Hydrofracking Safe, Says N.Y. Health Dept. Analysis – NYTimes.com
January 3, 2013
Hydrofracking Safe, Says N.Y. Health Dept. Analysis – NYTimes.com.
The global energy challenge: Awash with carbon
28 November 2012
Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas : Nature News & Comment
January 2, 2013
Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas : Nature News & Comment.
Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas
Losses of up to 9% show need for broader data on US gas industry’s environmental impact.
02 January 2013
Natural-gas wells such as this one in Colorado are increasingly important to the US energy supply.
DAVID ZALUBOWSKI/AP PHOTO
Scientists are once again reporting alarmingly high methane emissions from an oil and gas field, underscoring questions about the environmental benefits of the boom in natural-gas production that is transforming the US energy system.
The researchers, who hold joint appointments with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado in Boulder, first sparked concern in February 2012 with a study1 suggesting that up to 4% of the methane produced at a field near Denver was escaping into the atmosphere. If methane — a potent greenhouse gas — is leaking from fields across the country at similar rates, it could be offsetting much of the climate benefit of the ongoing shift from coal- to gas-fired plants for electricity generation.
Industry officials and some scientists contested the claim, but at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, California, last month, the research team reported new Colorado data that support the earlier work, as well as preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado.
Related stories
“We were expecting to see high methane levels, but I don’t think anybody really comprehended the true magnitude of what we would see,” says Colm Sweeney, who led the aerial component of the study as head of the aircraft programme at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder.
Whether the high leakage rates claimed in Colorado and Utah are typical across the US natural-gas industry remains unclear. The NOAA data represent a “small snapshot” of a much larger picture that the broader scientific community is now assembling, says Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in Boston, Massachusetts.
The NOAA researchers collected their data in February as part of a broader analysis of air pollution in the Uinta Basin, using ground-based equipment and an aircraft to make detailed measurements of various pollutants, including methane concentrations. The researchers used atmospheric modelling to calculate the level of methane emissions required to reach those concentrations, and then compared that with industry data on gas production to obtain the percentage escaping into the atmosphere through venting and leaks.
The results build on those of the earlier Colorado study1 in the Denver–Julesburg Basin, led by NOAA scientist Gabrielle Pétron (see Nature 482, 139–140; 2012). That study relied on pollution measurements taken in 2008 on the ground and from a nearby tower, and estimated a leakage rate that was about twice as high as official figures suggested. But the team’s methodology for calculating leakage — based on chemical analysis of the pollutants — remains in dispute. Michael Levi, an energy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, published a peer-reviewed comment2 questioning the findings and presenting an alternative interpretation of the data that would align overall leakage rates with previous estimates.
Pétron and her colleagues have a defence of the Colorado study in press3, and at the AGU meeting she discussed a new study of the Denver–Julesburg Basin conducted with scientists at Picarro, a gas-analyser manufacturer based in Santa Clara, California. That study relies on carbon isotopes to differentiate between industrial emissions and methane from cows and feedlots, and the preliminary results line up with their earlier findings.
A great deal rides on getting the number right. A study4 published in April by scientists at the EDF and Princeton University in New Jersey suggests that shifting to natural gas from coal-fired generators has immediate climatic benefits as long as the cumulative leakage rate from natural-gas production is below 3.2%; the benefits accumulate over time and are even larger if the gas plants replace older coal plants. By comparison, the authors note that the latest estimates from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggest that 2.4% of total natural-gas production was lost to leakage in 2009.
To see if that number holds up, the NOAA scientists are also taking part in a comprehensive assessment of US natural-gas emissions, conducted by the University of Texas at Austin and the EDF, with various industry partners. The initiative will analyse emissions from the production, gathering, processing, long-distance transmission and local distribution of natural gas, and will gather data on the use of natural gas in the transportation sector. In addition to scouring through industry data, the scientists are collecting field measurements at facilities across the country. The researchers expect to submit the first of these studies for publication by February, and say that the others will be complete within a year.
In April, the EPA issued standards intended to reduce air pollution from hydraulic-fracturing operations — now standard within the oil and gas industry — and advocates say that more can be done, at the state and national levels, to reduce methane emissions. “There are clearly opportunities to reduce leakage,” says Hamburg.
Nature
493,
- 12
- (
03 January 2013
- )
doi
- :10.1038/493012a
References
- Pétron, G. et al. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D04304 (2012).
- Levi, M. A. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D21203 (2012).
- Pétron, G. et al. J. Geophys. Res. (in the press).
- Alvarez, R. A., Pacala, S. W. Winebrake, J. J., Chameides, W. L. & Hamburg, S. P. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6435–6440 (2012).
MarcellusGas.Org Home Page
December 31, 2012
Marcellus Shale exploration produces gas, money, controversy and happy statisticians.
The thicket of data tracking Pennsylvania’s drilling surge is compiled and stored by different federal and state agencies in various places online and on paper. A Susquehanna County-based website aims to merge it and present it in a meaningful way.
Carl Hagstrom founded MarcellusGas.Org in mid-2010 after conducting his own frustrating search for relevant information about the gas extraction boom around his Jessup Twp. home and business. Pieces of data were available across “two dozen” places online, he found, but it was “really, really tedious” to find and required a fairly high level of computer skills “and patience.”
“If I could find the information in the manner that I wanted to see it then I thought there would probably be other people that felt the same way,” he said.
He had experience with web development from his partnership in Woodweb, an industrial woodworking site that has been running for more than a decade.
MarcellusGas.Org is a subscription site that costs $20 annually for full access. A free guest membership offers a limited number of views.
The data is primarily arranged by well site. Pick the Redmond well pad in Meshoppen, for example, and you will find that seven wells have been permitted at the site, two of which produced about $11.4 million worth of gas through June 2012 – the most recent state reporting period. State Department of Environmental Protection officials have inspected the site 23 times and found two violations; the inspectors’ notes are incorporated into the report.
Select one of the producing wells on the pad, the Redmond 5H, and you will find the names of the chemical additives used to frack it, the process of injecting high-pressure fluid into the rock to release the gas.
A digital copy of the map filed with the state showing where the well was drilled and where it bores horizontally underground is available for $10. The map, plus pages of permit information on file at the regional DEP office, is available for $25.
The copied documents come from in-person visits Hagstrom or one of the other five people who work on the site make to a regional DEP office in Williamsport. In early December, the site had nearly 10,000 maps available for download.
MarcellusGas.Org graphs, maps and packages searchable databases in dozens of ways by county, company, township and state. In all, the site pulls together about 2 million separate pieces of data and adds more each week, Hagstrom said.
The team also sorts out big-picture interpretations of the data. In regular email updates, Hagstrom describes how “our statistics team” or “our development team” or “our programmers” have mined the information to estimate how long it will take for the state to issue permits for all of Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale acreage at the 2011 rate (until 2088) or the average lifetime royalty that will be paid on one acre until all available gas has been extracted from it ($25,000).
“A real challenge, and what I think we’re doing fairly well is presenting that deluge of data in a way that makes sense,” he said.
The site is designed for people who own property in Pennsylvania or are interested in researching gas-related information about a parcel, like Realtors or investors. It is ad-free and strives for objectivity.
Hagstrom said he has found that certain information is coveted.
“For every two people that are interested in the non-monetary aspects of the information,” he said, “there are eight that are interested in the money.”
Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com
HIA process and request for information
December 27, 2012
Cuomo Letter Requests DOH Review to require public participation and investigation of extensive information not included in the Revised Draft SGEIS
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Greetings:
I understand that your Department of Health (DOH) Commissioner, Dr. Nirav R. Shah, and three outside experts are conducting a “Review” of the “health impact analysis” in your Department of Environmental Conservation’s Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). I write today regarding that Review.
First, it is improper that the DOH Review is being undertaken in total secrecy without any public notice regarding the scope of the Review or any details about how it is being conducted. I request that this problem be immediately resolved by:
a) providing public notice about the intent and scope of the proposed DOH Review, how it is being conducted and other pertinent details about it;
b) requiring a 30-day minimum public comment period about the proposed DOH Review; and
c) holding at least one public hearing so that the DOH reviewers can hear testimony from interested parties.
Second, it is my understanding that the work of the three outside experts is contractually limited to a mere 25 hours. The Revised Draft SGEIS contains thousands of pages related to public health concerns. Hundreds of thousands of pages of written comments have been submitted about DEC’s failure to address public health concerns adequately. It is impossible for the reviewers to read or investigate all of this information in such a short period of time.
The DOH Review is critically important because neither a Final SGEIS nor any Revised Shale Gas Rulemaking reportedly will be adopted until it is completed. The DOH Review must be technically rigorous, comprehensive in scope as well as open and transparent. There must be no arbitrary time limit on the DOH Review, just as the SGEIS has no deadline for completion.
Given the obvious shortcomings of the current DOH Review, please re-open public comment on the Revised Draft SGEISto allow interested parties to provide input about how the DOH Review should be conducted. Such formal notification would help make sure that no Final SGEIS or Revised Shale Gas Rulemaking is adopted until after an adequate DOH Review is completed.
Until the shortcomings of the DOH Review have been fully resolved, DEC’s Shale Gas Revised Rulemaking Proceeding should be terminated. DEC’s rulemaking proposal should not have been revised before completion of the DOH Review and adoption of the Revised Draft SGEIS.
Third, the Revised Draft SGEIS received scathing criticism from hundreds of physicians, scientists, elected officials, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as more than 22,000 signatories to a coalition letter which requests that it be withdrawn and restarted to address 17 key concerns. See:http://www.toxicstargeting.com/MarcellusShale/cuomo/coalition_letter/2011
That is why limiting the DOH Review to the published Revised Draft SGEIS makes no sense. It is imperative that the reviewers also investigate all of the documented concerns. For that reason, I request that the reviewers be required to investigate all of the comments related to public health concerns in the Revised Draft SGEIS.
I specifically request that the reviewers investigate the detailed data compilation presented in Appendix A. It documents a wide spectrum of pollution incidents reported by DEC and local health authorities in Chautauqua, Cattaraugus and Allegany counties, including known drinking water contamination hazards, massive gas drilling wastewater discharges to the environment that were never remediated and still do not meet clean up standards as well as fires and explosions caused by gas and oil extraction activities across the areas of New York where those efforts have been prevalent.
Fourth, the foundation of DEC’s Revised Draft SGEIS and the Revised Shale Gas Rulemaking proceedings is that: “As a result of New York’s rigorous regulatory process, the types of problems reported to have occurred in states without such strong environmental laws and rigorous regulations haven’t happened here.”
That critical assertion is factually incorrect. In order to safeguard public health and the environment, DEC and DOH must address the thousands of gas and oil extraction hazards documented by the data I have requested the reviewers to investigate.
Fifth, in order to assess the adequacy of the DEC’s “health impact analysis,” Dr. Shah and the three outside experts must determine whether DEC has achieved these fundamental requirements:
1) identified the full spectrum of toxic air, land and water contaminants resulting from shale gas fracking as well as conventional natural gas extraction;
2) documented the environmental fate and transport mechanisms involving those pollutants;
3) documented the long-term cumulative health impacts resulting from trace-level exposures to natural gas extraction pollutants in air, surface and ground water, drinking water and soil, including health impacts involving long latency periods; and
d) safeguarded New Yorkers from shale gas extraction hazards in fulfillment of applicable law.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is imperative that New York’s existing moratorium on shale gas fracking remain in effect until all the documented public health and environmental concerns brought to DOH and DEC’s attention have been fully addressed by the SGEIS and Revised Shale Gas Rulemaking proceedings. The plan of action I am proposing can make sure that goal is achieved.
In closing, I respectfully note that a new poll by Siena College found that Upstate New Yorkers oppose DEC going forward with Marcellus Shale gas fracking by a margin of 45% to 39%. Your administration’s shale gas efforts have clearly failed to inspire public confidence.
This should come as no surprise given the immense confusion, secrecy and inadequacy of DOH and DEC’s efforts. The reported proposal to allow limited shale gas fracking in five counties of the Southern Tier would also be discriminatory.
You have sworn an oath to protect all New Yorkers from environmental hazards, not just some New Yorkers. I know you take that obligation completely seriously.
Thank you for your service. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to meet to discuss these matters.
Very truly yours,
Walter L. T. Hang
Cc: Dr. Nirav R. Shah
Richard Jackson, MD, MPH
John Adgate, Ph.D., MSPH
Lynn Goldman, MD, MS, MPH
Honorable Barbara S. Lifton (125th AD)
Honorable Matthew T. Ryan (Mayor of Binghamton, NY)
Honorable Judith Enck (EPA Region 2 Administrator)
Signatories to the Withdraw the Revised Draft SGEIS coalition letter
Members of the Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel
Appendix A: Toxics Targeting Compilation of Marcellus Shale Documents/Data
1) Coalition Letter To Governor Cuomo Requests Termination of DEC Shale Gas Rulemaking Proposal as well as a Restart of SGEIS Proceeding
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34475
2) Withdraw Revised Draft SGEIS in Order to Eliminate Unplugged and Abandoned Gas and Oil Well Hazards
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34424
3) Withdraw Revised Draft SGEIS in Order to Resolve Inadequate Public Health Assessment Concerns
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34412
4) Unplugged Gas/Oil Well Concerns Documented by DEC Division of Mineral Resources and Other NYS Authorities
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34420
5) DEC’s unplugged abandoned wells database & overview map
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34415
6) 9-26-12 Division of Mineral Resources Documented Oil and Gas Problems
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34369
7) 9/26/12 Letter to Governor Cuomo Documenting Decades of Division of Mineral Resources Enforcement Problems
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/34363
8) Seventy Six Legislators Send Bipartisan Letter to Governor Cuomo Requesting That Six Critical Concerns to Be Fully Resolved Before Shale Gas Fracking is Permitted
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/33707
9) New Coalition Letter to Governor Cuomo: Oppose a Possible Southern Tier Fracking Demonstration Project and Require Full Enforcement of Executive Order No. 41
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30995
10) USDA CE Memo
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30924
11) SEQR review requested for LPG shale gas hydraulic fracturing
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30921
12) Cuomo Request to address mortgage lending and gas leasing concerns in DEC’s SEQRA review of Marcellus Shale horizontal hydrofracturing
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30893
13) President Obama Letter regarding NEPA implications of horizontal hydrofracturing of shale to extract natural gas
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30892
14) EPA RD SGEIS Comments Letter to Cuomo
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30510
15) 1/11/12 EPA Comments on rdSGEIS
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/30502
16) 12-12-11 Senate Testimony
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/19300
17) Coalition Letter With More Than 10,400 Signatories Requesting Immediate Withdrawal of the RD SGEIS
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/18862
18) Walter Hang’s 11/17/11 Marcellus Shale Revised Draft SGEIS Testimony Binghamton, NY
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/12339
19) Letter to Governor Cuomo Regarding Ferrugia Family
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/29578
20) Ferrugia Contaminated Drinking Water Well, Jamestown, NY Video
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/MarcellusShale/videos/2011/11/03/ferrugia
21) Map of Gas Production Wells Near 2641 Donelson Road, Jamestown, NY
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/2641-D…
22) 6/1/09 Letter from Chautauqua County Department of Health
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/090601…
23) 6/30/09 Letter from SUNY Fredonia
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/090630…
24) 7/6/09 Letter from NYSDEC
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/090706…
25) 11/19/09 Letter from Chautauqua County Department of Health
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/091119…
26) CCDOH Complaints Summary for FOIL Response
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/CCDOH-…
27) Harrison 1983
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/Harris…
28) USGS Response to DEC
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/dept-o…
29) Town of Poland DEC Letter
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/Town-o…
30) Natural Gas and Oil Spills Recently Reported to DEC
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/group1…
31) Letter From Veterinarian
Link: http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/jamestown/ferrug…
32) Coalition Letter to Governor Cuomo to Withdraw RD SGEIS
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/8384
33) Cuomo Letter: Revised Draft SGEIS Gas Drilling and Wastewater Spreading
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/7088
34) Documents Regarding DEC-Approved Gas Drilling Wastewater Spreading for Dust Control, Winter De-icing and Roadbed Stabilization
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6937
35) Stringent EPA Gas Drilling Wastewater Regulatory Requirements Not Being Enforced in NYS/Please Solve This Problem in the Revised draft SGEIS
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6822
36) Letters to Commissioner Martens
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6785
37) Letter to Commissioner Martens Requesting Revision of draft SGEIS to Address Additional Concerns
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6730
38) EPA Detailed Comments on dSGEIS to DEC (Dec.2009)
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6688
39) Accepting Written Public Input Without Further Delay Regarding Revising the draft SGEIS, 6/5/11
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6687
40) BANKS, ETC, THAT WILL NOT FUND GAS-LEASED PROPERTIES
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6511
41) Gas & Oil Leases Impact on Residential Lending and Tompkins Trust Powerpoint
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6441
42) Letter to Governor Cuomo Regarding Natural Gas Leasing Impacts on Mortgage Lending
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6442
43) 4/13/11 Letter to Governor Cuomo from New York State Legislators Re: Executive Order No. 41
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/6152
44) Natural Gas Drilling Wastewater Discharged to POTWs in New York’s Finger Lakes Region
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/5824
45) Letter to Commissioner Martens
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/5729
46) EPA, State, & Other Marcellus Shale Documents
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/4458
47) 3-3-11 Letter to Governor Cuomo
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/4459
48) Cuomo Executive Order: Continuation and Expiration of Prior Executive Orders
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/2510
49) Coalition Letter to Governor Cuomo Regarding Executive Order No. 41: Requiring Further Environmental Review of High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Combined With Horizontal Drilling
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/736
50) Paterson Executive Order No. 41 Letter
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/732
51) Executive Order’s Erroneous Assertion Regarding Conventional Gas Well Fracking
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/730
52) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 41: REQUIRING FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/721
53) Coalition Cover Letter to Withdraw the draft SGEIS Before You Leave Office
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/719
54) Urgent Letter to Governor Paterson to Withdraw the draft SGEIS Before Leaving Office
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/716
55) Congressman Hinchey’s signature on the coalition letter for withdrawal of the Marcellus Shale draft SGEIS
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/684
56) DEC Memo Regarding Cuts
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/672
57) 9/23/10 Letter to Governor Paterson
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/635
58) 9/20/10 Letter to Andrew Cuomo
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/634
59) Map: Major Drinking Water Supply Watersheds and Aquifers
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/633
60) EPA hydrofracking study comments
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/623
61) New York Gubernatorial Candidate Andrew Cuomo: The Marcellus Shale could contribute to New York’s natural gas supply, but development needs to be highly sensitive to environmental concerns.
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/530
62) EPA’s 12/30/2009 letter regarding dSGEIS
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/496
63) 4/2/10 Chautauqua & Cattaraugus County Attachments
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/489
64) US Energy and Allegany County PDFs
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/473
65) Marcellus Shale News Article Compilation
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/465
66) 4/2/10 Letter to DEC Commissioner Grannis Regarding Additional Natural Gas Hazards
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/452
67) Freeville, NY 1/7/10: “WELL RIG ON FIRE WHEN HIT NATURAL GAS POCKET…
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/437
68) dSGEIS Comments
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/435
69) Documents Related to Private Water Well Reportedly Impacted by Fracking
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/412
70) Coalition Letter Requesting Governor Paterson to withdraw the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS) for Oil and Gas Mining
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/390
71) Oil & Gas Spill Profiles
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/384
72) Bixby Hill Road Documents
Link: http://toxicstargeting.com/node/377
GDACC 
