|
Get our FREE Vaccination Choice Flyer & Poster See. Print. Give. Post (Downloadable PDF) Join the Campaign! |
A Professor Explains Five Myths About FrackingA Health Department Spokesman Spreads Half-truths
Debunking the Gasland Film
and Educational Videos — and other rational thoughts
Everything that is made, everything, must be first grown on the land or extracted from it– but products cannot be made without the energy resources to refine and manufacture them. Although food, health and environmental activists may be right on some things, too many of them are being misled on fracking . . . that is, the drilling and extracting of clean and abundant natural gas. Water pollution fears? Why aren’t they screaming about dangerous industrial fluoride chemicals being released into their own water supplies?–hundreds of health science studies fully support the awful widespread health effects. If the anti-frackers became just a little educated on the subject of natural gas drilling, they might reverse their energies and help correct all the misinformation and disinformation. These opposers are not just your basic, grown-up hippie, an Occupyer needing a new cause or those green-utopia seekers fresh out of a university–they are also “normal” well-educated, well-meaning people you may work with or church with–maybe friends and family– and maybe even you.
Do the uninformed opposers recognize they daily use and enjoy the benefits of relatively cheap energy and thousands of petroleum-based products which their very lives and livelihoods depend upon? What we are really talking about is risk/benefit — does the real risks justify the real benefits? Could it possibly be that well-managed, natural-gas drilling, extraction, pipe-lining, distribution and use are extremely safe with huge benefits to all–and, all things considered, beneficial to human health and the environment?
The Five Myths About Fracking article appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal this morning. It was clipped by Carl, my co-worker here at the local health department. I was pleased it came from Ohio’s only college offering a degree in petroleum engineering and geology (I lived 2 blocks away from the school twenty some years ago). It is written by Robert W. Chase, professor and chairman of the Department of Petroleum Engineering and Geology at Marietta College (Ohio).
Five myths about ‘fracking’
By Robert W. Chase
January 27, 2012
Today companies are using better well casing design methods and improved cementing practices to ensure that there is no contamination of shallow formations. Concurrently, state agencies have instituted a comprehensive regulatory framework for well construction and water management in order to prevent methane migration and to protect drinking water supplies.
Myth No. 4: Earthquakes are a constant danger from fracking.
Fracking itself — as distinct from wastewater disposal — is in no way responsible for the tremors. Federal officials have confirmed that fracking is not the source of tremors in Ohio and several other states where gas drilling is done. William Leith, senior science adviser for earthquake and geologic hazards at the U.S. Geological Survey, told National Public Radio recently: “The fracking itself probably does not put enough energy into the ground to trigger an earthquake. … That’s really not something that we should be concerned about.”
Oil and gas waste water disposal wells, on the other hand, have some history of causing tremors, most recently in Youngstown. By reducing the volume of water injected, the depth of wastewater injection wells, and avoiding earthquake-prone areas, the risk of inducing tremors, however small, can be reduced even more.
Myth No. 5: The public cannot afford to rely on state regulation of fracking.
Just about all of the states, including Ohio, are insisting that fracking and the disposal of wastewater be done properly. In the decades since fracking was first used in Oklahoma in the 1940s, there have been more than 1 million oil and gas wells drilled across the country. The instances of water contamination have been miniscule compared to the number of wells drilled. And not one of those contaminated wells was caused by fracking.
Much of the credit for this excellent safety record goes to rigorous state regulation. “States are stepping up and doing a good job,” federal EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said recently.
The increase in fracking has underscored the importance of ensuring that shale gas is developed in an environmentally safe way. Fracking is not without risk, but that risk must always be measured against the rewards. In this case, the rewards are undeniable: developing our shale gas and oil resources in Ohio and across the nation will create economic opportunity and ultimately lessen our dependence on imported foreign oil.
According to a study by IHS Global Insight, in 2010 alone, U.S. shale gas production had a $76 billion share of the GDP, $33 billion in capital investments, $18 billion in tax and federal royalty revenues, and supported 600,000 jobs. Experts estimate that nearly $2 trillion in capital investments will flow into the U.S. shale gas industry through 2035. The benefits of such massive investments will spread throughout communities, businesses and governments at all levels.
Earlier this month, Carl clipped another story for me that was full of unfactual information on fracking, some half-truths and some extreme opinions—the typical fear mongering–most inappropriate considering the source. It was written by Rami Yoakum, Communications Director of the Ross County (Ohio) Health Department in its newspaper column. Here are some extracts:
After being used in fracking, the water is useless to humans and animals. Not only that, but it’s also a danger to our health, since some of the things added to the water are known cancer-causing agents.
Disposing of this contaminated water is difficult and dangerous, and a public health nightmare if it’s done incorrectly.
What really concerns me on the personal level, and it goes against basic common sense, is the fact we are using trillions (yes, trillions) of gallons of precious water to get at a little bit of natural gas.
I tend to think that down the road that water could be put to better use by our children and our grandchildren, who eventually might need it for something like, oh, I don’t know, drinking maybe?
It also has been reported that the process of hydraulic fracturing releases significant amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas implicated in global warming.
It is highly inappropriate for this to have been released under the auspices of the health department—and I told Mr. Yoakum via email. I said to him if he was so concerned about the potential for water pollution—he should look into the release of industrial fluoride chemical wastes into their community water supply—that have known health effects. Further, I asked him to review our fluoride fact sheet and asked him to consider putting this health warning into the paper—especially for the infants, pregnant women and other at-risk subgroups. I offered to revise it to his liking so that the warning would suit him. I received no reply.
Before we leave this issue of state-of-the-art drilling and extraction of natural gas, readers may be interested in getting more familiar with this fascinating process with this video animation. This is produced by Chesapeake Energy, a leading producer of natural gas—but there are other sources for this information such as your Department of Natural Resources and oil/gas producers associations–but this is especially well done. There are five additional ones in this series
Scott McNally has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas. He has worked as an Environmental Engineer for Valero Energy Corporation, a Project Engineer for Shell Oil Company, and an energy and climate research intern for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Here is an extact from his article at Scientific American.
Now, there are significant environmental concerns related to gas drilling, but we should put them into context. Of the 20,000 fracked wells (bold is mine) covered by the Future of Natural Gas Study, only 43 environmental incidents were reported, and not a single one was caused by fracking. Regardless of the frequency of incidents, any spill or leak is unacceptable, and the pressure should be on the drillers and operators to minimize the environmental impacts of natural gas production. But, the data show the vast majority of natural gas development projects are safe, and the existing environmental concerns are largely preventable.Bottom line: water contamination does happen, but not because of hydraulic fracturing. The MIT Future of Natural Gas Study, released in June 2011, examines the causes of 43 reported environmental incidents and finds that, “no incidents of direct invasion of shallow water zones by fracture fluids during the fracturing process have been recorded.”
So what causes the contamination? According to the study, “almost 50% [of the incidents were] the result of drilling operations… most frequently related to inadequate cementing of casing into wellbores.” The table below is from the Future of Natural Gas Study and highlights the frequency and causes of incidents.
While the most common incident is groundwater contamination resulting from drilling operations, the study also states that, “Properly implemented cementing procedures should prevent this from occurring.”
I will point out that the surface spills and disposal problems are quickly fixable, the air issues are next to none which leaves us with the groundwater. In many or most groundwater contamination cases, the groundwater is not being drank, does not migrate into another saturated zone that would be used for drinking, but in some cases there will be an impact that does and treatment could be long term. So you have 20 groundwater issues out of 20,000 sites–not caused by fracking–many of which, I am assuming now, might even be non-consequential.
Below is the trailer of the Gasland film — said to have debunked by professionals in the field of oil and gas production (this is below the video). A “documentary” can easily be made to express the view of the producers for whatever purpose– it is an art form. I have not seen the movie, but I will let viewers decide if it is hyperbole.
The Gasland film is largely debunked here from EnergyInDepth.org. Any reasonable person would want to look at the best sources of information to determine what the facts may be–rather than spouting off by repeating what they have heard from what someone heard. Here is a video from the producers that discredits the Gasland film.
Now we have more guests coming in from GoMarcellusShale.com to comment here or there.
|
Get our FREE Vaccination Choice Flyer & Poster See. Print. Give. Post (Downloadable PDF) Join the Campaign! |
Thanks for the very, very informative article. Quite timely as this work is now beginning in our area of the country. Our nation’s need to be independent of OPEC, Russia, and other non-trustworthy countries for our oil supplies is forefront to our nation’s ability to sustain itself, and not have to be in bed with the enemy. Now, if we can just get that pipeline from Canada approved…
Pipeline? They say those are killers too– I guess they will have the pipes under their homes removed.It is the same people that sais we are running on empty with oil and gas–when we find a mother-load in our backyard–they scream even louder.
If it is safe then why will banks not lend money for a mortgage on “fracked” land? I’ve a friend with a “fracked” farm. No lender will participate in the sale of the land.
That may be one case, but I would not say that is standard practice. I have seen that before in my career–when it took time for risk evaluators in the insurance industry to ferret out the trends, regulations and real risks before banks would risk money.
How about printing a reply to these assertions by someone who doesn’t work in the university system or for a petroleum/natural gas company where to speak out against the industry is to get alienated, humiliated, demoted and/or fired? I don’t believe any of this for a minute. I wonder where Marietta College and/or Professor Chase get there funding? How much of it is from the petroleum/natural gas industry? I wonder what Professor Chase has to say about off-shore drilling? Safe at 3,000 feet? Why do we have to wait for enormous environmental disasters to question whether these incredibly technology-intensive practices are harmful to humans and the planet?
Look at the sources used in this article. The Government! Yeah, now that is a reliable source of information I know I can trust!
Big oil and gas/Big business is our government! They are all greedy! And liars!
I can’t believe “The Journal” published this article. Read the original bill by the Bush administration. It exempts them from the clean air act, water laws, etc… If they are not polluting, why would they protect themselves. They are free to destroy the earth and no one is doing anything about it.
Why DID “The Journal” print this? Makes me concerned. Could we get an answer to this question?
Because the energy and environment is a professional specialty of mine for nearly 40 years and knowing this is a controversial issue, I have taken time in the last couple months to look into this more. As I suspected the alarmists and activists are way overacting (as they commonly do on environmental matters) and in some cases the claims are totally false–like the Health Dept spokesman. At present, I lean toward the better companies using best practices as being very small risk of real impact–rather than buying the sensational claims of those who are led by getting their money by soliciting donations to “help save the planet” by instilling fears in people–it is an art form–as is corporate PR. The corporate PR is necessary to counteract opposition or unfounded fears–and in some cases to cover up lies to limit liability and reap greater profits before chickens come home to roost–that is not always the case of course–as I think this issue is a good example. I may just go ahead and post the Gasland “documentary” and the experts who debunked the seemingly real movie. However, there still could be bigger issue that could be investigated, such as the lady’s comment regarding lending– I have seen that before in my career–when it took time for risk evaluators in the insurance industry to ferret out the trends and regulations before banks would risk money.
The concern that some banks have has more to do with their lien position than the safety of the drilling process. In some cases, the oil company requires the bank to subordinate its lien position, leaving the bank at more risk than it may be willing to take on. Another concern is in valuation. A noisy compressor station could lower the value of the property, thereby creating more risk to the bank if the homeowner were to default on the loan.
I was not surprised to see “It was written by Rami Yoakum, Communications Director of the Ross County (Ohio) Health Department in its newspaper column” the Heath Departments have learned in the anti Smoking Movement to utilize the public health issue. As a matter of a public records request to the Ohio Department of Health I found records where you would be surprised at how much money they were paid to spread propaganda! Yep Health Department for Hire. The grants allowed health departments to set up hiring of personal friends on a payroll, city councils turned a blind eye to it as it was free money to their political ends. Sorry but the Health Department does not get a vote of confidence!
By the way, where do find experts in the Oil and Gas Industry in the same business. Where do you find anti frackerexperts? Name few of them that has a degree in petroleum engineering.
The oil and gas people are the experts–and there are those in govt that have a career in it –and perhaps have worked in the industry itself, Then there are those in academia. I would just like to see a case of groundwater contamination confirmed to be from fracking by experts–other than some suspected cases that are repeated over and over on the internet, They claim there are none so far. There have been problems with older wells that have not been properly sealed–of the million or more out there. I may have an opportunity to see one first hand in the drilling phase, but I honestly cannot see how a straw in the ground to collect pressurized natural gas is creating all this NOISE from arm chair experts whose experience is watching a movie called Gasland.
Was just thinking a common sense thought, since the gas is down there and is lighter than water then the aquifers should have been polluted eons ago. Now if the gas could not penetrate the layers between the aquifer and the shale (fractures created in fracking are not thousands of feet ) how in the heck could water?
From the repost at the forum GO Marcellus Shale–
Reply by Linda A 22 hours ago
now at least you have those to utilize to counter… While cold calling/working in the Clearfield county area (in PA), I came across my first encounter with a gas/oil company, who first told me about the Utica Shale, asked where I lived, and boy, he liked me and gave me a lot of info (which I wrote down and also his phone number…). Anyhow, in that same area, I cold called a business who did required testing water in the area to make sure there was no polluting… (BTW, I always ask questions as am always interested in the ‘unknown’). So, I just happen to ask her if polluting was common, and she said absolutely not! I also ask if they did other testing, and she told me people often brought in their own/private water samples, and again, found NO pollution! If water was polluted, it was before drilling/fracking…
When I heard about all the preventative measures taken by gas/oil drillers, to make sure no polluting was done, I couldn’t believe it – down to complete pressure washing of their trucks etc etc
▶ Reply
Jim LitwinowiczPermalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz yesterday
Good article. Have to use that at a seminar I will be attending.
Here’s a demonstration for those playing at home. When you see diagrams of fracking, they are never to scale. The antis make it look like fracing is close to the surface.
1. Draw a line at top of a really big sheet of paper or white board. Use the scale of one inch equals 100′
2. Draw a line about three inches below the surface….this lines represents were almost all of the fresh water aquifers are. Now measure down six feet and draw another line. This is where the fracking occurs in shale that is 7000′ below the surface.
3. Draw a fuzzy line three inches above and three inches below the bottom line. That is the area that is fractured if the radius is three hundred feet.
The area in between, six and a half feet, is multiple layers of rock that act as a cap separating the fracking fluids from the fresh water aquifers.
Have a nut job explain how frac fluids will travel through all this rock upward to the water table. Ask them how this will happen when polluted water in coal seams only fifty feet from the fresh water for millions of years hasn’t traveled fifty feet into the fresh water.
▶ Reply
Billy Park WhydePermalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde yesterday
Was just thinking a common sense thought, since the gas is down there and is lighter than water then the aquifers should have been polluted eons ago. Now if the gas could not penetrate the layers between the aquifer and the shale how in the hell could water?
▶ Reply
Mark McGrailPermalink Reply by Mark McGrail 23 hours ago
Linda,
In addition to your fine article detailing the myths about fracing I’d like to add the following:
At a recent hearing of the House Oversight Committee under direct questioning EPA director Lisa Jackson could provide no evidence of ground water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing, and in her own words ” I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracing process itself has affected water.” For all you fractivists my source is the committees minutes, do your own research.
According to the Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor development of the Marcellus Shale created 72,000 jobs from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2011. Hydraulic fracturing helped make that development possible.
So let’s see; no water contamination and 72,000 jobs, sound like a good deal to me.
Mark
▶ Reply
Mark McGrailPermalink Reply by Mark McGrail 23 hours ago
Linda,
I see you liked your post so much you posted it twice ! Chuckle
▶ Reply
Linda APermalink Reply by Linda A 22 hours ago
I couldn’t find it after first posting it and was advised ‘I may have made an error in posting’, thus went for round two! Thought the discussion was to important to take any chances.
▶ Reply
Dan GolaskiPermalink Reply by Dan Golaski 9 hours ago
Thanks Linda, Great stuff. Also Thanks for the NPR plug. I have heard at least a dozen NPR news jounals in the last month in regards to fracking, water contamination etc. and I have yet to hear a single mention that fracking is causing any problems. It seems there is an agenda to beat up NPR the same as there is to beat up fracking.
▶ Reply
Michael HouseholderPermalink Reply by Michael Householder 3 hours ago
NPR has probably done a better job covering both sides of the issue than any of the major news outfits. That said, we owe it to ourselves to be critical of any news story, regardless of the publisher.
▶ Reply
Michael HouseholderPermalink Reply by Michael Householder 4 hours ago
Great article Linda.
One comment on the article stated that banks don’t like O&G leasing because of concerns about the drilling process. This is a false statement. For anyone who may be interested in the bank’s viewpoint, it has to do with lien position and valuation risk, not the drilling process itself. Often times, the oil company requires a bank mortgage to be subordinated to the oil companies rights under the lease. Also, placement of a wellpad or compressor station MIGHT cause the property value to diminish. Both of these situations increase the potential risk of loss to the bank in the event that the landowner defaults on the mortgage loan. Banks and insurance companies are in the risk management business; anything that increases their risk will cause them to reconsider their position.
▶ Reply
brian kulpPermalink Reply by brian kulp 30 minutes ago
???? if the property owner defults on the loan. then the o/g,s /// the % agreeeed upon in the leese will go to the bank when they repo the property. the only problem is they the bank willl have to wait for he proerty to go into production. like the land owner would. besides dont feel sorry for the bank there all to greedy anyway.
“Fracking” has become a euphemism for the other “f-word.” So when you say “fracking doesn’t cause…” it is disingenuous. Everyone knows that “fracking” (with a k) refers to the whole process of extraction, from the leasing process onward. Please explain why so many families in Bradford County PA and the Youngstown OH area (and elsewhere) are ill with heavy metal poisoning which began shortly after gas wells were drilled within a one mile radius of their homes. This is a public health issue.
Heavy metal poisoning is a catch all. Lead poisoning from eating paint chips can be called heavy metal poisoning. You might even consider putting blame on the steel mills that belched it out years ago as just showing up in the populace if your statement have any truth.
Where are the “MANY” cases that you state? Surely the State Department of Health would have data on this.
Public Health is not a issue, as you want to use that card only in applying it for your own use. If Public Health were a true issue cars, factories and the third leading cause of death in the US being malpractice by the medical industry would close most hospitals!
Public Health as a cause is a slippery slope when it is used and is tried to be used to undermine the Constitution. Private Property rights are protected by the Constitution as well as gun ownership. Both of these rights have been attacked in the name of public health.
Someone brought up the Halliburton exemption–that the producers are exempt from environmental laws and regulations. That is totally false. Here is a clip from the debunking link provided in the story.
Misstating the Law
(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.”
•
This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws — under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.
•
The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.
• Far from being “pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,” the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.
In these videos, I interview real people with real problems with fracking. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL062539BFB8A2B2D4
I see that Robert W. Chase makes his living on teaching people how to frack, too bad he hasn’t spent time in the field talking with people who are experiencing real problems.
http://www.energy4me.org/careerscholarships/petroleum-engineering-and-technology-schools/marietta-college/
Interview me I have had three wells fracked upon my property and a few located near my property with no bad results!
I’d ask you if you cared about your fellow Americans who aren’t as lucky and their lives are turned upsidedown by fracking, but I know what your answer will be.
Well I have a few friends that were killed while on their motorcycles because of cars so do I scream in a effort to ban cars?
Don’t you dare bring that fellow American bull to play! I am a Vietnam vet! For the people that MAY HAVE (How about a very concise number) I must also consider the thousands of wells that have been fracked with no problems. I also consider the less fortunate that now can afford to put their children through college with the wealth that came from fracking!
I see senior citizens heating their homes with low cost natural gas due to hydrofracking, where before some of them froze to death! I have personally been to gas turbine electric generation plants running on natural gas on a area less than 4 acres producing 500 mega watts of power as compared to the destruction of 12,000 acres of farmland for solar generation that only produces 50 mega watts.
I used to deliver propane to rural areas of eastern Ohio where people on fixed incomes dreaded the delivery of propane. I also saw those people dang happy to get $175 worth of free propane that was free to them by the tax that was imposed upon their neighbors as a windfall profits tax.
I think you better look around and thank fracking for the plastic used in your keyboard of you puter as well!
I suppose you forgot about the gas igniting from the tap water when a lighter was held net to the running water from the video posted by Scott? I don’t think that can be photo-shopped. Mean while Cancer rates in Americans are still climbing, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Obesity. I’m sure you can excuse that off as well due to Ignorance as well right?
I’m sure you have looked up into the sky and seen the trails that crisscross the sky on one day, and the next day it is totally clear with no trails left in the sky by jet air craft. Baaahhhhh.
On 9/1101 four trails were left behind in the early morning hours of that day. A very few number of people that were h bent upon imposing their views upon others left death and destruction, tears and graves in their path. That afternoon I saw another three trails heading east over Ohio. It was the pride of America, Air Force One and its two F-16s the trails of all these aircraft left marks upon earth as a result of a few radicals.
I used to be a propane service man at one time, To make a kitchen sink burn with gas is not hard to do as you tie the gas line in at a point where a camera can’t see it.
As far as cancer goes radicals blame it all upon smoking, well we know that’s not true. People are living longer in the US and guess what the longer a person lives the higher the risk of cancer. You sound like a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation aka Johnson & Johnson the profiteer from smoking cessation products, the sugar substitute Splenda and holding the patent for stomach clamps for bariatric surgery. All money makers for corporate greed.