NYS Assembly Hearings on Health Effects of Hydrofracking

Assembly Public Hearing on Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques  Albany, NY May 26, 2011

Playlist: Sandra Steingrabber, PhD, distinguished scholar in Residence at Ithaca College; Adam Law, MD Endocrinology, Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy; Kevin Chatham-Stephens, MD Pediatric & Environmental Health Fellow, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine; Uni Blake, MS environmental toxicologist, Independent Oil and Gas Association of NY; Scott Cline, PhD, geologist & petroleum engineer, Independent Oil and Gas Association of NY. Note: Includes 1st three hours only. Audio improves after 1st clip (Sandra Steingrabber).

This was a combined public hearing of the NYS Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation chaired by Robert K. Sweeney and Assembly Standing Committee on Health, chaired by Richard N. Gottfried. The panel includes (left to right) Assembly Members Thomas J. Abinanti (Environment); Richard N. Gottfried (chair, Health); Robert K. Sweeney (chair, Environment); Steve Englebright (Energy); and Michelle Schimel (Environment).

DVDs of the complete hearings are available from: Public Information, 202 L.O.B, Albany, NY 12248. Refer to: “Assembly Public Hearing on Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques from Thursday, May 26” and Include a check for . A transcript of the hearing will also be available from the Assembly Public Information Office.

“NY Assembly Hearing on Fracking & Health Impacts” (05-14-11, The Marcellus Effect)- http://marcelluseffect.blogspot.com/2011/05/ny-assembly-hearing-on-fracking-health.html


1-Sandra Steingrabber- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mhDFYUQdq0 & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/1-sandra-steingrabber-5217824

2-Sandra Steingrabber responds to panel- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ZvOFSpyss & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/2-sandra-steingrabber-responds-to-panel-5217543

3-Adam Lawhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBgmeGiCXvU & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/3-adam-law-5216851

4-Adam Law responds to panelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRVeeJ7wPgg & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/4-adam-law-responds-to-panel-5216662

5-Kevin Chatham-Stephenshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN_1zZbMwVE & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/5-kevin-chatham-stephens-5215959

6-Kevin Chatham-Stephens responds to panelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYCC8BZxJU & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/6-kevin-chatham-stephens-responds-to-panel-5215816

7-Uni Blakehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KzqBDYuZ-c & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/7-uni-blake-5215662

8-IOGA Scott Klinehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZl9Dp_m-1k & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/8-scott-kline-5215468

9-IOGA Scott Kline Uni Blake respond to panelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9933iLt-k1c & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/9-ioga-scott-kline-uni-blake-respond-to-panel-5215366

10-IOGA Scott Kline Uni Blake respond to panel (con’d)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kly5pcgif1M & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/10-ioga-scott-kline-uni-blake-respond-to-panel-con-d-5214831

You can order a DVD of the hearings for $10 check from the Assembly Public Information Office   http://assembly.state.ny.us/req/

Scott Kline Testimony–Comment/Questions

The notion of an hermetically sealed layer by virtue of capillary blockage is also one that I heard made by a proponent of propane fracking in answer to my question, what about old gas wells or vertical faults near the fracking operation?

Theoretical knowlege has a place.  Without it, we’d have no progress.  But it can be wrong, and in this case the consequences are so bad, the precautionary principle needs to be operative.

In any case, Kline’s explanations did not pass muster with Richard Gottfried, chair of the Assembly Health Committee.

As I was recording the exchange, I got a sense of how difficult it must be for politicians, at least good ones, to deal with technical testimony.

Has this issue of ‘capillary blocking’ been adequately addressed in a scientific debate or exchange?

We keep talking about the risk of old gas wells and vertical faults.  The industry’s experts keep talking about how safe and sequestered it is in the shale layer.

We continue to make the point that the industry narrowly focuses on the fracking operation at depth when it makes the claim, repeated I believe by Kline, that no drinking water aquifer has been contaminated by hydro-fracking.

I know that I am not alone in being concerned with the long term consequences –long after the gas has been extracted.  The integrity of the well casing is often cited.  But when I here from Kline that the fracturing actually does extends above and below the shale layer, I am concerned.

As is Richard Gottfried, chair of the Assembly Health Committee, who responds to Kline’s assertion of capillary blockage with a question of capillary action transporting the liquid.  To which Kline responds, it all would go toward the well bore regardless, because of the pressure gradient.

That is the problem the theoretical knowledge.  There are coherent views, but we really don’t know what processes may unfold over time.

Though maybe it is not productive for activists to get involve with this sort of question over all else we need to focus on, certainly, some more expert scientific opinion countering the industry claims articulated by Kline would help those who in the legislature who support, or are leaning toward, and extended moratorium.

Some might say this is already out there, but I have no as yet read anything that directly addresses the industry/technical assertion that capillary blockage makes everything safe and contained.

It was a long exchange between Kline and the panel.  The assertion that the thermogenic methane that has contaminated water wells near drilling operations comes from shallow layers apparently is disputed by the Duke study.

Early, Sandra Steingrabber made the point that there are really only two studies –the ecent Duke study and the Ingraffea/Howarth/Santoro study.

On 5/27/11 9:13 PM, KatyaBelousBoyle@aol.com wrote:

No doubt now that Scott Cline holds a BS in geological science.  His statements about fracking are pure BS.   RHB

 
Visit the Sustainable Otsego website:
http://sustainableotsego.org/

message-footer.txt
1K   View   Download
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Reply
James Northrup to mmsteinberg, NYGCG, ROUSE, averettr
show details 1:11 PM (11 hours ago)
Melanie

The telling point is highlighted below – 


Kline goes out of his way to discuss one of the least likely vectors of pollution – the frack going out-of-zone via vertical faulting. 

It happens – and companies have paid fines for it (Encana / Garfield County). 

Plus of course, surface casing blows out – which is in effect the frack going way out of zone. 

The problems start when the well is spudded -and prior to its being cased, much less fracked. 

The open hole during drilling (with a column of drilling mud to provide hydrostatic pressure on the gas) is a vector for methane migration 

And gas that gets into the drilling mud can get into the aquifer/ ground water – before the well is cased. 

And the cased well remains a pathway, with increasing probability of contamination into groundwater as the casing corrodes. 


Which is why the original driller will sell the well before it reaches its economic life expectancy 

To avoid the P&A (plug and abandonment) liabilities of a leaking well. Of which there are thousands already in NYS. 

Basically man-made open vectors from the formation into groundwater. 

Think of old wells as equivalent to  “man-made vertical faults” 

With no money at the DEC to properly plug them.




– Show quoted text –
– Show quoted text –

Visit the Sustainable Otsego website:
http://sustainableotsego.org/

Sandra Steingraber Assembly Testimony 5/26/11

The Potential Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Testimony before the New York State Assembly Standing Committees

on Environmental Conservation and Health

May 26, 2011

Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.

Distinguished Scholar in Residence

Department of Environmental Studies

Ithaca College

Ithaca, New York  14850

ssteingraber@ithaca.edu

 

Chairman Sweeney, Chairman Gottfried, and distinguished members of the committees:

 

Thank you for convening this hearing on a topic that is of urgent concern to all New Yorkers.  Hydraulic fracturing relies on pressure, water, and high volumes of inherently toxic chemicals to shatter the bedrock beneath our feet and beneath our drinking water aquifers.  Once shattered, the bedrock releases more than just bubbles of natural gas.  The rock itself releases inherently toxic materials that have been bound together with the shale for 400 million of years.  As we, in New York, consider whether to permit or prohibit this form of energy extraction, it is essential that we understand the possible consequences to public health as a prerequisite for making that decision.  Once shale is shattered, it cannot be unshattered, nor groundwater unpoisoned.

 

Some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing—or liberated by it—are carcinogens.  Some are neurological poisons with suspected links to learning deficits in children.  Some are asthma triggers.  Some, especially the radioactive ones, are known to bioaccumulate in milk.  Others are reproductive toxicants that can contribute to pregnancy loss.  Cancer, miscarriage, learning disabilities, and asthma are not only devastating disorders, they are expensive.  They add rocks to the pockets of our health care system and cripple productivity.[1]  A recent analysis published in our nation’s preeminent public health journal, Health Affairs, estimates that we now spend $76.6 billion each year on health care for children exposed to toxic chemicals and air pollution.[2]

 

So it is right that we ask if hydraulic fracturing brings with it involuntary environmental exposures that may increase our disease burden here in New York.  I applaud you for initiating this conversation.  It feels like an historic moment.

 

My name is Sandra Steingraber.  I’m a distinguished scholar in residence at Ithaca College, and my Ph.D. is in biology from the University of Michigan.  More specifically, my training is in systems ecology, which means I’m interested in understanding how a dynamic web of direct and indirect interactions—from pollination to groundwater flow—helps shape the natural world.

 

Early on in my career as a biologist, I had a profound personal experience that led me to the work I do now, which is focused on understanding how the cumulative impacts of multiple environmental exposures to toxic chemicals create risks for human health.

 

At the age of 20, I was diagnosed with bladder cancer, a quintessential environmental cancer with well-established links to particular classes of chemicals.  Questions about my possible chemical exposures posed to me by my own diagnosing physician led me, years later, to return to my hometown in Illinois and investigate an alleged cancer cluster there.  Among other things, I discovered the presence of dry-cleaning fluid in the drinking water wells.  That was a surprise because the underlying geology of the area should not have allowed toxic contamination to happen.  But there it was.  I came to appreciate how little we really know about the unmapped, subterranean landscape below our feet, which has intimate, unseen connections to the world above ground.  It’s not just an inert lump of rock down there.

 

My investigation of the environmental links to cancer became the topic of my book Living Downstream, which was released last year as a documentary film.  I’ve also published two books on pediatric environmental health, the most recent of which is Raising Elijah: Protecting Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis.  The book’s final chapter addresses the potential health threats of hydraulic fracturing, and I’m pleased to share the results of my research with you.

 

I’ll begin by saying that a comprehensive study of the long-term, cumulative, public health impacts of fracking has not been done.  However, we do know quite a lot about the risks to human health posed by some of the chemicals used in the process or released by it.

 

 

 

Health Effects from Air Pollution

 

Because breathing is our most ecological act—we inhale a pint of atmosphere with every breath—I’ll begin with air.

 

Air pollution is an inevitable consequence of horizontal hydrofracturing.  It is not the outcome of a catastrophic accident.  It is not a hypothetical risk.  Compromised air quality is a certainty.  Because four to nine million gallons of fresh water are required to frack a single well and because wells must cover the landscape for Marcellus shale development to be profitable, fracking is a shock and awe operation.  77,000 wells are envisioned for upstate New York alone.[3]  Each well requires 1,000 truck trips.  77,000 times 1,000 equals a number with six zeroes after it.  This represents a prodigious amount of diesel exhaust.  And, of course, in addition to endless fleets of 18-wheelers, gas production requires generators, pumps, drill rigs, condensers and compressors, which also run on diesel.  At the same time, the wellheads themselves vent volatile organic chemicals—such as benzene and toluene—that are themselves highly toxic and can combine with combustion byproducts to create smog.[4]

 

This kind of air pollution is lethal.  It contains large amounts of ultrafine particles, soot, ozone, and the carcinogen benzo-a-pyrene.  In adults, these pollutants are variously linked to bladder, lung, and breast cancer, stroke, diabetes, and premature death.  In children, they are linked to premature birth, asthma, cognitive deficits, and stunted lung development.[5]

 

Again, this harm comes with economic costs.  Premature birth, which is the leading cause of disability in the United States, carries  $26 billion a year price tag. The direct and indirect costs of childhood asthma are $18 billion a year.[6]

 

What’s more, the airborne contaminants from gas drilling travel long distances, up to 200 miles.[7]  That is to say, the health costs of drilling will be borne by children living in areas where no one is benefiting financially from land leases.  Albany will be affected.  So will New York City.

 

In the gas-producing areas of Utah and Wyoming, formerly pristine air now contains more ozone than downtown Los Angeles.[8]  As the mother of a child with a history of asthma, this concerns me deeply.  New York is not Wyoming.  Our starting point here is not pristine, and our population density is much greater.  The cumulative impact of the air pollution that would be generated by hydraulic fracturing and the air pollution already here in our state is a question that, I submit, requires investigation before any permits are issued.

 

Health Effects from Water Pollution

 

We are each of us in this room 65 percent water by weight.  As such, we enjoy an exquisite communion not only with the atmosphere but with the water cycle, too.

 

Fracking turns millions of gallons of fresh water into poisonous flowback fluid that requires permanent disposal.  The technology does not exist to turn this waste into drinkable water nor remove the radioactive isotopes.  You cannot filter radioactivity.  This much we know with certainty.  The unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan illustrates the point.

 

We also know that there are many documented cases of surface and ground water contamination with compounds associated with gas extraction, including the carcinogen benzene.[9]  However, because hydraulic fracturing has been granted the environmental equivalent of diplomatic immunity—and enjoys special exemptions from both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act—it is difficult for those of us in the research community to quantify the public health consequences.  Researchers lack knowledge about the behavior of groundwater, and, because of trade secrets, they also don’t know what chemicals to test for.[10]

 

We do know, from a study released earlier this month, that drinking water wells near gas extraction sites in Pennsylvania and New York have, on average, 17 times higher methane levels than wells located farther away.[11]

 

Other than possible explosions, what are the health consequences of drinking and inhaling methane?   For pregnant women?  For children?  For anybody?  We don’t know.  Those studies have never been done.  The federal government does not regulate methane in drinking water.

 

We do know that disinfection byproducts are created when water containing carbon-based contaminants is chlorinated.  These include trihalomethanes, such as chloroform, which are, in fact, linked to both bladder and colon and cancers.[12]  Can methane serve as a raw material for the creation of carcinogenic compounds during the disinfection of public drinking water?  To my knowledge, we in the scientific community don’t have an answer to that question.

 

I have brought with me a jar of water from my kitchen tap in the village of Trumansburg, which comes from a municipal well sunk into a groundwater aquifer next to Cayuga Lake, where fracking fluid from Pennsylvania has been dumped.  Every day, I pour this water into glasses and hand them to my children.  Every day, this water becomes their blood plasma.  It becomes their tears.  It becomes their cerebral spinal fluid.  According to the most recent annual Drinking Water Quality Report for my village, this water contains 29.2 parts per billion trihalomethanes.  That’s not in violation of regulatory limits, but it’s worrisome as there is no documented safe threshold level of exposure.  This water also contains nitrates, probably as the result of agricultural run-off.  Their presence in this jar is, all by itself, not a call for alarm.  But it is a sign that our municipal water, which draws from an unconfined aquifer, is vulnerable to chemical contamination.  It shows that there exist hidden connections between the surface of the earth and the watery vaults of groundwater deep beneath our feet.

 

What would happen to this water if the fields that surround my village—many of which are already leased to gas industry—become a staging ground for fossil fuel extraction?

 

This is not a hydrological experiment that I am interested in running.

 

 

 

Impact on Food

 

I have also brought with me a loaf of bread and a bag of flour.  Both are made from organic heirloom wheat and rye that is grown in my home county and milled right in my village.  You can find similar loaves of artisanal bread—made from this same flour—in Brooklyn bakeries.  This particular loaf was created by Stefan Senders of the Wide Awake Bakery in Mecklenburg, New York.  Baker Senders asked me to submit this loaf as his personal testimony to the Assembly today.  And it comes with a message:

 

“Please tell the committees that bread is mostly water.  The flour and the yeast are just a matrix to make water stand up. I can’t bake bread without a source of clean water.”

 

He also told me that the farmers who grew the organic wheat to make his flour are surrounded by leased land.  He believes whole farm-to-table enterprise is threatened by fracking.

 

Baker Stefan and his suppliers have reason to feel concern.  Organic farmers who raise food near fracking operations are facing potential boycotts and will lose their certification if their crops and animals are chemically contaminated.

 

Upstate New York was recently identified by the New York Times as a national hotspot for organic agriculture, which itself is the most rapidly expanding sector of the food production system that has continued to grow even during the economic downturn.[13]  Cows, wheat fields, vineyards, maple syrup, and apple orchards:  they are all part of a healthy human food chain.  They all require clean water, and they are all affected badly by exposure to air pollution.

 

Of course, public health is also served by employment opportunities in the form of non-toxic jobs.  The above-mentioned mill and bakery are currently hiring.  They both have plans to grow their businesses as demand for locally produced, organic bread is rising.  The grain farmers, too, are seeking additional land.  However, as baker Stefan Senders informs me, concern about the area gas leases and the possible end of the current state moratorium on horizontal drilling have negatively affected plans for locally expanding organic wheat agriculture and artisanal bread baking.  This raises a question:  is the human health of New York best served by jobs that involve organic bread production or fossil fuel extraction?

 

Conclusions

 

I fervently hope that these hearings are the beginning, not the end, of an essential conversation.  In its current incarnation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement—on which the future of hydraulic fracturing hangs—considers neither human health consequences nor the cumulative impacts of the numerous hazards that gas drilling has brought to our doors.

 

The human health impacts of fracking cannot be understood by looking at one chemical exposure by itself, one river at a time, one well pad in isolation.  We all know that it is not just the last straw that breaks the backs of camels.   I urge the Assembly to look at the all straws, employing the new tools of cumulative impacts assessment to do so.[14]  Until that work is complete, benefit of the doubt goes to New York’s children, water, cows, and wheat fields, not to things that threaten them.

 

 

 

 


[1] President’s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, 2008-2009 Annual Report (National Cancer Institute, May 2010)

 

[2] L. Trasande and Y. Lui, “Reducing the Staggering Costs of Environmental Disease in Children, Estimated at $76.6 Billion in 2008,” Health Affairs 30 (5): 863-70, 5 May 2011.

 

[3] This estimate is based on assumptions about how much of the shale will be tapped over what period of time.  77,000 wells assumes that 17 New York State counties are drilled and that the shale is 70 percent developed over 50 years at a density of eight wells per square mile.  T. Engelder, “Marcellus 2008 Report Card on the Breakout Year for Gas Production in the Appalachian Basin,” Forth Worth Basin Oil and Gas Magazine, Aug. 2009, pp. 18-22, and Anthony Ingraffea, Ph.D., personal communication.

[4] C.D. Volz et al., “Potential Shale Gas Extraction Air Pollution Impacts,” FracTracker—Marcellus Shale Data Tracking, Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, 24 Aug. 2010.

[5] American Lung Association, “Health Effects of Ozone and Particle Pollution,” State of the Air, 2011; President’s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, 2008-2009 Annual Report (National Cancer Institute, May 2010).

[6] American Lung Association, Asthma and Children Fact Sheet, Feb. 2010; J.M. Perrin et al., “The Increase of Childhood Chronic Conditions in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association 297 (2007); U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2006 and “Premature Birth,” 2010.

[7] S. Kemball-Cook et al., “Ozone Impacts of Natural Gas Development in the Haynseville Shale,” Environmental Science and Technology 15 (2010): 9357-63.

 

[8] M. Bernard, “Air Pollution Becoming a Basin Concern,” Vernal Express, 5 Oct. 2010; D.M. Kargbo et al., “Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities,” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (2010): 5679-84.

[9] A. Lustgarten and ProPublica, “Drill for Gas, Pollute the Water,” Scientific American, 17 Nov. 2008.

[10] For example, U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry, Evaluation of Contaminants in Private Residential Well Water, Pavillion, Wyoming, Fremont County, August 2010.

 

[11] S.G. Osborne et al., “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 2011, epub before print.

[12] R.D. Morris et al., “Chlorination, Chlorination By-products and Cancer: A Meta-analysis,” American Journal of Public Health 82 (1992); H.W. Weinberg et al., “Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study (Athens, GA: EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, 2002).

 

[13] H. Fairfield, “The Hot Spots for Organic Food,” New York Times, 3 May 2009.

[14] “Cumulative impacts” refers to the combined effect of numerous adverse impacts on public health or ecosystems from environmental hazards.  The Science and Environmental Health Network has launched a new website that describes the latest science on cumulative impacts assessment:  www.cumulativeimpacts.org.

__._,_.___

In-the-Shadow-of-the-Marcellus-Boom: How Shale Gas Extraction Puts Vulnerable Pennsylvanians at Risk. May, 2011

In-the-Shadow-of-the-Marcellus-Boom  Full Report

In the Shadow of the Marcellus Boom How Shale Gas Extraction Puts Vulnerable Pennsylvanians at Risk
May 2011
Written by:
Travis Madsen and Jordan Schneider, Frontier Group
Erika Staaf, PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, May 5, 2011
Contact: Erika Staaf, PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center
New report: Shale Gas Extraction Poses Risk to Vulnerable Populations in
Pennsylvania
Report uncovers local schools, hospitals, and daycares located near gas
extraction
Pittsburgh, PA – Pennsylvania’s vulnerable populations are often situated
near Marcellus Shale gas extraction, which has had a track record of
pollution, accidents and violations, according to a new PennEnvironment
Research and Policy Center report, In the Shadow of the Marcellus Boom: How
Shale Gas Extraction Puts Vulnerable Pennsylvanians at Risk.
The study shows that permitted well sites exist within two miles of more
than 320 day care facilities, 67 schools and nine hospitals statewide.
“Just weeks after a gas well blowout in Bradford County spilled thousands of
gallons of chemical-laced flowback water and forced seven local families to
be evacuated from their homes, our report shows that our most vulnerable
populations across the state could be at risk to a similarly dangerous
scenario,” said Erika Staaf, clean water advocate for PennEnvironment
Research and Policy Center. “Whether it’s air or water pollution, accidents
or explosions, we’ve seen that the effects of Marcellus Shale gas extraction
don’t necessarily end at the drilling pad’s borders. We cannot put our most
vulnerable populations at risk of these problems any longer.”
Children are likely more vulnerable to the impacts of gas extraction because
they are still developing. The sick and diseased, meanwhile, are more
susceptible to health effects from pollution exposure.
“I’m like any other American parent who wants the best for their children.
From the basics of water, food, healthcare, and a home, to the joys we had
in our own childhood – ice cold lemonade after a hot day of, climbing trees,
playing hide and seek in the woods and building space ships to explore outer
space,” said Michelle Boyle, a nurse at Allegheny General Hospital and a
parent of two daughters. “For my own children I now worry if the woods that
our children are playing hide and seek in will suddenly erupt in an
explosion, like in Independence Township in Washington County, or like in
Canton, Bradford County, where seven families had to be evacuated.”
From Pittsburgh to Scranton, gas companies have drilled more than 3,000
wells in the Marcellus Shale and the state has issued permits for thousands
more. During 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) issued permits to gas companies to drill or deepen nearly 3,450
additional wells. With the industry projecting on the order of 50,000 new
wells over the next two decades, gas extraction activity is likely to move
into even greater proximity to more vulnerable populations across the
region.

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate.

Unconventional gas drilling is emerging as one of the most controversial energy & environmental issues in the United States and around the world today.

Advancements in extraction technologies, particularly horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), have enabled drillers to reach previously inaccessible gas in geological formations underlying several areas of the U.S.

Increasing public awareness of the threats posed by America’s dependence on foreign oil and dirty coal to public health and the global climate have led many – including some environmental organizations and progressive politicians – to embrace gas as a “bridge fuel” to help America kick its dirty energy addiction.

54 page report at: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf

But recent revelations about the dangers that unconventional gas drilling poses to drinking water supplies, public health and the global climate are raising important questions about how “clean” this gas really is.

Scientists studying the impacts of unconventional gas drilling warn that gas is likely to have a greater influence on water, air and climate than previously understood. Major scientific bodies have cautioned against a national commitment to gas as a bridge fuel, citing the need for further research into the potential consequences of continued reliance on this fossil fuel.

A growing number of land owners, former gas industry executives and elected officials are also challenging the notion that gas is as clean as its proponents argue, and questioning whether unconventional gas drilling can be done without threatening drinking water supplies, air quality and the global climate.

Yet the gas industry continues to benefit from lax oversight and several exemptions from existing public health protections, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and parts of the Clean Water Act that apply to other fossil fuel extraction industries. Recent attempts by federal agencies and lawmakers to improve oversight of gas operations have been met with strong resistance from the gas industry and its alliance of front groups and defenders in the media.

The gas industry’s influence in Washington has grown tremendously thanks, in large part, to the rapid consolidation of the gas industry into the hands of the largest oil companies in the past few years. Not long ago, the industry was made up primarily of what its proponents call “mom and pop” companies—small operators that drilled chiefly for conventional gas.

But with recoverable deposits of that relatively ‘easy’ conventional gas dwindling in the Lower 48, larger drillers have turned their focus to the more difficult and expensive unconventional gas plays.

Oil giants such as BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron now dominate the gas industry. The industry’s chief front group, Energy In Depth (EID), goes to great lengths to maintain the “mom and pop” image of the industry, claiming it represents small and independent gas producers.

However, its own documents prove that its early funding – and ongoing financial support – comes from many of the largest oil and gas interests.

EID and other gas lobby groups argue that federal oversight and increased scrutiny and accountability measures would harm the industry’s development and risk jobs. But big oil companies have made that same “economy-killing” argument for decades – a strategy they learned from tobacco companies and the chemical industry – while amassing record profits and enjoying spectacular growth.

Through intensive lobbying, campaign contributions and other forms of influence, these oil and gas companies have successfully thwarted efforts to hold the gas industry accountable for its impacts on health and the environment.

Now the same companies that brought us the Exxon Valdez spill, the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron’s destruction of the Amazonian rainforest in Ecuador and countless other pollution examples, want the public to blindly trust them – with zero federal oversight – as they pursue drilling for much riskier unconventional gas throughout the country.

The question is, given the oil industry’s track record of environmental and health disasters, can the public trust them to get it right with the more challenging unconventional gas?

This report is designed to shed light on the rapidly changing composition of the gas industry and to raise important questions about whether the rush to exploit unconventional gas may be coming at too high a cost to the environment.

While coal and oil certainly pose their own significant challenges to health and climate, it is important to recognize that unconventional gas is also a dirty fossil fuel and does not belong in any credible definition of “clean energy.”

Given the extensive uncertainties surrounding the impacts potentially connected to the unconventional gas industry’s current drilling practices, it is only prudent at this point to insist on a pause for further evaluation. In fact, as a direct result of the recent Chesapeake gas well blowout in Pennsylvania that spilled drilling chemicals onto nearby properties and waterways, a former gas company executive called for a moratorium on all fracking operations near waterways in Arkansas’s Fayetteville shale region, stating that:

“There is no reason on Earth, if they are going to close it down there, they shouldn’t close it down here.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the unconventional gas boom is happening too fast, too recklessly and with insufficient concern for the potential cumulative impacts on our most critical resources – clean air, safe drinking water and a stable climate.

DeSmogBlog joins those who are calling for a nationwide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other troublesome practices in the unconventional gas industry. Until independent scientists and experts conduct further studies, the public simply cannot trust the fossil fuel industry to continue with this dirty energy boom.

See:  http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf  for the full 54 page report

Protecting our Children – Sandra Steingraber May 13-Vestal

A FREE TALK BY DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER    Poster   Poster 2/page

Author whose book has been featured as an HBO movie “Living Downstream”

The audio for this event is here:
http://changetheframe.com/audio/sandra_steingraber_vestal_may13-2011/steingraber-audio.mp3

Friday, May 13, 2011 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:30 pm)

Clayton Ave Elementary School, 209 Clayton Ave, Vestal, NY

Dr. Sandra Steingraber is a mother, biologist, ecologist and cancer survivor who has won the Rachel Carson award for her writing about the connection between our health and the environment.  She looks at the toxic, ecologically fractured world our children now inhabit and invites all parents and those concerned to attend this event and learn about the increasing toxic load we all have to carry.  Toxins have been implicated in such problems as childhood cancers, asthma, autism, allergies, reproductive problems and autoimmune problems.  Dr. Steingraber will be available for a book signing of her new book, “Raising Elijah,” following the talk. 

*Sponsored by Binghamton Regional Sustainability Coalition

“Steingraber’s book is a deeply thoughtful, at times frightening, but ultimately hopeful book that describes in compelling and lyrical detail the two great, intertwined ecological crises of our time – the crisis of toxic chemical exposure and the crisis of global warming.  She argues that mastery of these crises will require heroic action, societal action on a scale as great as that which ended slavery in the United States, and is essential to save our planet and our children.”

-Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., MSc, Director, Children’s Environmental Health Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

“This could be the most important and inspiring parenting book ever written.  With fierce love and hard science, Sandra Steingraber convinces us that protecting children from the poisons that surround them cannot be left to conscientious mothers and fathers alone.  It must instead become our society’s highes collective priority.”

          Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine


Some Seekers of Rural Life Move Out of Pennsylvania as Gas Rigs Move In | Reuters

Some Seekers of Rural Life Move Out of Pennsylvania as Gas Rigs Move In | Reuters.

By Elizabeth McGowan at SolveClimate

Tue May 3, 2011 10:30am EDT

The Aubrees were the lone holdouts against a developer’s plan to tap gas in their small town. Now, living in the shadow of drilling rigs, they’re leaving

Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News

Editor’s Note: SolveClimate News reporter Elizabeth McGowan traveled to Northeastern Pennsylvania in late March to find out how the gas drilling boom is affecting the landscape and the people who call it home. This is the fourth in a multi-part series. (Read parts one , two and three)

MONTROSE, Pa.—After three consecutive nights of tossing and turning, Anna Aubree was so desperate for sleep that she packed a pillow, a blanket and Jasmine the family golden retriever into her car early one March morning.

The 60-something retiree drove seven miles to the relative peace and quiet of the local high school parking lot just to try to refresh her exhausted self by catching a few winks.

All she sought was a brief respite from the constant barrage of pounding, banging, booming and grinding that penetrates the walls of the little yellow one-story house she shares with her husband, Maurice.

“This is my humble abode. But the truth is, I want out,” she told SolveClimate News in her thick Brooklyn accent while seated at a dining room table covered with stacks of research documents. “We’re surrounded. This noise is horrible. And it never stops. It’s all night long.”

Anna and Maurice AubreeThe Aubrees bought their 3.75-acre wedge of paradise off a dirt road in rural Pennsylvania in 1988, settling there permanently from Long Island four years later. They planted passels of Colorado spruces along its borders and sketched out plans for a retirement refuge that included a horse farm for their three sons and yet-to-arrive grandchildren.

Two decades ago, hardly anybody thought about their prefabricated house in the tiny Susquehanna County community of Forest Lake resting atop what geologists refer to as the “sweet spot” of Marcellus Shale. It’s considered the drilling nirvana of Northeastern Pennsylvania because the band of black sedimentary rock — remnants of an ancient sea bed now buried deep underground — is consistently 400 feet thick and saturated with treasured natural gas.

Holdouts in a Doughnut Hole

A year ago in May, on Mother’s Day, the Aubrees discovered that all of their farming neighbors had opted to take advantage of lucrative leasing offers from the Pittsburgh offices of Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation.Rig behind the Aubrees’ property

The Aubrees, situated on a comparative sliver of land, were the lone holdouts.

Even though they didn’t sign a lease, they soon started to find out what it means to live in the midst of an energy boom. Last summer, Cabot began orchestrating a series of seismic tests involving helicopters, dynamite and “thumper trucks” that help companies determine where to situate their wells and accompanying infrastructure.

By October, Cabot orchestrated a heavy-duty equipment movement to clear the land just a stone’s throw from the Aubrees’ property line. Soon, a lengthy roadway led to a staging area designed to accommodate a spacious pad for a series of wells.

As autumn turned to winter, the company continued setting up a jarring and complex network of drilling architecture. Come February, Anna and Maurice were treated to the ominous view of 142-foot metal drilling rig when they peeked out their back windows. Now, one well is about complete and at least seven more are in the preparation stages.

“It’s eerie looking,” Anna said about the looming, lighted behemoth that resembles some sort of set-up from a NASA rocket launch. It’s especially otherworldly at night. “We couldn’t even open a window during the summer because all of that machinery was so loud.”

She spent the summer, fall and winter calling agency after agency, hoping to find somebody who could offer relief from the cacophony. But she couldn’t even find evidence of a municipal or county noise ordinance.

“Cabot told us that we’re in a doughnut hole,” Anna explained. “And all everybody else tells us is to take the money and sign the lease we were offered. But we’ve made it clear to Cabot that we’re not interested in a lease.”

Not Everybody Is a Petroleum Engineer

Upon hearing about the Aubrees’ plight from SolveClimate News, Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the natural gas advocacy group Energy in Depth, extended his sympathies from his Washington, D.C., office. He admitted that gas companies should be rethinking the way they reach out to the general public.

“Folks don’t know their stuff about Marcellus Shale drilling and quite frankly why do we expect them to?” Tucker asked in an interview. “It’s our job to educate them. They’re not petroleum engineers.”

No doubt, drilling for natural gas creates construction and industrial sites that are loud, dirty and inconvenient, he stressed, even though companies are constantly seeking to mitigate those drawbacks.

“For years, the industry has focused its communication efforts on engaging financial analysts, regulators and landowners with gas on their property,” he said. But this issue of Marcellus Shale drilling “has garnered so much attention that our audience needs to be expanded to include the general public. It makes sense to do that. A lot of producers are starting to do that.”

Gas companies’ greatest assets, he concluded, are informed landowners.

“We’re going to be there for at least 40 years,” he said. “Why do we want to start off on the wrong foot by trying to take advantage of people?”

Long, Loud Time Coming

While the Aubrees’ house might not be in the shadow of a drilling rig forever, harvesting gas from the Marcellus Shale isn’t a quick in-and-out venture either.

Drilling road and infrastructure next to the Aubrees’ houseIt can take up to eight months to create a functioning well, according to information Energy in Depth provided via a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article.

Each stage is labor intensive and reliant on high-volume internal combustion engines. Crews are often working 24/7 because so much of the drilling equipment is so expensive to rent.

Site construction, which includes clearing and leveling acreage for the well site, the well pad, the accompanying roadway in and out, and short-term quarters for workers takes a minimum of two months.

Each vertical well, which can be 4,000 to 10,000 feet deep, takes at least two weeks to drill. Many pads can accommodate up to 10 wells. Horizontal drilling, which can extend about a mile but is about 3,000 feet on average, adds another two weeks per well to the timeline. Trucks use the newly carved roadway to haul away the “cuttings” — the soil, rock and other pieces of earth dislodged by drilling — to landfills.

The actual hydraulic fracturing of a well takes three or four days, but preparation can take up to two weeks because it’s such a technically precise operation. The water, sand and chemicals used in the fracturing process then have to be extracted from the well before companies can begin to harvest natural gas. Expelling what’s known as “flowback” lasts at least a week.

Those last two stages require millions of gallons of freshwater to be trucked in and “flowback” to be carted away when it can no longer be recycled for fracking. Plus, machinery is needed to install the underground pipelines to deliver the natural gas to its destination.

Once a well is “delivering” natural gas — and most are expected to do so for anywhere from five years to 30 years, or beyond — the site left behind can appear quite tame and unobtrusive to passersby.

Indeed, the roadways to the drilling pad are permanent fixtures. And, sets of meters and brine tanks poking up through the ground are the only other intruders visible for the long-term. Wells are monitored electronically from afar and well tenders also make regular rounds to physically check on them.

Drilling Sites Forever Changed

Cabot’s Pittsburgh offices hired George Stark as the company’s director of external affairs more than a year ago when tension over hydraulic fracturing began peaking. In Pennsylvania, his company opted to lease land for drilling solely in Susquehanna County because of its abundant natural gas supply in the Marcellus Shale and access to an existing transcontinental pipeline.

Cabot gas drilling site near Montrose, Pa.He wasn’t familiar with the particulars of the Aubrees’ situation but he is aware many county residents assume the somewhat foreboding drilling rigs are fixtures that will mar landscapes forever.

Cabot, he said, prides itself on partnering with a nonprofit sportsmen’s group, the Quality Deer Management Association, to rehabilitate acreage that was cleared and flattened to make way for drilling. The company doesn’t restore the original topography but it does put preserved topsoil back in place. As well, Cabot is collaborating with a local seed company to hasten the reclamation process and minimize erosion.

“Of course, the land will never be the same,” Stark explained to SolveClimate News as he pointed to a completed and functioning well site off a rural Pennsylvania road near Montrose. “But we’re not abandoning the site and letting whatever would grow there take over. What we don’t have is an attitude that we’re going to do whatever we want. We restore the site in a respectful manner.”

“This notion of a moonscape is wrong,” he continued. “I don’t think what people are left with in the long term can be called scarring. I think we leave the land much better afterward than most extractive industries.”

Executing an Exit Plan

Tucker’s sympathies and Stark’s restoration assurances, however, are of little consolation to Anna and Maurice Aubree. Their sense of security and serenity has dissipated into the ether.

“I see ourselves as the silent sufferers here,” Anna said. “Who can speak for me? Where can my voice be heard?”

Though she has tried to drown out the drone of diesel generators and 18-wheeler engines with Doris Day tapes rented from the library, sleep in any room of her house comes in fits and starts. That lack of rest exacerbates her challenges with asthma and a sore back.

“I moved up here to maintain my health,” said Anna, who cared for hospitalized veterans on Long Island. “But we’re stuck. You don’t know how we’re praying.”

At the end of January, the two opted to put their house on the market. Ironically, the “For Sale” sign that vibrates in the spring breeze is planted in their front yard just a short walk from a message painted on slate and propped on their front porch that cheerily declares: “A Day in the Country is Worth a Month in Town.”

The thought of uprooting themselves and packing up all of their worldly belongings at this juncture in their lives makes them heartsick.

Even though they don’t blame their neighbors for benefiting from the natural bounty beneath their own land, neither of them can envision continuing to endure a situation where they feel constantly on edge.

“When you’re getting older, it’s extremely stressful and it’s hard all around,” said Maurice, 75, a retired driver for the local school district who admits to “sneaking in a few cries about it.”

“If you don’t laugh, you cry,” he added. “So you better learn how to laugh.”

Their sons, two live in New York and the third in Florida, are helping them sort out their next destination.

“We don’t know where we’re going,” said Anna while giving her pet dog a loving pat on the head. “But you know what? We’re going.”

See Also:  Tiny Pennsylvania Land Trust Is Tempted by Marcellus Shale Gas Riches Fracking’s Environmental Footprint to Transform Pennsylvania Landscape Number-Crunching the Footprint of a Gas Fracking Boom, Forest by Forest MIT Web Tools Help Small Landowners Navigate Gas Leasing Frenzy

Coming Clean–Western Org. of Resource Councils 04_20_11

Coming_Clean–W e s t e r n  O r g a n i z a t i o n   o f  R e s o u r c e   C o u n c i l s   4/20/11

WORC’s principles for measuring the effectiveness of policies for disclosure
of fracking fluids and other chemicals used in oil and gas production. *Coming
Clean *discusses disclosure as an important first step but only a first step
to controlling pollution of our air, land and water and threats to public.

WORC   www.worc.org is a regional network of seven grassroots community organizations that include 10,000 members and 45 local chapters. WORC helps its member groups succeed by providing training and coordinating issue work.

Our Member Organizations are:

WORC’s mission is to advance the vision of a democratic, sustainable, and just society through community action. WORC is committed to building sustainable environmental and economic communities that balance economic growth with the health of people and stewardship of their land, water, and air resources.

110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Suite 306, Washington, DC 20002
(202) 547-7040 FAX (202) 543-0978 E-mail: dc@worc.org http://www.worc.org April 2011


Coming Clean What We Should Know About Oil and Gas Chemicals
Concerns about the effects of oil and gas exploration and production on public health, air, water
and land are increasing with the spread of new drilling technology and development in new areas around
the country. Expanded production and potential impacts have increased the need for full and effective
regulation of all aspects of exploration and production.
Full disclosure of chemicals used in oil and gas development is an important first step towards
protection of our water, air and land, and it has become a widespread demand of people and groups
affected by oil and gas development. Although it is not a substitute for the effective regulation of well
drilling, completions and other aspects of the production process, full public access to information about
the chemicals used during the exploration and development is a step forward over current secrecy. With
full public access to this information, air and water can be tested for contaminants, health conditions can
be diagnosed and treated, and the effects of the chemicals used can be better understood. It’s time for the
oil and gas industry to come clean.
Policies requiring disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and other stages of oil and
gas development can be a significant first step towards effective protection from oil and gas pollution if
they are comprehensive and carefully written. Coming Clean sets out nine criteria that people and groups
affected by oil and gas development can use to evaluate existing and proposed disclosure policies.
Many states require oil and gas operators to keep records or submit reports of some type, but most
of these requirements are focused on waste injection wells, and not exploration and production wells.
Just two states – Arkansas and Wyoming – have mandated reporting of hydraulic fracturing
constituents and disclose these reports to the public. Although these state requirements are an important
step forward, both contain significant loopholes that allow companies to continue to keep important
information secret. Similarly, voluntary disclosure programs, while laudable, are no substitute for
mandatory disclosure.
As local, state, regional and federal governments consider new disclosure policies, these
loopholes must be closed to provide the public – especially people who live in the oil and gas fields –
with the information they need to protect their property, and the health and well-being of their families
and communities.


1. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers must be reported to provide a unique identifier for each
chemical constituent used in a well, as well as the volume and chemical concentration.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require CAS numbers to be reported for chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing.


2. All chemical constituents used during the entire life cycle of oil and gas exploration and
development must
be disclosed — drilling chemicals as well as those used in hydraulic fracturing
and any other methods of well stimulation.
Disclosure of the constituents of hydraulic fracturing has been the subject of most public attention, for
good reasons, but all chemicals used in exploration, drilling and production are of as much concern as
those used in hydraulic fracturing. Several states require recordkeeping and/or reporting of drilling
chemicals, including Colorado, Maryland and Pennsylvania, although this information is not
disclosed to the public in these states.

3. Any protections for proprietary information must be carefully defined, with a clear decision
making process and standard of proof, and must provide for the release of the adverse health
effects of each chemical that is kept secret, release of proprietary information in the event of a
medical necessity, and regular review and appeal of proprietary designations.
Wyoming offers fairly broad protections for proprietary information that have allowed at least nine
companies to keep at least 107 hydraulic fracturing constituents secret from the public. The Arkansas
rules incorporate the trade secret protections in the federal Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, which meets the criteria listed above.
4. Information must be disclosed to the public.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming release reports of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing to the public,
although publication of these reports is not required by statute or rules. Public disclosure should be
required by statue or rule, so that it cannot be rescinded without a legislative change, or at least a
formal rulemaking process.
5. Local landowners must be directly notified of chemical use in advance, with sufficient time before
drilling or stimulation to conduct baseline tests.
Wyoming requires operators to file plans for well stimulation in advance of hydraulic fracturing, and
this information is made available to the public online. Although no state currently requires advance
notice to landowners of chemical use, many states and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management have
statutes or policies requiring notification of landowners before entry and/or surface disturbing
activities. This notification should be expanded to include notification of chemical constituents to be
used.
6. A timely final report must be made after drilling or stimulation, with chemical constituents actually
used, pressures, fracture lengths and heights, the type, source and quantity of fluid used, and the
quantity of fluid recovered.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require reports after hydraulic fracturing with chemical constituents
used. In Wyoming, pressures used and fluids recovered are required in the completion reports.
The quantity and source of fluids used in well completions is a concern in many areas, particularly
where water supplies are limited and there are multiple uses. Arkansas requires disclosure of the type
and volume of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Wyoming requires detailed information as to the base
stimulation fluid source. New York requires oil and gas operators to submit annual statements showing
the volumes of fluids injected and produced.
7. Reports must be filed on a well-by-well basis.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require most or all reports on a well-by-well basis.
8. In order to be effective and to earn the confidence of the public, a disclosure program must be
overseen by a regulatory agency with the expertise, resources and authority to monitor and enforce
disclosure requirements, recognize the public health consequences of the chemicals used, and take
action to protect public health and the environment.
Hydraulic fracturing disclosure programs in both Arkansas and Wyoming are overseen by Oil and
Gas Conservation Commissions, which have the primary task of ensuring efficient oil and gas
production. Although some oil and gas commissions are also tasked with protecting public health and
the environment but, as a general rule, expertise on the public health effects of chemicals is more
likely to reside within health departments. And, all of these agencies have limited manpower.
9. Penalties for failure to comply with disclosure requirements should be sufficient to encourage
compliance.

Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Apr. 10, 2011

Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.



Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post

By Luis Fabregas, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Complete coverage

About the writer

Luis Fabregas is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer and can be reached at 412-320-7998 or via e-mail.

Ways to get us

.

A University of Pittsburgh researcher who is a vocal critic of Marcellus shale drilling said Saturday he is leaving his post because the university won’t allow him to speak publicly about environmental issues, not because of online criticism of his work.

Conrad “Dan” Volz, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, said he was not fired or under pressure to resign, but finds he has a calling for advocating for public health.

“There is a basic philosophical difference,” said Volz, 57, of West Deer. “What the university is saying is that they don’t want people to talk about things. They want to do scholarly research and publish it in journals and have it go out into the world.”

Dr. Donald S. Burke, dean of the school, could not be reached for comment. Pitt spokeswoman Allison Schlesinger said she was unable to comment without his approval.

Volz claims drinking water is being contaminated by Marcellus shale drilling. He authored a report in March that showed a high concentration of bromide in Marcellus wastewater at the Josephine brine treatment facility, located in Indiana County, in the Allegheny River watershed. Bromide is a natural compound found in seawater that can form chemicals linked to cancer in laboratory animals when mixed with chlorine used to treat drinking water, Volz said.

“It is now starting to affect drinking water in the Pittsburgh area because the bromide levels in the rivers are so high,” Volz said. He and others say a drilling practice known as “fracking,” in which drillers shoot water, sand and chemicals into the shale to fracture it and free the gas, produces chemically tainted wastewater.

Volz’s work came under attack by unnamed critics in the online newspaper Canada Free Press. The critics claimed he misrepresented facts on the report.

Some Volz supporters said he has been honest and objective about drilling’s potential harm to the environment.

“He’s been a wonderful resource for those who want to know what’s happening,” said Mel Packer, a community activist from Point Breeze. “I hope he continues to speak and finds ways to speak out.”

Volz dismissed the online critics. He said there were some errors in his original report about the Josephine plant, but Pitt never challenged any of his research.

“I have made mistakes in all of my research, as we all do,” he said. “Those errors were minor really and didn’t have any influence over our overall recommendations or conclusions.” He did not describe the errors.

Volz is scheduled to testify on Tuesday in Washington before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, which is holding a hearing titled “Natural Gas Drilling: Public Health and Environmental Impacts.” Robert Perciasepe, deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, also is scheduled to speak.

“If this were an infectious disease, this would be stopped immediately,” he said about Marcellus shale drilling. “If this was Chi-Chis, and we had an outbreak of something, then all the spinach would be sequestered.”

Read more: Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_731592.html#ixzz1J89ASR2m

Gulf Oil Spill

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1007197

The Gulf Oil Spill

Bernard D. Goldstein, M.D., Howard J. Osofsky, M.D., Ph.D., and Maureen Y. Lichtveld, M.D., M.P.H.

N Engl J Med 2011; 364:1334-1348April 7, 2011

Article
References

One year after the Gulf oil spill (also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill), the full magnitude of the environmental, economic, and human health effects of this major disaster remain unknown. Despite a growing literature describing the impact of oil spills on health1-28 (Table 1Table 1Studies of Effects of Oil Spills on the Health and Safety of Workers and Communities. and Table 2Table 2Studies of Effects of Oil Spills on Mental Health of Workers and Communities.), it is difficult to respond to the many questions asked by clinicians and the public about this spill or the risk of future spills. The uncertainty is exemplified by the study of 55,000 Gulf oil spill workers by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is open-ended rather than focused on a specific number of end points.29 The uncertainty also has consequences for the economic and psychosocial well-being of Gulf Coast residents.

Garfield County – Battlement Mesa HIA EHMS background & information

PUBLIC HEALTH

pages
Battlement Mesa HIA/EHMSBattlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment (2nd Draft) 

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Annotated Acronym Definitions

Part One: Health Impact Assessment
Preface
Regarding Ozone and Human Health
Regarding Climate Change and Human Health

1 Introduction
1.1 Antero’s Plan to Drill within the Battlement Mesa PUD
1.2 Community Concerns
1.3 Initial Responses to Community Concerns
1.4 Battlement Mesa Health Profile
1.4.1 Measures of Physical Health
1.4.2 Measures of Community Health

2 Information Gaps
2.1 Information Gaps and Implications
2.2 Remedies

3 Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Air Quality Assessment
3.2 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Water and Soil Quality Assessment
3.3 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Traffic and Transportation Assessment
3.4 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Noise, Vibration, and Light Assessment
3.5 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Community Wellness
3.6 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Economic and Employment Assessment
3.7 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Health Care Infrastructure
3.8 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions

4 Summary of Assessments on Health in Battlement Mesa
4.1 Summary of Health Assessments

5 Assessment of Health Impacts
5.1 Assessment of Air Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.1.1 Air Quality and Health
5.1.2 Current Air Quality Conditions
5.1.3 What We Know and What We Do Not Know
5.1.4 Human Health Risk Assessment
5.1.5 Antero’s Best Management Practices
5.2 Characterization of the Air Quality on Health
5.3 Assessment of Water and Soil Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.3.1 Water and Soil Quality Impacts on Health
5.3.2 Water and Soil Quality and Natural Gas Operations
5.3.3 Current Conditions of Water and Soil Quality
5.3.4 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Water and Soil Quality
5.3.5 Characterization of the impact on Water and Soil Quality
5.4 Assessment of Transportation and Traffic on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.4.1 Traffic and Safety
5.4.2 Current Traffic Conditions
5.4.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Traffic
5.4.4 Characterization of Traffic Impacts on Safety
5.5 Assessment of Noise, Vibration, and Light Pollution on Health in Battlement Mesa 5.5.1 Noise, Vibration, Light pollution and Health
5.5.2 Current Noise, Vibration, and Light Conditions
5.5.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Noise/Vibration/Light
5.5.4 Characterization of Noise, Vibration and Light Impacts
5.6 Assessment of Impacts on Community Wellness
5.6.1 Community Wellness and Health
5.6.2 Natural Gas Industry and Community Wellness
5.6.3 Garfield County and Battlement Mesa during the Garfield County 2003-08 Boom
5.6.4 Current Battlement Mesa Community Amenities and Services
5.6.5 Current and Possible Anticipated Impacts to Community Wellness from the Antero Project
5.6.6 Characterization of Community Wellness Impacts
5.7 Assessment of Economic and Employment Impacts on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.7.1 Ways Economic Activity can Influence Health
5.7.2 Past Natural Gas Economic Impacts in Garfield County
5.7.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa
5.7.4 Characterization of the Economy, Employment and Property Values Impacts on Health
5.8 Assessment of Impacts to Health Infrastructure in Battlement Mesa
5.8.1 Private and Public Health Services and Health
5.8.2 Current Health Infrastructure Conditions
5.8.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Healthcare Infrastructure
5.8.4 Characterization of Healthcare Infrastructure Impacts
5.9 Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions Impacts on Health
5.9.1 Accidents, Malfunctions and Health
5.9.2 Current Conditions for Accidents and Malfunctions
5.9.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Accidents and Malfunctions
5.9.4 Characterization of the Impact from Accidents and Malfunctions

6 Conclusions

7 References

Part Two: Supporting Documentation
TABLES
Table 1: Identified Stakeholders
Table 2: Stakeholder Meetings
Table 3: Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Table 4: Estimated Annual Emissions from Trucks

APPENDICES
APPENDEIX AA
1 HIA Methods
1.1 Screening
1.2 Scoping
1.3 Assessment
1.4 Recommendations
1.5 Reporting
1.6 Implementation
1.7 Evaluation

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE NATURAL GAS DRILLING PROCESS

APPENDIX B: NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICEANCE BASIN
B1 Geology
B2 Energy Development in the Piceance Basin: Past
B3 Energy Development in the Piceance Basin: Present
B4 Antero’s Plan in Battlement Mesa

APPENDIX BB
2 Site Description of the Battlement Mesa Community
2.1 The Battlement Mesa Community
2.1.1 Parachute
2.1.2 Demography
2.1.3 Economy

APPENDIX C: BATTLEMENT MESA BASELINE HEALTH PROFILE
C1 Measures of Physical Health
C1.1 Methods
C1.1.1 Cancer Data Methods
C1.1.2 Inpatient Hospital Diagnoses Data Methods
C1.1.3 Mortality Data Methods
C1.1.4 Birth Outcomes Data Methods
C1.2 Population/Demographics
C1.3 Vulnerable populations
C1.4 Cancer, Death, Birth, Hospital Inpatient Data
C1.4.1 Cancer Data
C1.4.2 Inpatient Hospital Diagnoses Data
C1.4.3 Mortality Data
C1.1.4 Birth Outcome Data
C.1.5 Health Data Gaps/Limitations
C1.5.1 Cancer data
C1.5.2 Inpatient hospitalization data
C1.5.3 Mortality Data
C1.5.4 Birth Data
C1.6 Conclusions for Physical Health
C2 Measures of Community Health
C2.1 Education/School Enrollment
C2.2 Crime
C2.3 Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Suicide:
C2.4 Sexually Transmitted Infections
C2.5 Limitations of Social Determinants of Health
C2.6 Summary and Conclusions for Social Determinants of Health

APPENDIX D: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT*

*This is a very large file. If you have trouble opening it, please send an email to jrada@garfield-county.com to have this document sent by email to you. Also, a browser issue may block the file from opening – click here for a fix.

APPENDIX E: COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 2010 DRAFT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT*

*This is a larger file and may not download without high speed internet. Please access through above recommendations if needed.

APPENDIX F: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 2010 DRAFT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figures
Figure 1: Locations of Proposed Well Pads within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit

Attachments
Attachment 1: BCC letter
Attachment 2: Surface Use Agreement

resources