The Trillion-Gallon Loophole: Lax Rules for Drillers that Inject Pollutants Into the Earth – ProPublica
December 11, 2012
“Cuomo Puts the Cart Before the Horse on Fracking—Elected Officials, Leading Environmental and Health Experts Call on Cuomo to Open Health Review to the Public,” Dec. 3, 2012
December 3, 2012
With thanks to Richard Averett for posting info about Concerned Health Professionals of New York, here is my entire statement from the press conference today in Albany with Barbara LIfton, Matt Ryan, Walter Hang, and Roger Downs of the Sierra Club. I haven’t seen any media coverage yet. Sandra
Prepared Remarks, Albany Press Conference, “Cuomo Puts the Cart Before the Horse on Fracking—Elected Officials, Leading Environmental and Health Experts Call on Cuomo to Open Health Review to the Public,” Dec. 3, 2012
I am Sandra Steingraber, biologist at Ithaca College
I saw some of you last Thursday when I was here to announce the launch of Concerned Health Professionals of New York—an initiative of doctors, nurses, and environmental health researchers.
Concerned Health Professionals was launched in response to the secrecy of the ongoing health review, the exclusion of New York State’s own public health experts in the process, and Governor Cuomo’s rejection of our unified demand for a transparent, comprehensive Health Impact Assessment.
Not knowing what documents the three outside health reviewers have been asked by DOH to review, we’ve created a website: www.concernedhealthny.org where we’ve uploaded peer-reviewed studies, reports, and our testimonies and letters to serve as a repository of our many concerns about the consequences of fracking for public health.
Since then, we’ve also uploaded an eight-minute video appeal to the three panelists from three of New York’s leading public health physicians, two nurses, the founder of New York Breast Cancer Network, and myself—an environmental researcher. In this video, we speak directly to the three panelists about our most urgent concerns. These include—
- Radium in flowback fluid
- Diesel exhaust and its link to breast cancer risk
- Impaired birth outcomes of newborns born to women living near drilling and fracking operations
None of these concerns appear in the last iteration of the sGEIS. We have no idea if they are in the current one or are part of documents pieced together in secrecy by the DOH.
Okay. Can I just say that this is crazy? Scientists and doctors creating videos and websites funded out of their own pockets to get information and data to our out-of-state colleagues because our collective knowledge has been entirely ignored by our own government?
But it gets even crazier. On Thursday, we learned that draft regulations were being released. On Friday, we learned that two of the three outside reviews—in whose hands the fate of millions of New Yorkers now lie—are being paid for 25 hours of work. Twenty-five hours is three working days. You cannot even READ all the literature on fracking’s health effects in three days.
So what should be a linear, deliberative process of decision-making—
first, we investigate cumulative health impacts (how many New Yorkers will get sick and die if fracking comes to our state?), then we fold those answers into a larger EIS that examines if said impacts are acceptably mitigatable, and only then, if they are, do those results become the foundation for regulations—
what should be a linear process of decision-making is twisted into a pretzel:
The regs are out and we can comment on them.
But the EIS is not out.
And the health study, which should be its basis, isn’t even done, and it’s being carried out in total secrecy, and, oh, yeah, today’s the reported deadline for the receipt of the outside reviewers review based on unknown scoping and three days’ work.
That’s not just irrational. That’s surreal
In twenty years of serving on state and federal advisory panels and watching science get turned into policy, I have never seen a more shameful process. The scientific process behind the decision to frack or not to frack New York is befitting a Third World dictatorship, not a progressive democracy.
Here’s what needs to happen: The process by which the state of New York is evaluating health effects must be opened up to public scrutiny and input. We must have public hearings. We must define the broad spectrum of pollutants associated with fracking, document their fate in the environment, identify pathways of human exposure, and investigate long-term health consequences.
Until then, the public health community of New York will raise our voices in objection. Because science is supposed to be transparent, and the Governor’s process has been anything but transparent. Because this process feels like a series of reactions to attacks from the fracking industry, rather than a deliberative process for implementing sound public policy.
It is alarming for the administration to attempt to rush the enormous amount of work that must be done into the next 85 days. We hope—and demand—that they will step back, see the dangerous path they are on, step out of the backrooms to engage the public, and keep their promise to follow the science.
Shale Gas Development and Property Values Differences across Drinking Water Sources
November 21, 2012
RFF-DP-12-40.pdf (application/pdf Object).
Shale Gas
Development and
Property Values
Differences across Drinking
Water Sources
Lucija Muehlenbachs
Elisheba Spiller
Christopher Timmins
Danger If Ohio Watershed Conservancy District Leases Reservoirs for Fracking – damascus citizens for sustainability
November 14, 2012
The Rubin report, “Hydrogeologic Concerns Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing within the Muskingum River Watershed in Eastern Ohio with Justification & Recommendations in Support of a Drilling Moratorium within Reservoir Watersheds and Statewide Legislation Banning Hydraulic Fracturing,” is available at http://hydroquest.com/Hydrofracking/.
U.S. GAO – Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development
November 13, 2012
What GAO Found
In its October 2010 report, GAO noted that oil shale development presents the following opportunities for the United States:
- Increasing domestic oil production. Tapping the vast amounts of oil locked within U.S. oil shale formations could go a long way toward satisfying the nation’s future oil demands. Oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation are estimated to contain up to 3 trillion barrels of oil, half of which may be recoverable, which is about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.
- Socioeconomic benefits. Development of oil shale resources could lead to the creation of jobs, increases in wealth, and increases in tax and royalty payments to federal and state governments for oil produced on their lands. The extent of these benefits, however, is unknown at this time because the ultimate size of the industry is uncertain.
In addition to these opportunities and the uncertainty of not yet having an economical and environmentally viable commercial scale technology, the following challenges should also be considered:
- Impacts on water, air, and wildlife. Developing oil shale and providing power for oil shale operations and other activities will require large amounts of water and could have significant impacts on the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater resources. In addition, construction and mining activities during development can temporarily degrade air quality in local areas. There can also be long-term regional increases in air pollutants from oil shale processing and the generation of additional electricity to power oil shale development operations. Oil shale operations will also require the clearing of large surface areas of topsoil and vegetation which can affect wildlife habitat, and the withdrawal of large quantities of surface water which could also negatively impact aquatic life.
- Socioeconomic impacts. Oil shale development can bring an influx of workers, who along with their families can put additional stress on local infrastructure such as roads, housing, municipal water systems, and schools. Development from expansion of extractive industries, such as oil shale or oil and gas, has typically followed a “boom and bust” cycle, making planning for growth difficult for local governments. Moreover, traditional rural uses would be displaced by industrial uses and areas that rely on tourism and natural resources would be negatively impacted.
GAO’s 2010 report found that federal research efforts on the impacts of oil shale development did not provide sufficient data for future monitoring and that there was a greater need for collaboration among key federal stakeholders to address water resources and research issues. Specifically, Interior and DOE officials generally have not shared information on their oil shale research efforts, and there was a need for the federal agencies to improve their collaboration and develop more comprehensive baseline information related to water resources in the region. GAO made three recommendations to Interior, which the department generally concurred with and has already begun to take actions to address.
Why GAO Did This Study
Fossil fuels are important to both the global and U.S. economies, and “unconventional” oil and gas resources—resources that cannot be produced, transported, or refined using traditional techniques—are expected to play a larger role in helping the United States meet future energy needs. With rising energy prices one such resource that has received renewed domestic attention in recent years is oil shale. Oil shale is a sedimentary rock that contains solid organic material that can be converted into an oil-like product when heated. About 72 percent of this oil shale is located within the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and lies beneath federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, making the federal government a key player in its potential development. In addition, the Department of Energy (DOE), advances energy technology, including for oil shale, through its various offices, national laboratories, and arrangements with universities.
GAO’s testimony is based on its October 2010 report on the impacts of oil shale development (GAO-11-35). This testimony summarizes the opportunities and challenges of oil shale development identified in that report and the status of prior GAO recommendations that Interior take actions to better prepare for the possible future impacts of oil shale development.
For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
U.S. GAO – Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks
November 13, 2012
What GAO Found
Estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Potential Gas Committee–three organizations that estimate the size of these resources–have increased over the last 5 years, which could mean an increase in the nation’s energy portfolio. For example, in 2012, EIA estimated that the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States was 482 trillion cubic feet–an increase of 280 percent from EIA’s 2008 estimate. However, according to EIA and USGS officials, estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States are highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model structures, and assumptions used to develop them. In addition, less is known about the amount of technically recoverable shale oil than shale gas, in part because large-scale production of shale oil has been under way for only the past few years. Estimates are based on data available at a given point in time and will change as additional information becomes available. In addition, domestic shale oil and gas production has experienced substantial growth; shale oil production increased more than fivefold from 2007 to 2011, and shale gas production increased more than fourfold from 2007 to 2011.
Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects. For example, according to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments–temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals. For example, tanks storing toxic chemicals or hoses and pipes used to convey wastes to the tanks could leak, or impoundments containing wastes could overflow as a result of extensive rainfall. According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s 2011 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, spilled, leaked, or released chemicals or wastes could flow to a surface water body or infiltrate the ground, reaching and contaminating subsurface soils and aquifers. In addition, shale oil and gas development poses a risk to land resources and wildlife habitat as a result of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to develop oil and gas; using toxic chemicals; and injecting fluids underground. However, the extent of these risks is unknown. Further, the extent and severity of environmental and public health risks identified in the studies and publications GAO reviewed may vary significantly across shale basins and also within basins because of location- and process-specific factors, including the location and rate of development; geological characteristics, such as permeability, thickness, and porosity of the formations; climatic conditions; business practices; and regulatory and enforcement activities.
Why GAO Did This Study
New applications of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing–in which water, sand, and chemical additives are injected under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in underground formations–allow oil and natural gas from shale formations (known as “shale oil” and “shale gas”) to be developed. As exploration and development of shale oil and gas have increased–including in areas of the country without a history of oil and natural gas development–questions have been raised about the estimates of the size of these resources, as well as the processes used to extract them.
GAO was asked to determine what is known about the (1) size of shale oil and gas resources and the amount produced from 2007 through 2011 and (2) environmental and public health risks associated with the development of shale oil and gas. GAO reviewed estimates and data from federal and nongovernmental organizations on the size and production of shale oil and gas resources. GAO also interviewed federal and state regulatory officials, representatives from industry and environmental organizations, oil and gas operators, and researchers from academic institutions.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review. The Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Energy did not provide comments.
For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
GDACC 
