How harmful is fracing to human health and water and air quality? Very. Commentary by Dr. Anthony Ingraffea on existing peer-reviewed, published science and new CNA report

“Good afternoon.  I am Dr. Anthony R. Ingraffea, the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering Emeritus at Cornell University, and a founding member of the board of PSE Healthy Energy, a not-for-profit science-based organization of physicians, scientists and engineers.

You have just heard a summary of an excellent report by CNA on the expected impacts of shale gas development in the Delaware River Basin. This study is unique in that it looks across a broad range of impacts, uses a common basis of well and well pad influences, and derives projections based on actual past production data in the Marcellus and the key drivers of that production. The CNA study is, in effect, a focusing lens that clarifies the interactions of many factors behind shale gas production in the Marcellus.

I am now going to present information that strongly connects the results of this CNA study to a growing body of scientific and public health results at both the regional and global scales of concern. Please understand that CNA has performed a study of this issue, and, has not been asked to take, nor has it taken, a policy position on it. However, as a scientist and licensed professional engineer, my comments will conclude with an advocacy position on policy.

First, an important insight at the regional scale.  You heard what the CNA report finds with respect to impacts to air and water and the consequent harms to human health. Let’s put those in the context of what we now know.

In 2007 when Delaware Riverkeeper first became an advocate for preserving that watershed from shale gas development, there were only six (6) peer-reviewed science, engineering, and public health publications on the actual impacts of shale gas development worldwide.

Today, [8] years later, there are over 580 such publications, and that number increases daily. Alarmingly, about 80% of those have been published since January 1, 2013 and over 50% in just the past year and a half: where it has occurred, shale gas development has been done largely in ignorance of its impacts.   A review of those 580 publications in the key categories of impacts to human health, to air, and to water reveals that

94% find harmful impacts to human health,

69% find harmful impacts on water quality, and

88% find harmful impacts to air quality.

On top of this nascent but rapidly growing base of peer-reviewed publication of data and information there now comes the CNA report adding a timely and exhaustive basis for giving context to these harmful impacts in the Marcellus play, and especially that part not yet developed, the Delaware River Basin. The epoch of anecdotes is over:  we know have firm scientific evidence of the harmful impacts of shale gas development as forecast in the CNA report.

Let’s look now at the global scale. Can shale gas development in the Delaware River Basin have effects that go beyond the region?

The world’s leading climate scientists now calculate that over 75% of the remaining fossil fuel reserves, including the shale gas in the Eastern Marcellus, must remain undeveloped if we are to avoid irreversible climate harm in the next few decades.  Who will volunteer their shale gas to stay underground?  The Marcellus is now the largest producer of shale gas in the United States. Hasn’t Pennsylvania already done enough to have already released significant amounts of both carbon dioxide and methane into the global climate engine?  Is it in the best interests of not only the citizenry of the Delaware River Basin, but also that of all Americans to permit yet an additional 63,000 shale gas wells in the Marcellus with 4000 in the Delaware rivershed? I strongly suggest the answer to these last two questions is “NO”. I think it is far better that we all do our part in the fight against global warming by deciding now where we will place a monument, not build another well pad, somewhere along our beloved Delaware that declares, “This is where we stopped! ”

Thank you for your attention to my comments.”

R. Ingraffea, Ph.D., P.E. is the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering Emeritus and Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow at Cornell University
www.cfg.cornell.edu
607-351-0043

As a concerned scientist/engineer, he engages beyond the academy to further inform and educate the public on critical scientific issues that involve public health and safety, and is also Founding and Past President:
PSE Healthy Energy, Inc.
www.psehealthyenergy.org

Research Previews Impacts from Fracking, CNA Report Considers Future Fracking in Delaware River Basin Press Release by CNA, August 11, 2015

CNA is not an acronym and is correctly referenced as “CNA, a nonprofit research and analysis organization located in Arlington, VA.”

ARLINGTON, VA – CNA today released a report evaluating the potential environmental impacts in the Delaware River Basin (DRB) if restrictions on fracking were lifted.

The DRB spans Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, and provides drinking water to 17 million people. It contains part of the Interior Marcellus shale play that has not been developed due to a moratorium put in place by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). The DRBC is considering whether or not to lift the moratorium. New York has a state-wide ban on fracking.

“This research provides information to help understand the potential impacts of fracking before they occur,” said Paul Faeth, director of CNA’s Energy, Water, and Climate division and co-author of the report, The Potential Environmental Impacts of Fracking in the Delaware River Basin, “and we were surprised by some of the results.”

“If the DRBC and New York moratoriums were lifted, our research indicates that there could be as many as 4,000 wells fracked in the DRB in future years, most of which would be in a few counties in Eastern Pennsylvania and New York,” Faeth said.

The report presents an estimate of full natural gas development in the Interior Marcellus and focuses on locations where concentrated development can reasonably be expected in the Delaware River Basin. There are other shale formations in the region that were not considered in the study. Based on projected well numbers and locations for the Interior Marcellus, the authors investigated the potential impacts of natural gas development on land cover, water and wastewater management, water quality, air emissions, and health risk factors.

A few key findings:

  • The total area of land disturbed in the Delaware River Basin at the completion of gas development of the Interior Marcellus could be about 18-26 square miles, an area roughly equal to 570 to 840 Wal-Mart Supercenters, including parking.
  • Development of natural gas infrastructure including well pads, and rights-of-way for access roads and natural gas gathering lines, results in 17-23 acres of land cover disturbance per well pad. There could be between 500 and 1,000 well pads. “Gathering pipelines” (lines used to collect gas from different wells) could account for 75 percent of the land disturbance per well pad.
  • Water withdrawals during periods of maximum well development could remove up to 70 percent of water if taken from small streams during low-flow conditions [Is that what’s happening in the AER’s deregulated, blanket approval frac experiment at Fox Creek, Alberta? Is anyone of authority monitoring the water taken by industry, the water levels left, and fish deaths?]; less than 3 percent during normal flow conditions.
  • The installation of multiple compressor stations to support gas development in the Delaware River Basin could as much as double nitrogen oxide emissions in the impacted counties.
  • Roughly 45,000 people live within one mile of the projected well pad locations, a distance that has been related to health risk factors in scientific literature. This population is predominantly in Wayne County, PA, where nearly 60 percent of the county’s residents may be affected.

To download selected graphics from this report, click on the four file names below.

AreasWithin1mileofWellPads.jpg
Forest_Impacts.jpg
InteriorMarcellusWellProbabilitySurface.jpg
ProjectedWellDevelopment_DelawareWatershed.jpg

The report

[WHEN WILL THE CANADIAN ACADEMICS AND AUTHORITIES STOP LYING AND ENABLING THE FRAC HARMS?]

[Refer also to:

Province issues fishery closures amid heat and low water flows by Sammy Hudes, August 10, 2015, Calgary Herald

The Alberta government has closed nine fisheries to protect fish populations amid low water flows and high temperatures, forcing some fishing guides to brace for a full week without business. [While fracking at Fox Creek goes on and on and on and on, with no oversight?]

Lisa Glover, an Alberta Environment and Parks spokeswoman, said the closures are meant to prevent large scale mortalities among fish populations, although this hasn’t yet occurred. [but it’s ok for mass fish kills caused by fracing and tarsands operations?]

“We’ve been monitoring temperatures in southern Alberta for the last few weeks. We’ve had consistently through the season low river flows and obviously we’ve had high temperatures as well,” said Glover.

“That’s going to bring up the temperature of the water, which decreases the oxygen for the fish, which places additional stress on them and increases the risk of fish mortality.”

The closures affect the following areas [Are these closed to drilling and fracing?]:

Sheep River from headwaters to Highwood River
Highwood River from headwaters to Bow River
St. Mary River, downstream of St. Mary Reservoir and tributaries
Belly River, downstream of Secondary Road 800
Bow River from Bearspaw Reservoir to Western Headworks Diversion weir
Bow River from Western Headworks Diversion weir to Carseland weir
Bow River from Carseland weir to Highway 24 bridge
Bow River from Highway 24 bridge downstream to Bassano Dam
Elbow River from Glenmore Reservoir to the Bow River confluence

Glover said the closures will stay in place until water temperatures fall. There is also a temporary suspension of all fisheries research licences issued in these waters until the closures are lifted.

Alberta Health Services has issued a heat advisory for Calgary, which will be in effect until Thursday at 3:30 p.m. Forecasters are predicting a high of 33 Celsius on Thursday.

AHS is advising Calgarians to take precautions such as rescheduling outdoor activities during the day, wearing sunscreen and wide-brimmed hats and drinking plenty of water.

Terry Johnson, a guide with Fish Tales Fly Shop who leads tours on the Bow, said he’s been told the waters will be monitored on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But with Thursday expected to be the hottest day of the year so far, he said it’s unlikely the ban will be lifted until at least next Tuesday. He has already cancelled a week’s worth of trips.

Johnson said that could cost him approximately $500 per day until then.

“Something like this definitely affects not only me but all the guides working out of the shops. For us, it’s feast or famine. You’ve got to make hay while the sun shines, and we’ve got such a short season to do it in,” he said, adding he’s noticed the fish “being very sluggish” when he’s leading trips on the Bow River.

“It’s best for the fish but it’s definitely going to hurt us in the pocketbooks,” Johnson said. [How much more harm is being caused to fish throughout Alberta by greedy water taking for fracing, drilling and tarsands operations, and dumping (intentionally or “accidentally” of oil field waste on land and into waterways)?]

Josh Nugent, a guide with Out Fly Fishing Outfitters, said he was supposed to be out guiding on Tuesday but instead spent his time rescheduling 20 trips.

“We get people that are coming from all over the world. We have people from Scotland here this week, we have people from the United States. It’s not just Calgarians that you’re calling up and saying, ‘hey, we’re going to move you to next week when they reopen it,’ ” he said. “They’ve already booked their flights, they’re already here, they came here to fish.”

While the closures put fishing guides in a tough position, Nugent acknowledged they’re necessary due to this summer’s conditions.

“One of the big things that has to be considered is the long-term sustainability of our fisheries,” he said. “Something did need to be done and the fact they’ve done something is beneficial, and it’s important because we need our fish healthy for generations to come, not just today, tomorrow type-thing.” [Emphasis added]

Some of the comments:

Diana Daunheimer
Closing fisheries to protect fish among low flow conditons, yet, the oil and gas industry is submitting applications to the rubber stamping “regulator” to withdraw billions of litres of water from ground and surface water sources in Alberta. Below are the Water Act applications submitted today alone, to the AER.

00371531-001 – Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

10-067-18W4M

00371532-001 – Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

08-060-19W4M

00371550-001 – Canadian International Oil Operating Corp.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

33-067-05W6M

00371551-001 – Shell Canada Limited

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

35-066-06W6M

00371552-001 – Vermilion Energy Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

20-049-12W5M

00371553-001 – Vermilion Energy Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

20-049-12W5M

00371570-001 – Devon Canada Corporation

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following locations:

34-063-07W4M 35-063-07W4M

00371571-001 – Devon Canada Corporation

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following locations:

34-063-07W4M 35-063-07W4M

00371572-001 – Chevron Canada Limited

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

30-061-21W5M

00371573-001 – NAL Resources Limited

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

03-043-03W5M
00371574-001 – Vermilion Energy Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

18-050-12W5M

00371575-001 – Tourmaline Oil Corp.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

35-051-18W5M

00371576-001 – Rifle Shot Oil Corp.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

33-054-18W4M

00371577-001 – Talisman Energy Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

21-057-22W5M

00371579-001 – Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

27-082-06W4M

00371580-001 – Devon Canada Corporation

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following locations:

34-063-07W4M 35-063-07W4M

00371581-001 – Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

27-081-06W4M

00371582-001 – Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

31-078-05W4M

00371583-001 – Tangle Creek Energy Ltd.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for industrial water diversion in the following location:

20-060-17W5M

00371584-001 – Velvet Energy Ltd.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

17-049-12W5M

00371585-001 – Shell Canada Limited

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following locations:

33-062-19W5M 36-062-20W5M 02-063-20W5M 21-063-20W5M 28-063-20W5M

00371586-001 – NuVista Energy Ltd.

AUG 11, 2015
To receive an application for a Water Act temporary diversion licence for commercial water diversion in the following location:

31-068-08W6M
– See more at: http://search.aer.ca/pnoa-en/search/theme/pnoa…
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

Ross McGruther
The low flows are seasonal….High water temperature is the reason for concern
Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Diana Daunheimer
Ross McGruther
Removing trillions of litres of water each year from the hydrologic cycle as industry does, is a main driver for low flow conditions in our Province. The industry is not beholden, nor is there a way to validate volumes taken from sources to protect in-stream needs. Since the AER has taken over the Water Act in 2013, there is no Directive, regualation or protocol for the protection, monitoring or testing of water resources with respect to oil and gas operations.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

This entry was posted in Global Frac News. Bookmark the permalink.