That’s right, Pennsylvania has about 200,000 abandoned oil and gas wells and doesn’t know where 96% of them are. We also don’t know if they have been plugged. This is a problem when new wells are fracked because the old wells can be an open conduit between the newly fractured strata and other layers or the surface. The gas migrates into drinking water or into buildings where it can explode. Abandoned wells are only one of may ways that gas and oil can migrate from a well site, but they have produced spectacular leaks, and frightening consequences.
StateImpact, the NPR series on shale gas, has a series of articles dating back to 2012 that document the surprising lack of record keeping and oversight that characterize Pennsylvania’s inept management of drilling over the years. These old wells are costly to locate an plug, and the state is hampered by limited funding. As you might expect, those who profited from these wells were not and are not accountable for the problems they left behind.
Many people see stewardship of our environment as a moral issue. The world’s great religions call their followers to love one another and be stewards of all creation. Climate disruption has moral and social justice implications that are the common concern of all faithful people. The forum announced in the flyer below affords a great opportunity to explore and discuss how faith informs our efforts to ensure a safe healthy planet for future generations.
The call to environmental stewardship is nearly universal. Citizens Climate Education has published a book of statements by world faith leaders titled Faith Based Statements on Climate Change. Copies are available from them – 1330 Orange Avenue #300, Coronado, CA 92118; 609 437-7142.
132 Page book of Statements by World Faith Leaders.
Hilary Lewis has used a FLIR Gasfinder camera to actually photograph the releases of toxic VOCs at oil and gas drilling sites around the US. She and her colleagues have amassed some 150 videos and produced a short film to document the pollution of our air. Most of this nasty stuff is not visible to the naked eye, but with the special camera Hilary uses, one can see it clearly. Her film shows how it’s done, and also presents interviews with people who have suffered the ill effects. I recommend that you view it to put a face on the statistics and data that prove fracking can’t be done safely.
You can visit the website and browse through as much of the raw footage as you like. It’s not pretty, but better we know what fracking brings than wait and see.
Let’s stop this “give-away” to the Mining and Fracking Industries. Call or write your State Representative.
SB-875 Amended 7.22.15 has been amended and has progressed 50% thru the PA Legislative process (it has already passed the State Senate). It is now in the House Appropriations Committee. Most likely our elected representatives will try and get the bill approved when the budget is considered in late August. Please send an e-mail to your State Representative (using your own words). If possible, add a sentence or two about being a constituent, and then ask for a “NO VOTE” on SB-875. Bucks, Chester and Montgomery Counties may be especially pivotal.
Additional talking points that you can add re: Treated Mine Water Bill SB #875 (i.e., “treated mine water” means using acid coal mine drainage water for oil and gas drilling)
• Exempting acid mine drainage water from the Solid Waste Management Act removes safeguards to PA’s drinking water • Exempting anyone from liability when using, transporting or storing what is now considered a “hazardous substance” could lead to reduced caution and therefore harm to people, animals, crops and/or bodies of water. Unborn and small children, the sick and frail elderly people are most vulnerable to toxins in air and water. • There is no evidence that treated mine drainage water can be made safe for oil and gas extraction purposes. • Mine owners are exploiting a loophole that allows fracking operations to be exempt from the federal Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
To find your State Representative, click here or go to League of Women Voters Please send your email no later than Wed., August 19. The State Representatives re-convene Aug. 25.
That oil and gas interests might be reluctant to accept information pointing to the end of the fossil fuel era is completely understandable. But the just released report by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled The Climate Deception Dossierdocuments decades of deliberate deception aimed at sewing doubt in the media and the public’s perception of climate science. The report reveals industry internal secret documents that prove there has been a strategy to hide the truth. It’s little wonder that so many politicians today find it easy to deny the opinion of 97% of the scientific community. They’ve been blinded by money and duped with lies.
Proof of decades of deception by fossil fuel industry: Union of Concerned Scientists.
I can’t improve on the summary that appears in the summer issue of UCS’s journal, so I urge you to read it for yourself and then browse through the report that it announces. Although those few who have been close to the issue for years knew of various elements of the deception, the strategy was largely successful and history may yet look back upon the years since 1988 as the beginning of society’s greatest and most disastrous propaganda lies.
For those who follow NoFrackingBucks.net there is a disturbing confirmation that the oil and gas industry is ruthless and unrelenting in its hunger to expand regardless of the cost to society and future generations. Although our focus is very local, the menace is global and it will touch everyone – especially the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
We must consider both actions and words in weighing arguments about fossil energy. On the fracking issue, the industry has gotten legislation to exempt itself from regulations aimed at protecting the environment, and has succeeded in getting other legislation that severely limits the ability of local government to protect municipalities from the ravages of gas and oil extraction. These self-serving legislative campaigns are perverse and destructive. The deception and amoral (some might say psychopathic) campaign to discourage society from acting prudently in the face of a clear danger is a disgrace. If you agree, take the time to phone your state representatives and your US senators and congressman. Tell them to read the evidence and see for themselves how we all have been duped. Demand that public policy reflect climate reality.
Methane, the primary component of natural gas, exists in great quantities as methane hydrate trapped as slush in the permafrost both on land and under the Arctic sea. For at least 20 years climate scientists have known that global warming could accelerate the thawing of the permafrost, amplifying and accelerating the warming trend caused by humans and natural events.
(Global distribution of methane averaged over 2011 by NASA/AIRS. Note the very high concentrations in the Arctic region. For this map, the highest concentrations occur in the Yedoma region of Russia, a region of multiplying methane emitting tundra melt and Thermokarst lakes [see below]. Image source: NASA/AIRS.) ~credit: Robert ScribblerThough it eventually breaks down, during its life cycle in the upper atmosphere methane is 84 times as damaging as carbon dioxide as a contributor to warming. Both gasses act like an atmospheric blanket that lets sunlight in, but keeps the heat from radiating back into space, but methane is 20 time as potent in causing the planet to heat up. Methane eventually breaks down but carbon dioxide persists until plants convert it to carbon and oxygen.
Methane instability is almost universally recognized as an important risk factor to life as we know it on earth. Some scientists estimate Arctic releases will add about 34% to the methane humans cause to be released this century. But recently there has been disturbing evidence suggesting that the models are underestimating the rate of release of Arctic methane as global warming happens. In 2011 two Russian scientists observed huge plumes of methane bubbles erupting from the Arctic sea. Subsequent investigation points to shifts in warmer ocean currents thawing and releasing ancient stores of methane hydrate.
The word “instability” refers to the prospect of starting a warming chain reaction where the thawing of methane hydrate alone is sufficient to sustain global warming without human input. That’s the methane precipice – irreversable thawing of frozen methane. Some refer to this as a feedback loop – the more methane, the faster the thaw, which in turn releases more methane, which in turn … We’ve built a house of cards and we are racing to quantify just how far we can push warming before it tips and methane instability brings us crashing down.
The on-the-surface observations are corroborated by NASA satellite technology that maps methane release, and also by aircraft air sampling that detects higher than normal local concentrations of methane in the air. None of this converging evidence is encouraging, and much of the research has only been published in the last couple of years. It’s my personal take that models as recent as 2007 are underestimating the thaw. When the newest information is processed we’ll know better, but will we act?
At the same time, it’s becoming clear that we have been underestimating the amount of methane that the gas and oil industry leaks into the air. As I write this, aircraft monitoring projects are scanning Pennsylvania. Similar projects have already documented that releases in Texas are 50% higher than previously believed. In the fog of our collective ignorance and denial, we are running full speed toward the methane precipice, heedless of the danger.
Sea rise that inundates coastal areas all over the globe is one of several long range consequences. Me – I’m 75 and I’ll be long dead before it happens. But my grandchildren will experience the effects, and their kids will be living in a very different world where the shape of the continents has changed and inland weather is markedly different. Many creatures will not adapt. It’s not a happy trend to contemplate unless we get smarter very fast.
Market forces have combined with political opportunism to bury good sense. We subsidize fossil fuels to a greater degree than we do sustainable energy, tilting the playing field in the wrong direction. Unbridled development of shale gas and oil is creating oversupply and driving down prices. Consequently sustainable non-carbon energy is the high priced alternative … in the short term.
Given the consequences of using it, fossil energy is far too cheap for our own good. A gradual increase in fossil fuel cost would shift the market to support and foster better renewable, non polluting, safe energy. The needed renewable technology has been feasible since 2007 and its cost has been steadily dropping. These days renewable energy is the noble thing to do, but taking the long view, it is also the frugal thing to do. The price we pay at the pump does not include the costs of climate change. We are wantonly squandering the heritage of future generations while dancing on the edge of an abyss. There is no “free ride.”
A few far-sighted leaders are embracing the need to make adjustments. These would take the form of correcting the artificially low price of non-renewable energy. The strategy is actually rather simple: end subsidies and assess fees for the environmental costs that don’t presently get priced in to what we pay for fossil energy. One such strategy is CCL’s Carbon Fee and Dividend – legislation that would add an annual escalating fee to fossil fuels and return the money to families. It’s not unlike the petroleum fees Alaska distributes to state residents. The eventual negative effects on the fossil fuel sector would be more than offset by the positive stimulus of the dividends paid. Economic modeling shows middle and low income families coming out money ahead and a net growth in jobs.
Such re-balancing of the energy playing field harnesses market forces to make innovation and investment in clean energy increasingly attractive, driving down the cost of renewable sources relative to fossil fuels. The point here is to recognize that there are practical strategies available that we should be doing now. Concern about the methane precipice should motivate us even if high-minded environmental stewardship doesn’t.
Because the fracked cracks can extend some 2,000 feet above the well bore hole, wells that lie less than a mile (5,280 feet) below the surface pose a higher risk for water contamination. According to Stanford University scientist Robert Jackson:
“Not all shallow wells pose the same threat to groundwater. The “riskiest” fracked wells are both shallow and use high levels of water—1 million gallons or more, said Jackson. Studies have shown that when these high-pressure wells fracture the bedrock, the cracks can extend as much as 2,000 feet upward. This provides an opportunity for the chemical-laced water used in fracking to migrate to the shallower depths of the water table. And the smaller the gap between drilling and surface water, the greater the chance of interaction.”
Water in eastern Bucks is supposed to be perched atop bedrock that lies between 100 and 250 feet below the surface. Sampling a few records in the domestic well database I found wells drilled to depths of 500 feet below the ground level in Wrightstown, and 300 feet in Newtown Township, but the ups and downs of local terrain influence the depth relative to the geological data. Some of the drillers reported drilling through bedrock at less than 10 feet. Some wells are for withdrawal of potable water, others are used for geothermal heat.
Most of the aquifer is recharged by infiltration from the surface and nearby streams and the Delaware River. The shale gas layers that have fair to good gas potential begin at 3,000 feet. Simple math says that hydraulic fracturing could reach to within 500 feet of layers reached by domestic water wells. One can’t know, of course, what natural fissure and cracks may exist in the bedrock that might provide pathways for fracking chemicals pumped into the ground at 9,000 psi to find there way upward. But the notion that “miles of bedrock” lie between the fracked layer and the water layer simply is not true in the Newark Basin.
Given the poor record of the gas and oil drilling industry for predicting or preventing leaks, it would seem very risky to do shallow fracking. If it were to be allowed, there should be mandatory independent monitoring of groundwater quality utilizing test wells near the drill pad. Equally important there must be substantial financial bonding and insurance requirements to fund remediation should methane or fracking chemical contamination be found.
Drilling for gas and oil has always been a gamble. In conventional wells the geologists try to identify locations where gas and/or oil collect as they seep through layers of rock. The layers of rock deep in the earth are deformed by the movement of the tectonic plates forming folds and shears that over the millennia create pockets where the liquids and gas pool. Shale gas differs because it is distributed in porous rock and must be given pathways to flow to the well. Enter hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” which makes cracks and props them open so gas can escape. Some places may be better than others to drill, but the bore hole needs only hit a fairly large target layer where shale gas lies trapped and then turn horizontally and follow it for as many as four miles.
Discovery is not the only “crap shoot” in the shale gas business. The profitability of the produced gas is a function of market price and demand. Just now the prices are low. Middle Eastern suppliers, anticipating the success of shale gas and oil have dropped prices to stem the flow of cash into the shale energy sector. To some extent that strategy is working. As new sources around the globe come on line increased competition will make matters worse. The Economist Magazine predicts that there will be blood:
“No wonder that the fight over the finances of America’s shale-oil industry has turned nasty. In one corner are shortsellers, including David Einhorn, a hedge-fund manager whose scalps include Lehman Brothers. They argue that “fracking”—the business of blasting oil out of rocks using water, sand and chemicals—is a bottomless pit into which too much cash has been thrown.
The ingenuity of America’s shale industry is admirable, the state of its finances awful. (click to read more) The Economist 7/4/15
In the other corner are America’s oil pioneers, who say that shale can thrive even though the benchmark American oil price has dropped from over $100 a barrel last year to $57 today. The oilmen are backed by plenty of other investors who are still pumping money into shale firms: some $35 billion of equity and bonds has been raised since December.
Both sides have a point. It makes sense to be cheery about the long-term prospects for shale energy—and to be queasy about today’s bunch of fracking firms (see article).”
Savvy investors arrive early and leave early before the bubble bursts, but the crowd usually buys in late causing the bubble to swell and then burst.
For communities where shale gas is being developed these financial uncertainties are not good news. A bankrupt company won’t be paying out “mailbox” money, and may be tempted to cut corners in the construction of their wells. The industry can’t operate with zero impact; the best that they can promise is to minimize impact and to mitigate the damage they do afterwards. Obviously one can’t count on a bankrupt organization to keep its promises. When the money stops the roughnecks move on, the equipment gets repossessed and the locals are left with the derelicts.
If the prediction that shale gas is an investment bubble is correct, then the big losers will be the regions ravaged by the rush to cash in. The Wall Street bettors will find another game, but the local communities? C’est laissez-faire.
For many of those newly concerned about fracking the amount of information is overwhelming. Hundreds of very good sources exist, and there are hundreds more that are just shrill opinion or propaganda. It’s a chore to sort through it all. I’ve been focused on this for three weeks pretty much full time, and I still find surprising new information.
Food and Water Watch report on Fracking. (click to view)
One of my recent finds is this report by Food and Water Watch, a credible source. The report offers a comprehensive overview and an impressive listing of end notes (320 of them) so scholars and skeptics can check sources.
Survey Article on Fracking (click to view)
Another survey article appeared in Law Street and lists source websites the author used while attempting to write a balanced pro and con review of fracking.
Yesterday (July 20th) I updated the homepage of this site by adding a summary of the fracking issues of specific concern to our area of Bucks County. Although the content is not new, it was scattered in various posts and links on the site and wasn’t a quick read. Page one gives a quick overview and the “read more” drills down for more detail. (pun intended.) It’s a work in process and I will be adding illustrations and links to enrich what’s presented there.
The video portfolio on this site has excellent animated graphics to help you understand and the fracking tour presents actual photographs of all stages of the process so you see the impact on the land and the community.
Thanks to all those who have been emailing links and articles. I now know more than I ever wanted to. But don’t stop. It all gets noted and saved.
Side Bar – Anonymous Propaganda vs. Responsible Opinion
I have spent some time reading pro fracking information to see what I might be missing. There is a lot of very well designed material that’s clearly the product of a professional ad agency. It stands in sharp contrast to the scientific and news sources. Few items have a named author or actually cite sources. They seek to convince the way advertising does with crafted language and phrasing that glosses over the inconvenient facts.
By contrast, the science discusses the limits and uncertainties. It cites sources and explains how the authors arrived at their findings, and the articles appear in journals and publications that are reviewed by informed peers.
The advocacy literature unabashedly presents a viewpoint and often uses language that characterizes the drillers and the energy industry negatively. But the big difference between the ad copy and these activist articles is that the authors put their personal and/or orginazitions’ names on the product. Most quote authorities by name and cite print sources. Although they are making a case, there is no pretense otherwise.
We also don’t know if they have been plugged. This is a problem when new wells are fracked because the old wells can be an open conduit between the newly fractured strata and other layers or the surface. The gas migrates into drinking water or into buildings where it can explode. Abandoned wells are only one of may ways that gas and oil can migrate from a well site, but they have produced spectacular leaks, and frightening consequences.
You must be logged in to post a comment.