Groups Warn Governor Cuomo About Gas Extraction Plan

March 31, 2011

An excellent demonstration of the power of letter-writing and media attention!

Groups warn Cuomo about gas extraction plan

Posted on March 30, 2011 at 1:02 pm by James M. Odato in General

About 40 groups, ranging from Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation to Trout Unlimited, wrote to Gov. Andrew Cuomo Tuesday advising him to put the brakes on allowing hydraulic fracturing that they said would pose risks as currently planned. Companies are eager to drill into the deep shale deposits below New York’s surface to extract natural gas.

“We are writing to you on an issue of urgent importance to all New Yorkers – assuring that New York State does not rush to allow risky new drilling techniques in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations unless the protection of the State’s drinking water supplies and other irreplaceable resources can be demonstrated,” the groups, including Common Cause and the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote.

“Specifically, we ask that you clearly confirm that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will be allowed both adequate time and resources to fully and properly evaluate the full range of potential risks associated with new natural gas development utilizing hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” before issuing a revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impacts (DSGEIS) pursuant to Executive Order 41 (EO 41). Simply put, the arbitrary June 1, 2011 target date established by former Governor David Paterson in EO 41 is wholly inadequate to allow for the development of an appropriately comprehensive or legally sufficient revised DSGEIS.”

The letter was copied to Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens.

 

AP Interview: New York drilling regs may take all summer

Published: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 9:36 AM     Updated: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 9:41 AM
The Associated Press By The Associated Press The Post-Standard

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Joe Martens, the new head of New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, says gas drilling in the massive Marcellus Shale formation is the most daunting environmental issue the agency has faced in its 40-year history, but he’s hopeful rules will be in place by summer’s end to address all the potential impacts.

In an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday, Martens said DEC staff will meet twice a week starting in early April and through the summer to complete a new environmental impact statement for gas drilling that addresses issues raised in the 13,000 comments received on the first draft completed in September 2009.

New York has had a moratorium on gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale since 2008 while new rules are being developed.

 

Filed under DEC, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation Tagged with , , , , , ,

MIT WellWatch

March 20, 2011

MIT WellWatch

Filed under events Tagged with , , , , , ,

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater

March 13, 2011

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater.

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater

Organizations plan to file a lawsuit
Friday, March 11, 2011
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two municipal sewage treatment facilities that together discharge 150,000 gallons a day of Marcellus Shale wastewater into the Monongahela River watershed don’t have federal permits for such pollution discharges and should, according to two environmental organizations that say they will sue the facilities in federal court.

Clean Water Action and Three Rivers Waterkeeper on Thursday filed a “notice of intent to sue” against sewage treatment operations in McKeesport and Franklin, Greene County, claiming the facilities are in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The notice marks the first legal action challenging the widespread practice of discharging Marcellus wastewater through municipal treatment facilities that do not have permits to treat such waste.

The groups were critical of both the state Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce existing discharge permits, which limit the facilities to treating and discharging sewage waste water. At least 11 sewage treatment facilities in the state accept and discharge Marcellus wastewater.

 

“We cannot wait any longer to rely on the state and the EPA to act,” said Myron Arnowitt, state director of Clean Water Action. “These sewage plants have been illegally discharging gas drilling wastewater into our rivers since 2008 without a permit as required by the Clean Water Act.”

Mr. Arnowitt said the treatment facilities should immediately stop accepting the gas drilling wastewater or seek permission to amend their permits so they can legally do so.

The 18-page legal notice sent to the treatment plant and municipal officials in McKeesport and Franklin is a requirement of many federal environmental laws that include citizen suit provisions. It’s the first step toward filing a lawsuit and provides 60 days to negotiate a settlement before a lawsuit can be filed.

In response to water quality concerns, the DEP in 2008 limited the Municipal Authority for the City of McKeesport’s treatment and discharge of Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater to 1 percent of its total discharge, or an average of 102,000 gallons a day going into the Monongahela River. This year the authority’s Marcellus discharge is limited to 99,700 gallons a day, based on its average daily discharge in 2010.

The Franklin Township Sewer Authority in Greene County discharges an average of 50,000 gallons a day of Marcellus drilling wastewater into the South Fork of Ten Mile Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela River. That’s equal to 5 percent of the authority’s daily discharge, and allowed under a negotiated consent agreement with the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Those state-imposed treatment and discharge limits don’t address the main claim of the environmental groups: that their existing discharge permits haven’t been changed to allow them to accept the drilling wastewater and that the discharges are having a detrimental effect on water quality in the rivers.

About 500,000 people get their drinking water from the Mon.

“Their failure to follow proper procedures for authorization to discharge oil and as wastewater renders their discharge illegal,” the notice states. “Their failure to follow the requirements pertaining to the pretreatment program also leaves them in violation of the Clean Water Act.”

Joe Ross, executive director of the McKeesport authority, and George Scott, general manager of the Franklin facility, said Thursday afternoon they hadn’t seen the notice filing or been contacted by the environmental groups, so declined to comment.

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 11, 2011 at 12:00 am

Filed under Suits, Waste, Water Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Lancaster Online : State geologist discusses Marcellus Shale in talk here

March 13, 2011

Lancaster Online : State geologist discusses Marcellus Shale in talk here.

State geologist discusses Marcellus Shale in talk here
Posted:  03/10/2011 11:17 PM
More Business >>
\ Next >>
Caption: “In this file photo, a natural gas drill sits atop a ridge near Knoxville, Pa.”Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania will not be denied, predicts the man responsible for natural gas leases in state forests and state parks. 

“The reason Pennsylvania is hot, hot, hot is because we potentially have the largest gas field on planet Earth in Pennsylvania, situated in the middle of the largest integrated gas market on planet Earth. Transportation costs are virtually nil. You couldn’t ask for any better situation,” said Teddy Borawski, chief oil and gas geologist for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

“This thing is going to go on for 50 years,” Borawski said, adding that Marcellus natural gas from Pennsylvania alone could supply all the country’s needs for 20 to 25 years.

Controversy swirls around aspects of the just-taking-hold natural gas boom in Pennsylvania. But Borawski predicts the northern and western portions of the state will become pocked with gas wells over the next five decades.

Specifically, he said, the number of wells to be drilled on both public and private land will increase from about 6,400 wells today to 120,000 wells, perhaps even 180,000.

He said he thinks that can be done safely, with constant vigilance.

And the manager of subsurface programs for the state Bureau of Forestry made some other bold predictions, such as Williamsport rivaling Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as an economic hub in the state.

Also, he said, the extent of the Marcellus Shale reservoir of gas, and other untapped formations here and in other states, will move the United States to a natural gas-driven economy.

“Because it’s there and it’s going to be cheap and plentiful,” he said.

Borawski gave an hour-plus rundown on Marcellus Shale on Thursday in Neffsville before about 50 attentive members of the Pennsylvania Dutch Chapter of the Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters Society.

Among the audience were at least two representatives of out-of-state energy companies currently operating Marcellus Shale wells in Pennsylvania.

Borawski’s former boss, former DCNR secretary John Quigley, said last August that the 2.2-million-acre state forestlands couldn’t withstand any more gas pads without environmental damage.

Asked about that, Borawski replied, “I have no comment I can make.”

But referring to a de facto hold on additional gas leases on public land that former Gov. Ed Rendell made in the last few months of his administration, Borawski said Rendell “wanted to push companies as hard as he could” in seeking a severance tax on gas drilling.

Gov. Tom Corbett has removed those roadblocks, is opposed to a severance tax, and wants to get gas extraction running full-tilt.

Borawski did say he hoped Corbett doesn’t seek “wholesale leasing” of gas on state forests. There is room for expansion and to generate revenue for state coffers, he said. “We can do that, but let us do that on our own terms. But we’re subject to what the governor tells us to do.”

Borawski, who has been involved with oil drilling on the Gulf Coast, was asked about the recent documentary “Gasland,” an Academy Award-nominated documentary made partially in Pennsylvania that portrays drilling as harmful to the environment and residents.

“Joseph Goebbels would have been proud,” Borawski replied. “He would have given him the Nazi Award. That, in my opinion, was a beautiful piece of propaganda.”

Borawski also was asked about a recent New York Times series of stories that painted a picture of lax environmental laws and enforcement in Pennsylvania regarding Marcellus Shale drilling.

“It confused the situation and was very poorly written technically,” Borawski said.

But he said the story raised legitimate issues about water concerns.

Water needed for gas drilling will not cause water shortages anywhere and currently uses much less than the state’s golf courses, he said.

But, he added, “Where we have a problem is where you are taking it from and when you are taking it. And flowback being treated.”

He said state regulators will have to remain vigilant in protecting the state’s water resources because if unguarded there always will be companies looking to take shortcuts.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency is doing a study on the impacts of hydraulic fracking and will use Bradford and Susquehanna counties as study areas.

acrable@lnpnews.com

By: AD CRABLE

Filed under Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Garfield County – Battlement Mesa HIA EHMS background & information

March 8, 2011

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

Filed under Health Tagged with , , , , , ,

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK–A Fracking To-Do List

March 7, 2011

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK.

 

March 7, 2011

A Fracking To-Do List

Last week, Environmental Advocates of New York rolled out our “fracking to-do list” for state leaders and lawmakers at a briefing in the state capital. Hydraulic fracturing, often called “fracking,” is an environmentally dangerous technique used to extract natural gas from underground shale deposits. We’re worried about all phases of the drilling process—the impact of the withdrawal of millions of gallons of water from area lakes, rivers, and streams, the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluids and their potential to leach into drinking water, and the state’s ability to treat and dispose of fracking wastewater, particularly when it’s radioactive.

Fracking has poisoned waterways from Wyoming to Pennsylvania. Our to-do list is comprehensive and designed to safeguard the health and safety of New York’s drinking water. Here’s what we want state leaders to do:

  • Pass legislation that will protect water resources and establish a regulatory permitting program to oversee large water withdrawals statewide.
  • Regulate fracking fluids by requiring the gas industry to disclose the chemical components in fracking fluids and prohibit the use of fluids that pose a risk to human health. New York’s environmental regulator shouldn’t be allowed to issue drilling permits until such regulations are adopted.
  • Close the hazardous waste loophole in current state law and require that all fracking wastewater that meets the definition of hazardous waste be considered hazardous for the purpose of transport and treatment.
  • Revise the state’s draft drilling plan and release it only when it’s ready and not a minute before. An Executive Order requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to update their draft plan on or about June 1st of this year.
  • Improve the plan so it updates and revises drilling regulations and include a cumulative impact analysis that addresses the worst-case scenario of up to 2,500 wells per year.

At the briefing, Susan Christopherson, the J. Thomas Clark Professor of City & Regional Planning at Cornell University, discussed the potential economic impacts of fracking for New York’s communities. Professor Christopherson’s research on fracking shows that individual New Yorkers may stand to benefit, but that the costs to local government are significant. Depending on the pace and scale of drilling, local governments may not have the capacity to respond to new demands.

New York is a battleground in the national debate about natural gas drilling and fracking. Drilling-related accidents across the country have contaminated drinking water, created air quality hazards and violations, and polluted streams.

Click here to see our own Katherine Nadeau interviewed about our fracking on Your News Now.

Click here to read The New York Times‘ recent groundbreaking series, “Drilling Down,” on the dangers of fracking.

 

Filed under events Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain – NYTimes.com

March 1, 2011

FOIL and leaked documents

Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain – NYTimes.com.

Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain

Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times

Carl Orso, a truck driver, filled a beaker with wastewater from a natural gas drilling site for testing before unloading at Eureka Resources, a waste water treatment facility, in Williamsport, Penn.

By IAN URBINA
Published: March 1, 2011

As drilling for natural gas started to climb sharply about 10 years ago, energy companies faced mounting criticism over an extraction process that involves pumping millions of gallons of water into the ground for each well and can leave significant amounts of hazardous contaminants in the water that comes back to the surface.

Drilling Down

An Imperfect Solution

Articles in this series examine the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.

Multimedia

Documents: Politics, Recycling and Tracking of Natural Gas Waste

Related

Enlarge This Image

Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times

Carl Orso checked the progress as he offloaded wastewater from a natural gas drilling site at Eureka Resources, a wastewater treatment facility, in Williamsport, Penn.

So, in a move hailed by industry as a major turning point, drilling companies started reusing and recycling the wastewater.

“Water recycling is a win-win,” one drilling company, Range Resources, says on its Web site. “It reduces fresh water demand and eliminates the need to dispose of the water.”

But the win-win comes with significant asterisks.

In Pennsylvania, for example, natural-gas companies recycled less than half of the wastewater they produced during the 18 months that ended in December, according to state records.

Nor has recycling eliminated environmental and health risks. Some methods can leave behind salts or sludge highly concentrated with radioactive material and other contaminants that can be dangerous to people and aquatic life if they get into waterways.

Some well operators are also selling their waste, rather than paying to dispose of it. Because it is so salty, they have found ready buyers in communities that spread it on roads for de-icing in the winter and for dust suppression in the summer. When ice melts or rain falls, the waste can run off roads and end up in the drinking supply.

Yet in Pennsylvania, where the number of drilling permits for gas wells has jumped markedly in the last several years, in part because the state sits on a large underground gas formation known as the Marcellus Shale, such waste remains exempt from federal and state oversight, even when turned into salts and spread on roads.

When Pennsylvania regulators tried to strengthen state oversight of how drilling wastewater is tracked, an industry coalition argued vehemently against it. Three of the top state officials at the meeting have since left the government — for the natural-gas industry.

One executive at a drilling wastewater recycling company said that for all the benefits of recycling, it was not a cure-all.

“No one wants to admit it, but at some point, even with reuse of this water, you have to confront the disposal question,” said Brent Halldorson, chief operating officer of Aqua-Pure/Fountain Quail Water Management, adding that the wastewater has barium, strontium and radioactive elements that need to be removed.

Mr. Halldorson emphasized that he had not seen high radioactivity readings at the plant he operates in Williamsport, Pa. He said he firmly believed in the benefits of recycling — to reduce the waste produced and water used and to help promote a shift toward natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal for producing electricity.

“But there still needs to be a candid discussion, and there needs to be accountability about where even the recycled wastewater is going,” Mr. Halldorson added.

More than 90 percent of well operators in Pennsylvania use this process, known as hydrofracking, to get wells to produce. From 10 percent to 40 percent of the water injected into each well resurfaces in the first few weeks of the process.

Many states send their drilling waste to injection wells, for storage deep underground. But because of the geological formations in Pennsylvania, there are few injection wells, and other alternatives are expensive. So natural-gas well operators in the state have turned to recycling.

“The technical breakthroughs that have allowed us to lead the nation in water recycling are complemented by a carefully orchestrated water-management system, involving a combination of on-site and off-site treatment, depending on specific geography and economics,” said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group.

Filed under Waste, Water Tagged with , , ,

Developing Natural Gas in the Marcellus and other Shale Formations is likely to Aggravate Global Warming–Mar. 15, Cornell U.

March 1, 2011

Developing Natural Gas in the Marcellus and other Shale Formations is likely to
Aggravate Global Warming

Presenters: Bob Howarth, Renee Santoro, and Tony Ingraffea

Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology and
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Cornell University

Tuesday, March 15, 2011
12:00 – 1:00 pm
205 Thurston Hall, Cornell University

Open to the public

Filed under events Tagged with , ,

Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR

March 1, 2011

Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR. 3-1-11

 
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-01/drilling-natural-gas-rewards-and-risks

* Comments (2)
* Share
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 – 10:06 a.m.
* 10:06 a.m. (ET) Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
* 11:06 a.m. (ET) Environmental Outlook: Light Bulbs

The jack-up rig Rowan Gorilla III is loaded on to the semi-submersible heavy
lift ship Triumph in Halifax harbor Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. The rig was drilling
on the Deep Panuke natural gas development offshore Nova Scotia.
AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Andrew Vaughan
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
More sophisticated drilling techniques are unlocking this country’s enormous
reserves of natural gas. But many say environmental concerns – including
radioactive waste water – have yet to be fully addressed. Efforts to reduce the
risks of extracting natural gas.
The state of Pennsylvania is in the forefront of the current rush to extract
natural gas, and it also seems to be in the middle of an increasingly
contentious debate over related environmental risks. The process of extracting
natural gas involves forcing millions of gallons of water deep into the earth to
break up rock and release the gas. Environmentalists say that in some states,
including Pennsylvania, this waste water which is often laden with heavy salts
and naturally occurring radioactive materials is being improperly discharged
into rivers and streams. Please join us for conversation on the risks and
rewards of drilling for natural gas.
Guests
John Quigley
former secretary Pennsylvania’s Department of conservation and Natural Resourses
Ian Urbina
reporter, NY Times
Tony Ingraffea
Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering
Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow
Cornell University
Kathryn Klaber
president, Marcellus Shale Coalition
Amy Mall
policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council
John Hanger
former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

—

Filed under Waste, Water Tagged with , , , , , ,

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers – NYTimes.com

February 27, 2011

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers – NYTimes.com.

Drilling Down FOIA and Leaked Documents – United for Action: Volunteer activists protecting human health and the environment from hydraulic fracturing in gas drilling a.k.a. fracking, hydrofracking (based in New York).

Drilling Down

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

 
Kevin Moloney for The New York Times

Wells for extracting natural gas, like these in Colorado, are a growing source of energy but can also pose hazards.

By IAN URBINA
Published: February 26, 2011

The American landscape is dotted with hundreds of thousands of new wells and drilling rigs, as the country scrambles to tap into this century’s gold rush — for natural gas.

Drilling Down

The Waste Problem

Articles in this series will examine the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.

Multimedia
Natural Gas and Polluted Air
Interactive Feature
Extracting Natural Gas From Rock
Interactive Feature
Toxic Contamination From Natural Gas Wells
Interactive Feature
Documents: Natural Gas’s Toxic Waste

Related

Enlarge This Image

Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Thousands of wells like this one outside Pittsburgh extract gas by injecting huge amounts of water.

The gas has always been there, of course, trapped deep underground in countless tiny bubbles, like frozen spills of seltzer water between thin layers of shale rock. But drilling companies have only in recent years developed techniques to unlock the enormous reserves, thought to be enough to supply the country with gas for heating buildings, generating electricity and powering vehicles for up to a hundred years.

So energy companies are clamoring to drill. And they are getting rare support from their usual sparring partners. Environmentalists say using natural gas will help slow climate change because it burns more cleanly than coal and oil. Lawmakers hail the gas as a source of jobs. They also see it as a way to wean the United States from its dependency on other countries for oil. 

Click on link above for full story!

Filed under Waste, Water Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →