent studies, however, have
detected dangerous levels of formaldehyde in both wastewater and ambient air
emissions from fracking operations. One
researcher, with the Houston Advanced Research Center, said reading from one test site in north Texas, “astoundingly high,”
and, “I’ve never heard of ambient (formaldehyde) concentrations that high…
except in Brazil.”
The designation of formaldehyde as a dangerous
ingredient in fossil fuel production has been vigorously contested by both the
fossil fuel industry and by the members of the U.S. Congress who receive huge
funds from the industry.
In
2009, Koch Industries, one of the nation’s largest fossil fuel companies, lobbied against the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed declaration that
formaldehyde “should be treated as [a] known human carcinogen.” The largest
recipients of oil and gas industry contributions in the U.S. Congress,
including Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) and Sen. Vitter (R-LA), also lobbied
extensively against the designation.
Sen.
Vitter, indeed, accepts money directly from the formaldehyde industry.
According to Talking Points Memo,
his election campaign received about $20,500 in 2009 from companies that
produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. His preferences for
the people of Louisiana are clear, and they aren’t the avoidance of cancer.
6. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Fossil Fuel Sources: Oil and Coal
In actuality, this is not a single
listing—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are an entire class of toxic
chemicals, linked together by their unique chemical structure and reactive
properties. I include them on this list because they are frequently cited
collectively as a primary fossil fuel pollutant.
Many
PAHs are known human carcinogens and genetic mutagens. In addition, there are
particular prenatal health risks: prenatal exposure to PAHs is linked to
childhood asthma, low birth weight, adverse birth outcomes including heart
malformations and DNA damage.
Additionally,
recent studies link exposure to childhood behavior disorders; researchers
from Columbia University, in
a 2012 Columbia University study,
found a strong link between prenatal PAH exposure and early childhood
depression. Infants found to have elevated PAH levels in their umbilical cord
blood were 46% more likely to eventually score highly on the anxiety/depression
scale than those with low PAH levels in cord blood. The study was
published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
The
rapid development of the Alberta tar sands oil fields in Alberta, Canada, has
coincided with both the discovery of
dangerous levels of PAHs in the region and multiple reports of
significantly higher rates of cancer and other diseases in
the adjacent communities. As reported in
one local newspaper:
More women in the community are contracting
lupus. Infant asthma rates have also increased. During the summer months, it is
not uncommon to find mysterious lesions and sores after swimming in Lake
Athabasca. “When you look at what is happening in the area, it can’t not be
related to development,” says Eriel Deranger, a spokesperson for the Athabasca
Chipewyan First Nation. “Too many times, we see things in the animals and
health that the elders have never seen before.”
The BP Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 provides another
window into the previously hidden dangers of PAHs in oil production. Following
the massive spill,
scientists found PAH levels to be 40 times higher than before the spill.
Local
fisherman, normally accustomed to some of the most abundant and healthy
fisheries in the U.S., subsequently reported finding horribly mutated shrimp
with tumors on their heads, some lacking eyes and eye sockets, clawless crabs
“with shells that look like they’ve been burned off by chemicals.” An
increasing number of scientists from diverse specialties—biologists,
fish physiologists, environmental toxologists—from Louisiana State University,
North Carolina University, North Texas University and others cite PAHs from the spill as
the most likely culprit.
The effects of PAHs to wildlife in the Gulf
waters—coming to light several years after the spill—may merit attention across
the American heartland as U.S. domestic oil production increases dramatically.
Will
North Dakotans, for example, soon begin to see a sharp rise in rare cancers,
due to the hundreds of unreported PAH-infused
oil pipeline spills in that state since 2012, like their
unfortunate northern neighbors in Alberta are now experiencing near the tar
sands fields?
Is this what we mean by “energy independence?”
7. Mercury
Fossil Fuel Source: Coal
Mercury
is a dangerous neurotoxin.
It damages the brain and the nervous system either through inhalation,
ingestion or contact with the skin. It is particularly dangerous to pregnant
women and children. It is known to disrupt the development of the in-vitro
brain. In low doses, mercury may affect a child’s development,
delaying walking and talking, shortening attention span, and causing learning
disabilities. High dose prenatal and infant exposures to mercury can cause
mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. In adults, mercury poisoning can
adversely affect fertility and blood pressure regulation and can cause memory
loss, tremors, vision loss and numbness of the fingers and toes.
Coal-fired
power plants are the largest single source of airborne mercury
emissions in the U.S. The mercury emitted from such plants can travel thousands
of miles; scientists recently linked the chemical fingerprint of
mercury found in fish in deep portions of the Pacific Ocean to coal power
plants thousands of miles away in Asia.
Here
in the U.S., many of the largest coal-powered power plants are located within 50-100 miles
of some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, including Chicago,
Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St.
Louis, and Austin.
One
out of every six women of childbearing age in the U.S. have blood mercury
levels that could be harmful to a fetus, according to EPA reports.
The EPA estimates that
300,000 children are born each year at risk for significant development
disorders due to mercury exposure.
You may not hear references to mercury in the
television ads speaking about “clean coal.” But it’s in there, too.
8. Silica (Silicon Dust/Fracking Sand)
Fossil Fuel Source: Natural Gas
Crystalline
silica (“frac sand”)
is a known human carcinogen;
breathing silica dust can lead to silicosis, a form of lung disease with no
cure.
Silica
is commonly used, in huge amounts, during fracking operations. Each stage of
the process requires hundreds of thousands of pounds of silica
quartz–containing sand. Millions of pounds may be used for a single well.
The
presence of silica in fracking operations, simply put, is a major safety risk
with a high likelihood of dangerous exposure. Case in point: researchers from the National Institutes of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently collected air samples at 11 fracking
sites in five different “fracking states” (CO,
ND, PA, TX and AR) to evaluate worker exposure to
silica. Every single site had measures higher than the NIOSH
threshold for safe exposure—so high, in fact, that about one-third of the
samples collected were even above the safe threshold for wearing a safety
respirator mask. This was reported in
May 2013 in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.
The natural gas industry and its political allies
have lobbied extensively against safety regulations and chemical disclosure
laws; there are no federal or state standards for
silica in ambient air, despite the high risks involved in acquiring lung
disease. In 2006, the natural gas industry was given a waiver from the Clean
Air and Water Act, granting the industry “free reign” in using the chemicals it
needed without the strict rules of disclosure and/or regulation
which other polluting industries were beholden to. (The waiver, of course, was
an executive branch ruling—that is, approved only with the permission of the
Bush/Cheney White House.)
The industry exerts considerable influence
in state policies as well, with particular influence in the main “fracking
states”: North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Wisconsin.
The relationship between the former Governor of Pennsylvania and the gas
industry is a strong example: Gov. Corbett (R-PA), over his political career,
received more than $2 million dollars in campaign contributions from the fossil
fuel industries (oil, coal and gas). Their support, arguably,
was a crucial factor behind his 2010 election victory. In that election, the
industry favored Corbett over his opponent, Dan Onorato, by more than 10:1,
giving the Corbett campaign $1.3 million while only contributing $130,300 to
Ontorato.
Corbett,
ever the gentleman, said “thank you” to his benefactors two years later when he
pushed a law through the state legislature which restricted the rights of doctors from
discussing with their patients potential links between symptoms and chemicals
used in nearby fracking operations —adjacent to residential property, for
example. (This was at the same time that numerous studies, including this one from the National
Academy of Sciences, were reporting these very same links). This “gagging”
law by Gov. Corbett was cited by
the New England Journal of Medicine, which accused the gas industry
of “infringing on clinical practice and the patient-physician relationship” in
Pennsylvania.
The fracking industry, in fact,
is increasing its use of silica. New fracking techniques are
currently being developed (using “shorter and wider”
fracks) which will use significantly higher volumes of silica dust than ever before. The
industry, expecting a period of growth, is ignoring the high risks of lung
cancer and, instead, touting the expected rise in “frack sand stock value.”
9. Radon
Fossil Fuel Use: Natural Gas
Radon
is a colorless, odorless, tasteless radioactive gas which causes lung cancer. It is the
second largest cause of lung cancer in the U.S. after cigarette smoking. About
20,000 people per year die from lung cancer attributed to radon exposure according
to the National Cancer Institute.
Further, there is no known threshold below which radon
exposures carries no risk.
Radon
exposure can come from a variety of natural sources. However, the
newly-developed fossil fuel extraction methods collectively known as fracking (natural gas)
represents a significant new and increased source of radon exposure to millions
of citizens. Radon is released into
local groundwater and air during fracking operations. It also travels through
pipelines to the point of use—be it a power plant or a home kitchen.
The
science behind radon release and exposure is complex but explained well here by
Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk,
who warns that radon dangers from fracking “have not been addressed properly
(or at all) by the environmental impact statements published by the operators,
or by the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA.”
The
proliferation of fracking in the U.S. has raised increased concern that the
long-term public health consequences of radon exposure are being ignored in
favor of the perceived short-term economic advantage of using fracked gas. In
New York City, for example, Mayor Bloomberg has promoted the increased use of
newly fracked natural gas from the Marcellus Shale region fields in
Pennsylvania: the Spectra Pipeline,
for example, is a massive new gas pipeline which, on Nov. 1, went on-line and
is now transporting up to 800 million cubic feet of fracked gas into the center
of Manhattan every day.
The
industry (and NYC Mayor Bloomberg) touts the development of fracking as an
achievement for “clean energy” and American energy “independence.” The laws of
chemistry and biology, however, tend to ignore patriotic sound bites, and Mayor
Bloomberg is not doing New Yorkers any favors from importing newly fracked gas
from Pennsylvania: the radon levels from
wells in the Marcellus Shale are significantly higher than elsewhere in the U.S.
This fact, combined with the short
travel distance to end use in New York means that citizens throughout the most
populated city in the U.S. will now be exposed to more amounts of this highly carcinogenic gas than ever before—in
their homes, at work, in schools and yards above the highly pressurized
pipelines running throughout the not-so-invulnerable New York City underground
power grid (remember Sandy?), on the very streets of Manhattan.
“City
and state leaders have failed to think through the consequences of promoting
radon-laced natural gas, and they failed to heed clear warning signs that gas
from Pennsylvania represents a major threat to the public health of New
Yorkers,” said Albert Appleton,
former commission of the NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection and senior
fellow at the Cooper Union Institute of Sustainable Design.
Another industry expert, Marvin Resnikoff,
a PhD physicist and international radioactive waste consultant, put it more
succinctly. Using fracked gas from Marcellus, he said, will directly lead to
thousands of new cases of lung cancer in New York.
Long-term
studies from diverse science, research and public health organizations, such
as this one from
the Federal Office of Public Health, provide evidence to take these
warnings seriously. Many of these studies provide evidence that indoor
radon causes a significant number of lung cancer cases in the general
population.
Dr.
Resnikoff cited the the lack of attention, however, given to radon dangers by
the New York State Department of Conservation’s Environmental Impact Statement
on the use of Marcellus Shale fracked gas. “In the entire 1400 page statement
there is only one sentence containing the word “radon” and no consideration of
this significant public health hazard.” Read his full report here.
Such
government apathy runs contrary to the findings by the world’s leading public
health and science organizations who have published very clear warnings.
Organizations such as the World Health Organization,
the National Institutes of Health,
and the National Cancer Institute,
all articulate a definitive, well-established connection
between radon and lung cancer.
…and
yet, like the tobacco industry in years past, today’s fossil fuel industry
denies the science. Thus, a spokesperson for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a gas industry trade group,
recently disputed the findings of the world scientific community about the
dangers of radon: “Their claims are unsupported by facts and science,”
says MSC spokesman Travis Windle.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition’s website, it should be noted, makes no mention of
the bloody lungs and painful bone metastases which, eventually, occur in end-stage lung cancer resulting from radon. Instead, it refers to
the promise of “clean, job-creating American natural gas.” (Yes, the website
actually says “clean.”)
10. Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) / Hydrogen Fluoride
Fossil Fuel Source: Oil and Gas
Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is “one of the most dangerous acids known.” HF can immediately
damage lungs, leading to chronic lung disease; contact on skin penetrates to
deep tissue, including bone, where it alters cellular structure. HF can be fatal if inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed
through skin.
The
senior laboratory safety coordinator at the University of Tennessee said, “Hydrofluoric Acid is an acid like no
other. It is so potent that contact with it may not even be noticed until long
after serious damage has been done.”
Hydrofluoric Acid is a common ingredient used in
oil and gas extraction.
Numerous
studies, including recent ones conducted by both The Center for Public Integrity (CPI)
and the United Steelworkers Union (USU)
cite the oil industry’s abysmal safety record as a high risk factor for a major
HF accident; over the past decade, more than 7,600 accidental chemical releases
from refineries have been reported by the industry. In the past three years
alone, a total of 131 “minor” accidents involved HF.
One
major refinery’s experience speaks volumes about the fossil fuel industry’s
disregard for safety and public health: the BP Texas City refinery. This single
refinery has accumulated more than 600 safety violations, which, inevitably,
led to tragedy: in 2005, a series of explosions at the
refinery killed 15 people and injured hundreds more.
This
tragedy, however, was not entirely unforeseen by BP. Internal BP memos subsequently
revealed that, in the days before the explosion, refinery managers in Texas
lamented that “safety is not viewed as the #1 priority” (by company executives
in London). Indeed, the memos discussed the likelihood that the refinery “would kill someone.”
(This is the same BP which federal investigators found responsible for
numerous safety failures leading to the massive 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill.)
And it isn’t only the workers who are at risk.
Public health officials have long warned that HF accidents at
oil refineries have a high likelihood of causing “mass casualties.” within the
civilian population at large.
50
U.S. refineries use HF, many in close proximity to highly populated urban areas
such as Houston, Memphis and Philadelphia. THE CPI study estimates some 16
million people are within dangerous range of an accidental HF release—HF
travels easily in the air, at great distance.
And
there’s more: the Center for American Progress
listed HF as the nation’s second most dangerous industrial
chemical vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The fossil fuel industry is subject to little
regulatory oversight. Federal rules for
the use of HF in oil and gas refining are almost non-existent; there is no mention of the topic in the Bureau of Land Management’s recent draft rule for well
stimulation methods with HF use (including fracking).
The
oil and gas industry spends considerably on lobbying and political campaign
contributions to ensure the rules remain lax. In 2013, so far, it has spent
more than $100 million in federal lobbying, ranking third among all U.S.
industries in federal lobbying. In the past 15 years, the oil and gas industry
has spent approximately $1.4 billion in federal lobbying.
The energy exercises further influence through additional massive contributions
to the political campaigns of friendly U.S. congresspersons. It has contributed
millions of dollars to the campaigns of Sen. Inhoffe, Sen. McConnel (R-KY),
Sen. Vitter, Sen. Boehner (R-OH), Sen. Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Blunt (R-MO) and others,
all of whom have proven loyal to the industry by consistently voting against
proposed new safety and public health oversight and regulations.
The
lack of regard to the enormous risks to the public posed by HF in fossil fuel
production was summarized by a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association,
one of the largest oil industry lobby groups in
the nation, who, when asked to respond to questions about HF safety, simply
said: “We use HF acid because it’s effective.” http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/09/10-toxic-ingredients-used-in-coal-oil-gas-production/
Donations
We are very appreciative
of donations to our group.
With your help, we have handed out thousands of flyers
on the health and environmental effects of fracking, sponsored numerous public
meetings, and provided information to citizens and officials countywide. If you
would like to support our efforts:
Checks to
our group should be made out to the Thomas
Merton Center/Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group. And in the Reminder line
please write- Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group. The reason for this
is that we are one project of 12 at Thomas Merton. You can send your check to:
Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group, PO Box 1040, Latrobe, PA, 15650. Or you can give the check
or cash to Lou Pochet or Jan Milburn.
To make a contribution to our
group using a credit card, go
to www.thomasmertoncenter.org. Look for the contribute
button, then scroll down the list of organizations to direct money to. We are
listed as the Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group.
Please
be sure to write Westmoreland Marcellus
Citizens’ Group on the bottom of your check so that WMCG receives the
funding, since we are just one project of many of the Thomas Merton Center. You
can also give your donation to any member of the steering committee.
Westmoreland Marcellus Citizen’s Group—Mission Statement
WMCG
is a project of the Thomas Merton Society
To raise the public’s general awareness and
understanding of the impacts of Marcellus drilling on the natural environment,
health, and long-term economies of local communities.
Officers:
President-Jan Milburn
Treasurer and Thomas Merton Liason-Lou Pochet
Secretary-Ron Nordstrom
Facebook Coordinator-Elizabeth Nordstrom
Blogsite –April Jackman
Science Subcommittee-Dr. Cynthia Walter
To receive our news updates, please email
jan at westmcg@gmail.com
To remove your name from our list please put
“remove name from list’ in the subject line
