Fracking’s Link to Smog Worries Some Texas Cities
AUGUST 7, 2012 | 6:45 AM
BY DAVE FEHLING
The fear is that the enormous increase in oil and gas well drilling, largely related to the technique called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, is releasing sizable amounts of gases. Among them, methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene. The federal government is convinced it’s a big deal.
“The oil and gas industry is a significant source of VOCs, which contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog),” said the EPA in announcing new rules for drilling issued this April. The EPA said methane—what natural gas is made of—is a highly potent greenhouse gas. The agency blames oil and gas production and processing for “nearly 40% of all U.S. methane emissions.”
The EPA says of particular concern is “flowback,” one stage of drilling a well when a mix of natural gas and VOCs come to the surface “at high velocity and volume” for three to 10 days, according to the EPA.
Chesapeake says that flowback vapors are just steam but testing proves that is not true.
The problem is there are Few studies done on air safety, health effects near drilling sites.
John Toerge says he’s like many other people living close to oil and gas development in Colorado — the effects of drilling aren’t just felt in the local economy, they’re felt in his nose, lungs and ears, too.
“When they did this well a quarter mile from my house, I started noticing I was getting bloody noses, respiratory problems,” he said.
These complaints are widespread in every area where they are fracking. It’s a worldwide problem.
Here is the bottom line: They don’t know…
Scientists say what they don’t know about the air emissions from oil and gas development has implications for both human health and climate change; carcinogens such as benzene and the mother of all greenhouse gases — methane — have been found in abundance in the air over Northern Colorado, and they can be seemingly traced to energy development.
[…]
Mind the gap
There’s a lot that’s unknown about what’s in the air around oil and gas, but one thing is known: Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, heptane, octane, diethylbenzene and other substances all make up an alphabet soup of both carcinogenic and non-cancer-causing pollutants found in the air around oil and gas drilling sites in Colorado. What’s less known is how far it spreads.
Raise your hand if you think we should know before we continue with this maddening buildout pace.
This is a good article. You should read the whole thing.
Few studies done on air safety, health effects near drilling sites
10:39 PM, Aug 13, 2012
Written by
Bobby Magill
I’m adding an UPDATE here. I was going to ignore Kevin Begos’ latest skewed article but Dory did a lovely job of busting Begos.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
A telling indicator as to those states that won’t likely do an adequate job of air quality monitoring can be found when one examines the nature of the public’s access to fracking data as presently posted by the states in question. Many of the states in question do not post the latitudes and longitudes of the wells under their regulatory supervision. Other states fail to post various dates or well types that would be convenient for concerned citizens to do what Ronald Reagan said best: “Trust, yet verify.”
Strapped for money and paralyzed with fear for their jobs, many of the state employees are quite reluctant to be proactive, let alone do the regulatory duties to the level that would be considered proper by any reasonable person, let alone a fracking “opponent.”
In addition, air quality testing is fraught with difficulties: 1) when to test; 2) where to test generally (i.e. which wells are of interest); 3) where to test specifically (i.e. where does one actually test the air in the vicinity of a particular well); 4) what is to be tested; 5) how often is the testing to occur; 6) what laboratory does the testing of the air quality samples?
And so on, and so on, and so on…
Absent a proactive state or absent the wealthy (i.e. NIMBY), then air-quality testing is likely to be as successful as it is in Southeast Texas.
Which, in my opinion, is virtually worthless for conserving, let alone improving, the health and welfare of the citizens nearby.
I studied it,
I did air quality tests.
I moved.
It is encouraging to see that reporters are now beginning to focus on air quality impacts associated with oil and gas production.
I completely reject the notion, however, that meaningful air studies have not been performed, or that the nature of the chemistry involved is still any type of mystery. It simply is not.
Sulfur compounds are the issue. VOC’s are the red herring.
I believe that everyone involved . . . regulators, reporters, oilies, enviros, . . . . should try to focus on some of the very high quality information that we do have at our disposal. There has been quite a bit of sampling.
I ask this: Has there ever been a more comprehensive, or better executed study of ambient air quality in an urban environment than the “Million Dollar” Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study commissioned last year?
I would like to challenge all of you directly:
Can YOU name a better study? If so, please let’s get it on right here. This is important. Not all studies are created equally. From a scientific perspective, that FWNGAQS is clearly head-and-shoulders above anything we’ve seen.
To my knowledge, the FWNGAQS this is the most comprehensive survey of urban ambient air ever performed anywhere in the world. I could be wrong. Please prove me wrong. Please point me toward a more comprehensive and carefully executed study.
Unfortunately, the 320 page report which emerged from the FWNGAQS is essentially a witewash in my view, as it inexplicably fails to provide any discussion of the distribution of the carbon disulfide concentrations, which clearly comprise the key findings of this study.
Yes, Eastern Research Group (ERG) I think you are tops in the field. YES, I’m calling your report a blatant whitewash. Let’s air this out in public. Your science is impressive, Your report is a shameless whitewash; and I’m embarrassed for you.
That study set up an elaborate statistical trap. Only one chemical species fell into that trap. This is true on all 20 sampling days. Apparently the wrong species ended up in the trap; as they had to let it go. SomehowCS2 is still off-limits. (no sampling for H2S or COS).
During the ambient monitoring phase of the project, CS2 is the only chemical out of 130+ where elevated concentrations can be clearly associated with proximity to NG activities, Lets talk about this. There was nothing subtle about the results. The association is overwhelming. The science worked. You got your money’s worth.
Perhaps just as importantly, the evidence from the FWNGAQS also made it clear which chemicals could NOT be associated with proximity to the wellpads.
Especially regarding benzene, the evidence was fascinating, and the pattern was clear. The closer the samplers got to the NG activities, the lower the readings were for benzene. The differences in concentration were subtle, but absolutely consistent.
Ignore this data at your peril. Please go back and review it if you have any doubts. How in the world could this be? This isn’t what we expected. This doesn’t work for us politically.
So we choose to ignore it? Are we down to their level?
My hunch is that benzene molecules, ubiquitous in FW, are simply being displaced by plumes rich in heavier sulfur compounds. Benzene may be reacting with the highly reactive compounds in this plume, or simply being pushed up and out of the way. I sure don’t know. I’m just guessing.
But I’m not ignoring the data. This isn’t the first study that has suggested exactly this same phenomenon. Let’s discuss this.
Right now today its about butane. Its about being able to detect subtle changes in butane levels instantaneously over a large area. Open-Path FTIR instruments can provide this right now today. Right this very minute. But the FTIRs sit in monthballs.
. . .while we contemplate what 100 Hiroshimas might look like in Assumption Parish.
Sharon I didn’t sleep a wink last night, and it didn’t have a thing to do with smog.
“What is carbon disulfide? Is it associated with natural gas production?” ~Ed Ireland
Posted on: Monday, February 21, 2011 – 16:26
sigh…
I agree. We already have plenty of evidence. But just like the tobacco industry did the dirty fossil fuel industry will fight it every inch of the way.
I am wondering if it’s the neurotoxin they are using to spray.
Hell, it’s what’s high in the air already.
Fracking Crazy
That’s not quite accurate. Carbon disulfide concentrations are not necessarily “what’s high in the air”. Especially in the FWNGAQ study, the measured concentrations were quite small, around 1ppb.
When it comes to CS2 though, a little dab will do ya – for sure.
I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say “I am wondering if its the neurotoxin they are using to spray”
Carbon disulfide is never listed as an ingredient anywhere. Again; check me on this. Does this mean there’s no CS2 in there? Oh man.
One quick easy example: High Sulfur Diesel Fuel. Have you ever seen carbon disulfide listed on an MSDS or product info sheet? How about the headspace in the container above that liquid? Is there CS2 in there? Some of these mixtures contain as much as 2% sulfur. (20,000ppm)
Is there any doubt in anybody’s mind that true sulfur gas analysis of that headspace will reveal the presence of CS2 and COS? It absolutely will; even for modern Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel blends, every single time. Or I will eat my hat.
Everyone knows diesel is no good to breathe. Everyone knows it is explosive. Is carbon disulfide one of the hazardous components here; Yes or No? In reality, Yes it is. – but officially – No it is not.
And that’s just how it goes in the USA right now:
Coal Slurries and coal impoundments are full of organic sulfur, and this is a very large part of what makes them so volatile and putrid and dangerous. CS2 never gets mentioned ever. Coal kills folks, we all know that.
Asphalt plants: How much CS2 do these guys report through their Toxic Release Inventories? None? Wow. Really? What is the definition of asphalt again?
Paper mills, feed lots, gas processing, water treatment, . . .did I leave out oil refineries? Silly me, that’s where it all starts.
Pesticides, Biocides, Fungicides, Slimicides. All of these type products enjoy blanket exemptions from reporting under federal law.
If it appears in a registered pesticide product as an active ingredient, carbon disulfide will be exempted from further regulation on those grounds.
If it appears as an inert ingredient in a registered pesticide product, carbon disulfide does not need to be listed; as it has been specifically exempted from this type of reporting as well.
Many registered pesticide products are marketed either as wettable powders or as “emulsifiable” liquids. There are no reporting requirements for the solvent “carrier” fluids used for the “emulsifiable” versions of these products; generated and sold in high volumes.
Carbon disulfide and carbonyl sulfide also enjoy what appear to be overarching exemptions from reporting under federal law 40 CFR 710.4(b), as these both appear to qualify as “naturally occurring substances” under this ordinance.
I could go on and on, and I apologize for getting a little off-track. The bottom line here is that you will never see carbon disulfide or carbonyl sulfide listed as ingredients of anything anywhere ever. At the same time, these appear to be common ingredients in many common products.
In the gas patch, all that CS2 detected at the surface must be coming from somewhere. Unless I’m wrong, raw gas from a conventionally drilled well would not be expected to have a signature like this.
Carbon disulfide is and always has been part of fracking fluid formulations. (ask TX Sharon, she has proof of this)
Carbon disulfide is also added/ blended into the brine mixtures in the form of thiocarbamate salts in the process of “clarifying” those brines. I believe this might account for a significant amount of the CS2 being released at the surface. I’m only guessing about this part.
Almost all natural brines will need to undergo some level of “clarification” to remove suspended solids before they can be injected. Look it up.
Do you need further clarification? I sure hope I don’t.
Another important carbon disulfide precusor chemical, which has at least been nominated for high volume injection into oil wells is Disulfiram (tetraethylthiuram disulfide) which has been marketed under the trade name Antabuse for more than 50 years.
Hopefully, you don’t know anything about this. In the presence of ethyl alcohol, this stuff rapidly forms carbon disulfide in the gut of the patient. This is the active mechanism. This is patented; and it apparently is quite effectve. Many folks will never drink again.
Antabuse doesn’t list CS2 content; but does come with a suicide warning on the label. It seems that, from the beginning, some percentage of the patients taking this medicine have been / still are expected to at least attempt to take their own lives as a result.
Exposure to carbon disulfide has been directly linked to suicide in humans for more than 150 years. Some studies have suggested that there might even be some kind of connection with the disulfiram suicides.
Can you imagine?
Nick, I speak only of my air samples and other privately taken air samples in and around my community.
Nothing from our state agency will identify any sulfur compounds because the TCEQ does not measure any of these sulfur compounds.
High Carbon Disulphide concentrations as well as very high ‘un identified’ sulfur compounds.
I am no expert, to say the least, only someone who has dumped hundreds of hours into reading MSDS sheets and researching the chemicals used to have a better understanding of why Gas Extraction has permanently altered my health
There will be no study from TX that has sulfur measurements (except Sulfur Dioxide on EPA studies and privately funded environmental tests) TCEQ does not measure sulfur compounds, nor are they interested in hitching up the sulfur trailer to measure the sulfur concentrations in the DFW area.
I speak only of my experience.
When analyzing data, I think, we’ve discovered, that the within close proximity of the drilling site is not where the highest concentrations of pollutants fall, but rather 3000 feet downwind and greater.
Same goes with benzene.
And, of course, there were no inconsistencies or fallacies related to the FW Air Study.
OK, let’s think about this for a minute. Driving cars caused the same concern YEARS ago. Did we stop personal vehicles transportation or did we decide that we could work to improve their emissions and see if it helped? I believe reason will prevail this time as well?
Nick,
Automobile manufacturers did not decide to “improve their emissions and see if it helped” on their own. Under pressure from its citizens, the US government finally stepped in and decided to regulate emissions. Only then, did the situation with emissions begin to improve.
Nice try on re-write though.
Now we need to regulate gas production in much the same manner. Are you saying you boys are finally ready to go along? Sure; I believe you.
What was your full name again?
Thanks Andy. I knew I could count on you.
Air, water, soil regulation of the “fracking” industry is NOT going to happen until there is an accident or event that involves at least a hundred people, or a community. This is a tragedy. Politicians and community leaders are paid by the industry CEOs to keep quiet. Only grassroots organizations will attempt to do any monitoring–and it is quite expensive.