Marcellus waste reports muddy – News – The Times-Tribune

March 7, 2011

Marcellus waste reports muddy – News – The Times-Tribune.

Marcellus waste reports muddy

By Laura legere (Staff Writer)
Published: February 27, 2011

 

Waste reports submitted by Marcellus Shale drillers for the last six months of 2010 indicate that more of the toxic wastewater that returns from their natural gas wells is being reused or recycled, but incomplete and inconsistent reporting makes it difficult to assess real changes in the waste’s fate.

According to production reports due Feb. 15 and posted last week on the Department of Environmental Protection’s Oil and Gas Electronic Reporting website, Marcellus Shale operators directly reused 6 million barrels of the 10.6 million barrels of waste fluids produced from about 1,500 different wells between July and December.

At least an additional 978,000 barrels were taken to facilities that treat the water and return it to operators for reuse.

The amount reused or recycled is about seven times larger than the 1 million barrels of wastewater Marcellus Shale drillers said they directly reused during the 12 months between July 2009 and June, the first time the drillers’ waste reports were made publicly available on the website.

But the comparison is hazy because not all of the Marcellus Shale operators met the Feb. 15 reporting deadline or included all of their waste during the previous reporting period. Major operators, including East Resources, Southwestern Energy Production Co. and Encana Oil and Gas USA, reported no waste for the most recent six-month period.

And inconsistencies in how companies report their waste make it impossible to determine a complete picture of how its treatment has changed.

“I would take all of it with a grain of salt,” said Matt Kelso, data manager for FracTracker, an online Marcellus Shale data tool developed by the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh.

“I wouldn’t say it accurately represents anything,” he added, “but it is the only data we have.”

He emphasized that the information is self-reported by the drillers, who have some discretion in how to categorize their waste. He pointed out one oddity – that more brine was reportedly produced in the last six months of 2010 than the entire year before that – and attributed the increase to better reporting.

The first round of reports was a “disorganized mess,” he wrote in a FracTracker blog post last year. Establishing trends from such a baseline would be difficult, if not useless.

“There may be some adjustments” in how the waste is now being handled, he said, “but they will be difficult to discern because the reporting was so bad before.”

State environmental regulators say that nearly 70 percent of the wastewater produced by Marcellus Shale wells is being reused or recycled. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, puts the number higher, saying that on average 90 percent of the water that returns to the surface is recycled.

The advances were compelled in large part by a lack of deep disposal wells in Pennsylvania and state rules, adopted last August, that limit new discharges of the wastewater to streams.

Prior to the development of the new rules, wastewater was primarily treated and disposed of through industrial wastewater plants or municipal sewer authorities that could not remove total dissolved solids, or salts, from the discharge.

Even in the most recent reports, there is still an apparent lack of uniformity in how companies report their waste.

Liquid waste is categorized as either “drilling fluid waste” – fluids, generally in a mud form, created during the drilling process – “fracing fluid waste” – the salt and metals-laden waste fluid that returns for the first 30 days or so after wells are hydraulically fractured to release the gas from the shale – and “brine” – the even saltier waste that returns more gradually over the life of a well.

Most companies reported all three types of waste, but some companies, including Chesapeake Appalachia, reported only “frac fluid” while others, including Talisman Energy USA, reported only drilling fluid and brine.

Two companies, Talisman Energy and Chief Oil and Gas, both reported producing about 280,000 barrels of hydraulic fracturing wastewater during the six-month period, even though Chief had only about a quarter as many gas wells in production as Talisman during that time.

One thing the data make clear is that a lot of waste from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale wells is being shipped out of state for treatment or disposal.

During the six-month period, more than 490,000 barrels of wastewater were sent to deep disposal wells in Ohio; 30,000 barrels of drilling fluids and brine were treated by Clean Harbors of Baltimore in Maryland; 32,000 barrels of wastewater went to recycling or treatment plants in West Virginia; 2,500 barrels of drilling fluid was treated by Lorco Petroleum Services of Elizabeth, N.J.; and 36,000 tons of drill cuttings, a solid waste, were sent to landfills in Angelica, Painted Post and Waterloo, N.Y.

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/marcellus-waste-reports-muddy-1.1111329#ixzz1FvlF3cKi

Filed under Waste

Natural Gas Drilling, in the Spotlight – NYTimes.com

March 7, 2011

Natural Gas Drilling, in the Spotlight – NYTimes.com.

Filed under events

March 7, 2011

Filed under Waste, Water

Insights to Pennsylvania Marcellus Wastewater Treatment — Natural Gas — Penn State Cooperative Extension

March 7, 2011

Insights to Pennsylvania Marcellus Wastewater Treatment — Natural Gas — Penn State Cooperative Extension.

Insights to Pennsylvania Marcellus Wastewater Treatment

Posted: March 06, 2011

Penn State’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research offers insightful comments on the Marcellus wastewater issues published in the New York Times last week.

Recent articles published in the New York Times raised questions about how Pennsylvania regulates and monitors wastewater discharges associated with Marcellus Shale natural gas development. The Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR) believes that testing and monitoring of all influent waste and treated effluents from treatment facilities accepting Marcellus-derived fluids should occur routinely to ensure adequate water quality protection, and most importantly protection of human health. In addition, public water systems with surface water intakes located downstream from Marcellus fluid treatment facilities should also conduct routine monitoring to ensure that all safe drinking water standards are maintained. MCOR is conducting an independent, comprehensive analysis of the potential for flowback waters to impact the quality of water in the Commonwealth’s streams, rivers, and aquifers. This analysis will ensure that a fair and representative summary of the data can be presented in a scientific manner to the public. In the meantime, the following should be considered to put the data published by the New York Times into perspective:
~ The levels of radium-226, radium-228, gross alpha, gross beta, and benzene cited in the articles were compared to US EPA drinking water standards; however, this wastewater was not used directly for drinking water purposes, therefore this is not a representative comparison.

~ The radionuclides present in the flowback water occur naturally in the brines reservoired within the Marcellus shale and other rock formations. Radionuclides are not used as an additive in the drilling and hydraulic fracturing process.

~ The concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides in the flowback water vary geographically across Pennsylvania as a function of the initial concentrations of radioactive elements in the Marcellus Shale. In addition, concentrations in produced water depend on how much time the fluids have been in contact in the shale and the relative dilution by frac water added. The initial flowback water, that has only been in the shale for a short period of time, generally has lower radionuclide concentrations than the late-stage flowback waters that are less diluted and more like the in situ formation waters. The average and peak concentrations of radionuclides need to be measured for assessing treatment efficiency and potential for water quality impacts.

~The dedicated oil and gas wastewater treatment facilities generally use chemical precipitation treatment to remove the metals in the flowback water. This process is also effective at removing a large percentage of the radionuclides. The efficiency of radionuclide removal during this process and at municipal treatment plants needs to be further evaluated and quantified with laboratory testing.

~Significant dilution occurs at municipal treatment facilities as they generally are only permitted to accept 1% of their average daily flow as flowback water; therefore, concentrations of residual elements are diluted by at least a factor of 99 to 1 prior to discharge. The receiving stream or river then adds another significant level of dilution, dependent on stream flow.

~The ultimate concentrations of radionuclides in the Commonwealth’s waters depends on the initial concentrations in the flowback water, the treatment removal efficiency, and the level of dilution by the receiving stream. None of these factors were considered in these series of articles, however are crucial variables to consider when looking at the potential for any adverse water quality impacts.

~Ultimately, Pennsylvania’s regulators must determine acceptable treatment and disposal methods and regulate the industry in a manner that is protective of our environment, our drinking water,and most importantly our health.

For more information, contact David Yoxtheimer, EMS Extension Associate, Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research; day122@psu.edu; (814) 867-4324.

Filed under Waste, Water

Once PA Wilds, Now PA Wells | NorthCentralPA.com

March 6, 2011

Once PA Wilds, Now PA Wells | NorthCentralPA.com.

Once PA Wilds, Now PA Wells

By David Ira Kagan
in

March 3, 2011

The invasion of northcentral Pennsylvania by the Marcellus shale gas industry has opened up an entirely new state tourism promotional possibility. It’s no longer “Come see the PA Wilds.” Now it’s “Come see the PA Wells.”

Come see the thousands of gas industry water, equipment and construction trucks rolling along our two-lane roads, 24 hours a day, every day. Come and listen to their steady rumbling and roaring, their screeching “Jake” brakes.

Come see the shattered bodies of our deer, bear, opossums, raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, skunks, porcupines, and groundhogs along these same roads.

Come see our beautiful pines and oaks being transported by truck out of our forests to clear the way for the gas well pads.

Come see our bald eagles, hawks, blue herons and other birds frantically flying in circles, startled by the constant truck traffic and the drilling-related activities.

Come see the “frack water” spills and crashes involving gas industry trucks.

Come, especially in the summer, to see the dust-covered houses along our roads, caused by the many trucks wheeling through.

Come see and enjoy bouncing through our potholes and along our washboard roads, especially in the spring.
Come see the water trucks feeding from our waterways, and the pumps sucking water from the same to be transported in pipes over and under our land.
Come see the gashes across our mountaintops, hillsides and valleys, where gas and water pipes are being laid.
Come see the lurid, red glow at night of the burn-off of methane gas at the well sites. It’s our own aurora borealis show.
Come see the gas riggings gracing our land, especially on the mountaintops, our industrial-age scarecrows.

Come see our hiking and cross-country skiing trails, severed and interrupted by gas company pipe and property lines.

Come see the helicopters whirring above the treetops, dropping off equipment and supplies at the well pads, and surveying for new drilling sites.

Come see the happy landlords, renting their apartments and houses out to gas industry employees at exorbitant rates.

Come see the happy residents who have signed leases allowing the gas companies to drill on their land—their smiling faces reflecting their hope for future wealth from royalties.

Yes, the PA Wells has all this technological age excitement to offer the tourist looking for a 21st century vacation second-to-none. Visitors will certainly leave and tell others back in their hometowns to come up here. They’ll no doubt say, “It’s a real gas vacationing in northcentral PA!”

Filed under events

Critical Path Energy Summit | Aspen Science Center

March 6, 2011

Too Bad they left out those with a cautionary message to this ‘LOVEFEST’!  Totally based on false assumption that gas is the ‘cleaner’ fuel.

 

Critical Path Energy Summit | Aspen Science Center.

Critical Path Energy Summit

 

A Truly Multi-partisan Energy Summit

Convening such a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the Natural Gas arena was an innovative experiment in itself, and, hearing from all the participants included in this “odd bedfellows” gathering, made this a highly successful one.

It was immediately apparent that various groups were at odds not because of fundamental irreconcilable differences, but rather

  • Some miscommunication, because of jargon, definitions that conflated several inconsistent meanings, preconceptions, attributed motives.
  • Unfamiliarity with the other’s contexts, motives and point of view
  • Lack of outreach, education, and multilateral gatherings like the Aspen Science Center’s  “Odd bedfellows “ Best Practices Summit in DC.
  • Vulnerability to spin—because these groups don’t convene often (or ever) to discuss and jointly problem solve fundamental issues, they don’t have a common lexicon of language, understanding, or appreciation of each others goals, processes, philosophies, etc.—-so they are susceptible to red herrings, rumors, anecdotal evidence, and the point/counterpoint media format that exaggerates conflict.

Once the tables were set, each with a mulit-spectrum team tasked with SOLVING issues rather than bickering about them, the energy in the room immediately became collaborative and constructive–an alchemy that attests to individuals’ ability to rise above their group affiliation in pursuit of a higher common goal.

What follows is a brief Summary of the most actionable insights from the two days: solutions proposed by the group to what appeared to be the most critical issues and intractable problems facing the extraction of natural gas, followed by a highly detailed, table-by-table breakdown of the issues discussed.

This discussion is just the beginning; we are assured that these high-level collaborative gatherings will continue–to advance mutual understanding, common goals, inspired solutions, and the commitment to make them real in the world.

Agenda

Day 1 (May 6)

State and Federal Initiatives

8:00 to 10:00 Realizing a lower-carbon Energy Future: State-by-State
Leader: Governor Bill Ritter
State-by-State Goal: Explore critical paths to accelerate the replacement of carbon-intensive power plants
with less carbon-intensive ones through political, economic, environmental and social incentives. (Explore
recently-passed Colorado House Bill 1365 as an example)

10:00 – 12:00 Natural Gas in the Transportation sector
Leader: Boyden Gray
Transportation sector Goal: Explore critical paths to replacing current high-carbon fuel sources with low-
carbon ones—leading with mass transit buses, heavy-duty and fleet vehicles

13:00 – 15:00 Realizing a low-carbon Energy Future: Federal
Leader: Timothy Wirth
Goal: Develop well-considered, environmentally conscious, forward-thinking proposals to support and
augment the current spectrum of Federal energy policies, all designed to deliver a lower carbon energy
system.

15:00 – 17:00 Realizing a low-carbon Energy Future: EPA
Leader: Boyden Gray
Goal: Examine closely the EPA’s potential role as a major driver of this low-carbon energy transformation.
Based upon our group’s experience and expertise, develop well-considered recommendations as to how
to maximize the EPA’s potential as a force for a lower-carbon future.

DAY 2 (May 7

Elegant Solutions to Obtaining Low-Carbon Energy:
Best Practices below and above ground– creating collaborations that everyone can live (and thrive) with.

8:00-10:00 Natural Gas Production Best Practices: Subsurface
Leader: Paul Hagemeier

10:00-12:00 Natural Gas Production Best Practices: Surface
Leader: Chris Smith
Production Best Practices Goal: Develop critical paths– through best practices,
environmental/community/industry collaborations, new mechanisms and guidelines — to developing
natural gas in a collaborative intelligent, environmentally sound manner. Build in efficient compliance
mechanisms, dissemination of new technology, community education etc. to ensure continuous
improvement.

13:00-14:00 The Essential Role of Science: Where are the gaps?
Leader: Melanie Kenderdine
Goal: To take a comprehensive scientific look at the myriad components that get this resource from the
source to its optimal use (in a low-carbon, environmental context), and to highlight where additional
research is required to optimize the process.

14:00-17:00 Making It Real: Next Steps–

Prioritizing programs,goals/deliverables, metrics of success, commitment of resources,
timelines etc.
Goal: Determine which of the critical path goals/strategies that have emerged in the last 2 days have top
priority. Delineate critical paths for each, taking advantage of synergies: Outline programs, (goal, strategy,
team etc) commit resources, (human and funding) tangible results expected, measurement of success,
timeline.

Participants

Bios [Download PDF]

The Critical Path Energy Summit Out-brief

This  Executive Summary synthesizes the major insights and strategic plans that emanated out of the Summit:

During the highly successful strategic summit in Aspen, NGO, government and Industry leaders recognized that there is tremendous value in working together to fast track increased demand for natural gas in the power and transportation sectors through federal, EPA and state by state initiatives (4 TCF of increased demand offsetting 400 million tons of CO2).

It also became clear that the current social discord in the shale gas fields needs a new approach to change the frame.   Even with significant expenditures for advertising and public relations, the industry has not been successful in changing public opinion.  Only with the help of credible NGOs will a shift be possible.   Done right, new socially and environmentally acceptable production practices could actually speed up gas development at a lower cost while protecting the environment and helping the communities.

The assembled NGO, government and Industry leaders agreed that the only way to unleash the economic, social and environmental benefits of natural gas was to work much more closely together.  The Critical Path Energy Project will provide a program of projects to help enable the best environmental use for Natural Gas.  The Aspen Science Center will serve as a catalyst to help members to define and design the work program.

Execution of the work program

NGO and Energy Leaders set the vision, the strategy and agree on the work program and meet every six months to review and revise work.  Most importantly, commit resources to get things done.

Project Teams drive to the solution following an agreed-upon, optimized map of acivities that outlines what must be accomplished by whom and when.  Each team will define a set of deliverables, with a production schedule and metrics to chart success. These teams–composed of the top aides from our leadership–will leverage the enormous knowledge, experience and resources of our group to optimize, course-correct, and deliver meaningful solutions.

Objectives

Despite the clear benefits (energy, economic, and security) of natural gas, currently there is limited political will, policy, or urgency to expand its environmentally beneficial use. The Critical Path Energy Project proposes to attack this problem on two fronts to deliver on six objectives.

Realizing a secure, cleaner and lower-carbon energy future

  1. State-by-State
    Goal:     accelerate the replacement of carbon-intensive power plants with less carbon-intensive ones through political, economic, environmental and social incentives. Radically expand efficiency and renewable resources backed up by natural gas
  2. Federal
    Goal:     Develop well-considered, environmentally conscious, forward-thinking proposals to support and augment low carbon energy in the current spectrum of Federal energy policies.
  3. EPA
    Goal:     Activate well-considered recommendations and legal action to maximize the Clean Air Act as an instrument to substitute renewables and natural gas for oil and coal.
  1. Low carbon and cleaner fuels in transportation sector
     Goal: Implement policies to replacing current polluting high-carbon fuel sources with cleaner low-carbon ones—leading with mass transit buses, heavy-duty and fleet vehicles.

Achieve clean and green natural gas production

  1. Subsurface –
    Goal:     Proactively mitigate the risks of groundwater contamination from well construction, hydraulic fracturing and production of natural gas.
  1. Surface
    Goal:     Proactively mitigate the impacts of natural gas production to community, landscape, biodiversity, surface water and air.

Significant Insights from the Summit

The Current Frame

As one of our more insightful participants pointed out – the current national meta-narrative (thanks to rogue operators, actual practices and incidents, anecdotal evidence, successful Coal Industry spin and Natural Gas Industry inaction) is that natural gas:

  1. Is a secretive industry
  2. Has enormous environmental impacts
  3. Puts poisons/chemicals in the ground and water
  4. Does not play well with others (ie the affected communities and States)
  5. Avoids or co-opts any meaningful regulation
  6. Has price volatility that makes it an unreliable energy source
  7. Has huge infrastructural barriers making switching to gas cost prohibitive
  8. Cannot extract new supply without environmental devastation (ie means limited suppy)
  9. Uses up all the water in the world

The New Frame (Restoring Trust, Proving the Case for NG)

To create a social, legislative and regulatory environment that accelerates the adoption of Natural Gas and the switch to Natural Gas from coal, this “current”  frame has to be turned on its head. To do so, committed multilateral groups (like the one convened here in Aspen) must get out AHEAD of the meta-narrative, with

Local Action – Meaningful, high profile collaborative ACTIONS that NGOs, Nat Gas, politicians, regulators can note as a “sea change” in the current environment. As it was pointed out, for Nat Gas, playing “wait and see” is a disastrous choice—Big Coal is way out ahead, inflaming the current meta-narrative.

The critical goal is to establish a new level of TRUST through words and deeds with NGOs and industry standing shoulder-to-shoulder –which will enable the change in perception (and concomitant on-the-ground progress) to occur more rapidly. Collaborative good deeds and progress should be highlighted by NGOs to (get rid of the “we/them” frame.)

Examples of meaningful actions included the following:

  1. Proactively developing Best Management Practices (BMPs). Working with regulators to develop optimal regulations, paying for the hiring and training of more regulators
  2. Transparency—revealing the composition of frackwater, incident reports, etc.—be proactive! Don’t wait to be “forced to do the right thing”.  Publicize good behavior.
  3. Proactive community engagement – Nat Gas has to be a “good neighbor” Taking the lead in NG/Community partnership : National and Local environmental NGOs have to be committed partners
  • Hire a trusted local interlocutor
  • Create community development board
  • Involve all stakeholders
  • Offer immediate benefits—jobs network (combat the “switching off coal kills jobs” argument
  • Off-the-shelf Pooling/unitization templates (can be tailored to community)
  • Surface use BMPs
  • “Boom and Bust” primers
  • Involve community in BMPs, generate goodwill

Aggressive Top-Down Conversion of Coal & Oil to Gas

State-by-State

Establish criteria for choosing/converting each state (ie friendly governor, old coal plants, receptive PUCs)

  • Identify interlinked targets (PUCs industry, dispatch regulators, etc.)
  • Make compelling case for change (economic, environmental, political, societal)
  • Use non-compliance with healthy air standards to force urgency
  • Create success  by deploying the right tactics at the right time through competent people
  • Establish early wins, build on them.
  • Use successful programs as templates to accelerate change in other areas

Transportation

  • Use “prompt letter”
  • Aromatic rules for fleets
  • Narrative: National security, not climate
  • Make case (ie 280K/ton benefits)

Fed/EPA

  • Use EPA, Clean Air Act to encourage cleaner energy
  • Petition EPA to exercise rule-making authority
  • Use BETX (benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene and xyleen) non-compliance as a forcing function for aromatic free fleet vehicles in cities
  • Use the administration to influence EPA action
  • Provide unbiased bullet-proof scientific and economic analysis to support fuel switching in stationary and transportation sources
  • Sue for clarification/enforcement re CO2, etc

Education/Communication

The acts/deeds/successes must be communicated by NGOs, Nat Gas, politicians, academies in a broadband, multilateral national effort that is credible, reasoned, and compelling….and coordinated. Highlight proactive good practices like green fracking, transparency, innovative environmental solutions to create this new frame.

The benefit of multiple credible sources: People Must Trust the New Frame.  Hearing about encouraging developments/reasoned results from our highly credible “odd bedfellows” and numerous other respected groups (from all over the environmental spectrum) will open a new chapter of good faith, willingness to cooperate, and acknowledge each others contributions in the effort to transition out of the dirty coal and oil chapter of our country’s energy story. (PS We do not foresee a “Clean Coal” chapter in this book–after all, it’s a non-fiction book!-)

Earning Public Trust by On-the-Ground Actions

The license to operate is premised on the society’s acceptance that the operator will do the right thing in “exploiting the resources of the Commons”. Day 2 was all about restoring trust by ensuring enforcement that communities could believe in (as opposed to the current system, which elicits keen skepticism).  Earning community trust HAS TO BE LED BY THE NGOS!

So what can our group of NGOs, Operators, legislative leaders and academics do to drive this change? Following are some concrete tasks that would move the frame significantly:

Setting the Bar:

  1. Delineate criteria for minimum “bar level”
  • Have to be established by collaboration of Operators, NGOs, Regulatory Agencies, Community representatives.
  1. Build in flexibility
  • Acknowledge/account for regional geological differences
  • Must represent all of the stakeholders-have to engage the Operators
  • Be able to evolve criteria as technology evolves
  • Design to enhance innovation/ don’t be static/proscriptive
  • Don’t inadvertently become a hindrance to evolving best practices
  1. Build in cross-communication/sharing of meaningful data between Operators, NGOs, Regulatory Agencies, and Communities.
  1. The bar is for everyone – not just majors (who have a huge reputational incentive to perform flawlessly). “Mom and pops” must achieve the level of excellence, or lose permits or licenses.

Delivering Best Practices

Industry Enforcement-

Operators must commit to adhering to Best Practices, enact state/operator standards, should self-monitor with vigor and communicate efforts to NGOs, community

Certification for Operators

  • BMP based on industry bar
  • Includes community outreach
  • Includes environmental input
  • Includes safety training
  • Must commit to continuous education
  • Continuous technology improvement

Certification for Operator Subs

    In the eyes of the community, the operator is fully responsible for the process A-Z. Can’t blame the subs. Therefore, must establish certification/enforcement process for subs.  Use buying power to force Operators to adopt standards that help the industry in general

Regulators/Inspectors Enforcement:

Inspectors– Inspectors need to have deeper knowledge, which has to evolve with tech/new practices. Need many more inspectors

Certification for Inspectors

  • Require more rigorous certification criteria
  • Ongoing education program required
  • More transparent/meaningful data management required
  • Fund program with dedicated permit fees

Bonding/Permitting

  • Employ BMP cross-communication throughout Nat Gas Industry
  • Build into permitting process—driller has to agree to minimum bar level
  • Permitting fees should designate significant portion to pay for ongoing training/education
  • Operator has to post bond to insure performance
  • Permit requirements run with the land, responsibility can’t be traded away.

Communication/Community engagement—Rebuild trust by open, good faith  useful engagement

Operators must be “better neighbors” committing to continuous engagement with the community in a way that is proactive, transparent, jargon-free, and in good faith. NGOs have to be supportive collaborators in this effort.

  1. Green Completion—industry can and should be proactive—start the program!
      • Operator commits to green completion
      • Uses stipulated BMPs
      • Be proactive –invite community, exceed expectations, transport BMPs to other areas

 

  1. Share more information (get electronic) and push that info out into the public—it helps the cause!
      • Speak the same language: develop shared definitions
      • Create understanding (ie “abandoned” doesn’t mean abandoned, “flowback” doesn’t mean flowing back.)
  2. Disclosure- Transparency is the key to credibility: All operator  should be proactive communicating what it is in frac fluid.
      • Operators should compel vendors to reveal the composition of their frackwater as a pre-condition of getting the job
      • Subs have to reveal chemical/ material content of frac fluid as a pre-condition to getting the job
      • List chemicals/materials/portions per well, attach to well completion report
      • Communicate clearly to interested NGOs, communities
      • This would be a HUGE PR victory, and start fresh transformational thinking among NGOs and communities
  3. Use best practices EVERYWHERE—not just high-media or high population areas. Create presumption of excellence/benefit of the doubt for NG among the general public.
The Summit through Pictures
Signing SB 100
Governor Bill Ritter, who kicked off the Critical Path Energy Summit the following day by delineating all of the elements that went into his New Energy Economy Initiative (including almost 50 bills, many initiated by our own Senator Gail Schwartz, known by friends and foes alike as “the Green Machine” in the Colorado Senate), made Aspen the location for signing SB 100 (backing low-cost loans for high-efficiency investments) as part of a suite of bills designed to make the transition to the New Energy Economy smoother for consumers.

Some of the ASC team (Colleen Doyle, Jackie Francis, Kevin Ward,  Mike Simmons, George Stranahan and  Steve Pinsky )  share paparazzi time with Senator Gail Schwartz
Welcome Reception at the Little Nell

Senator Timothy E Wirth makes a point to ASC President Kevin Ward
as Gov. Bill Ritter prepares to pitch in

Filed under Industry claims

Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions-Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

March 6, 2011

Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions.

Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions
Saturday, March 05, 2011
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Reports this week of high radiation levels in Marcellus Shale waste fracking fluids and weak regulation of the industry have turned on a spigot of action by federal and state officials.

U.S. Environmental Protection Administrator Lisa Jackson visited the agency’s Region III office in Philadelphia Friday to ascertain the radiation issue will be addressed in an ongoing national study on the drinking water impacts of hydraulic fracturing, an industrial process used in shale gas development.

The EPA will seek data from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the drilling industry on radioactivity in the fracking fluid “flowback” water.

In a statement released following Ms. Jackson’s meeting, the EPA said that while the national study progresses, it “will not hesitate to take any steps under the law to protect Americans whose health may be at risk,” including enforcement actions to ensure that drinking water supplies are protected.

After a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and chemical additives are pumped deep underground under high pressure to crack the shale formation and release the gas it contains. As much as 20 percent of that fracking fluid waste returns to the surface with the gas and contains a variety of radioactive minerals from the shale.

The New York Times reported that hydraulic fracturing wastewater at 116 of 179 deep gas wells in the state contained high levels of radiation and its effect on public drinking water supplies is unknown because water suppliers are required to conduct tests of radiation only sporadically.

A number of public water suppliers, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority and Pennsylvania American Water Co. said this week that they would voluntarily test for radiation.

State Rep. Camille Bud George, D-Clearfield, announced he will introduce legislation calling for mandatory and independent radiation testing of all public water supplies that could potentially be affected by Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater discharges, and requiring the drilling and gas companies to pay for the testing.

State Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, renewed his call for a moratorium on drilling and said he will introduce legislation to toughen state Oil and Gas Act regulations on well siting around residences and streams, and impose a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas production. Gov. Tom Corbett opposes such a tax.

“A moratorium is the most reasonable approach, especially in light of recent revelations about serious threats to our drinking water supply,” Mr. Ferlo said. “This bill provides a framework for updating and improving regulations, as well as retaining the economic benefits of Marcellus Shale development.”

In a statement issued Thursday, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, one of the most mainstream of the state’s environmental organizations, called on Mr. Corbett to drop plans to open more of the state’s forests and parks to Marcellus gas drilling.

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 5, 2011 at 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11064/1129908-113.stm#ixzz1FpapQi3Z

Filed under Waste

March 5, 2011

Filed under events

Bay Daily: The Big Sellout? State Forests Now Controlled by Enron Oil & Gas and Other Drilling Companies

March 5, 2011

Bay Daily: The Big Sellout? State Forests Now Controlled by Enron Oil & Gas and Other Drilling Companies.

Filed under events

Fracking will cause ‘irreversible harm’

March 5, 2011 1 Comment

Fracking will cause ‘irreversible harm’.

Filed under events

← Older posts

Newer posts →