“The Fracking Revolution: Good or Bad for Pennsylvania?”
– An Earth Day 2015 Debate
On April 22, Earth Day 2015, I went to Lebanon Valley College to take part in a debate on fracking. It was called “The Fracking Revolution: Good or Bad for Pennsylvania?” Hosted by LVC history professor Michael Schroeder, the debate put me up against Kevin Lynn, Communications Director for the Linde Corporation, a company providing pipeline and other construction services to the shale gas industry.
That debate can now be seen online at this link.
At the debate I promised Mr. Lynn that I would provide him with sources behind the statements I was making. That is what the following does. Starting with a letter to Mr. Lynn, I lay out a host of resources that cause me to be calling for a ban on fracking.
The debate is somewhat slow in developing, especially since Mr. Lynn started off by reading, and continued to read, from papers he had brought to…well, read. His message to the audience seemed to be that we needed to be schooled on the point that “We are energy pigs here in America, and we are not about to reduce our energy use, and I am one of the guys that makes sure you get the energy you want.”
My response to Mr. Lynn starts with a letter asking him to think more deeply about how we are relating to Nature and to Mother Earth these days. I share that response here so that others may access the resources that I was referencing as we debated. Hopefully these notes & sources will be of use to others as we continue our work to ban fracking.
– Stephen Cleghorn
Dear Kevin –
I promised in our debate that I would follow up with sources of the “facts” that I stated as we talked. In fact I said “I can see my email to Kevin getting quite large because there are studies behind every single number that I have used.”
Well, here is that email (Word version is attached, too.) The stack is pretty high.
I am sending this to our debate convener Michael Schroeder, too, in hopes that he can make it into a Google document that gets posted with the debate video so that people watching the debate can find out why I said what I did.
I hope you will do a similar document of resources for the points you made. I think it would be good for people watching our debate to have the sources we each brought to the table either on paper or in our heads.
Let me say right off that it’s a big world of data and studies out there, and it is a well established fact that adults when they argue about something they perceive to be true always look for the information that affirms their point of view. Yet I believe I have sincerely tried to see this issue from both sides since I did my original PowerPoint on the case for a moratorium. (The link to that PowerPoint is included in the notes below.)
I sought out Dr. Engelder for his ideas about fracking, and I actually hope he is right in his recent study that “Capillary tension and imbibition sequester frack fluid in Marcellus gas shale” (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/52/E3625.full ), but I also read the “Reply” that states “there is evidence for natural migration of brine and subsequent dilution in shallow drinking water aquifers. The timing of emplacement and the rate of brine migration remain open and important questions in continuing efforts to determine risks” I have more about that in reference below, but here is the “Reply” to Dr. Engelder. (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/52/E3626.full ).
The Engelder piece and the “Reply” brings me back to what I say most often about the risks of this industry – there is no scientific consensus that irreparable environmental harm cannot happen as a result of this kind of drilling for natural gas. That is why I consider the practice and the industry (corporations and people) to be fundamentally irresponsible in going forward with it given the current state of the science about it.
By the way, Range Resources (like other companies) has pretty much admitted as much about their ignorance of what is happening down below in its SEC filing for investors, where they have to inform them of risks. See the last sentence especially that states: “As we begin drilling to deeper horizons and in more geologically complex areas, we could experience a greater increase in operating and financial risks due to inherent higher reservoir pressures and unknown downhole risk exposures” (emphasis added).
My older brother is an engineer and his comment on fracking, after reading the Range Resources statement and much else about the unknowns for unconventional drilling for shale gas, is that “You cannot manage a process if you do not know what it is that you have to manage.” Dr. Anthony Ingraffea – a deeply qualified expert and teacher of “fracture mechanics” – essentially says the same thing in his lecture “Facts on Fracking” (https://youtu.be/RY3eSwIEwek ) in which he says that the industry has “models” of what goes on down below, but they are only models. He describes fracking mechanics in terms of “linear chaos theory” as to how cracks in the shale are propagated. I do not pretend to understand this fully, but the sense of it in his lecture is that the engineers do not really know how the cracks in the shale will propagate, and perhaps they will extend beyond the shale and drilling fluids (and gas) could find its way into what the industry calls the “overburden” of rock strata, then perhaps to groundwater sources. He thinks that is “unlikely,” but not “impossible.”
That sounds altogether too risky to me and I think it a good example of the “hubris” exhibited by humans in the ways we think we can “manage” and “control” the physics, biology and hydrology of our Earth to get some relatively cheap fossil fuel.
Be that as it may, you asked me for sources and here they are. By no means have I worked through every moment of our debate as I simply cannot devote that kind of time to it right now.
However, I hope you will find that I have addressed the points that most concerned you. I look forward to seeing your reply.
Lastly before beginning, I want to point out what may be the basic difference in perspective between us. You brought it up when you quoted “I was once like you are now” – from the Cat Stevens song “Father and Son.” Your mention of that lyric was sort of condescending, but not a deal breaker in a debate, so I just let it go by. I knew the full lyrics are much more subtle than you saying to me, like a father saying to his son “Grow up!”
The inference of the lyric as you used it in our debate was this: “I used to think like you do, but now I know better. I have become more realistic about the need for this energy, and at the same time more pessimistic about people being able to do without it or make the changes necessary to create a new world, much as I might like to see that new world.”
Here are the full lyrics from the stanza in the song from which you drew:
“Father and Son” by Cat Stevens
I was once like you are now
And I know that it’s not easy
To be calm when you’ve found
Something going on.
But take your time, think a lot
Think of everything you’ve got
For you will still be here tomorrow
But your dreams may not.
Okay, true enough, it is hard for me to be calm based on what I have found going on with fracking, and all manner of other extreme and profligate use of fossil fuels when we should and do know better. But unlike the father in the song, I am not ready to advise myself to settle for losing my dream that we may be able to sustain this planet for future generations.
In the end I felt like we were debating around the edges of the real debate, which is really about what sort of dream we have for this Earth. I cannot be happy just “thinking of everything I’ve got” from the industrial era that is now threatening to deprive my children and their children of the enjoyments of life and Nature that I have enjoyed.
I suppose you could say that as I have grown older I have become more idealistic, not less, despite the evidence of sorrow and despair, more focused on the “Dream of the Earth” as Thomas Berry writes about that in his book of that title, more convinced that what he taught is the key to our survival – “The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects.” http://www.thomasberry.org/Essays/MeadowAcrossCreek.html
You and I were debating on points of “mechanistic science” that seems to offer no more hope for the world than yet another technical solution, some sort of big CO2 sucking machine (geo-engineering) to restore a habitable atmosphere, or some sort of yet to be discovered “fix,” when I believe the real hope lies in a change of consciousness and spirit, reclaiming the way a child perceives Nature, the very perception the father in the Cat Stevens song is telling him to abandon. It is just that abandonment that I refuse to do.
Instead as I said in this video about the conservation easement on my farm, the one that asserts that Nature has rights greater than my property rights (the easement is posted on my farm’s website), I think we need a paradigm shift in how we see Nature. Like Chief Seattle once said (paraphrasing here), “We belong to the Earth. The Earth does not belong to us.”
At the same time I have been trained as a scientist (albeit a social scientist), and that means I must be prepared in debates such as we had to stick to facts and not talk about dreams. So now I return to that and provide the sources I promised to provide you and others listening in on us.
J. Stephen Cleghorn, PhD
References & notes:
Debate on Fracking with Kevin Lynn as Lebanon Valley College
KEVIN: “Have to see some proof, some statistics.”
A few words first about formatting these notes:
1) I will use KEVIN or STEVE to preface what were statements made in the course of the debate, usually paraphrased;
2) I will use CLEGHORN to preface comments made to carry along these notes as connective tissue or add to what I said in the debate (usually taken from my notes to prepare for the debate);
3) More or less broad categories of ISSUES debated will have a title in CAPS and will be set off by ++++++ signs so that you and readers will know where they are at in the discussion;
4) When is use the word FACT it is because I presented this in the debate, and do so again in these notes, as a FACT that is based on science and studies.
5) Italicized words are direct quotes from the source being referenced.
That said, the issues are not arranged in order of priority. This is not a paper so much as a collection of notes related to what we talked about at Lebanon Valley College.
So here we go with some proof and statistics (if you read the studies).
ISSUE: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, NATURAL GAS AS A BRIDGE FUEL to a cleaner energy future. Is natural gas a “bridge fuel” or does the investment in oil & gas infrastructure commit us to fossil fuels & detract from the effort to develop renewable energy sources? What about fugitive methane from fracking practice and infrastructure as a fact that hastens climate change?
KEVIN: questions the 5% methane leakage that negates the greenhouse gas benefit of burning natural gas for electricity generation. “I’m not afraid of the truth.” Show me the studies.
STEVE: Yes, NG burns cleaner, but then we must look at life cycle analysis of how fracking puts methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
FACT: science says about 5% loss from newly built infrastructure and practices of (High Volume Slickwater Fracking (HVSF). So here are some studies having to do with methane migration, right now and very likely far into the future as well casings inevitably fail.
CLEGHORN: Science is not completely settled yet as to raw methane emissions, with estimates of leakage running between 2% and 17%, but the facts are a far cry from industry PR about how NG is a “bridge fuel.” Best estimates of methane emissions (from flaring, leaks thru the infrastructure) is about 5% – which negates the climate change benefits of burning NG for electricity as compared to coal. And that does not even count the thousands of old shallow wells that are leaking methane, and it does not consider the industry’s own estimate that about 50% of the concrete & steel casings in their wells will develop leaks within 30 years and we will have methane coming up into the atmosphere and water tables. Methane is much more potent as a greenhouse gas on a 20-year horizon and we do not have 20 years to get global warming under better control. Better controls are being required now, but the industry lacks credibility in saying that that this is a contribution to reducing greenhouse gases. Yes it is at the point of burning this fuel (versus coal) for electricity, but that is about all. The lifecycle analysis of this industry’s impact on climate change tells another story altogether.
My source on the 5% “best estimate” is Dr. Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, a man who understands this industry as well as anyone out there, who says in this article: “‘I think the best estimate right now is somewhere around 5 percent’—an amount, he says, that would be more than big enough to doom the idea of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to a clean energy future.”
There is now an excellent PowerPoint update (on video) on the work of Dr. Robert Howarth and Dr. Anthony Ingraffea about the greenhouse gas impacts of fracking. It is entitled “Still a Bridge to Nowhere” and is chock full of numbers you will want to see:
CLEGHORN: The Mother Jones article referenced above mentions “green completions” as one way to reduce the methane emissions, and some companies like EQT are doing that, which helps for sure, but we read also in the article that follows that the American Petroleum Institute is fighting the EPA on making green completions and other tougher regulations the norm.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-26/business/35348948_1_natural-gas-shale-gas-marcellus-shale “The American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups are challenging the new rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.”
CLEGHORN: So the debate goes on and, I would say, the industry always drags its feet (except from some companies like EQT) if cleaner technology costs it money. In my view the verdict is pretty much in that this extreme form of fossil fuel extraction is no bridge to the future of renewable energy sources. Lifecycle analysis of the totality of the fracking enterprise shows that methane migration exceeds 5% of what is brought up from the shale, after which its benefits for reducing greenhouse gases is wiped out. In addition, the global warming and climate change data essentially recommend leaving the remainder of fossil fuels in the ground and moving rapidly to a renewable energy grid, distributed energy systems and so forth. Those will cost a lot of money to make happen, and the money for that is being choked off by the huge subsidies going to the oil and gas industry.
ISSUE: WELL CASING FAILURES THAT LEAD TO LEAKAGE OF GAS AND FLUIDS.
KEVIN: “Show me. Show me a well that has failed.”
CLEGHORN: The statement I made about 50% of casings failing within 30 years came from this report put out by Schlumberger.
CLEGHORN: Upon second look I see that it was in reference to casing failure in offshore drilling, which may be riskier than onshore. But this is still industry data. Granted, the technology may have improved by now, but the risk is still too high as we see below. Dr. Anthony Ingraffea says in his lecture “The Facts of Fracking” that fracking is not yet a steady-state technology, being made up as the industry encounters different geologic conditions, basically a kind of open air “experiment” happening where we live. Even Dr. Engelder agrees with Ingraffea on that, but argues that Pennsylvanians need to be willing to let the industry “experiment” until they get it right.
See: The Facts of Fracking
FACT: Andrew Gould, CEO of Schlumberger, once (in 2010) said this: “I don’t think the actual optimum technology set for producing shale gas has yet been defined. At the moment, we’re doing it by brute force and ignorance.”
KEVIN: You tell me 6% of wells fail at installation. I read this stuff everyday…and I’m not finding anything to back up those statements…I’d like to see the facts first.”
STUDY: Assessment and risk analysis of casing and cement impairment in oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania, 2000–2012 Dr. Anthony Ingraffea study shows that the problem of leaking wells begins with the drilling and had gotten worse over time:
“Unconventional wells spudded in the NE region since 2009 (2,714 wells) show a similarly high rate of occurrence (9.18%).”
More here on the Ingraffea study:
“Pennsylvania state inspectors’ records show that the steel or cement well casings were compromised in up to 9.1 percent of the active oil and gas wells in the state that were drilled since 2000, with a higher risk coming from the newer wells drilled since 2009.”
CLEGHORN: Then there is this from Dr. Marc Durand of Canada (more references in my PPT), which is admittedly more theoretical in nature:
CONVENTIONAL GAS vs HYDROFRACTURING GAS SHALE
“The drilling of wells and the fracturing of the homogeneous rock is a totally irreversible operation with no technical solution to restore the shale to its original impermeable state. These gas wells closed off at the end of commercial exploitation become potential conduits for the gas leaks. For these structures, as all structures made of steel and concrete, there is the fundamental question of their life span – from which follows the question of what will happen when their state of degradation can no longer withstand the pressure of the gas. This pressure in the reservoir will grow slowly but continually while the well structures will continue to degrade. These two phenomenon will in time become manifest on the surface in the growing number and increasing flow of methane leaks. The management of these buried works will cost colossal sums.”
ISSUE: MIGRATION OF FRACKING FLUIDS INTO DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES OVER TIME
CLEGHORN – this study says this is the “first case published with a complete story showing organic compounds attributed to shale gas development found in a homeowner’s well” – but that is not true. My PowerPoint refers to cases in West Virginia and Pavillion, WY where fracking chemicals were found in drinking water sources. Later in these notes I have a reference about EPA withdrawing its results from Pavillion, purportedly due to political pressure.)
Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water
Accessing full report requires subscription to New York Times
EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer
A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA’s Water Contamination Investigation Halted In Texas After Range Resources Protest
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing. Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination.
Cracks in the Façade by the Environmental Working Group (the WV case)
A former EPA official who worked on the 1987 report and asked not to be named said that the agency was aware of other cases of groundwater groundwater pollution involving hydraulic fracturing but did not include them in the report because the details were sealed under confidential legal settlements reached between affected property owners and energy companies. The 1987 document noted that such settlements often presented hurdles for the EPA’s investigation.
Other studies of note on this topic of slow pollution over time:
Research done by Dr. Michel Boufadel at the University of Pennsylvania, whose computer models tell him that gas and fluids could rise thousands of feet through the substrata, enough to reach abandoned wells (or cracked well bore) and get into groundwater. A spill from a frac fluid pond could leave a 200 year legacy of groundwater contamination: http://mediasite.cidde.pitt.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=7948d41114454ab2ae4d35c1e0f356b7
The work of Dr. Marc Durand, honorary professor of engineering geology, Earth Sciences Dept. Univ. of Quebec who has made a case that the ubiquitous drilling into the shale (as is necessary to get the gas out economically) will leave behind (in PA alone) more than 150,000 well bores whose “long term behavior” is unknown.
CLEGHORN: This issue of fluid and gas migration is related to Kevin questioning whether any study had ever shown that gas from the shale had gotten into wells or groundwater supplies.
KEVIN: “The gas signatures don’t match”
STEVE: There was Duke University study showing methane in groundwater with chemical signature of shale gas.
KEVIN: “I’ve never seen that. I read this stuff every day.”
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well.
Both our δ13 C-CH4 data and δ2 H-CH 4 data (see Fig. S2 ) are consistent with a deeper thermogenic methane source at the active sites and a more biogenic or mixed methane source for the lower-concentration samples from nonactive sites (based on the definition of Schoell, ref. 14).”
CLEGHORN: The Duke study had a follow-up, saying that well casing failures were the likely cause of methane migration from the shale, not fracking itself (in other words it came up the well bore, not through the rock above the shale.
There is both good news and bad news in their follow up when they write:
“Methane leaking from faulty well shafts is not an irreversible ecological problem because wells can be plugged. If they are not sealed, Vengosh said, the industrial chemicals used in fracking could eventually work their way up toward drinking water sources, though that migration could take decades.” Here is the complete article:
Duke scientists: Faulty wells, not fracking, contaminated drinking water in Texas, Pennsylvania http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article10060727.html
CLEGHORN: “Decades” is not geologic time, but human time, and the following study indicates that we should be concerned about what we are passing on to our grandchildren.
New Study Predicts Frack Fluids Can Migrate to Aquifers Within Years
“The models predict that fracking will dramatically speed up the movement of chemicals injected into the ground. Fluids traveled distances within 100 years that would take tens of thousands of years under natural conditions. And when the models factored in the Marcellus’ natural faults and fractures, fluids could move 10 times as fast as that.”
ISSUE: FRACKING AND OTHER FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTIONS GAIN THE LION’S SHARE OF PUBLIC SUPPORT AND RETARD INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
FACT: 2012-2013 PA subsidies to Oil & Gas were $3.2 Billion
FACT: this industry standing in the way, gobbling up 10X the subsidies as compared to renewables.
This is a more recent article than the one in my online PPT, but same story:
FACT: Governor Corbett shut down Project Sunshine
Corbett cuts PA Sunshine Program to $0.” (goes all-in on gas)
From DEP website: PA Sunshine Residential/Small Business Solar PV Program is closed *As of November 25, 2013, the PA Sunshine Program has $0 available for payment of rebates. AND
From here: http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/pennsylvania/
Back in 2010 we wrote pretty extensively about the benefits of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Program. “At the time, that program was huge, with a budget of $100 million pushing solar throughout the state. The good news is that the Pennsylvania Sunshine program was a smashing success, helping to exponentially raise Pennsylvania’s solar energy production capacity. The bad news is that the program was such a success that the solar portion of the Pennsylvania Sunshine program is (at least temporarily) full. In 2013, the program ran out of funds and has yet to be revived, leaving Pennsylvania with no state solar rebates.”
KEVIN: Asked me if I thought we could get to all renewable energy sources within the next couple of decades. I said “Yes” if we had the will to do so, but “No” as to right-now realities of our public leaders being owned by oil and gas interests and the public not demanding renewables or wanting to curb energy use. This study speaks to how it could be done.
A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf
ISSUE: THE INDUSTRY CLAIMS TO BE ABOUT THE SCIENCE, BUT IT IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN MAKING SURE THAT GOOD SCIENCE ON ITS IMPACTS IS NOT CONDUCTED
Corbett defunds science to assess shale gas impacts:
“Gag orders” are a common outcome of court cases where the industry thinks that the facts of the case are not in their favor, so at the advice of its lawyers and risk assessment consultants the industry settles with plaintiffs and requires them never to speak of the facts or the nature of the settlement, otherwise they will lose the settlement. The records are sealed by the courts. This is a STANDARD BUSINESS PRACTICE that withholds important data from the public.
From “The Global Anti-Fracking Movement https://www.controlrisks.com/~/media/Public%20Site/Files/Oversized%20Assets/shale_gas_whitepaper.pdf We see here that a risk assessment consultant for the industry makes it very plain that it is best to settle for money as “the least costly curse of action” rather than “conceding the debate” on the harms of fracking, as in Dimock, PA
P 4: “(G)etting a better deal from the gas industry concretely implies maximising direct settlement compensation. Yet, as in the Dimock case, settlement – rather than conceding the debate and fueling anti-fracking sentiment – may be the least costly course of action.”
Gas Drilling Companies Hold Data Needed by Researchers to Assess Risk to Water Quality
“The industry is sitting on hundreds of thousands of pre and post drilling data sets,” said Robert Jackson, one of the Duke scientists who authored the study, published May 9 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Jackson relied on 68 samples for his study. “I asked them for the data and they wouldn’t share it.”
(STEVE: On top of all this, working on behalf of the oil and gas industry, we have people in Congress trying to kill the EPA ad even trying to kick the science advisers out of EPA (which is to say nothing of the 150+ members of Congress who deny that climate change is happening.)
House Passes A Bill That Restricts Scientists From Advising The EPA
(PIOGA is objecting to non-voting members to the DEP technical advisory board.)
Industry group considers legal action over new drilling rules
“PIOGA objects to an effort by the administration to add four new, non-voting members to a technical advisory board that is guiding the Department of Environmental Protection on a major update to oil and gas regulations. The new members include representatives from academia and environmental groups.”
(STEVE: so much for this industry wanting to be guided by science.)
ISSUE: PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
KEVIN “Bad for our health? I need to see some numbers.”
CLEGHORN: There are too many sources of facts to reference here. I will only touch upon a few resources for the facts on public health impacts that are easily obtained.
As I mentioned in the debate, I very much recommend you take a look at “The List of the Harmed” by my neighbor and organic farmer Jenny Lisak. She has compiled reports from all over the country about people who have been harmed by fracking operations. This is her list for Pennsylvania alone. She has 503 cases listed here as of this date. You can read through them and make of it what you will.
List of the Harmed – Pennsylvania
This compendium by Concerned Health Professionals of New York (CHPNY) health is a growing bibliography of studies on health impacts:
“In the five months since the Compendium’s original release, dozens of additional investigative reports and research papers have been published that clarify, corroborate, and further explicate the intractable problems that natural gas extraction via hydraulic fracturing brings with it. As documented by the study citation database maintained by Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, three fourths of the available studies on the impacts of shale gas development have been published within the past 24 months. The number of peer-reviewed publications doubled between 2011 and 2012 and then doubled again between 2012 and 2013.”
(STEVE: Based in part on what the CHPNY collated in its Compendium, this is what New York State concluded, that public health risks are too great to proceed.)
New York’s Health Impacts Report: A Public Review of High Volume Fracturing for Shale gas Development http://www.health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturing.pdf
CLEGHORN: Kevin claimed in the debate that New York’s decision to ban fracking was all about New York politics and Cuomo’s re-election. However, this report and the decision to ban fracking came out after the election. It is an essential document being studied worldwide and should not be so easily shoved aside as a political document.
FACT: There is actual blocking by the industry and its political allies of finding out what the impacts are:
Fracking’s Health Calamities Left to Fester
CLEGHORN: The industry has long suppressed the creation of a Health Registry in Pennsylvania, calling upon its well-funded legislators like my State Senator Scarnati, to make sure no serious money gets committed to finding out if shale gas activities, practices and infrastructure are causing people to get sick:
The PA Department of Health under Corbett appears to have screened out health reports that might be injurious to the industry: http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/07/02/pa-health-department-policies-on-drilling-meant-to-guide-not-silence-employees/
As for the ProPublica source I quoted regarding health impacts (slide 132 in my online PPT), that was from a video interview with Abraham Lustgarten that I can no longer find online in which he said “Same stories, different people, thousands of miles apart” in referring to people near gas facilities reporting loss of smell and taste, nosebleeds, onset of asthma and shortness of breath, skin rashes and lesions, sever headaches, nausea and vomiting. The following report by Lustgarten shows the seriousness of the health issues in the gas fields:
Excerpt from the article: “Exemptions from federal environmental rules won by the drilling companies have complicated efforts to gather pollution data and to understand the root of health complaints. Current law allows oil and gas companies not to report toxic emissions and hazardous waste released by all but their largest facilities, excluding hundreds of thousands of wells and small plants. Many of the chemicals used in fracking and drilling remain secret, hobbling investigators trying to determine the source of contamination. The gas industry itself has been less than enthusiastic about health studies. Drillers declined to cooperate with a long-term study of the health effects of gas drilling near Wallace-Babb’s town this summer, prompting state officials to drop their plans and start over.”
CLEGHORN: Death by exposure to drilling, can it happen? Has it happened? This is one case where that appears to have been the case. Her story of how she became sick was told in the award-winning documentary “Split Estate.” http://www.splitestate.com/
Woman who lived near gas fields dies
You can watch the documentary “Split Estate” to learn more about Elizabeth Mobalbi’s case, but this is what her doctor said: A physician who treated Chris Mobaldi, Dr. Kendall Gerdes of Colorado Springs, said, “When I first met her … I thought it must be some kind of Eastern European thing.” Asked if he agrees with Steve Mobaldi’s assertion that the symptoms are in some way related to exposure to gas drilling activities, Gerdes said simply, “I do.” But, he continued, this conclusion is based on his understanding of the couple and their story, and that “there’s not a lot of testing you can do that will prove or disprove that. I think that [Mobaldi’s exposure to drilling chemicals] was causative. I am simply looking at time, cause and effect relationships.”
ISSUE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SOLAR PV CELLS
KEVIN: “I’ll leave it to you to talk about the environmental damage of solar panels” – That was an insinuation that solar is just as bad as other energy sources in terms of environmental degradation. That insinuation is just dead wrong. I did not respond to this in debate, but here is what I see on that.
I pretty much take as my general source of information on this the Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-of.html#.VWWWXEYwB94
All energy sources have some impact on our environment. Fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — do substantially more harm than renewable energy sources by most measures, including air and water pollution, damage to public health, wildlife and habitat loss, water use, land use, and global warming emissions.
The chart in the Wiki article (from the IPCC Working Group) clearly shows that solar PV technology of the type I have on my barn rooftop produces about 6% to 9% of the CO2 as that which comes from electricity powered by natural gas. Even at utility scale the solar is much cleaner, but I am of the opinion that distributed solar electric generation (off the grid) would be the better way to go, although there are locations for large solar arrays (like brownfields) where it would make sense to go utility scale and keep the environmental impact low.
CLEGHORN: Part of my farm’s solar system is solar thermal, which has even less of an impact in its impact.
CLEGHORN: As for the trace metals and other hazardous materials used in producing solar, these are essentially the same as all electronics and we do have problems there, especially in waste disposal for discarded electronics. Solar panels last much longer than TVs, maybe about 30 years, so that helps. Once they are made they just produce, produce, produce without new inputs of coal or gas or nuclear. Lots of good information here.
There are also exciting new technologies coming around for solar that are based on nanotechnology. http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/24/new-inexpensive-environmentally-friendly-solar-cell/ Just as, parenthetically, there is new technology for wind turbines that does not take up as much space nor cause harm to birds or bats (although the latter has been overblown according to actual studies of bird deaths near wind generators).
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/ And we cannot forget Elon Musk who is coming out with a home battery that can store solar electric energy and make it more practical to build distributed energy system.
“Tesla’s intention (is) to build a business selling equipment to store solar electricity for later use, offer backup power and provide electric-grid regulating services that have traditionally been performed by natural gas power plants.”
As to the environmental impact of the battery Tesla has in development, I an still looking for a good analysis on that. Lastly on this environmental impact of solar energy, none of this addresses the economic injustices of how we come about obtaining trace minerals (in Africa and elsewhere), but that is a human problem that needs a political solution.
ISSUE: WE ARE ENERGY PIGS AND ALWAYS WILL BE…AND SO IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE COME UP WITH THE ENERGY THAT WE DEMAND
KEVIN: We need the energy. Is there anyone in the room who thinks we will use less energy five years from now than we are using now? I would love to live on renewables, but it represents only 14.2% of power generation,, which means we have to shut off the lights and refrigerators etc six out of seven days a week if we want to live only on renewables. The problem in America is that we need a lot of energy and the renewables are not feeding the beast.
STEVE: Here is how I take issue with such statements.
This infographic pretty much sums up the potential of renewable energy sources. As I said in the debate, the fossil fuel industry is sucking up the vast majority of public subsidies for energy development and thus standing directly in the way of building what we need for the future if we are to avoid the escalating catastrophes of climate change.
By the way, Bernie Sanders, when he announced his bid to be President in Burlington, VT, he did it from the first city in America to get all its electricity from renewable energy sources.
STEVE: I said, “In 2013 worldwide more gigawatts of electricity was generated from renewable sources than from coal and oil.” I misspoke on that a bit. My focus was on the growing share of the energy market for NEW sources of electric energy, my point being that America is lagging behind because our new energy sources, such as from fracking or offshore drilling, more extreme forms of fossil fuel extraction, are out of step with what the world is doing. More new sources of electricity generation are from renewables than from fossil fuels. My source on that:
“Solar, the newest major source of energy in the mix, makes up less than 1 percent of the electricity market today but could be the world’s biggest single source by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency.”
The analysis referenced here from IEA in the Bloomberg article is here:
CLEGHORN; My point in the debate was that the world at large is moving quickly to convert to renewable sources of energy for electricity generation while America is using more extreme forms of fossil fuel extraction (fracking, offshore drilling, mountaintop removal) at a time when fossil fuels should be left in the ground.
ISSUE: WE WILL ALWAYS BE ENERGY PIGS
CLEGHORN: I do not agree that our future has to be increasing energy and growth. We have altogether forgotten how to imagine and dream if that is our perspective. I mentioned some of the young people (and some of us older ones) who are doing work to transition to a less consumptive way of living. Some of that thinking revolves around “degrowth” strategies. I find this kind of thinking to be very enourgaing.
Degrowth (‘décroissance ’in French) was launched in the beginning of the21st century as a project of voluntary societal shrinking of production and consumption aimed at social and ecological sustainability.
This is not really new.
Even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr spoke of the need to move in this direction”
“We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” – MLK Jr.
CLEGHORN: There is much work ongoing in many places around the world to learn “Earth Literacy” and live smaller, more satisfying lives than the ones we have founded on cheap fossil fuel energy. Genesis Farm is one of those places. Not only is it a place of contemplation and study, but it supports over 160 families in its Community Supported Agriculture gardens. Can such a thing become more common? http://genesisfarm.org/about/16
ISSUE: NATURAL GAS USE IS REDUCING AMERICA’S CO2 EMISSIONS
KEVIN: quoting a New York Times editorial that attributes drop in CO2 emissions to natural gas being substituted for coal in electric power generation. But is that just establishment hype?
STEVE: Yes, leaving aside the greenhouse effects of fugitive methane from extraction and transport, the use of CH4 for electricity generation is making some impact, but there are other factors that account for most of the reduction in CO2
This analysis takes issue with the sources of CO2 reductions:
Contrary to popular perception, 2012 data shows that the increased use of natural gas in the electric power sector is not the largest contributor of energy related CO2 reductions in the US over the past year.
Nearly 75% of the CO2 savings are attributable to economy-wide demand reduction driven by energy efficiency, conservation and the mild winter of the first quarter of 2012.
Then this publication from EPA says that emissions have actually increased:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States increased by about 7% between 1990 and 2013. Since the combustion of fossil fuel is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, changes in emissions from fossil fuel combustion have historically been the dominant factor affecting total U.S. emission trends. Changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are influenced by many long-term and short-term factors, including population growth, economic growth, changing energy prices, new technologies, changing behavior, and seasonal temperatures. Between 1990 and 2013, the increase in CO2 emissions corresponded with increased energy use by an expanding economy and population, and an overall growth in emissions from electricity generation. Transportation emissions also contributed to the 7% increase, largely due to an increase in miles traveled by motor vehicles.
CLEGHORN conclusion – the fact that the oil and gas industry can influence the editorial board of the New York Times to buy the idea that shale gas is responsible for recent reductions in CO2 emissions is not surprising. Besides, what are we to think when EPA published information that emissions increased between 1990 and 2013?
STEVE: 32,000 jobs directly inside the industry last year (actually 31,000)
The false promise of fracking and local jobs – by Dr. Susan Christopherson, a widely recognized and honored regional economist.
“In December 2014, Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry reported that just over 31,000 people were employed in the state’s oil and gas industry.”
Renewable energy jobs would be much more plentiful than fossil fuel jobs:
“As many as 1 out of 4 workers in the United States will be working in RE (renewable energy) or EE (energy efficiency) industries by 2030.”
Renewable Energy ‘Creates More Jobs Than Fossil Fuels’
A new study by the UK’s Energy Research Centre (UKERC) took a deep dive into job creation claims made by proponents of renewable energy and energy efficiency, looking at the figures and projected figures for the EU from a number of angles. It came to the conclusion that in the short run, moving to renewables and ramping up energy conservation would create more jobs than the fossil fuel sector, at a rate of about one job per gigawatt hour of electricity saved or generated by a clean energy source, with the long-term picture murkier because of factors in the economy and government policy that are hard to predict.
Putting Renewable to Work
“an analytical job creation model for the U.S. power sector to 2030. The model synthesizes data from 15 job studies covering renewable energy (RE), energy efficiency (EE), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and nuclear power to conclude that all non-fossil fuel technologies (RE, EE, low carbon) create more jobs per unit energy than coal and natural gas.”
CLEGHORN: My view on this is that renewable energy jobs could provide a “just transition” from an economy based on fossil fuels, providing at least 1-for-1 replacement of all jobs in fossil fuels on which people rely to support their families, and very likely putting many more people to work as jobs are created at a higher rate than they are in the fossil fuel-based industries.
This is a good resource on what is meant by a “just transition” to a clean energy economy. “Lessons from Appalachia” –
ISSUE: AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
CLEGHORN: I will leave the sourcing of my statements about this for another time, because in essence this is an energy policy issue. Private corporations are in charge with respect to where they sell gas extracted in America. There is no national energy policy that would keep the gas in America. And once the export capacity is built, the gas will be sold to the highest bidder, which economists and the US Department of Energy say will drive up prices for Americans. I don’t think these matters are really in dispute.
ISSUE: CAN WE TRUST THE EPA ON A PRACTICE SUPPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND MOST OF CONGRESS? Are politics involved?
KEVIN: I am going to be inclined to believe the EPA unless I find evidence that they have been hoodwinked or bribed,
CLEGHORN: Of course such cases of political pressure on EPA to suppress facts not favorable to the industry are hard to prove, but there are extremely suspicious cases in Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY and Parker County, TX where EPA did a U-turn on their findings when they came under pressure from the gas industry. In the TX case Range Resources threatened to pull out of a national study on fracking unless EPA backed off its finding in that case.
This is from an NRDC blogger:
Why Would EPA Hide Info on Fracking & Water Contamination in Dimock?
The Los Angeles Times published a story today reporting on a leaked document that indicates that the Environmental Protection Agency has never conveyed to the public the possibility that methane released during drilling “and perhaps during the fracking process” resulted in “significant,” and possibly long-term, “damage to the water quality” of a drinking water source for 19 families in Dimock, Pennsylvania, even though some staff believed this was the case.
Even former PA DEP Secretary John Hanger smelled something fishy in the Pavillion case:
The EPA Shockingly Retreats From Its Pavillion Fracking Investigation: Critics Will Now Pound EPA
Here is a ProPublica article that quotes John Hanger and goes into more detail:
EPA’s abandoned Wyoming fracking study one retreat of many
And here he recalls the Dimock case he investigated:
CLEGHORN: EPA’s work is politically influenced and proscribed. The EPA cannot even get access to fracking sites for its national study unless private companies allow them onto those sites (and control what EPA can see, is my guess). That is why Range Resources was able to make EPA back off on the Parker County, TX case – saying they would not cooperate with the EPA if it did not drop that case.
ISSUE: WHAT ABOUT INDUCED SEISMICITY FROM FRACKING?
Earthquakes Induced by Fracking (or just waste disposal injection wells?
(On this Kevin and I agreed that earthquakes are most associated with injection wells where fracking waste is disposed, but there are signs it could also be caused by fracked gas wells that are located near undetected faults. But the second study below suggests that fracking near undetected faults could be to blame for earthquakes in Ohio.)
Does Fracking Cause Earthquakes?
“We don’t yet know why only a few of the tens of thousands of wastewater disposal wells have induced earthquakes, or whether any specific planned well is particularly likely to cause a quake. It could be because production has ramped up and the sheer quantity of wastewater has increased, or because oil and gas companies are using new techniques for injecting waste fluids.”
Fracking caused earthquakes in existing faults in Ohio, study says
A new scientific study has linked 77 minor earthquakes last March around Poland, Ohio, just across the Pennsylvania-Ohio state line, to hydraulic fracturing. The seismic sequence, including a rare “felt” quake of a magnitude 3.0 on the Richter Scale, was linked to active “fracking” by Hilcorp Energy Co. on a well pad about a half mile from the epicenter, according to research published online in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
ISSUE (on the topic of WASTE which we did not discuss at the debate, but which is a huge issue related to injection wells and dumping waste through plants not designed to remove contaminants, including radioactive elements, and dumping into rivers. I will provide more sources on that is asked): SHOULD WE BE WORRIED ABOUT RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS IN THE SHALE MOBILIZED TO THE SURFACE BY FRACKING
(STEVE note: there are many more sources about this issue, but perhaps only one will suffice for its “the hazard is currently unknown” and future studies should develop “a more detailed understanding of the accumulation of these radionuclides in higher organisms.” Why do we proceed with a process running this risk on top of all the others?)
Understanding the Radioactive Ingrowth and Decay of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in the Environment: An Analysis of Produced Fluids from the Marcellus Shale
“NORM is emerging as a contaminant of concern in hydraulic fracturing/unconventional drilling wastes, yet the extent of the hazard is currently unknown. Sound waste management strategies for both solid and liquid hydraulic fracturing and unconventional drilling waste should consider the dynamic nature of radioactive materials….Future studies and risk assessments should include Ra decay products in assessing the potential for environmental contamination in recreational, agricultural, and residential areas, as well as in developing a more detailed understanding of the accumulation of these radionuclides in higher organisms.”
ISSUE: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
(CLEGHORN: this did not come up in our debate, except when I pointed out with respect to prices that will rise when gas is exported – which the Department of Energy says will cause higher prices that fall heaviest on the poor – but this issue of where fracking is being done belongs in any overview of the full impacts of the industry. Of course we have seen this phenomenon in Louisiana and Texas for many years, so it is pretty much taken for granted that our energy supply is built on a foundation of injustice.)
Poor Communities Bear Greatest Burden from Fracking
“Fracking wells in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region are disproportionately located in poor rural communities, which bear the brunt of associated pollution, according to a new study.
The study bolsters concerns that poor people are more likely to deal with hydraulic fracturing in their community and raises concerns that such vulnerable populations will suffer the potential health impacts of air and water pollution associated with pulling gas from the ground.”
MANY OTHER ISSUES, MANY OTHER FACTS are arranged and footnoted in this (now somewhat outdated) online presentation I did:
“The Case for a Moratorium on Drilling the Marcellus Shale in PA”
CLEGHORN: This PPT is a bit dated since I last updated it in 2012. But in my view the case has become stronger to ban fracking. If you see errors of fact in this presentation, let me know and I will look into those and change the slides as necessary. I ran this by the folks at the Penn State Center for Outreach and Research, which as you know is focused on shale gas extraction, and they had no objections to facts. They only stated that some concerns about the process are still being debated in the scientific literature, and they told me I had done a good job of indicating the facts of this industry for which there is no scientific consensus, yet on the industry rolls with risks I consider to be too great.
The bottom line that I emphasize in my PPT and here is that the industry cannot meet the standard of “The Precautionary Principle” and has not yet proven, in the face of credible scientific analysis, that it cannot cause irreparable environmental harm. In some countries what the US shale gas industry is doing is illegal because those countries have established the Precautionary Principle in law.