Drilling Spills and Hydrofracking

The one-year anniversary of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig and subsequent massive oil spill was marked by yet another drilling accident. This time, the accident occurred at a drilling site for natural gas in Pennsylvania when a well blew out and started spewing toxic fluids.

Chesapeake Energy officials said a piece of equipment on the well failed.

Now a major response is underway to stop the leak of frack fluid and get control of the well.

Water is gushing from the earth at the Chesapeake well pad.  It has been all hands on deck to put a stop to the leak of fracking fluid that, according to company officials, spilled thousands and thousands of gallons into nearby land and waterways.

"We've been able to limit the flow. We're still doing additional work to regain full control," said Brian Grove of Chesapeake Energy. He added there is no telling yet how much of that extremely salty water mixed with chemicals and sand has impacted the nearby Towanda Creek, but no gas has escaped into the air....

Officials with DEP said the flow of frack fluid has stopped flowing into the nearby creek and its tributary.

Public safety officials in Bradford County said they, along with DEP, will continue to monitor the Towanda Creek which empties into the Susquehanna River. According to officials with Chesapeake Energy, the fluids that spilled all over farm land and into the creek have a very high salt content and contain numerous chemicals used to fracture the rock below.

Environmentalists have been warning about the potential dangers of fracking for quite some time. "Fracking" refers to a drilling process formally called "hydraulic fracturing," which involves injecting fluids into underground rock formations to break up the rocks and release the natural gas they contain. The major concern is that the fluids used for fracking – which often contain toxic chemicals – may leak from gas wells into aquifers and render the groundwater undrinkable for the people who depended on it. Another concern is that fluids from such wells are diverted to wastewater treatment plants, even though the plants are not equipped to process and remove the toxic chemicals found in fracking fluids. Only some of these chemicals are known to the public due to a lack of transparency on the part of energy companies. According to a recent government report:

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.

As yesterday's incident illustrates, blowouts and the resulting contamination of farmland and watersheds are serious concerns as well.

The blowout occurred just as Pennsylvania was beginning closer oversight of the fracking operations.

The DEP and the industry appear to have been influenced by complaints from public water suppliers in Western Pennsylvania, which say they are challenged by bromide levels whose concentrations have increased concurrently with the drilling boom.

The bromides themselves are not a public health risk - they account for a tiny part of the salty dissolved solids that create an unpleasant taste in water at elevated levels.

But bromides react with the chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water to form brominated trihalomethanes (THMs), a volatile organic compound. Studies have linked the prolonged ingestion of high levels of THMs to several types of cancer and birth defects.

Officials at several water authorities in the Pittsburgh area say their facilities have failed several tests for trihalomethanes in recent years....

Bromides, chlorides, and some heavy metals occur naturally in deep rock formations such as the Marcellus Shale, the massive deposit that underlies much of Pennsylvania and parts of several surrounding states.

In other regions where shale production has taken off, operators dispose of the wastewater in deep, federally regulated injection wells. But Pennsylvania's geology is insufficiently porous to accept large volumes of wastewater.

This week's incident ought to prompt closer examination and oversight of fracking operations, whether in the form of voluntary programs like Pennsylvania's or stronger regulations. Aquifers and watersheds are too important to risk contamination.

Christmas Trees and the Environment

Are real or artificial Christmas trees better for the environment? The New York Times comes down on the side of real trees.

The balance tilts in favor of natural Christmas trees because of the way they are grown and harvested.

Close to 400 million trees now grow on Christmas tree farms in the United States, according to the National Christmas Tree Association, which represents growers and retailers of real trees. About 30 million trees are harvested annually.

The living trees generate oxygen, help fix carbon in their branches and in the soil and provide habitat for birds and animals, Mr. Springer said.

Christmas tree farms also help preserve farmland and green space, particularly near densely populated urban areas where pressure for development is intense.

“It allows people with land that may not be the best farmland to have a crop that they can actually make a profit on, and not be under pressure to sell out to developers,” said Mike Garrett, owner and operator of a Christmas tree farm in Sussex, N.J.

After the holidays, real trees can continue to serve a purpose. New York City, for instance, offers free curbside recycling for trees, which are turned into compost. The city’s parks department also provides a free mulching service for trees at several locations after the holidays. In 2009, nearly 150,000 trees were composted or mulched in the city.

Artificial trees, by contrast, are manufactured almost exclusively in Asia from plastic and metal and cannot be recycled by most municipal recycling programs. After six to 10 years of use, most will end up in a landfill.

How much better natural trees are is subject to disagreement. A recent analysis by an environmental consulting firm concluded that a fake tree would have to be used for 20 years to have less environmental impact that buying a real tree annually. Industry groups making artificial trees argue that the difference is really five or ten years. In either case, the impact of a tree is probably smaller than choices we make year-round, such as commuting methods.

Pollution Regulations Could Reduce Greenhouse Gases

By now you are probably aware that there will not be a comprehensive climate bill this year. There might be a smaller bill, but in the meantime, climate action will be up to the EPA. There has already been some movement on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from major sources. In addition to that initiative, mercury regulations have potential to reduce greenhouse gases indirectly.

That is because scientists say mercury from coal accumulates in many fish. Children and babies exposed to the metal, through mother's milk or eating contaminated fish, are at risk of learning and developmental problems. Adults who eat too many of the fish also face risks....

When combined with the EPA's other current and coming rules on "criteria" pollutants, like ones that cause acid rain and smog, the mercury measure would force utilities to invest tens of millions of dollars on technologies to remove the substances....

Francois Broquin, a co-author of reports on coal by Bernstein Research, said the combined rules could push as much as 20 percent of U.S. coal-fired electric generation capacity to retire by 2015. "Obviously that will have an impact," he said.

Frank O'Donnell, the president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch, said that if a large chunk of the coal-fired power fleet went into retirement it could help the country exceed Obama's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020....

Utilities would likely build plants to burn natural gas, which emits half the carbon that coal does, as the main alternative. Alternative energy like wind and solar power, which provided the most new U.S. electricity capacity last year, could also become more attractive to utilities.

A reduction of 17% (or somewhat less than that) by 2020 is well below what is needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change. However, it is better than nothing and could build some momentum for better climate change policy. Perhaps in future years the political climate will be more favorable to passing a climate change law with deeper cuts.