ARCHIVE Research/press articles incl. renewables (2011-2013)

top
FRACKING THE FUTURE and OUR BRAINS
HEALTH new brunswick
WATER
ENVIRONMENT
EPA- farming-food- tourism- earthquakes- mining- contamination
CLIMATE air – methane – carbon
CHEMICALS
COMMUNITIES
LEGAL property prices – insurance – human rights
ECONOMY jobs – fracademics – frac focus shale gas decline rates-fuel prices
COMPANIES industry -
PROS and CONS
PRO FRACKING
NO FRACKING myths/flaws-arguments-andrew nikiforuk-drilling down series
TECHNOLOGY safety
POST CARBON fossil fuel free future
ALTERNATIVES renewable- solar- tidal – wave -(geothermal)
MARCELLUS SHALE

Lectures and presentationshttp://frackingfreeireland.org/reports/lectures-presentations/

SHALE GAS BULLETIN IRELAND

FRACKING THE FUTURE and OUR BRAINS
back to top

A Dose of Truth Serum

A critical new book: SNAKE OIL: How Fracking’s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future. Written by PCI Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg, SNAKE OIL casts a critical eye not only on the environmental impacts of new oil and gas production but also on the industry hype that has hijacked America’s energy conversation.

“SNAKE OIL exposes the unsustainable economics behind the so-called fracking boom, giving the lie to industry claims that natural gas will bring great economic benefits and long-term energy security to the United States. In clear, hard-hitting language, Heinberg reveals that communities where fracking has taken place are actually being hurt economically. For those who want to know the truth about why natural gas is a gangplank, not a bridge, Snake Oil is a must-read.”

– Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club and author of Coming Clean

SNAKE OIL is available as both a paperback and Kindle.

Gas fracking industry using military psychological warfare tacticshttp://desmogblog.com/gas-fracking-industry-using-military-psychological-warfare-tactics-and-personnel-u-s-communities

Fracking the Futurehttp://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/
Download the report, full of useful links

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/shale-gas-bubble-insiders_b_1199138.html From leaked reportshttp://www.desmogblog.com/battle-fracking-public-perception-lost-says-gas-industry-insider

HEALTH
back to top

ANHE has developed 3 “Fractsheets” that address the health impacts of fracking. In addition to describing the health effects, the fact sheets provide suggestions on how to reduce exposures and provides suggestions on ways health care providers, the public, and legislators can become engaged on this issue. These sheets can be used in clinical practice, for patient education, at advocacy events, and with policymakers.
ANHE Fract Sheets

Fact on Fracking - ProvidersFact on Fracking – Providers
Facts on Fracking – Providers This fact sheet was developed by ANHE to assist health care providers and other advocates in gaining a basic understanding of the health impacts associated with fracking. It also provides suggestions on how to incorporate this information into their practice and becomes more engaged on this issue.

 

Fact on Fracking - PublicFact on Fracking – Public
Facts on Fracking – Public This fact sheet was developed by ANHE for providers to use in their practices as a teaching tool with clients. It can also be used to provide the general public with information on the health impacts of fracking and how they can become involved around this issue.

 

Fact on Fracking - Legislators

 

Fact on Fracking – Legislators
Facts on Fracking – Legislators This fact sheet was developed by ANHE to assist health care providers and other advocates to provide information on the health impacts of fracking to their policy makers. It also provides suggestions on how legislators can work to protect the public health when considering fracking legislation and policies.

 

Study of air quality in Barnett Shale finds few health effects
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/27/5200545/study-of-barnett-field-air-quality.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

————————-
This study (BELOW) has been formally published in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, published jointly by AIHA and ACGIH. http://tinyurl.com/mn5sbc3

workers silica exposure

Worker’s Silica Exposure at Fracking Sites Far Exceeds OSHA Limit/ NIOSH Study Finds Blooomberg-BNA
http://www.bna.com:80/workers-silica-exposure-n17179875594/“Although effective engineering controls for crystalline silica are well established in other industries, controls to limit silica-containing dust generation during hydraulic fracturing are only now emerging due to the relatively recent understanding of the hazard and magnitude of exposure risks,” the study authors wrote.

The Australian gas fields_ personal insights into the health impacts and limitations of regulation

Health officer speaks out on shale gas report- http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/10/06/nb-health-report.html (6 Oct 2012) (this link is gone?!)

New Brunswick report by Dr Eilish Cleary, Chief Medical Officer of Healthhttp://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/new-brunswick-health-officers-recommendations.pdf

Report: new-brunswick-health-officers-recommendations

Will the moratorium on Fracking in NY be extended? A letter from Sandra Steingraber, an ecologist and cancer survivor about fracking and cancer. Sandra received an award (medal and money) Cancer survivors and medical groups warn cuomo the rush to issue FH permits threatens to expose new Yorkers to cancer risks Release, Cancer Letter to Cuomo, Steingraber award, 11-16-11, final

Synopsis of New Brunswick Reportsynopsis-of-cmoh-new-brunswick-report-into-public-health1

Letter to governour Cuomo – CancerFrackingNov16FINAL16

Author and Cancer Survivor Receives Prestigious Heinz Award Hailed as ‘the New Rachel Carson,” Dr. Sandra Steingraber Links Toxic Chemical Exposure to Diseases – Sandra_Steingraber_Press_Release_17th_Heinz_Awards[1]

HF impacts on the environment and human health – 06022012 CIEH Policy Briefing on Fracking FINAL (7 February 2012)

CIEH Policy Position on fracking Feb 2012

 

Dr. Elizabeth Cullen: Fuelling Irelands’s public health problems – http://www.imt.ie/features-opinion/2012/01 Jan 2012

Special report: gas drilling brings stresshttp://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/30010

Gas drilling linked to health problems http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/gas-drilling-linked-to-health-problems/story-fn3dxity-1226240356906 (Jan 2012)

An item from Bloomberg News on health effects concern of Cornell Med School:- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-09/fracking-moratorium-urged-by-u-s-doctors-until-health-studies-conducted.html (9 Jan 2012)

DEA_-_The_Health_Factor_05-13

Michelle Bamberger and Robert E. Oswald
http://independentsciencenews.org/health/risk-and-responsibility-farming-food-and-unconventional-gas-drilling/

www.psehealthyenergy.org

Health and climate benefits by control of methane and black carbon1

END of Health

WATER
back to top

Assessment of effluent contaminants from three facilities

Assessment – Water treatment research marcellus shale

EPAhttp://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many#comments July 2013 (FMN 114)

Effects of shale gas development on water quality: experiences from the Marcellus Shale

The impact of shale gas development on surface water quality has been explored in a recent study. Focusing on the Pennsylvania portion of the Marcellus Shale formation (which stretches from West Virginia to the Canadian border), the researchers conclude that shale gas wells and the treatment of shale gas extraction waste have measurable impacts on downstream surface water quality.

(more…)

Report – Effects of shale gas development on water quality experiences from the Marcellus Shale pdf

EPA links tainted water Wyoming to HF for Natural Gas - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/epa-says-hydraulic-fracturing-likely-marred-wyoming-water.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss (8 December 2011)

Pollutants linked to fracking foud in Wyoming groundwater -

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/259047-study-finds-groundwater-pollution-previously-linked-to-fracking (27 Sept 2012)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443328404578020923049282436.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

Fracking not directly to blame for contamination studywww.vancouversun.com/technology/Fracking+directly+blame+contamination+study/6168194/story.html (17 February 2012)

Fracking fluid could contaminate fresh water aquifers – http://truth-out.org/news/item/9076-the-potential-for-fracking-fluids-to-reach-freshwater-aquifers (18 May 2012)

original study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90528680/Fracking-Aquifers

Lawsuit Filed againstConoco Philips. breakinglawsuitnews.com/lawsuit-filed-against-conocophillips-for-alleged-fracking-related-water-contamination/ (23 January 2012)

Epa sees risks to water, workers in New York Fracking rules – http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-sees-risks-to-water-workers-in-new-york-fracking-rules (13 Jan 2012)

EPA – December 2011
US EPA has produced a study outline focused on assessing the impact of fracking on water resources. The report was published a couple of weeks ago, and gives a really good overview of the potential areas of interest and might be of use here too. And, very handily, they’ve produced a powerpoint presentation on it too:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/Webinar-for-Study-plan-release-11-10-11.pdf
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/FINAL-STUDY-PLAN-HF_Web_2.pdf

Australian Permaculture Research Institute An article from George Monbiot about Cuadrilla, the Australian company drilling in Blackpool in the UK http://www.permaculture.org.au/2011/09/02/shale-fail visit also the website of the author: http://www.monbiot.com/

Australian report with lots of info about chemicals - NTN CSG Report Sep 2011 Responsible drilling Alliance newsletter: -RDA water and air quality

Particle fragments: an overlooked hazard of oil and gas explorationParticle fragments …262na41

Fracking a serious concern to surface water as well as groundwater - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/275na3.pdf

Fracking a serious concern to surface water as well as groundwater (pdf)

EPA Chief - http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/epa-chief-wyoming-water-well-results-of-concern/article_0aacd635-c62a-5eae-9f79-e6ae14eb1906.html

Gas fracking chemicals detected in Wyoming aquifer, Epa says – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/gas-fracking-chemicals-detected-in-wyoming-aquifer-epa-says.html

Feds link water contamination to fracking for first timehttp://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-fracking-for-first-time (ProPublica, Dec. 8, 2011) In a first, federal environment officials today scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process. The findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources. In the 121-page draft report released today, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids. “The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers … and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field,” the draft report states. “Alternative explanations were carefully considered.” The agency’s findings could be a turning point in the heated national debate about whether contamination from fracking is happening, and are likely to shape how the country regulates and develops natural gas resources in the Marcellus Shale and across the Eastern Appalachian states. Some of the findings in the report also directly contradict longstanding arguments by the drilling industry for why the fracking process is safe: that hydrologic pressure would naturally force fluids down, not up; that deep geologic layers provide a watertight barrier preventing the movement of chemicals towards the surface; and that the problems with the cement and steel barriers around gas wells aren’t connected to fracking. Environmental advocates greeted today’s report with a sense of vindication and seized the opportunity to argue for stronger federal regulation of fracking. “No one can accurately say that there is ‘no risk’ where fracking is concerned,” wrote Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, on her blog. “This draft report makes obvious that there are many factors at play, any one of which can go wrong. Much stronger rules are needed to ensure that well construction standards are stronger and reduce threats to drinking water.” A spokesman for EnCana, the gas company that owns the Pavillion wells, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an email exchange after the EPA released preliminary water test data two weeks ago, the spokesman, Doug Hock, denied that the company’s actions were to blame for the pollution and suggested it was naturally caused. “Nothing EPA presented suggests anything has changed since August of last year– the science remains inconclusive in terms of data, impact, and source,” Hock wrote. “It is also important to recognize the importance of hydrology and geology with regard to the sampling results in the Pavillion Field. The field consists of gas-bearing zones in the near subsurface, poor general water quality parameters and discontinuous water-bearing zones.” The EPA’s findings immediately triggered what is sure to become a heated political debate as members of Congress consider afresh proposals to regulate fracking. After a phone call with EPA chief Lisa Jackson this morning, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told a Senate panel that he found the agency’s report on the Pavillion-area contamination “offensive.” Inhofe’s office had challenged the EPA’s investigation in Wyoming last year, accusing the agency of bias. Residents began complaining of fouled water near Pavillion in the mid-1990s, and the problems appeared to get worse around 2004. Several residents complained that their well water turned brown shortly after gas wells were fracked nearby, and, for a time, gas companies operating in the area supplied replacement drinking water to residents. Beginning in 2008, the EPA took water samples from resident’s drinking water wells, finding hydrocarbons and traces of contaminants that seemed like they could be related to fracking. In 2010, another round of sampling confirmed the contamination, and the EPA, along with federal health officials, cautioned residents not to drink their water and to ventilate their homes when they bathed because the methane in the water could cause an explosion. To confirm their findings, EPA investigators drilled two water monitoring wells to 1,000 feet. The agency released data from these test wells in November that confirmed high levels of carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene, and a chemical compound called 2 Butoxyethanol, which is known to be used in fracking. Still, the EPA had not drawn conclusions based on the tests and took pains to separate its groundwater investigation in Wyoming from the national controversy around hydraulic fracturing. Agriculture, drilling, and old pollution from waste pits left by the oil and gas industry were all considered possible causes of the contamination. In the report released today, the EPA said that pollution from 33 abandoned oil and gas waste pits – which are the subject of a separate cleanup program – are indeed responsible for some degree of shallow groundwater pollution in the area. Those pits may be the source of contamination affecting at least 42 private water wells in Pavillion. But the pits could not be blamed for contamination detected in the water monitoring wells 1,000 feet underground. That contamination, the agency concluded, had to have been caused by fracking. The EPA’s findings in Wyoming are specific to the region’s geology; the Pavillion-area gas wells were fracked at shallower depths than many of the wells in the Marcellus shale and elsewhere. Investigators tested the cement and casing of the gas wells and found what they described as “sporadic bonding” of the cement in areas immediately above where fracking took place. The cement barrier meant to protect the well bore and isolate the chemicals in their intended zone had been weakened and separated from the well, the EPA concluded. The report also found that hydrologic pressure in the Pavillion area had pushed fluids from deeper geologic layers towards the surface. Those layers were not sufficient to provide a reliable barrier to contaminants moving upward, the report says. Throughout its investigation in Wyoming, The EPA was hamstrung by a lack of disclosure about exactly what chemicals had been used to frack the wells near Pavillion. EnCana declined to give federal officials a detailed breakdown of every compound used underground. The agency relied instead on more general information supplied by the company to protect workers’ health. Hock would not say whether EnCana had used 2 BE, one of the first chemicals identified in Pavillion and known to be used in fracking, at its wells in Pavillion. But he was dismissive of its importance in the EPA’s findings. “There was a single detection of 2-BE among all the samples collected in the deep monitoring wells. It was found in one sample by only one of three labs,” he wrote in his reply to ProPublica two weeks ago. “Inconsistency in detection and non-repeatability shouldn’t be construed as fact.” The EPA’s draft report will undergo a public review and peer review process, and is expected to be finalized by spring. Financial Times, December 9, 2011 12:06 am – EPA blames fracking for Wyoming pollution - ised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc21fc68e-21ec-11e1-8b93-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=

EPA blames fracking for Wyoming pollution

By Ed Crooks in New York The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that the pollution of ground water in Wyoming was probably connected to the hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, used in gas production, setting off a fresh round of calls for curbs on the controversial technique. The results of the EPA investigation of water sources around the town of Pavillion in central Wyoming were seized on by environmental groups that have argued for either tighter regulation or an outright ban on fracking. However, the EPA stressed that many features of gas production in the area were “specific to Pavillion” and “different from those in many other areas of the country”. Encana, the Canadian company that owns the gas field around Pavillion, said the EPA’s investigations had not been conclusive. “The water is poor there; there’s no question of that,” said Doug Hock, Encana’s US director of community and public relations. “But is that the result of our operations and is there any evidence that our operations caused that? Not at all.” Encana’s shares declined 4.7 per cent in Toronto to C$19.53 on Thursday. The EPA launched its investigation in September 2008, after complaints from Pavillion residents that the water from their wells tasted and smelled bad after fracking for gas production nearby. The agency took a range of water samples, including some from wells 770ft and 1,000ft deep, which it said showed signs of contamination. Fracking involves pumping a mix of water, sand and chemicals down a well at high pressure to crack rock and let gas or oil flow out more readily, increasing the productivity of what might otherwise be commercially unattractive resources. The technique has opened significant news sources of gas for the US, and is starting to have a similar effect on oil production. Opponents argue that there is a risk that the chemicals used could leak into vital water sources, either by migration through the rock or by improper disposal of fracking fluids after use. The significance of the EPA’s investigation is that it is the first time in more than 20 years that there has been an official suggestion that fracking fluids have migrated underground to contaminate ground water; a potentially more serious and worrying issue than the known incidents of pollution by spills on the surface. However, much of the new gas and oil extracted by fracking comes from horizontal wells that can be several thousand feet below the surface, whereas the gas wells around Pavillion are vertical, and were sometimes fracked as little as about 1,230ft below the surface. The geology of the area is also different from many of the other areas where fracking is used, the EPA added. The implications of its Wyoming findings for the regulation of fracking will go into the EPA’s wider investigation of the practice, which may lead to a recommendation of further regulations. In its statement announcing the Pavillion findings, the EPA said: “Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future, and the Obama administration is committed to ensuring that the development of this vital resource occurs safely and responsibly.”

EPA Review Report

Environmental Protection Agency Programme 2007 – 2013 -strive- low res version for web 09.10.071

Hydraulic Fracturing – http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/FINAL-STUDY-PLAN-HF_Web_2.pdf

Epa may truck water to residents near fracking site - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-fracking-epa-idUSTRE8041YE20120106

Gas patch scientist - http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/05/06/gas-patch-scientists-explain-how-hydraulic-fracturing-can-permanently-contaminate-public-water-supplies/

END of Water

ENVIRONMENT
back to top

Results from a workshop into fracking from the US National Academy of Sciences -

Workshop on Risks of Unconventional Shale Gas Development http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/DBASSE_083187#.UcRVz9gvx2P

The large-scale development of natural gas resources from deep shale formations has raised a host of concerns about risks to the environment and human health. This workshop will provide a comprehensive, evidence-based look at the scope, nature, and magnitude of environmental risks of unconventional shale gas development.

Lots of Power Point Presentations!

EPA

EPA fracking study may dodge some tough questionshttp://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-01-06/epa-fracking-study-may-dodge-some-tough-questions

http://www.landownerassociation.ca/rsrcs/ARevolutionUnderground-ASneakPeek.pdf  -http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-01-06/epa-fracking-study-may-dodge-some-tough-questions(6 January 2013)

Release Date: 12/21/2012

Contact Information: Julia P. Valentine (NEWS MEDIA ONLY), valentine.julia@epa.gov, 202-564-0496, 202-564-4355

- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today provided an update on its ongoing national study currently underway to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. Results of the study, which Congress requested EPA to complete, are expected to be released in a draft for public and peer review in 2014. The update provided today outlines work currently underway, including the status of research projects that will inform the final study. It is important to note that while this progress report outlines the framework for the final study, it does not draw conclusions about the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, which will be made in the final study.

As the administration and EPA has made clear, natural gas has a central role to play in our energy future, and this important domestic fuel source has extensive economic, energy security, and environmental benefits. The study EPA is currently undertaking is part of EPA’s focus to ensure that the Administration continues to work to expand production of this important domestic resource safely and responsibly.

Among the information released today are updates on 18 research projects and details on the agency’s research approach as well as next steps for these ongoing projects and analyses. Today’s update follows the public release, in November 2011, of the agency’s final study plan, which underwent scientific peer review and public comment.

EPA has engaged stakeholders, including industry, to ensure that the study reflects current practices in hydraulic fracturing. EPA continues to request data and information from the public and stakeholders and has put out a formal request for information which can be accessed through the federal register at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/11/09/2012-27452/request-for-information-to-inform-hydraulic-fracturing-research-related-to-drinking-water-resources

EPA also expects to release a draft report of results from the study in late 2014. The study has been designated a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment, meaning it will receive the highest level of peer review in accordance with EPA’s peer review handbook before it is finalized. The 2014 draft report will synthesize the results from the ongoing projects together with the scientific literature to answer the study’s main research questions.

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is forming a panel of independent experts which will review and provide their individual input on the ongoing study to EPA. The SAB will provide an opportunity for the public to offer comments for consideration by the individual panel members. For more information on the SAB process, please visit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/BOARD

More information:
www.epa.gov/hfstudy

This is the geomechanical report on the Bowland Shale seismic events from early this summer. Good overview of the nature of the seismic activity and the role the testing had in triggering it. http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Final_Report_Bowland_Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf

Fracking Might Be Worse for the Environment Than We Think
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/17/fracking-might-be-worse-for-the-environment-than-we-think

Concerns spread over environmental costs of producing shale gas. (9th July 2010) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-concerns

FARMING

llivestock falling ill in fracking regions

Lifestock falling ill in fracking regions - http://livinggreenmag.com/2012/12/17/energy-ecology/livestock-falling-ill-in-fracking-regions-raising-concerns-about-food/  (17 Dec 2012)

NOFA series part 1

NOFA series part 2

NOFA series part 3

Sue Heavenrich Is writing about it for the past 6 years -here’s a link to most recent:
http://www.organicgardening.com/living/caught-in-the-drill-zone
and she has also a blog, Marcellus Effect http://marcelluseffect.blogspot.com/ - go to my “label” list and find Ag & drilling.

Hunt for Gas hits fragile soil and South Africans fear Riskshttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/world/south-african-farmers-see-threat-from-fracking.html?_r=1 (31 December 2011)

Oh Canada’s become a home for Record Frackinghttp://www.propublica.org/article/oh-canadas-become-a-home-for-record-fracking (28 December 2011)

END of farming

FOOD

What the frack is in the milk?http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/79918/what-frack-milk
Article from New Zealand regarding the toxic spreading of toxic fracking wastes onto land that will be grazed by cows. People could see parallels here with Ireland. In the article it says submitted by CJT (not verified) underneath the headline. The question mark at the end of the headline covers any challenge to the story. It looks to be a piece of investigative journalism by an ordinary citizen.

The surprising connection between food and frackinghttp://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/01/foodfracking-connection-youve-never-thought-about

END of food

TOURISM

The impact of fracking on Tourism, two articles

The impact of natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing could have a significant and debilitating impact on tourism in the southern part of New York state, according to a new study from a regional planning board there. http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=691

Gas drilling impact on Tourism – http://www.stcplanning.org/usr/Program_Areas/Energy/Naturalgas_Resources/STC_RumbachMarcellusTourismFinal.pdf

END of tourism

EARTHQUAKES and MINING


Fracking ‘not significant’ cause of large earthquakes – BBC News, (10 April, )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22077230


IEA golden age of gas and golden rules on frackinghttp://www.irishenvironment.com/reports/international-energy-agencys-golden-age-of-gas-and-golden-rules-on-fracking /(30 June 2012

The 2004 Mw 4.4 Rotenburg, Northern Germany, Earthquake http://www.bssaonline.org/content/97/3/691.abstract

 

Dag Gas und dag Beben - http://www.rotenburger-rundschau.de/redaktion/redaktion/full/data_anzeigen.php?dataid=55858&page=1&searchValue=erdbeben+exxon

Translated by Google translate: The Title of the article: The gas and the earthquake The Subtitle: Exxon and Co want to measure – and many retain data for itself – by Roland Meyer Rotenburg. The text written under a photo accompaying the article: In Hamwiede at Walsall presented representatives of the gas industry and the exporting company in Thuringia the seismometers, which are currently installed. Pictured (from left): Norbert Stahlhut (Exxon), Michael Jordan (K-UTEC), Burkhard Meier ground (WEG) and Dr. Holger Thoma (K-UTEC) Photo: R. Meyer The Article in the Rotenburger Rundschau: Is the 2004 Rotenburg earthquake but a consequence of intensive natural gas production in the region? To this conclusion in any case is a recently published study, written by the Hamburg Torsten Dahm geophysicist with seismologists from four other research institutes. Although the energy companies go further from a natural cause, but the discussion take an opportunity to install a network of seismometers. The aim is more accurate insights. Less good: Most of the data you want the corporations to keep for yourself. Between Bremen and Celle each year, five billion cubic meters of natural gas encouraged. It is deposited in tiny interconnected pores in a layer of red sandstone. Depth: five kilometers. There exists a pressure bar 500. If the gas can escape through ducts to the top, he declines. This creates tensions. If they move too big to rock against each other. Should be about in France, Italy, California, and Uzbekistan already violent earthquakes caused by gas production have given. In Holland it was after all to earth movements, which caused cracks in houses. However, there is much more gas production than here. Who wants to determine the cause of an earthquake, you have to know its depth. Problem was the data available for 2004 Rotenburg thin – because it was not expected to quake in northern Germany, there were no measurement points. The Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), which reports to the closely cooperating with industry, Ministry of Economic Affairs, moved in 2004 from interviews with witnesses of the earthquake in addition to rate, and then determined an approximate depth of seven miles. Thus, the gas production was initially excluded. Dahm and his colleagues then evaluated however Rotenburger pressure waves, which were then recorded in Canada – one ran right through the earth, the other reflected from the surface and then put back another way. From the time difference, the researchers calculated a depth of five to seven kilometers. Accordingly, the quake had occurred directly under the gas bearing. “The fact that there have been few aftershocks, points out that non-natural tectonic stresses have been the cause,” says the scientist. Represented by the PATH, the trade association of oil and gas production, install the four operating in the region, gas companies, Exxon-Mobil, Gaz de France, RWE / Dea and Wintershall now on his own initiative a “seismic monitoring system for mining damage union as evidence in the field of natural gas deposits.” The name suggests the suspicion that one wants to determine the cause of possible new earthquake to have to pay for any harm about to houses no damages – if the gas production has nothing to do with it otherwise you would certainly turn Burkhard basic Meier of the WEG.. “We take our responsibility.” At five locations in handling systems between the West and Bötersen Unterlüss (at Uelzen) in the east seismometers are installed at two of these so-called arrays. These are quasi seismic directional antennas, Hear the accuracy of the network and minimize interference. The operation is planned to commence in October. Executing and evaluating the company’s enterprise-K Utec from Thuringia. Earthquake resolve on the merits of two different waves. And at the same time. Terrestrial particles oscillate in the direction of the propagation direction, comparable to the sound – at the one – fast. In the slow move the particles perpendicular to the propagation of the wave, similar to the water. Because we know the velocities of the two waves, the computer can connect from their temporal distance to the distance of the center of the quake. And are these records and calculations made for at least three locations, the center can be located. The quake in Rotenburg was specified with the strength of 4.5 on the Richter scale. This scale is not liniear, but ten-logarithmic: If a quake of the earth is moving four times as strong as in starch and three hundred times as strong as with strength two. According to project leader Dr Michael Jordan by K-Utec characterized the new network, magnitude zero to, or more than a thousand times weaker than that of 2004. Earth movements are perceived by people from around the magnitude three. And only those earthquakes to the gas companies also report to the Board of Mines as the supervisory authority. And will not be about the raw data, calculate on the basis of other scientists and even could be examined, but only evaluations. “The mining office is only interested in it. If doubts arise, we will make the data available, however,” says Meier WAY-man reason. How useful is the new system for earthquake research? Professor Dahm from Hamburg would of course be located on raw data. And secondly, he considers a problem that only larger earthquakes are announced. “To be able to predict how likely new quakes are, would be just the smaller earthmoving interesting,” he says. For through their evaluation could be determined to change the areas in which the stresses in the earth, strong and frequent. Befänden there still weaknesses in the old geological structure would more likely earthquakes. In Bochum – where the quake threatened by coal mining – the economy has already installed many years ago for his own purposes a seismic network. Not least for cost reasons, however, only two shocks were evaluated on strength and reported. Because that was not enough and many researchers because independent institutions enjoy more confidence, the university built its own system eventually – with the support of the economy. © Rotenburger Rundschau GmbH & Co. KG

Blackpool earthquakehttp://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/blackpoolMay2011.html

Seismic report earthshaking?- http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/seismic-report-earthshaking-3353

Ohio earthquakes caused by drilling waste water – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/ohio-earthquakes-caused-by-wastewater-well-drilling_n_1180094.html http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977

END of Earthquake

MINING

You might like to listen to these series of interviews by hydrogeologist, John Polglase, where he examines some consequences of mining and drilling activities on the world beneath our feet.

http://www.aqob.com.au/details.php?p_id=832&listid=584&slistid=&seo=Earth_shattering:_mining_induced_seismic_activity&menuid=category_id_6&submenuid=

http://www.aqob.com.au/details.php?p_id=792&listid=584&slistid=&seo=The_Great_Artesian_Basin:_more_than_the_eye_can_sea&menuid=category_id_6&submenuid=categorylist_id_584

END of Mining

CONTAMINATION
Alberta: Fracking contamination will get worse – fracking contamination will get worse pdf

END of Contamination

The unique environmental impacts of horizontally hydrofracking shale - 10aug19_NorthrupEPAcommentsFracking2010

REGULATIONS
href=”http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/report-for-Obama-Questions-Effectiveness-of-Gas-Drilling-Regulations.jpg”> Pro Publica, Journalism in the public interestQuestions about effectiveness of regulations- http://www.propublica.org/article/report-for-obama-questions-effectiveness-of-gas-drilling-regulations

Jim Morris, The Pennsylvania Experience With Methane Extraction or Fracking - http://www.irishenvironment.com/irishenvironment/articles/Entries/2011/11/1_Jim_Morris%2C_The_Pennsylvania_Experience_With_Methane_Extraction%2C_or_Fracking.html Jim worked for the PA Dept of Environmental Protection and is very critical of their failures to adequately regulate fracking. Jim cites a useful website by Robert Myers on particular instances of environmental problems associated with fracking.

Joe Romm, Joe Nocera is still wrong and very unfair. About the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline. -

http://www.irishenvironment.com/irishenvironment/articles/Entries/2012/3/1_Joe_Romm%2C_Joe_Nocera_Is_Still_Wrong_and_Very_Unfair_About_the_Keystone_XL_Tar_Sands_

Pipeline._McKibben%2C_Hansen_and_I_Explain_Why..html (March 2012)

Environmental Enforcement ... – http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/14/368088/environmental-enforcement-in-largest-drilling-states-greenwire-investigation/ Only 4 % of the offences are fined, the companies have regained the fine within 3 hours

Managing the risks of shale gas – http://www.rff.org/Documents/Events/Seminars/111114_Managing_the_Risks_of_Shale_Gas/RFF_Shale_Gas_Risk_Matrices.pdf RFF_Shale_Gas_Risk_Matrices

END of regulations

END of Environment

CLIMATE air
back to top

coal bed methane hazards in new south wales

nsw coal bed methane hazards 20050100

trouble in fracking paradise

Trouble in fracking paradise – 7 august 2013
with lots of graphics etc. By Chris Nelder
Chris Nelder is an energy analyst and consultant who has written about energy and investing for more than a decade. He is the author of two books on energy and investing, Profit from the Peak and Investing in Renewable Energy, and has appeared on BBC TV, Fox Business, CNN national radio, Australian Broadcasting Corp., CBS radio and France 24.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/trouble-in-fracking-paradise/1028?tag=search-river

Shale gas and climate impacts – New figures: Now up to 12% of methane leakage !
Reporter: antoine simon, Friends of the Earth europe
The peer-reviewed results of a new study lead in the US by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have just been announced.
You probably remember that, beginning of this year, the same NOAA published findings showing that up to 9% of the methane produced in areas where shale gas was exploited could leak and pollute the atmosphere.
They made similar studies in another shale gas basin, the Uinta Basin, and found out that between 6 percent and 12 percent of the Uinta Basin’s natural gas production could be escaping into the atmosphere. The basin’s oil and gas infrastructure that was analysed serves 6,000 wells. While the team was recording the measurements, the drilling site was found leaking 60 tons of natural gas an hour…

Remember that, according to peer-reviewed studies, shifting to natural gas from coal-fired generators can have climate benefits only if the cumulative leakage rate from natural-gas production is below 3.2%. We’re almost 4 times above this threshold now…

If you want to read more about this study, you can read articles here and there, or read directly the study here.

Cires noaa observe significant methane leaks in utha natural gas field

Cires, NOAA observe significant methane leaks in a Utha natural gasfield. http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html?utm_source=Press+Release+Contacts&utm_campaign=d1b6a2916b-PR%3A+Methane+Leaks&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2daf272c66-d1b6a2916b-23608889

uinta basin gas leakage far worse than believe - global news reports

Uinta basin gas leakage far worse than most believe- http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56692751-78/basin-carbon-emissions-gas.html.csp

fracking flaring

EcoWatch- Fracking Flares Double In North Dakota- http://ecowatch.com/2013/fracking-flares-double-in-north-dakota/ August 2, 2013

Ceres
The tremendous growth of unconventional oil production in North Dakota has also led to a rapid rise in the production of associated natural gas and natural gas liquids. A new Ceres report reveals that large and growing volumes of this gas are being burned off rather than sold, creating significant economic and environmental impacts.
The report, Flaring Up, analyzes oil and gas production data published by the North Dakota Industrial Commission and calculates that volumes of flared gas more than doubled between May 2011 and May 2013. In 2012 alone, flaring resulted in the loss of approximately $1 billion in fuel and the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent of adding nearly one million cars to the road.

Gangplank to a warm futurehttp://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/1122  (29 July 2013)

Same Article in NY Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/gangplank-to-a-warm-future.html

 (…)Why do so many wells leak this way? Pressures under the earth, temperature changes, ground movement from the drilling of nearby wells and shrinkage crack and damage the thin layer of brittle cement that is supposed to seal the wells. And getting the cement perfect as the drilling goes horizontally into shale is extremely challenging. Once the cement is damaged, repairing it thousands of feet underground is expensive and often unsuccessful. The gas and oil industries have been trying to solve this problem for decades. The scientific community has been waiting for better data from the E.P.A. to assess the extent of the water contamination problem. That is why it is so discouraging that, in the face of industry complaints, the E.P.A. reportedly has closed or backed away from several investigations into the problem. Perhaps a full E.P.A. study of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, due in 2014, will be more forthcoming. In addition, drafts of an Energy Department study suggest that there are huge problems finding enough water for fracturing future wells. The president should not include this technology in his energy policy until these studies are complete.

We have renewable wind, water, solar and energy-efficiency technology options now. We can scale these quickly and affordably, creating economic growth, jobs and a truly clean energy future to address climate change. Political will is the missing ingredient. Meaningful carbon reduction is impossible so long as the fossil fuel industry is allowed so much influence over our energy policies and regulatory agencies. Policy makers need to listen to the voices of independent scientists while there is still time.  (…)
See more at: http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/1122#sthash.8YA4j1be.dpuf


The darkness behind fracking’s silver lininghttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/24/the-darkness-behind-frackings-silver-lining/ (FMN 114)

A good recap of the debate about methane.
What was new to me was that Ingraffea and Howarth – whose study on shale gas estimated that coal and shale gas have a comparable carbon footprint – have engaged in their own field measurements, using a small airplane. See the highlighted text at the end of this article.

Climate Change Fails to Make G8 Agenda, Report Finds 80 Percent of Fossil Fuels Need to Stay in the Ground (17 June 2013)

http://ecowatch.com/2013/report-finds-80-percent-fossil-fuels-need-stay-in-ground/

Lecture on Fracking by Dr. Anthony Ingraffea—Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering, Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow at Cornell University and president of
Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Inc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSWmXpEkEPg&feature=player_embedded#!

Interview at http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/03/meet-anthony-ingraffea-industry-insider-implacable-fracking-opponent

Hazardous Air Pollutants Detected Near Fracking Sites - www.bloomberg.com/ news/ 2012-12-03/ hazardous-air-pollutants-detected-near-fracking-sites.html

By Lisa Song 2012-12-04T00:02:27Z

InsideClimateNews.org — For years, the controversy over natural gas drilling has focused on the water and air quality problems linked to hydraulic fracturing, the process where chemicals are blasted deep underground to release tightly bound natural gas deposits.

But a new study reports that a set of chemicals called non-methane hydrocarbons, or NMHCs, is found in the air near drilling sites even when fracking isn’t in progress.

According to a peer-reviewed study in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, more than 50 NMHCs were found near gas wells in rural Colorado, including 35 that affect the brain and nervous system. Some were detected at levels high enough to potentially harm children who are exposed to them before birth.

The authors say the source of the chemicals is likely a mix of the raw gas that is vented from the wells and emissions from industrial equipment used during the gas production process.

The paper cites two other recent studies on NMHCs near gas drilling sites in Colorado. But the new study was conducted over a longer period of time and tested for more chemicals than those studies did.

“To our knowledge, no study of this kind has been published to date,” the authors wrote.

The researchers took weekly air samples at a site that’s within one mile of 130 gas wells in Garfield County, Colo., with little other industry aside from natural gas production. They detected more than 50 chemicals between July 2010 and October 2011, including 44 with reported health effects. The highest concentrations were measured after new wells were drilled, but the concentrations did not increase after the wells were fracked.

Carol Kwiatkowski, one of the study’s authors, said that because of limitations on funding and access to drilling sites, the study doesn’t definitively link the gas fields to the air pollutants. But because the research was conducted in a region with few people and roads, “natural gas drilling would be the first thing anyone would look at.”

What the study shows, she said, is that more research is needed on all stages of gas production. “It’s not all about fracking. … Air pollution needs more focus and scrutiny.”

Kwiatkowski is executive director of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), a nonprofit research organization in Colorado that studies the impact of environmental pollutants on the endocrine system, a network of hormone-producing glands that affects nearly every organ in the body. TEDX has spent years studying the health effects of natural gas drilling, and its reports are routinely criticized by the industry.

Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs at Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas drillers in the American West, said the TEDX scientists have produced “a study that clearly doesn’t come up with the results they’re trying to show.” Sgamma questioned the scientists’ qualifications, as well as the quality of the journal that published their findings. “This was clearly not a well-thought out and well peer-reviewed study,” she said.

But Robert Jackson, a professor of energy and environmental studies at Duke University who was not involved in the research, said the study is valuable because it shows that more study is needed about how drilling affects communities near gas fields.

“There’s the question of whether there are long-term health effects,” he said. “It warrants a follow-up [health] study.”

Many residents of the sparsely populated area live within a mile of active wells. As gas drilling expands throughout the nation, production is moving closer to populated areas, with wells in some states now being drilled within a few hundred feet of schools and homes.

All of the chemicals TEDX detected were at levels well below the limits the federal government recommends to protect workers from dangerous chemicals. However, those standards are usually designed for healthy adult males who are exposed to the chemicals on and off for 40 hours a week. Scientists say the risks would likely be different for people—including pregnant women, children and the elderly—who live near gas fields and are exposed 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

“We’ve been overlooking these non-methane hydrocarbons until now,” said Theo Colborn, president of TEDX and the paper’s lead author. “They’ve been measured before in cities … otherwise, no one has looked at [them] as related to natural gas drilling in rural areas.”

What the Scientists Found

Non-methane hydrocarbons are emitted by industrial equipment and also by unprocessed natural gas.

When an operator drills a new well, most of the raw gas that flows out of the ground is methane—the target compound that’s collected and sold. The gas also contains water and dozens of NMHCs, including the carcinogen benzene. On average, NMHCs account for 18 percent of the unprocessed gas and are released into the air at various stages of production.

John Starck, an engineer and president of EGL Resources, a Texas oil and gas company, said very little raw gas escapes during the initial drilling phase, because the gas-bearing rock is so impermeable. Once the well has been fracked, the quantities of NMHCs released would be on the order of parts per thousand or parts per million, unless there is a leak, he said.

The NMHCs in the study were detected at levels of parts per million, parts per billion and parts per trillion, but the endocrine system is so sensitive that even tiny doses can lead to large health effects. Federal safety standards rarely consider the impacts of low dosage testing, an omission that scientists say should be addressed.

The study’s authors detected thirty NMHCs that affect the endocrine system. Several belong to a class of compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and were detected at levels that other scientists have found are high enough to impact child development. In those studies, clinical researchers gave pregnant women living in cities personal air monitors, then tracked their children’s development. Women exposed to a certain level of PAHs were more likely to have children with lower birth weight and lower IQ scores.

One chemical found at surprisingly high levels was methylene chloride, a common laboratory solvent. It’s not a component of raw gas and doesn’t appear on any of the public disclosure forms of chemicals used during drilling and fracking. “However, residents and gas field workers have reported that methylene chloride is stored on well pads for cleaning purposes,” the authors wrote.

Robert Howarth, a Cornell University scientist who wasn’t involved in the study, said the presence of methylene chloride points to a need for better chemical disclosure laws. “Methylene chloride is a surprise…We need a lot more information on what’s used at drilling sites overall.”

While drilling companies are required to disclose many of the chemicals used for fracking, they are usually allowed to keep proprietary chemicals secret. Drilling and cleaning compounds are rarely, if ever, subject to public disclosure.

Sgamma, the industry representative, said she was not aware of methylene chloride being used on well pads. She said the samples were probably contaminated in the lab.

Kwiatkowski said TEDX considered that possibility and ran blank samples to test for contamination. They didn’t find methylene chloride in the blanks, but found it “over and over again” in the collected air samples.

Study Limitations

The TEDX study was inspired by years of complaints about headaches and respiratory problems the researchers had heard from people living near gas wells. Many of the symptoms began the moment drilling started, long before the wells were fracked, Kwiatkowski said.

That prompted the scientists to study air quality before and after drilling. They identified a well pad slated for drilling and set up an air sampling station near a home 0.7 miles from the well pad. There were 130 active gas wells within one mile of the site.

Kwiatkowski said the ideal sampling station would have been located directly on the well pad, but TEDX has had little success persuading the industry to cooperate with its research, so the researchers didn’t ask for access to the well pad. They also didn’t want to draw unwanted attention to their work. Local residents are divided when it comes to the benefits and risks of gas drilling, and Kwiatkowski said they didn’t want to cause trouble among neighbors. Their choice of location was further constrained by the need for a constant source of electricity and the need to protect the station from possible vandalism.

The scientists took a partial set of baseline data on July 2010, before any wells had been drilled on the pad. On October 19, after residents called to report activity on the well pad, the scientists rushed in to take a full set of baseline readings. The first well was drilled three days later.

Air sampling continued weekly until October 2011. All samples were analyzed in EPA-certified labs. The scientists tested for more than 100 chemicals and found over 50 at levels high enough to be detected by their instruments.

When the dates of the drilling and fracking activity were posted online, in accordance with Colorado’s disclosure laws, the scientists learned that the company had drilled 16 wells on the well pad between October 2010 and March 2011. Two other well pads were drilled starting in April and July. Fracking followed the drilling. About 100 other wells within a mile already were producing gas and were neither fracked nor drilled during the study period.

The data showed a major spike in chemical concentrations after the first 16 wells were drilled, but not after fracking. The increase was significant when compared with the baseline samples collected before the drilling, as well as samples from most of the year after drilling stopped.

Colborn said that suggests the increased emissions are linked to the raw gas released from drilling—but she said there’s no way to tell for sure, because they couldn’t directly sample emissions from the well pad. Colborn said TEDX and other scientists are already making plans for a follow-up study to chemically fingerprint the source of the pollutants.

Jackson, the Duke University scientist, said the paper hasn’t convinced him that the increased emissions are directly tied to the well pad it studied instead of the combined effect of the region’s natural gas operations.

He said the evidence is weak because the spikes occurred only during the middle two months of the five-month drilling period, and because the emissions could have originated from the 130 other wells in the region.

There’s no question the study “is documenting air quality in that valley,” he said, “and that’s still valuable,” especially when it comes to health implications for local residents.

Industry Questions Study’s Credibility

Sgamma, the industry representative, said the TEDX study “has all the problems you’d expect when a zoologist and psychologist attempt to conduct an air quality study.”

The “zoologist” refers to Colborn, who helped pioneer the field of endocrine disruption in the 1980s and served on numerous government science panels. Colborn describes herself as an “environmental health analyst”—a term that reflects her multidisciplinary background in zoology, epidemiology, toxicology, freshwater ecology and water chemistry.

Kwiatkowski has a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and specializes in statistical analysis. She is a former assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

According to the TEDX website, the organization runs on three basic principles: rigorous scientific analysis, promoting education on endocrine disruption and advocating policy to protect public health and the environment. Kwiatkowski said she wasn’t surprised by Sgamma’s criticism, because TEDX has been willing to tackle issues that other scientists “might typically not want to go out on a limb for.”

“What industry does is attack your reputation as a scientist,” Kwiatkowski said. “Young scientists in particular can’t afford to have their reputations challenged.”

The TEDX study cites two recent studies with similar research goals—a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) from the University of Colorado School of Public Health and a pilot study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The HIA was commissioned in 2010 to examine the potential health affects of a pending gas drilling project in Garfield County, the same county Colborn’s group examined, but the county commissioners cut its funding before it could be completed. A draft of the HIA from Feb. 2011 cited a 2007 air monitoring report that identified oil and natural gas production as the largest contributor of benzene in Garfield County.

The NOAA study, published in February by the Journal of Geophysical Research, found that oil and gas operations released more methane and benzene than previously thought. It used a chemical fingerprint to pinpoint drilling operations as the source of the contaminants, but it examined far fewer non-methane hydrocarbons than the TEDX paper.

Researchers from the Health Impact Assessment and a co-author of the NOAA study declined to comment on the TEDX paper. The lead author of the NOAA paper did not return requests for information.

Sgamma also questioned the researchers’ decision to publish the paper in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, which she said is not a “typical” destination for air quality studies.

Kwiatkowski said they chose the journal because they wanted it to reach scientists who study risk assessment.

Barry L. Johnson, the journal’s editor-in-chief for the past 12 years, said the publication’s first priority is the quality of the science in the manuscripts it receives. He said it has published papers written by industry researchers and that industry scientists serve on the journal’s board. Johnson has worked for the EPA and the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and is an adjunct professor of public health and environmental policy at Emory University.

The TEDX paper was processed like any other study, Johnson said. It was sent to two scientists for peer review, both of whom have published widely on issues of air quality. The reviewers’ names are kept private, he said, because his journal operates under a double-blind review system, where authors and peer reviewers are unaware of each others’ identities in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Johnson said his publication “deemed the [TEDX] paper, as we have deemed others dealing with air quality, as being relevant to the aim, purpose and scope of our journal.” He said that Sgamma is welcome to submit formal comments on the paper.

The TEDX study is “clearly labeled and presented as an exploratory study,” he said. “It has strengths and limitations—I don’t know of any studies that don’t. That’s just how science works … and this may contribute towards a better understanding of what’s happening around gas operations.”

Republished with the permission of InsideClimate News, a non-profit, non-partisan news organization that covers energy and climate change issues as they play out in law, policy and public opinion.

Expedition Provides New Insight on Gas Hydrates in Gulf of Mexico

Methan Hydrate in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf

A joint federal agency 15-day research expedition in the northern Gulf of Mexico yielded innovative high-resolution seismic data and imagery that will help refine characterizations of large methane hydrate resources in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. For more details, link to the Energy Department’s Fossil Energy website at:

http://energy.gov/fe/articles/expedition-provides-new-insight-gas-hydrates-gulf-mexico

Methane Emissions Higher Than Thought Across Much of U.S.

May 15, 2013 — After taking a rented camper outfitted with special equipment to measure methane on a cross-continent drive, a UC Santa Barbara scientist has found that methane emissions across large parts of the U.S. are higher than currently known, confirming what other more local studies have found. Their research is published in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, stronger than carbon dioxide on a 20-year timescale, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, though on a century timescale, carbon dioxide is far stronger. “This research suggests significant benefits to slowing climate change could result from reducing industrial methane emissions in parallel with efforts on carbon dioxide,” said Ira Leifer, a researcher with UCSB’s Marine Science Institute.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515165021.htm

Unburnable carbon 2013: – www.carbontracker.org/wastedcapital

Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision.

The EPA Just Shook Up the Debate Over Fracking
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/epa-just-shook-debate-over-fracking/64678/

EPA Report Confirms Oil and Gas Sector is Among Nation’s Worst Climate Polluters
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mgeertsma/epa_report_confirms_oil_and_ga.html

(30 April)

(…) Moreover, while the update shows an overall reduction in methane emissions from the sector, there are many reasons to believe EPA’s new numbers underestimate the real extent of the climate problem from oil and gas development.

(…)

In the revised inventory, EPA’s overall figure for methane emissions from the oil and gas sector went down approximately 30% from the prior year’s inventory. Recent suggestions that this reduction means we no longer need to worry about methane from oil and gas, however, are dead wrong. Here’s why: (…)

EPA rolls back methane emissions from natural gas - http://www.wbez.org/blogs/chris-bentley/2013-04/epa-rolls-back-methane-emissions-natural-gas-106891

A time for giant steps: a science perspective -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-58N7kLeVEM

 A Time for Giant Steps: a science perspective” was given by Professor Rik Leemans, University of Wageningen and Chair of Earth System Science Partnership Scientific Committee. This lecture took place on February 27th 2013 as part of EPA’s ongoing Climate Change Lecture Series.

Inventory of Us Greenhouse Gas emissions and Sinks:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-ES.pdf

Natural gas Cleaner, not cooler Ever more growth in the use of natural gas is welcome for many reasons. But it is not a cure for global warming (6th August 2011) The economist:http://www.economist.com/node/21525418

 

Natural Gas will not slow down climate change – Study by Tom Wigley, a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR.) Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change. – http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5292/switching-coal-natural-gas-would-do-little-global-climate-study-indicates

Libraries and online collections: www2.ucar.edu

Coal seam gas clean claims under attack – http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-seam-gas-clean-claims-under-attack-20111103-1mxy4.html#ixzz1cgedv1AB

Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gas emissions – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044030/article

Green group fired up on inconvenient report -http://www.smh.com.au/environment/green-group-fired-up-on-inconvenient-report-20111113-1nduh.html (13 Nov 2011)

Scientists Say Cut Soot, Methane to Curb Warming http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/scientists-cut-soot-methane-curb-warming-15348267 (12 Jan 2012)

Air samplings reveal high emissions from gasfieldhttp://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982 (7 February 2012) Linked report Howarth a.o.:

Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development. http://www.springerlink.com/content/c338g7j559580172/fulltext.pdf_

Endocrine disruptionhttp://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.air.php

The report: HERA12-137NGAirQualityManuscriptforwebwithfigures

Green house gases – 1748-9326_7_1_014019

CHEMICALS
back to top

 

air pollution
Fracking: identified 632 chemicals – This figure comes from a peer-reviewed article by Theo Colborn, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange  (TEDX).  You can find the article on the TEDX website, along with other information, and I’ve attached the pdf below as well.http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.air.phpHere is the report: http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HERA12-137NGAirQualityManuscriptforwebwithfigures3.pdf

Fracking with propane – not a good substitute for water – www.texassharon.com/2011/11/23/propane-not-a-good-substitute-for-water-in-fracking/ 23 Nov 2011
Collorado approves disclosure of fracking chemicals – http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/13/colorado-approves-disclosure-fracking-chemicals/#ixzz1gS72yMVV (13 December 2011)COMMUNITIES
back to topPage 8, impacts on social lifehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/fracking-amwell-township.html?pagewanted=8&_r=2&hp Fracking Cracks the Public Consciousness in 2011 - http://www.propublica.org/article/fracking-cracks-the-public-consciousness-in-2011 (29 December 2011) A view from the Green side http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/entering-a-new-dimension-stephan-singer World Wildlife Federation: Stephan Singerin Brussels. In two weeks will be a report on shale gas.LEGAL
back to top
US Shale Gas in 2012: Top 10 Environmental Legal Issues to Watch - http://rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=115205

Ohio Landowner’s guide to HF

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/elpc/publications/elpc-ohio-leasing-guide-v2-june-2011-web.pdf

As gas riches remake plains, lawmakers shares in bounty – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/us/politics/dan-boren-oklahoma-lawmaker-shares-in-gas-field-bounty.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2 Comment by Barry: In the article they follow the fortunes of a Congressman Dan Boren and the effect of fracking on his constituents and constituency. You would say he is a typical redneck supported by the oil industry, and you would be right. His family are major beneficiaries of the oil and gas leases. An extract – “To industry boosters like Mr. Boren, the boom has brought little but benefits to his state and the country. “This is the answer,” Mr. Boren said, saying natural gas is abundant and can be safely extracted. Mr. Boren was among the 41 House Democrats who joined Republicans in 2005 to pass legislation that largely prohibited the federal government from regulating fracking under the Safe Water Drinking Act, and he has repeatedly pushed the Obama administration since then to keep the prohibition in place.” My point is that the anti-fracking campaigns will have to come up with credible arguments as to why poor areas cannot benefit from gas exploration and exploitation. Simply pushing for better regulation is not enough

PROPERTY PRICES

Paper_GroundwaterPropertyValues1(Oct 2012)

END of property prices

INSURANCE
Official push - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/officials-push-for-clarity-on-oil-and-gas-leases.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1 (24 November 2011)

END of insurance

The Handle Off the Fracking Pump (9 Jan 2012)

ECONOMY -
back to top

FRACKING YOU SNOOZE, YOU LOSE

Fracking – You snooze  you lose? KfW Fracking you snooze you lose April13

 

Fracking article 1

The looming shale gas fracking disaster – The looming shale gas fracking disaster – nexus july 2013

 

JOBS

renewable

Report on the false promises of jobs – FalseJobsPromiseReport

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/exposing-the-oil-and-gas-industrys-false-jobs-promise/ (15 November 2011)

Executive summary In 2011, shale mergers and acquisitions (M&A) accounted for $46.5B in deals and became one of the largest profit centers for some Wall Street investment banks. This anomaly bears scrutiny since shale wells were considerably underperforming in dollar terms during this time. Analysts and investment bankers, nevertheless, emerged as some of the most vocal proponents of shale exploitation. By ensuring that production continued at a frenzied pace, in spite of poor well performance (in dollar terms), a glut in the market for natural gas resulted and prices were driven to new lows. In 2011, U.S. demand for natural gas was exceeded by supply by a factor of four. It is highly unlikely that market-savvy bankers did not recognize that by overproducing natural gas a glut would occur with a concomitant severe price decline. This price decline, however, opened the door for significant transactional deals worth billions of dollars and thereby secured further large fees for the investment banks involved. In fact, shales became one of the largest profit centers within these banks in their energy portfolios since 2010. The recent natural gas market glut was largely effected through overproduction of natural gas in order to meet financial analyst’s production targets and to provide cash flow to support operators’ imprudent leverage positions. As prices plunged, Wall Street began executing deals to spin assets of troubled shale companies off to larger players in the industry. Such deals deteriorated only months later, resulting in massive write-downs in shale assets. In addition, the banks were instrumental in crafting convoluted financial products such as VPP’s (volumetric production payments); and despite of the obvious lack of sophisticated knowledge by many of these investors about the intricacies and risks of shale production, these products were subsequently sold to investors such as pension funds. Further, leases were bundled and flipped on unproved shale fields in much the same way as mortgage-backed securities had been bundled and sold on questionable underlying mortgage assets prior to the economic downturn of 2007.
As documented in this report, emerging independent information on shale plays in the U.S. confirms the following: Wall Street promoted the shale gas drilling frenzy, which resulted in prices lower than the cost of production and thereby profited [enormously] from mergers & acquisitions and other transactional fees.
U.S. shale gas and shale oil reserves have been overestimated by a minimum of 100% and by as much as 400-500% by operators according to actual well production data filed in various states.
Shale oil wells are following the same steep decline rates and poor recovery efficiency observed in shale gas wells

The price of natural gas has been driven down largely due to severe overproduction in meeting financial analysts’ targets of production growth for share appreciation coupled and exacerbated by imprudent leverage and thus a concomitant need to produce to meet debt service.
Due to extreme levels of debt, stated proved undeveloped reserves (PUDs) may not have been in compliance with SEC rules at some shale companies because of the threat of collateral default for those operators.

Industry is demonstrating reticence to engage in further shale investment, abandoning pipeline projects, IPOs and joint venture projects in spite of public rhetoric proclaiming shales to be a panacea for U.S. energy policy.
Exportation is being pursued for the arbitrage between the domestic and international prices in an effort to shore up ailing balance sheets invested in shale assets
It is imperative that shale be examined thoroughly and independently to assess the true value of shale assets, particularly since policy on both the state and national level is being implemented based on production projections that are overtly optimistic (and thereby unrealistic) and wells that are significantly underperforming original projections.

Geert Decock
Policy Officer – Food & Water Europe
Mobile: +32 (0)484 629 491
Email: gdecock@fweurope.org
Follow us on
Facebook and Twitter @FoodWaterEurope
Website:

solar jobs in the USA (SEIA = US Solar Energy Industries Association):
http://thesolarfoundation.org/solarstates

http://thesolarfoundation.org/research/national-solar-jobs-census-2012

wind jobs (?) in the USA (AWEA = American Wind Energy Association)
http://www.awea.org/

Employment and wage changes in oil-producing counties in the Bakken Formation, 2007–2011
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/employment-wages-bakken-shale-region.htm
(Upcoming Articels: Shale gas and its effects on domestic natural gas prices)

END of jobs

doc on the 16 nationally largest companies holding shale gas permits- top-16-european-permit-holders-in-shale-gas pdf

Fracking zur schiefergasgewinnung- StellungnahmeSRU_2013_05_AS_18_Fracking

BUSINESSEUROPE position on shale gas – 20130524 – BUSINESSEUROPE position paper on the exploitation of shale gas in Europe

COMMENTS

a quick rebuttal to BusinessEurope’s position on shale gas

Why Business Europe is wrong on shale gas – http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Why-BusinessEurope-is-wrong-on-shale-gas.pdf

JASON ANDERSON | Head of European Climate and Energy Policy | WWF European Policy Office | 168 Avenue de Tervurenlaan, Box 20, 1150 Brussels, Belgium | Email: janderson@wwf.eu | Mobile: +32 474 83 76 03 | skype: jandersonwwf | www.wwf.eu/climate | http://twitter.com/climatepanda | blog.wwf.eu

Frackademics In UK Pushing Industry Spin

No Conflicts Of Interest Here!

The latest fracking PR extravaganza, centred around the publication of an academic paper, Induced Seismicity and Hydraulic Fracturing for the Recovery of Hydrocarbons, highlights the extent to which universities are being hijacked by the industry PR machine. Hype around the paper, whose lead authors are from Durham University, regurgitates the usual industry spin, conflating fracking of conventional wells with the massive slickwater hydraulic fracturing used to extract shale gas and conflating hydraulic fracturing with the whole process of unconventional gas extraction. While attempts by Cuadrilla to get in on the ground floor, establishing a business partnership with Lancaster University, are being actively resisted, some universities have already been co-opted far more thoroughly.

Full article:- http://frack-off.org.uk/frackademics-in-uk-are-pushing-industry-spin/

economy
Energy Independence in the United States by 2030?

SHALE GAS (DECLINE )RATES

SHALE GAS AND FRACKING - report

Shale gas and fracking -http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/shale-gas-and-fracking-report-SN06073.pdf
———————————————————————————————
Unconventional Gas: the potential impact on UK gas prices -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unconventional-gas-the-potential-impact-on-uk-gas-prices


Shale decline rates – pdf
201105_aogr_shale_baihly.ashx

New report by agency lowers estimates of natural gas – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/new-data-not-so-sunny-on-us-natural-gas-supply.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=new%20report%20by%20agency%20lowers&st=cse (29 Jan 2012)

GAS PRICES

Good take on The Sun’s pro fossil fuel and pro fracking propaganda (at the bottom):

Carbon Brief  Weekly 
1st August 2013
<
Fuel prices, profits and poverty

It’s summer holiday time for MPs in Westminster. But before heading off on staycation, the Energy and Climate Change Committee published a report examining energy prices, energy company profits, and fuel poverty.

The report, which draws on evidence from a wide range of organisations, highlights the somewhat opaque nature of the energy industry. Lack of transparency about energy company profits is eroding trust amongst the public, it argues.

Some media coverage of the report focused on the cost of green policies. ECC target=”_blank”recommends ”shifting [costs] from levies to taxation”. Funding social and environmental programmes out of taxation rather than bills, ECC says, would avoid unfairly burdening vulnerable households.

The committee also flagged slow progress on energy efficiency – ECC says government programmes to help people insulate their homes are underfunded, given the scale of the fuel poverty problem. Evidence given to the committee suggested a quarter of the country’s households could be in fuel poverty by 2016.

German Energiewende special
With Britain’s energy policy very much work in progress, we take a detailed three-part look at how the Germans do it.

Germany is busy implementing ambitious reforms designed to decarbonise the country. Part one of our series lays out how Germany’s Energiewende – or ‘energy transformation’ – seeks to cut emissions, ramp up renewable electricity and halve energy consumption, all while keeping the economy going.

In part two, we take a closer look at the German energy mix, focusing on the growth of renewables, but also rising demand for coal. The epic finale investigates what the Energiewende means for energy prices, and energy bills.
END of gas prices

FRAC FOCUS
frac focus
back to top

Frac Focushttp://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2013/04/23/1

HarvardFracfocusStudy PDF

COMPANIES – industry

back to top

Public Accountability Initiative in the US have produced a report on how gas industry insiders are funding and overseeing the environmental groups behind the Center for Sustainable Shale Development - http://public-accountability.org/2013/06/big-green-fracking-machine/ June 2013

PROS and CONS
back to top

pros and cons

Is this the future of UK Energy? - http://www.inlec.com/blog/2013/09/fracking-is-this-the-future-of-uk-energy/

PRO FRACKING
back to top

Pros and Cons

 

Backing for fracking – an article from Professor Peter Styles
Keele University’s Professor Peter Styles, co-author of a government-commissioned report on fracking, explains to Editor Lauren Smith why he believes the process brings considerable benefits…
http://www.scienceomega.com/article/1001/backing-for-fracking

A revolution underground -

http://www.landownerassociation.ca/rsrcs/ARevolutionUnderground-ASneakPeek.pdf

NO FRACKING
back to top

BOOK REVIEW

Why not frackhttp://ubuntuone.com/4c7qGtambbevJERl0mbWaF

review mckibben 08Mar12 2

review mckibben 08Mar12 3

Offical link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/why-not-frack/

HYPE
The whole shale gas hype and promises of the industry are nothing but hot air, dirty hot air.
Fracking – A Boom and Bust

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/business/energy-environment/in-a-natural-gas-glut-big-winners-and-losers.html?_r=0

MYTHS

Fracking the Futurehttp://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/
Download the report, full of useful links
__________________________________________________________________________________________
ANDREW NIKIFORUK
__________________________________________________________________________________________

http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Andrew_Nikiforuk/

1. Shale Gas: Myth and Realities

Nikiforuk tackles top claims fracking industry uses to reassure public. First in a series.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca

350 recommends!!

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/07/Shale-Gas-Realities/

2. Shale Gas: How Hard on the Landscape?

Industry’s claim that clustered wells preserve forests and farms is a myth, says expert. Second in a series.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/08/Shale-Gas-Hard-On-Landscape/

3. Shale Gas: How Often Do Fracked Wells Leak?

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/

When industry says hardly ever, that’s a myth. It’s a documented, chronic problem. Third in a series.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/

When the industry says hardly ever, that’s a myth. It’s documented, chronic problem. Third in seris

By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/01/foodfracking-connection-youve-never-thought-about

END of Andrew Nikiforuk

REASONS TO BAN FRACKING

Another reason to ban Shale Gashttp://ecowatch.com/2013/ban-fracking-obama-approves-lax-radioactive-exposure/

Some arguments to help undermine the economic success story of shale gas. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/the-murky-future-of-us-shale-gas/157

ECONOMIC arguments
Economic arguments against shale gas extraction_Andy Gheorghiu (word doc)

(Microsoft Word – Economic-arguments-against-shale-gas-extraction_Andy-Gheor pdf

Economic arguments: Just to show you how the outcomes of the meeting
haven’t waited too long before becoming concrete, we set a group of
volunteers willing to gather key information that could help debunk the
myths about the economic benefits of shale gas. The focal point for
this research will be Thomas Moreau (tmoreau@fwwatch.org) who is
working with Geert for Food and Water Europe. So any name of expert,
any research, study or good article that could help building a fact
sheet about the economic arguments against shale gas, please share them
with me, Geert and, most of all, Thomas.”

One of the arguments, frequently used by industry to defend the safety of shale gas operations, is that fracking is also used in other industries, e.g. the geothermal industry. I have even heard from a Czech Member of the European Parliament – Jan Brezina – that shale gas wells could somehow be ‘recycled’ for geothermal purposes. I checked this with the European Geothermal Energy Council and this turned out to be completely false. Just to illustrate the point that there is a lot of (deliberate) confusion and hearsay about how supposedly similar these technologies are.

Gerard Lemoine, geologist and active with an anti-fracking group in Poland, details the key differences between between Shale Gas Fracking (SGF) and Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) in the briefing. The briefing is only available in French. You can download it here.

I translated the key points of his briefing from French into English. I copy the abstract below.

The general term ‘’hydraulic fracturing’ or fracking’ has been used to cover two very different technologies, both for the fracturing of gas rocks (shale gas fracking: fracking SGF) and for the stimulation of geothermal reservoirs (Hydraulic stimulation for Enhanced Geothermal System: hydraulic stimulation EGS). The briefing explains that the term “fracking” (or hydraulic fracturing) should only be used in the context of technologies to extract oil and gas from shale rocks or other similarly impermeable rock formations. Hydraulic stimulation is the technology used to develop geothermal energy. How exactly are these two methods similar and how are they different from one another?
Both fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS seek to change a targeted rock formation in order to facilitate the flow of fluids through rocks by using hydraulic pressure, which will release energy. In the case of fracking SGF, the water will transport the gas to the surface. In the case of stimulation EGS, the water will transport heat.
Fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS are very different in terms of their effect on the source rock. Fracking SGF seeks to create new fractures by applying levels of hydraulic pressure that exceed the strength of the rock. Fracking SGF typically applies pressures of around 500-800 bar. On the other hand, hydraulic stimulation EGS aims to improve the permeability of the rock by reactivating old fractures. Because hydraulic stimulation EGS does not create new fractures, much lower pressures are needed, around 50-200 bar, with pressures rarely exceeding 200 bar in geothermal activities.
Another difference between fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS is the amount of drilling that is required for access to resource . Extracting shale gas requires a high density of wells (about 25 per 100 square km) across very large surfaces (100 to 100.000 square km). Geothermal reservoir stimulation only requires about 3 wells to access to a fraction of the surface (about 10 to 25 square km). This is possible, because geothermal drilling targets a specific geological reservoir, which allows a convective flow (1) to take place, rather than expansive rock formations. The much higher number of wells required for fracking SGF and the larger number of abandoned wells greatly augment the risks of improper cementing and sealing of wells.
A last major difference is the different use of chemicals in fracking and stimulation. Fracking SGF requires the use of a wide range of chemicals, some of which are toxic. In addition, fracking SGF also generates a lot of ‘flowback’ water, which is challenge to be treated on the surface. In addition, major uncertainties continue to exist about the fate of the fracking fluids that stay underground, as these fluids may have strong chemical interactions with the bedrock. The altered bed rock post-fracking could be considered as mining waste. In contrast, geothermal stimulation only uses fresh water, which is injected underground. This fresh water mixes with existing underground brines. The challenge of treating waste water in geothermal energy does not exist, as geothermal stimulation functions in a closed loop.
As explained in greater detail in this briefing, fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS are very different techniques. The environmental risks and impacts of large-scale use of fracking SGF go far beyond the limited risks and impacts of geothermal stimulation
Convection is the movement caused within a fluid by the tendency of hotter and therefore less dense material to rise, and colder, denser material to sink under the influence of gravity, which consequently results in transfer of heat.

Geert Decock
Policy Officer – Food & Water Europe
Tel: +32 (0)2 893 10 45
Mobile: +32 (0)484 629 491
Email: gdecock@fweurope.org
Follow us on
Facebook and Twitter @FoodWaterEurope

Website: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/

REGULATION arguments

SUPPLY argument
Latest report from food and waterwatch, which shows that the industry’s speaking point about a 100 year supply of natural gas for the US is bogus. This report questions the assumptions behind the 100 year claim.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/us-energy-insecurity/
It shows that shale gas is not a panacea for transitioning to a zero-carbon energy mix, quite the contrary: It locks us into a continued reliance on fossil fuels for decades to come.
___________________________________________________________________________
DRILLING DOWN SERIES
___________________________________________________________________________

Over the past six months, The New York Times reviewed thousands of pages of documents related to shale gas, including hundreds of industry e-mails, internal agency documents and reports by analysts. A selection of these documents is included here; names and identifying information have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of sources, many of whom were not authorized by their employers to communicate with The Times.

Inclusive a link to : A Case of Fracking-Related Contamination New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4-intro.html Explore the documents: Signs of Trouble, Stoking Excitement About Shale Gas, Industry Doubts on Shale Gas Economics, Questioning Company Claims

Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas RushOverestimating Natural Gas Production http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3&src=tptw Graphics – http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/06/26/us/26gasgraphic1.html?ref=us

Leaked intern emailshttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4-intro.html?ref=us

END of Drilling Down series

TECHNOLOGY
back to top

href=”http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bloomberg-like-fracking-youll-love-super-fracking.jpg”> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/like-fracking-youll-love-super-fracking-01192012.html (19 Jan 2012)

Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

Captured by space - archer_space_brochure_screen
Here’s a pretty entertaining article from the New Yorker about the oil/gas boom in the Dakotas. Gives a good explanation of the fracking processes too: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_konigsberg
And an editorial comment in this week’s New Yorker from Elizabeth Kolbert (who is one of their science/environment staff writers): http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/12/05/111205taco_talk_kolbert

New waterless fracking method avoid pollution problems -http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/06/idUS375448304420111106

Horizontal hydrofracking of Shale gas in New York by James Northrup, Cooperstown, NY James Northrup was in the energy business for 30 years. http://cooperstownchamber.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/from-otsego-2000-the-challenges-of-horizontal-hydraulic-fracturing-in-new-york-state-commen

View the youtube movie: Fracking Hell for an interview with James Northrup

SAFETY
Herald Online – South-Africa: Shell can not guarantee safety of fracking – http://www.peherald.com/news/article/2503

Safety first article in Scientific AmericanSc Am Shale Gas 1 Nov 2011 Sc Am Shale Gas 2 Nov 2011 Sc Am Shale Gas 3 Nov 2011 Sc Am Shale Gas Editorial Nov 11


DEP inspection show more shale well cement problems

Problemen mit Zementierung - http://www.unkonventionelle-gasfoerderung.de/2011/05/23/probleme-mit-zementierung-sind-eine-ursache-fuer-chemikalien-und-methankontaminierung/ (some parts in English) 23 May 2011

POST CARBON fossil fuel free future
back to top

ALTERNATIVES
back to top

renewable

ALL TYPE OF RENEWABLEShttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqsbeYiEJlY&feature=youtu.be

BCSEA Webinar: 100% Renewables – Powering states, countries and the world with water, wind, and sun

A recording is available at – http://www.bcsea.org/past-webinars
Slides: 2013-09-17-webinar-100pc-renewables

Published on 19 Sep 2013

Global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today. Our guest Mark Jacobson from Stanford University discussed these problems, and technical and economic plans to solve them by powering 100% of the world, individual countries, and states for all purposes, including electricity, transportation, industry, and heating/cooling, with wind, water, and sunlight together with efficiency measures, within 20-40 years. He discussed specific plans for California and New York State.

Wind, water, solar resources - http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/1083  (March 2013)

ACORE – American Council On Renewable Energy
www.acore.org

Simply renewable -https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/business/innovation-technology/simply-renewable

(…)The Reiteralpe mountain shimmers in the evening sun as though it were powdered with gold dust. The plateau in the 
Berchtesgaden Alps, with its Alpine roses and Swiss pines, is as peaceful as paradise. Hikers sit on the terrace of the Traunsteiner Hütte mountain lodge, their heavy backpacks propped up against the wooden 
tables. They are quietly enjoying wheat beer and chamois soup. It was the sun that cooled their drinks and heated their meals, for (apart from an emergency diesel gener­ator) landlord Thomas Krüger gets all the energy he needs for his many guests from photovoltaics and solar heat without emitting a gram of the greenhouse gas CO2. (…)
https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/business/innovation-technology/simply-renewable

ENERGIEWENDE -
31.05.2013: Fracking: Not essential for the “Energiewende”
http://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/CurrentPressReleases/2012_2016/2013_05_PressRelease_Fracking.html

Food and Water Watch Europehttp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/
Fracking
A stark choice: renewables or domestic fossil fuels?
(…) Europe’s energy mix faces two major challenges: On the one hand, the climate challenge requires a move towards low-carbon energy sources. On the other hand, recent concerns about Europe’s energy security have increased interest in the development of domestic supplies of energy.
This has led the EU to promote renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. Unfortunately, it has also sparked interest in the development of domestic supplies of fossil fuels and shale gas in particular. Looking at the US, booming shale gas development has reduced the American need for imports of natural gas. In European discussions on energy security, shale gas is often presented as a game changer (…)
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/


UK – Solar, Tidal, Wind, Geothermal.. and Seaweed?
Seaweed found around the Scottish coast line could provide a viable new
energy source for the future. http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/taysideandcentralscotland/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_8645000/8645230.stm


Renewables to surpass gas by 2016 in the global power mix

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2013/june/name,39156,en.html

Fossil fuels and the lobbying against renewable energies

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=246561.0

Sierra Club Releases New Report Highlighting Attack on Clean Energy

“Clean Energy Under Siege” Study Follows Money Trail Behind Campaign Against Renewable Energy

WASHINGTON D.C. – Over the past decade, the fossil fuel industry has mounted a coordinated campaign to discredit renewable energy and hinder its growth, according to a new report released today by the Sierra Club.

The report, Clean Energy Under Siege, reveals how the fossil fuel industry is using tactics such as financial contributions to political campaigns, faux “think tanks,” phony intellectuals, and astroturf groups to shift public opinion and discredit renewable energy.

This misinformation campaign is currently evident in the struggle to renew the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy. The PTC helps support the more than 75,000 jobs in the wind industry, but if the tax credit is not renewed before the end of this year, as many as half those jobs could be lost.

“From California to Pennsylvania, clean energy jobs are under attack by fossil fuel interest groups – yet many in Congress are sitting on their hands while tens of thousands of American jobs hang in the balance,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “It seems these members of Congress prefer serving the interests of the big polluters that bankrolled their campaigns over the interests of working families. That needs to end now. Congress must stand up for the tens of thousands of Americans whose jobs are on the line and renew the Production Tax Credit.”

The Sierra Club’s report follows the trail of money from big polluters to politicians and non-profit front groups. For example, the oil and gas industry spent more than $146 million on lobbying alone in 2011, while Big Oil tycoons David and Charles Koch gave at least $85 million to 85 right-wing “think tanks” and advocacy groups over the past decade and a half. Meanwhile, organizations like the Manhattan Institute and the Heartland Institute that defend oil subsidies while attacking renewable energy have received upwards of $600,000 each since 1998 from the oil company Exxon.

Wind power is a clean, competitive energy source that has seen strong momentum over the past few years. Already, states like Iowa and South Dakota generate 20 percent of their electricity from wind power, and the wind industry is on track to produce 20 percent of America’s electricity by 2030. More than 400 American manufacturing plants build wind components, keeping jobs close to home.

is fracking for enhanced geothermal systems

Geothermal: Insight into the depths of an injection well
“PUMA” – Einblicke in die Tiefen einer Injektionsbohrung
This provides an explanation for the observation that geothermal sites around Munich show a decreasing injection pressure – even though you would expect a rising pressure due to the increased viscosity of cooled water. With the modified hydrochemistry new permeabilities for the water to be created in the immediate vicinity of the well, making the injection pressure sink

Instituts für Wasserchemie und Chemische Balneologie der TU München, Dr. Thomas Baumann
German: http://www.bmu.de/newsletter/de/newsletter-zur-forschung-im-bereich-erneuerbarer-energien/bmu-newsletter-zur-forschung-im-bereich-erneuerbarer-energien-ausgabe-022013/puma-einblicke-in-die-tiefen-einer-injektionsbohrung/
English with google translate: http://www.bmu.de/newsletter/de/newsletter-zur-forschung-im-bereich-erneuerbarer-energien/bmu-newsletter-zur-forschung-im-bereich-erneu

The unstoppablehttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/the-8216unstoppable-renewable-grid/652

Differences between SGF and EGS.  (May 2013)

One of the arguments, frequently used by industry to defend the safety of shale gas operations, is that fracking is also used in other industries, e.g. the geothermal industry. I have even heard from a Czech Member of the European Parliament – Jan Brezina – that shale gas wells could somehow be ‘recycled’ for geothermal purposes. I checked this with the European Geothermal Energy Council and this turned out to be completely false. Just to illustrate the point that there is a lot of (deliberate) confusion and hearsay about how supposedly similar these technologies are.

Gerard Lemoine, geologist and active with an anti-fracking group in Poland, details the key differences between between Shale Gas Fracking (SGF) and Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) in the briefing. The briefing is only available in French. You can download it here.

I translated the key points of his briefing from French into English. I copy the abstract below.

The general term ‘’hydraulic fracturing’ or fracking’ has been used to cover two very different technologies, both for the fracturing of gas rocks (shale gas fracking: fracking SGF) and for the stimulation of geothermal reservoirs (Hydraulic stimulation for Enhanced Geothermal System: hydraulic stimulation EGS). The briefing explains that the term “fracking” (or hydraulic fracturing) should only be used in the context of technologies to extract oil and gas from shale rocks or other similarly impermeable rock formations. Hydraulic stimulation is the technology used to develop geothermal energy. How exactly are these two methods similar and how are they different from one another?

Both fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS seek to change a targeted rock formation in order to facilitate the flow of fluids through rocks by using hydraulic pressure, which will release energy. In the case of fracking SGF, the water will transport the gas to the surface. In the case of stimulation EGS, the water will transport heat.

Fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS are very different in terms of their effect on the source rock. Fracking SGF seeks to create new fractures by applying levels of hydraulic pressure that exceed the strength of the rock. Fracking SGF typically applies pressures of around 500-800 bar. On the other hand, hydraulic stimulation EGS aims to improve the permeability of the rock by reactivating old fractures. Because hydraulic stimulation EGS does not create new fractures, much lower pressures are needed, around 50-200 bar, with pressures rarely exceeding 200 bar in geothermal activities.

Another difference between fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS is the amount of drilling that is required for access to resource . Extracting shale gas requires a high density of wells (about 25 per 100 square km) across very large surfaces (100 to 100.000 square km). Geothermal reservoir stimulation only requires about 3 wells to access to a fraction of the surface (about 10 to 25 square km). This is possible, because geothermal drilling targets a specific geological reservoir, which allows a convective flow (1) to take place, rather than expansive rock formations. The much higher number of wells required for fracking SGF and the larger number of abandoned wells greatly augment the risks of improper cementing and sealing of wells.

A last major difference is the different use of chemicals in fracking and stimulation. Fracking SGF requires the use of a wide range of chemicals, some of which are toxic. In addition, fracking SGF also generates a lot of ‘flowback’ water, which is challenge to be treated on the surface. In addition, major uncertainties continue to exist about the fate of the fracking fluids that stay underground, as these fluids may have strong chemical interactions with the bedrock. The altered bed rock post-fracking could be considered as mining waste. In contrast, geothermal stimulation only uses fresh water, which is injected underground. This fresh water mixes with existing underground brines. The challenge of treating waste water in geothermal energy does not exist, as geothermal stimulation functions in a closed loop.

As explained in greater detail in this briefing, fracking SGF and hydraulic stimulation EGS are very different techniques. The environmental risks and impacts of large-scale use of fracking SGF go far beyond the limited risks and impacts of geothermal stimulation.

Key words : shale gas, fracking, Enhanced Geothermal System,

1: Convection is the movement caused within a fluid by the tendency of hotter and therefore less dense material to rise, and colder, denser material to sink under the influence of gravity, which consequently results in transfer of heat.

Powerful Pipes - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/inquirer/marcellus-shale/20111208_Gas_lines_proliferating_in_Pa__are_lightly_regulated.html A peer-reviewed scientific paper by academics at Queen’s Univeristy, Kingston, Canada that shows solar photovoltaics are already competitive with coal. ScienceDirect – Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews : A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity As the solar photovoltaic (PV) matures, the economic feasibility of PV projects is increasingly being evaluated using the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) generation in order to be compared to other electricity generation technologies. Unfortunately, there is lack of clarity of reporting assumptions, justifications and degree of completeness in LCOE calculations, which produces widely varying and contradictory results. This paper reviews the methodology of properly calculating the LCOE for solar PV, correcting the misconceptions made in the assumptions found throughout the literature. Then a template is provided for better reporting of LCOE results for PV needed to influence policy mandates or make invest decisions. A numerical example is provided with variable ranges to test sensitivity, allowing for conclusions to be drawn on the most important variables. Grid parity is considered when the LCOE of solar PV is comparable with grid electrical prices of conventional technologies and is the industry target for cost-effectiveness. Given the state of the art in the technology and favourable financing terms it is clear that PV has already obtained grid parity in specific locations and as installed costs continue to decline, grid electricity prices continue to escalate, and industry experience increases, PV will become an increasingly economically advantageous source of electricity over expanding geographical regions. A search on Google turns up several tools, including an Excel spreadsheet, which carries out the relevant calculations. Review of solar levelized cost – Appropedia: The sustainability wiki

Nanoparticle Electrode for batteries couldmake grid-scale power storage feasible – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111123151916.htm

MARCELLUS SHALE
back to top

NYT – The fracturing of Pennsylvania - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/fracking-amwell-township.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp (17 November 2011)

href=”http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/National-Geographic-shale-gas-rush.jpg” target=”_blank”> The great shale gas rush - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-rush/ All about Pensylvania and the shale gas

Study of air quality in Barnett Shale finds few health effects

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/27/5200545/study-of-barnett-field-air-quality.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy