EPA's Natural Gas Development Tipline

[Joe D]

EPAAnnounces “Eyes on Drilling” Tipline <o></o>​

<o>
</o>​

PHILADELPHIA (January 26, 2010) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced the creation of the “Eyes on Drilling” tipline for citizens to report non-emergency suspicious activity related to oil and natural gas development. <o>
</o><o></o>
The agency is asking citizens to call 1-877-919-4EPA (toll free) if they observe what appears to be illegal disposal of wastes or other suspicious activity. Anyone may also send reports by email to eyesondrilling@epa.gov. Citizens may provide tips anonymously if they don’t want to identify themselves.<o></o>
<o></o>
In the event of an emergency, such as a spill or release of hazardous material, including oil, to the environment, citizens are advised to call the<st1><st1>lacename National</st1> <st1>Response</st1> <st1>Center</st1></st1> at 1-800-424-8802.<o></o>
<o></o>
Public concern about the environmental impacts of oil and natural gas drilling has increased in recent months, particularly regarding development of the Marcellus Shale formation where a significant amount of activity is occurring. While EPA doesn’t grant permits for oil and gas drilling operations, there are EPA regulations which may apply to the storage of petroleum products and drilling fluids. The agency is also very concerned about the proper disposal of waste products, and protecting air and water resources.<o></o>
<o></o>
EPA wants to get a better understanding of what people are experiencing and observing as a result of these drilling activities. The information collected may also be useful in investigating industry practices. <o></o>
<o></o>
The agency works closely with state and local officials, as well as industry and public interest groups, to ensure that oil and natural gas drilling occurs in a manner which is protective of human health and the environment and complies with applicable laws. The agency is also counting on concerned citizens to report unusual or suspicious activity related to drilling operations.<o></o>
<o></o><o></o>
EPA is asking citizens to report the location, time and date of such activity, as well as the materials, equipment and vehicles involved and any observable environmental impacts. <o></o>
<o></o>
The Marcellus Shale geologic formation contains one of the largest mostly untapped reserves of natural gas in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>United States</st1></st1:country-region>. It underlies significant portions of <st1:state w:st="on">Pennsylvania</st1:state>, <st1:state w:st="on">West Virginia</st1:state>, <st1:state w:st="on">Ohio</st1:state>, and <st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state>, and smaller portions of <st1:state w:st="on">Tennessee</st1:state>, <st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state>, <st1:state w:st="on">Maryland</st1:state>, and <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Kentucky</st1>.</st1:state><o></o>

Interest in developing Marcellus Shale has increased because recent improvements in natural gas extraction technology and higher energy prices now make recovering the gas more profitable.<o></o>
<o></o>
Operators produce this gas through a process called hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Fracking requires drilling a well thousands of feet below the land’s surface and pumping down the well under pressure millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals to fracture the shale. <o></o>
<o></o>
The process allows the gas trapped in the formation to flow to the well bore. Approximately 20 to 30 percent of the fluid flows back to the surface. This “flowback” fluid consists of fracking fluid and brines which contain dissolved minerals from the formation. <o></o>
<o></o>
Operators are urged to recycle their flowback water for reuse in the fracking process, but some of the flowback is taken offsite for disposal. Chemicals used in the process are often stored on-site. Spills can occur when utilizing these chemicals or when transporting or storing wastewater, which can result in the contamination of surface water or ground water, which is used for many purposes including drinking water. <o></o>
<o></o>
Instructions for the tipline can be found at:<o></o>
http://www.epa.gov/region03/marcellus_shale/tipline.html<o></o>

 

[Ryan R]

But I thought it was perfectly safe and the companies involved were all law-abiding and ethical, why would a tip line be needed? Won't the SGEIS protect everything?

 

[Future Fanatic]

But I thought it was perfectly safe and the companies involved were all law-abiding and ethical, why would a tip line be needed? Won't the SGEIS protect everything?

AK is right.

 

[Uncrowded]

Glad the EPA is on top of this. All citizens should now run out and buy benzene detectors, which it looks like we will all need once drilling starts -- See breaking news story below from Fort Worth Star Telegram, where hydrofracking is already happening big time (Barnett shale is another deep shale -- similar to the Marcellus; benzene is a big-time carcinogen).

Here's the link, which you should feel free to forward to Gov. Patterson and your assemblyman and senator http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/1926512.html; here's the story:

1 in 5 gas well sites emits too much benzene, regulators say
BY MIKE LEE

mlee@star-telegram.com

State regulators found high levels of benzene at more than one out of every five sites in the Barnett Shale natural gas field, according to results released Thursday.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has been testing sites since late summer and released the results at a news conference in Fort Worth.

Benzene levels exceeded the recommended safe levels at 21 of 94 sites, the agency said.

One company has already made repairs at a site where the benzene level measured 1,100 parts per billion, hundreds of times above the state and federal standard of 1.4 parts per billion.

"Although the results are complex, it is clear that gas production facilities can, and in some cases do, emit contaminants in amounts that could be deemed unsafe," the agency said in a news release.

The TCEQ has been under pressure about the environmental effects of the Barnett Shale since October.

That's when the small town of Dish and Fort Worth business owner Deborah Rogers paid for their own tests. The Dish test found high levels of benzene and other compounds near a complex of pipelines and compressors. Rogers’ test found high levels of carbon disulfide.

TCEQ officials were already conducting air samples by then. But they also said they had known as far back as 2007 that fumes were being released from natural gas sites.

The agency also has come under fire for a presentation commission Deputy Director John Sadlier made to the City Council two weeks ago.

Sadlier said “the air is safe” after releasing the results of a three-day check at wells and other facilities in Fort Worth. The agency said in a news release that it tested 126 sites, but it only conducted actual tests at eight of those sites.

The others were screened with infrared cameras and hand-held monitors. And the tests were conducted on a cold day, when it’s less likely that fumes would be present.

 

[Future Fanatic]

And from a Dallas Newspaper:

Texas agency: Barnett Shale air quality is well within acceptable levels

02:36 PM CST on Wednesday, January 27, 2010
From staff reports

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality today announced that most readings in its study of air quality in the Barnett Shale area of North Texas were well below acceptable chemical-exposure levels.

A total of 94 oil and gas monitoring sites were surveyed. At a majority of the monitoring sites, chemicals were either not detected or were detected below levels of health concern.

However, two monitoring sites had relatively high levels of benzene. In addition, 19 monitoring sites registered benzene concentrations higher than the TCEQ would like to see.

The study analyzed more than a hundred volatile organic compounds, but mainly focused on benzene, which is a human carcinogen.


But don't believe ANY journalist... here's a link to a synopsis of the report:

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/...ale/2010.01.27-healthEffects-BarnettShale.pdf

Supposedly, the two sites where the levels were off the charts had malfunctioning well head hardware and were fixed.

 

[Future Fanatic]

And please don't be suckered into thinking that Benzene has anything to do with Hydro fracking...

Benzene is naturally occuring and CAN be mixed in with natural gas. Especially in areas where there is oil "mixed in" with the natural gas(like areas in Texas). I have not heard ANYONE say that there is any oil in the Marcellus shale. If someone has some data about benzene emissions from any Marcellus shale wells, please let me know where I can see it(or post it).

 

[Kilgour Farms]

The gas in the NE section of the Marcellus is very dry and mature so no oil is present in this area. The SW PA and WVA Marcellus is a wet gas and there is oil and other hydrocarbons present that need to be fined. The gas in the SW is not as mature as the NE.

How mature is the gas compared to the Barrnett not sure other then it tends to be dryer in the Marcellus region. The dryer the gas(more mature) the less refining that has to be done to make it pipeline ready.

Marcellus SW some refiniing is required, in the NE little or no refining is required.

 

[Future Fanatic]

I have not heard ANYONE say that there is any oil in the Marcellus shale.

Well, I have NOW.

But I guess it is in the gas that will ultimately be shipped into Jersey and NYC due to the sweetheart of a deal made to the gas companies by NYC with that new pipeline... (what was it? 800 million cubic feet a day?) Just say "NO!" people. (and by "people" I mean "antis".)

 

[Kilgour Farms]

That 800 mmcf is a sweetheart deal with CHK. I find it very interesting that CHK tells NYC they will not drill in their water shed and then behold CHK get a super deal to supply NYC with natural gas. Coincidence, propbably not.

 

[Uncrowded]

Ummm... Benzene is also used in fracking fluids, according to this article in the NY Times. See below.

BTW: is benzene good for trout? Is it good for trout streams? Is it good for hatches? Is it good for watersheds? For that matter, is gas drilling good for trout? Is it good for trout streams? Is it good for insect life? Is it good for watersheds? Just wondering what everyone thinks...


January 20, 2010, 9:20 am

Gas Drilling Techniques Under Fire … Again
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
Drilling companies are side-stepping regulations on use of diesel fuel in the extraction process, a new report suggests. Federal government oversight of hydraulic fracturing – a drilling technique that boosts natural gas extraction by blasting water, sand and chemicals underground at high pressure – is sorely lacking, putting drinking water supplies at risk, an environmental policy group claimed in a report released Tuesday.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group based in Washington, drilling companies are side-stepping a permitting requirement for the use of diesel fuel in their fracturing fluids by using similar petroleum distillates that contain the same toxins as diesel, but require no permitting.

The report also cites evidence that drilling companies continue to inject diesel fuel underground without the proper permits.

“The industry has been able to operate above the law,” said Dusty Horwitt, the group’s senior counsel. “They’re doing an end-run around what little oversight is left.”

The use of hydraulic fracturing has vastly boosted the productivity of existing natural gas wells and opened new territory to drilling, helping lift natural gas reserves in the United States by nearly a third, and igniting a drilling boom from New York to Wyoming.

Yet as gas companies explore drilling in sensitive regions like the New York City watershed in upstate New York, concern over the technology’s potential to pollute water supplies has mounted.

The drilling boom – and the growing controversy over the risk of water contamination – was outlined in a December article by Times reporters Jad Mouawad and Clifford Krauss.

As they noted, the evidence of groundwater pollution attributable to fracturing is thin — though environmental groups contend that is because governments have been slow to react to the drilling boom and are not looking hard for contamination.

Gas companies, meanwhile, acknowledge the validity of some concerns, but they claim that their technology is fundamentally safe.

In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a report declaring that hydraulic fracturing posed little threat to human health. The following year, drawing support from the E.P.A. report, Congress voted to exempt hydraulic fracturing from oversight under the Clean Water Act.

The law made one exception, however – that companies acquire permits when using diesel fuel in their fracturing fluid. Diesel contains benzene and other cancer-causing agents.

Obeying the letter of the law, many drilling companies switched from diesel to other petroleum distillates. Yet these distillates also contain toxics such as benzene, sometimes in even greater levels than the diesel they are replacing, according to the Environmental Working Group report.

“These substitutes are extremely toxic,” Mr. Horwitt said.

The group also contacted environmental agencies in New York, Pennsylvania, Montana, Texas and Wyoming – states where hydraulic fracturing has been used extensively – seeking information on the continuing use of diesel fuel in drilling.

Only one state, Wyoming, provided information on permitting, the report states.

“It’s not even clear if companies are getting permits if they’re using diesel,” Mr. Horwitt said. “This whole area has been shrouded in secrecy and lax regulation.”

Drilling companies maintain that hydraulic fracturing is safe and have launched a fierce lobbying and public relations effort to resist further regulation.

Congress will have a chance to revisit the controversy over the safety of the technology this week as it weighs approval of the Exxon Mobil Corporation’s proposed $41 billion acquisition of XTO Energy, a major player in natural gas extraction.

 

[Ryan R]

AK is right.

First off, it was honestly just a comment in jest for the most part. (I've personally grown a wee bit tired of debating it here. Too often it gets ugly and takes away from some of the good discussions on flyfishing, etc.) Call it an attempt at levity or whatever I guess I should have put a little emoticon after it to mark it as such. Second, I'm not too concerned about AK's or your opinion on me. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

 

[Future Fanatic]

First off, it was honestly just a comment in jest for the most part. (I've personally grown a wee bit tired of debating it here. Too often it gets ugly and takes away from some of the good discussions on flyfishing, etc.) Call it an attempt at levity or whatever I guess I should have put a little emoticon after it to mark it as such.

The art of using sarcasm is way undervalued. People think that they can just use it as if it were a car they could get into and take for a spin... but it's a Ferrari... just because you fit in the seat and can get the car to move a bit, doesn't mean you do it well OR do it justice.

In order for your "levity or whatever" to work as intended, someone would have actually had to post on this site what you wrote "it was perfectly safe and the companies involved were all law-abiding and ethical, why would a tip line be needed? Won't the SGEIS protect everything?" or something close to it. Nobody ever did. So it doesn't make any sense.

Good Job! (see, a different but FINE use of sarcasm)

Second, I'm not too concerned about AK's or your opinion on me.

So you keep saying... (over and over and over...) (The lady doth protest too much, methinks)

I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

You think AK is right, too?

 

[Ryan R]

All that over a few mere sentences? Sheesh. It wasn't verbatim but I think I was pretty close to the tone of some of the sentiments shared.

I'm sure that the feeling of not giving a damn about each of our opinions on the other is mutual. Your turn Shakespeare.

 

[tompg]

lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds

 

[Future Fanatic]

Ummm... Benzene is also used in fracking fluids, according to this article in the NY Times. See below.

BTW: is benzene good for trout? Is it good for trout streams? Is it good for hatches? Is it good for watersheds? For that matter, is gas drilling good for trout? Is it good for trout streams? Is it good for insect life? Is it good for watersheds? Just wondering what everyone thinks...

I'm willing to admit that there is some Benzene in traditional fracking fluids. I don't think it is correct to say though that "Benzene is also used in fracking fluids". Benzene is a component of the substances used in the fracking process. I'm pretty sure that the DEC has said that diesel fuel will not be used in the fracking process(I can't find where I read that though). But it seems that the companies can get around this ANYWAY by using other "petroleum distillates".

If the gas well is constructed the way that the NYS DEC has outlined, even this relatively small amount of benzene that would be in the fracking fluid will NOT reach the water table OR the air. It seems in TEXAS as outlined in the article, the problem with at least one of those two sites was gas (and its associated benzene) escaping through faulty well "hardware". THIS would be the concern in NY. NATURAL benzene escaping through a faulty well head. But as stated earlier, NY's Marcellus has little Benzene AND I believe EVEN if it did AND even if there was a faulty well head the most significant threat would be to those guys working at the site.

In the TEXAS study, many of the other testing sites with elevated chemicals were actually measured at compressor stations where I believe they use diesel engines to raise the pressure of the natural gas to force it through pipe lines. THIS benzene produced as a component of exhaust fumes SURELY has nothing to do with the fracking process. It's a process that people like you who use natural gas need to have done to get the gas to their homes.

SO, based upon what I read in the Texas document, it seems that there were NO benzene issues at any well head besides the faulty one. The benzene "problems" come from diesel engines at plants and compressor stations. The Texas report does NOT seem to be evidence that fracking wells causes any increase benzene in the air that would harm people.

Don't you agree?

Sure, no one wants to breathe in benzene, but if you are really against it, stop driving your car, mowing your lawn or sitting around the good old campfire. You are MORE likely to inhale benzene doing THOSE things than walking near a gas well in NY. (and sitting in rush hour traffic... that's even WORSE. AND DON'T Take the tunnel to NYC... ) ... you don't SMOKE do you... the benzene in those things will kill you...


To reiterate, the long trip up the Garden State, Thruway and 17 is guaranteed more likely to expose you to benzene than gas wells. That car is a benzene death trap... ride a bike... it's safer for you and your kids.

 

[Future Fanatic]

It wasn't verbatim but I think I was pretty close to the tone of some of the sentiments shared.

Give us an example of someone's sentiments being "pretty close" to:

"...it was perfectly safe and the companies involved were all law-abiding and ethical, why would a tip line be needed? Won't the SGEIS protect everything?"

 

[Ryan R]

Give us an example of someone's sentiments being "pretty close" to:

"...it was perfectly safe and the companies involved were all law-abiding and ethical, why would a tip line be needed? Won't the SGEIS protect everything?"

How did I know this question was coming? Why us? You seem to be the only one concerned about it. :nose-picking:

 

[Future Fanatic]

How did I know this question was coming? Why us? You seem to be the only one concerned about it. :nose-picking:

And if you knew the question was coming...

Why us? I thought that is what WE ask when we see a post from you. hmmm.

If I'm the only one concerned about it, why was it YOU that brought it up?

Go back to my original post in this thread.