Worker believes cancer caused by fracking fluids

Many people feel that oil and gas development will benefit the individual counties in which it takes place because everybody needs work these days. In areas where drilling is common, residents often say that the labor force is imported from other locations. Either way, we need to closely examine what it means to work for the oil and gas industry and decide if those jobs are really worth it.

Worker believes cancer caused by fracking fluids
By Dennis Webb
Wednesday, May 12, 2010

When Rifle resident Jose Lara, 42, began working for Rain for Rent about a half-dozen years ago, his job required climbing inside tanks to power-wash them after they’d been emptied of hydraulic fracturing fluids used in area oil and gas wells.

At times, Lara said, the stench was overpowering.

“It’s nasty inside the tanks, and sometimes I needed to run outside,” he recalled.

Lara sought fresh air to combat the dizziness he said he and other workers experienced. Now he’s undergoing chemotherapy and other treatment to fight incurable pancreatic and liver cancer that he believes are a result of working around the fracking fluids.

Lara, who is married and has four children from ages 6 to 17, also is in the preliminary investigative stages of filing a lawsuit against several companies providing local fracking services.

Through his attorney, Paul Gertz, Lara is seeking to be allowed to give a pre-lawsuit deposition to preserve his videotaped testimony. The purpose would be to enable a jury to view the testimony if a suit Gertz is preparing to file for Lara and his family goes to trial after Lara has died.

Lara was diagnosed in late December, and people with his condition typically live only six months to a year after their diagnosis, his petition states.

If a judge approves what’s called a petition to perpetuate testimony, potential targets of the product liability suit also would have the chance to cross-examine Lara.

At least two of the companies named have filed responses denying responsibility for Lara’s cancer.

Lara also is pursuing a workers’ compensation claim against Rain for Rent. He said he isn’t blaming his employer but is trying to act on behalf of his family and his fellow workers. He said he would like to see companies do fracturing “without the bad chemicals.”

He also wants companies to have to make their fracturing fluids’ contents public for the benefit of workers.

A bill proposed by U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette and Jared Polis, both Colorado Democrats, and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., would mandate the contents’ disclosure.

The energy industry says fracking fluids consist mostly of water and sand, with only small amounts of other additives. Fracturing companies generally consider their fluids’ formulas to be proprietary information.

Gertz said not knowing what Lara was exposed to makes suing over his cancer more of a challenge.

“It’s hard for us to make a definite link because the companies have been so secretive about what’s in the fracking liquids,” he said. More>>>

Dispersant 'may make Deepwater Horizon oil spill more toxic'

It seems pretty counter-productive to be using a substance more hazardous than oil in an attempt to clean up the mess.

Guardian, May 5, 2010
Dispersant 'may make Deepwater Horizon oil spill more toxic'
Scientists fear chemicals used in oil clean-up can cause genetic mutations and cancer, and threaten sea turtles and tuna
By Suzanne Goldenberg

Chemicals used to break up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill before it reaches shore could do lasting damage to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, environmental scientists say.

By BP's own account, it has mobilised a third of the world's supply of dispersant, so far pouring about 140,000 gallons (637,000 litres) of the cocktail into the Gulf as of today. Some of the dispersant has been injected directly into the source of the spill on the ocean floor, a technique never deployed before, deepening concerns about further damage to the environment.

The dispersants are designed to break down crude into tiny drops, which can be eaten up by naturally occurring bacteria, to lessen the impact of a giant sea of crude washing on to oyster beds and birds' nests on shore. But environmental scientists say the dispersants, which can cause genetic mutations and cancer, add to the toxicity of the spill. That exposes sea turtles and bluefin tuna to an even greater risk than crude alone. Dolphins and whales have already been spotted in the spill.The dangers are even greater for dispersants poured into the source of the spill, where they are picked up by the current and wash through the Gulf. More>>>

EPA is now paying attention to the BP oil spill and on a related note, the chemicals meant to clean it up are raising concern

Friends of the Earth has an online petition asking President Obama to concentrate on renewable energy sources instead of offshore drilling. To sign the petition, click here.

The EPA has established a website regarding the BP oil spill that is devastating the gulf of Mexico.
EPA Press release:

"EPA launches site to inform the public about health, environmental impacts of spill

WASHINGTON – As part of the ongoing federal response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, EPA today established a website to inform the public about the spill’s impact on the environment and the health of nearby residents. The website – http://www.epa.gov/bpspill - will contain data from EPA’s ongoing air monitoring along with other information about the agency’s activities in the region. Also today, Administrator Jackson joined Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to tour the region. The Administrator will spend the next 36 hours visiting with community groups and meeting EPA staff responding to the spill.

Additional information on the broader response from the U.S. Coast Guard and other responding agencies is available at: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

On a related note, Pro-Publica has published an article about concerns regarding the environmental and health impacts of the chemicals BP is using in an attempt to clean up the spill.

by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - April 30, 2010 5:44 pm EDT

Photo by Chris Graythen/Getty Images The chemicals BP is now relying on to break up the steady flow of leaking oil from deep below the Gulf of Mexico could create a new set of environmental problems.

Even if the materials, called dispersants, are effective, BP has already bought up more than a third of the world’s supply. If the leak from 5,000 feet beneath the surface continues for weeks, or months, that stockpile could run out.

On Thursday BP began using the chemical compounds to dissolve the crude oil, both on the surface and deep below, deploying an estimated 100,000 gallons. Dispersing the oil is considered one of the best ways to protect birds and keep the slick from making landfall. But the dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own and can concentrate leftover oil toxins in the water, where they can kill fish and migrate great distances.

The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.

“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade off – you’re damned if you do damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”

BP did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants and other additives that break up the surface tension of an oil slick and make oil more soluble in water, according to a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences. They are spread over or in the water in very low concentration – a single gallon may cover several acres.

Once they are dispersed, the tiny droplets of oil are more likely to sink or remain suspended in deep water rather than floating to the surface and collecting in a continuous slick. Dispersed oil can spread quickly in three directions instead of two and is more easily dissipated by waves and turbulence that break it up further and help many of its most toxic hydrocarbons evaporate.

But the dispersed oil can also collect on the seabed, where it becomes food for microscopic organisms at the bottom of the food chain and eventually winds up in shellfish and other organisms. The evaporation process can also concentrate the toxic compounds left behind, particularly oil-derived compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.

Studies if oil dispersal have found that the chemicals used can accumulate in shellfish and other organisms. (Getty Images file photo) According to a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report, the dispersants and the oil they leave behind can kill fish eggs. A study of oil dispersal in Coos Bay, Ore. found that PAH accumulated in mussels, the Academy’s paper noted. Another study examining fish health after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 found that PAHs affected the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink salmon embryos. The research suggests the dispersal of the oil that’s leaking in the Gulf could affect the seafood industry there.

“One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resource managers face during a spill is evaluating the trade-offs associated with dispersant use,” said the Academy report, titled Oil Spill Dispersants, Efficacy and Effects. “There is insufficient understanding of the fate of dispersed oil in aquatic ecosystems.”

A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and, according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, was later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. But the Academy report makes clear that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago. More>>>

EPA Launches Toxicity Reference Data Database

ToxRefDB (Toxicity Reference Database) captures thousands of in vivo animal toxicity studies on hundreds of chemicals. The database:
Stores detailed study design, dosing, and observed treatment-related effects using standardized vocabulary.
Provides detailed chemical toxicity data, for the first time, in a publically accessible and searchable format.
Enables linkages to other public hazard, exposure and risk resources by integrating with ACToR (Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource).
Captures over 30 years and $2 billion of animal testing results.
Connects to another EPA chemical screening tool called ToxCast, a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort that uses advanced science tools to help efficiently (~$20K per chemical) understand biological processes impacted by chemicals that may lead to adverse health effects.
Visit EPA Toxicity Reference Database.

Colorado: A Clean Energy Future Done Right

You rarely hear people acknowledge the drawbacks to natural gas when talking about replacing coal but I think this article does a pretty nice job.

Elise Jones.Executive Director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition
Posted: April 28, 2010 11:48 AM at The Huffington Post

Once again, many eyes are on Colorado as it pioneers a ground-breaking pathway towards a cleaner energy future. And they should be.

Last week Colorado signed into law its historic Clean Air-Clean Jobs bill, which calls for transitioning the aging, coal-fired power plants in the Denver metropolitan area that are putting the health of the area's children, elderly and sick at risk. In addition to reducing ozone and regional haze pollution, this measure aims to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, the impact of which is already evident in Colorado's early-melting snowpack and the bark beetle epidemic ravaging our forests.

This bipartisan legislation enjoyed a diversity of supporters: Governor Ritter, Xcel (the affected utility and Colorado's largest), climate-concerned legislators, and many conservation groups, as well as rural lawmakers and natural gas companies who were delighted that much of the replacement energy from these coal plants is likely to come from natural gas (in addition to renewables and energy efficiency).

While Colorado's landmark progress in shuttering pollution-belching coal plants is a great example for other states and Congress to follow, it's important first to understand the context for this success story. Our remarkable progress towards embracing a new energy future involves a comprehensive package of energy policies - and all parts are equally important.

One of the key factors to the success of the clean air legislation was its alliance of strange bedfellows - but let's be clear, not everyone was comfortable with the sleeping arrangement. And that's because while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it's not clean. A flight over parts of Colorado's West Slope will starkly illustrate the impacts of past natural gas production: an industrialized web of bulldozed well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, roads and waste pits carved into our scenic landscapes. For the people who live in the "gas patch" - the families whose drinking water has been contaminated, the ranchers who have lost pastures to well pads, or the landowners whose property values have plummeted with the presence of drill rigs in their backyards - fuel switching to natural gas to clean up Denver's air is not the easiest pill to swallow.

Consequently, ensuring that natural gas production is "done right," using new technologies and improved management practices to reduce impacts, is an essential part of the equation. Indeed, the Clean Air-Clean Jobs bill would not have happened had Governor Ritter and state lawmakers not shown bold leadership in 2009 in updating the state's rules guiding oil and gas drilling to increase protections for our drinking water, wildlife habitat, and communities. Among other things, these common sense measures direct new drilling away from municipal water supplies, require extra care in important wildlife areas, and require companies to disclose the toxic chemicals they use in the drilling process in case accidents or spills occur. More>>>

Helena Chemical Company wins case against community activist

Normally I try not to post the same things as Drilling Santa Fe because I figure a lot of people read both and it's nice to get a variety of news. Today's news from the New Mexico Independent is too bad not to post though. The impacts of this decision could have far reaching consequences that go way beyond Helena Chemical and Arturo Uribe. Obviously, since the company was investigated and fined for violations, Mr. Uribe was not making up stories.
For some general information about SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation), click here.

Uribe ordered to pay $75k in punitive damages
By Laura Paskus 4/9/10 12:25 PM

Wednesday night, a jury found a southern New Mexico activist guilty of defamation and harassment against a chemical company.

Now, Arturo Uribe, a 40-year old social worker, owes the Tennessee-based Helena Chemical Company $2 in damages and $75,000 in punitive damages.

“The most important thing is we wanted the lies to stop—the amount of money was not something that was important to Helena—and we wanted to set the record straight in a forum where proof and evidence matter,” Robert Soza, Jr., Helena’s attorney told The Independent. “Though, I think that the money does send a message to Mr. Uribe and others who think that defamation is way of getting their point across: It’s not going to be permissible. It’s unlawful.”

In December 2008, Helena Chemical Company sued Uribe in New Mexico’s Third Judicial District Court in Las Cruces, saying he had repeatedly defamed Helena in public statements. According to the company, Uribe had harassed employees at the Mesquite branch and defamed the company via six individual slides within various presentations at community meetings, and when he told a television reporter: “We’re gonna allow companies and industry to contaminate us and knowingly do it and do nothing about it? I’m insulted; I’m hurt more than anything.”

The lawsuit was filed to silence an outspoken activist, Uribe’s attorney says

Two months prior to Helena’s suit against him, Uribe and 22 community members had filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that the chemical company’s emissions were sickening local children. Health problems include chronic respiratory infections, asthma, severe chronic bronchitis and nosebleeds.

According to Uribe’s attorney, Linda Thomas, Helena’s suit against Uribe was filed to silence the activist. Uribe had repeatedly reported information to the New Mexico Environment Department. In turn, she said, the department had investigated the facility, found violations and levied fines against Helena. “To us, this was a clear, malicious abuse of process,” she said. “They had filed the suit to shut him up.”

Thomas also said she was worried about how the jury’s decision will affect people living in Mesquite: “They’re not going to go back to their community and feel safe—they’re going to feel like they can’t speak out because they’re worried they’re going to be sued.” The case will also have nationwide implications, for activists on both sides of the political spectrum: “This decision is going to have a chilling effect on everyone in the country, on anyone who might want to stand up against polluters in their community, or meet with other community members to talk about concerns.”

Company had been hit with a $233,777 fine for not complying with air quality regulations

Just south of Las Cruces, the town of Mesquite doesn’t merit much notice—even from those who might meander toward El Paso along back roads rather than zipping down Interstate-10. Tallied during the 2000 Census, the population was almost 95 percent Hispanic or Latino—and until 2004, the chemical company had escaped attention from the state’s agency in charge of environmental safety.

That is, until residents such as Uribe—along with state Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, Sen. Cynthia Nava, D-Las Cruces, and Doña Ana County commissioner Oscar Butler—complained to the New Mexico Environment Department about Helena’s impacts on the community.

In early 2004, NMED first inspected Helena’s facility, where chemical fertilizers are received in bulk, then mixed and sold to local farmers. Later that same year, the state issued a Notice of Violation against Helena—for operating its plant without an air quality permit.

Under state law, the company had to install wells that monitor chemicals in the groundwater, submit what is called an “abatement plan”—a plan to investigate and contain groundwater pollution—and comply with investigations into air and occupational health and safety issues.

The state also hit Helena with a $233,777 civil penalty for not complying with New Mexico’s air quality laws and regulations. At that time, in June 2005, the department issued a press release quoting deputy secretary Derrith Watchman-Moore saying, “Since our first inspection a year and a half ago, we have consistently and patiently made every attempt to work with them and get them into compliance. Our patience is now at an end. This order is a clear message to Helena to immediately comply with New Mexico’s environmental laws and become a good neighbor to the people of Mesquite.”

But problems persisted: In September, 2006, the company failed to report a 500-gallon spill of liquid fertilizer. State law mandates that spills be called in within 24 hours. Helena reported the spill 12 days afterwards—and subsequently paid a $30,000 fine.

The following year, in November, 2007, NMED issued another notice, citing 15 violations of the Mesquite facility’s air quality permit. In the end, Helena and the state reached a settlement agreement over ten of the violations, and the company agreed to pay $208,331 in fines. More>>>

ProPublica Article, Pennsylvania's Gas Wells Booming--But So Are Spills

by Sabrina Shankman, ProPublica - January 27, 2010 4:08 pm EST

As more gas wells are drilled in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale, more cases of toxic spills are being reported. Earlier this month, Pennsylvania's environmental officials fined Pennsylvania-based Atlas Resources after a series of violations at 13 wells, including spills of fracturing fluids and other contaminants onto the ground around the sites. And just last week the agency fined M.R. Dirt, a company that removes waste from drilling sites, $6,000 for spilling more than seven tons of drilling dirt along a public road.

The reports come on the heels of a string of other incidents that have killed fish in one of the state's most prized recreational lakes and released toxic chemicals into the environment.

The Atlas spills are significant because they are among the latest and because they happened repeatedly during the routine transfer of fluids. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection fined [1] Atlas Resources $85,000 for the offenses, which took place between May and December of 2009. Many of the spills were discovered by DEP inspectors.

The violations [2] (PDF) cited by the DEP include spills of fluids from the hydraulic fracturing [3] process at seven sites, and failure to report a spill at one of those sites. One spill was the result of a faulty pit liner, which is supposed to insulate the ground from hydraulic fracturing fluids after they are pumped out of a well.

Atlas Resources [4] controls more than half a million acres within the Marcellus Shale, the massive gas deposit that stretches from Tennessee to New York. The company, whose total revenue was $787.4 million in 2008, issued a statement acknowledging that it had entered a voluntary settlement with the DEP and saying that each of the incidents had been corrected. An Atlas spokesman declined a request to answer additional questions about the violations, or about the company's operations in Pennsylvania.

"If you look at this series of violations -- it's not only that there are multiple violations," said DEP spokeswoman Helen Humphreys, pointing to the fact that the same three violations were turning up at each site. "This is a pattern, and it's a problem."

The pattern, and the problem, extend beyond Atlas.

In December the DEP fined [5] Chesapeake and Schlumberger, two of the biggest operators in the Marcellus Shale and in gas development nationally, for spilling hydrochloric acid, which is used for hydraulic fracturing and is corrosive. Cabot Oil and Gas, a Houston-based energy company that lists T. Boone Pickens as one of its stockholders, was fined in November [6] for a series of spills, including a fracturing fluid spill by its contractor Halliburton. More>>>

To many Unknowns

Yesterday, ProPublica published a particularly interesting article regarding the unknowns of natural gas drilling. In the article, Abraham Lustgarten paints a clear picture of the fact that we really don't know enough about natural gas drilling. Sure, you can assume that fractures in the shale a mile below the ground aren't going to spread far enough to contaminate water, and, if you are on the other end of the spectrum, you can assume that these fractures extending into aquifers is a logical progression of the process. Sadly, there is so much we don't know about the chemical mix that is used for hydraulic fracturing, that
"proof" can be difficult to find. Which brings me back to my usual spiel about regulations. Given all the unknowns of the drilling process and its impacts, regulations at the county level are of the utmost importance. Comprehensive county oil and gas ordinances that require extensive studies before permits are issued minimize the risks and, I believe, will also help us all clear up some of the unknowns surrounding natural gas drilling because of the required studies.

Click here to read the Propublica article published yesterday.

In New Gas Wells, More Drilling Chemicals Remain Underground

Another article that illustrates what a fracking mistake it is to not push for regulations on the county level.

by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - December 27, 2009 8:12 am EST
This story was co-published with Politico [1].

For more than a decade the energy industry has steadfastly argued before courts, Congress and the public that the federal law protecting drinking water should not be applied to hydraulic fracturing [2], the industrial process that is essential to extracting the nation's vast natural gas reserves. In 2005 Congress, persuaded, passed a law prohibiting such regulation.

Now an important part of that argument -- that most of the millions of gallons of toxic chemicals that drillers inject underground are removed for safe disposal, and are not permanently discarded inside the earth -- does not apply to drilling in many of the nation's booming new gas fields.

Three company spokesmen and a regulatory official said in separate interviews with ProPublica that as much as 85 percent of the fluids used during hydraulic fracturing is being left underground after wells are drilled in the Marcellus Shale, the massive gas deposit that stretches from New York to Tennessee.

That means that for each modern gas well drilled in the Marcellus and places like it, more than three million gallons of chemically tainted wastewater could be left in the ground forever. Drilling companies say that chemicals make up less than 1 percent of that fluid. But by volume, those chemicals alone still amount to 34,000 gallons in a typical well.

These disclosures raise new questions about why the Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal law that regulates fluids injected underground so they don't contaminate drinking water aquifers, should not apply to hydraulic fracturing, and whether the thinking behind Congress' 2005 vote to shield drilling from regulation is still valid.

When lawmakers approved that exemption, it was generally accepted that only about 30 percent of the fluids stayed in the ground. At the time, fracturing was also used in far fewer wells than it is today and required far less fluid. Ninety percent of the nation's wells now rely on the process, which is widely credited for making it financially feasible to tap into the Marcellus Shale and other new gas deposits.

Congress is considering a bill that would repeal the exemption, and has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to undertake a fresh study of how hydraulic fracturing may affect drinking water supplies. But the government faces stiff pressure from the energy industry [3] to maintain the status quo -- in which gas drilling is regulated state by state -- as companies race to exploit the nation's vast shale deposits and meet the growing demand for cleaner fuel. Just this month, Exxon announced it would spend some $31 billion to buy XTO Energy, a company that controls substantial gas reserves in the Marcellus -- but only on the condition that Congress doesn't enact laws on fracturing that make drilling "commercially impracticable." More>>>

NPR Story, "Health Issues Follow Natural Gas Drilling In Texas"

By John Burnett

November 3, 2009 Vast new natural gas fields have opened up thanks to an advanced drilling technique. While natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than coal or petroleum, extracting it is still hard, dirty work. Some people who live near the massive Barnett Shale gas deposit in north Texas, have compliants. Health and environmental concerns are prompting state regulators to take a closer look. More>>>

New York Times Editorial - The Haliburton Loophole

EDITORIAL
Published: November 2, 2009
Among the many dubious provisions in the 2005 energy bill was one dubbed the Halliburton loophole, which was inserted at the behest of — you guessed it — then-Vice President Dick Cheney, a former chief executive of Halliburton. More>>>