Our thoughts and opinions about gas extraction and related topics
Are you interested in knowing why we at CHEC started this hairbrained project with the Foundation for PA Watersheds and Rhiza Labs to develop FracTracker? Check out the presentation below to learn more:
If you’re having trouble viewing the presentation, click play at the bottom of the screen twice. Prezi will move you from one “slide” to the next. And if you’re still having trouble, visit Prezi to learn more.
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Communications Specialist and DrPH student, Center for Healthy Environments & Communities (CHEC), University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
Last week the PA House of Representatives voted in support of a severance tax of 39 cents for every thousand cubic feet of natural gas extracted. This proposed bill now awaits its fate in the Senate. Governor Edward Rendell recently sent a letter to Senate leaders urging them to move forward on the bill.
“A week ago the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to impose a severance tax on natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. Since that time, in spite of the expressed commitment made by the you in the fiscal code, your comments, and those made by your staff, do not offer a shred of evidence that you have any intention of living up to this commitment you made to put the severance tax to a vote in the Senate before you adjourn the session.” Read more.
Industry representatives have stated that the proposed tax is too high and would hinder the extraction process in the Commonwealth. Supporters of this tax, however, feel it is necessary to counter the costs to local infrastructure and protect the environment and public health.
 |
| Clearfield Blowout, June 2010 Photo credit: PA DEP |
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – CHEC Communications Specialist and DrPH Student, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
It came at a conspicuous time; on June 3, 2010 a Marcellus gas well blew out in Clearfield County, PA – less than two months after the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf (and before that spill was capped).
Luckily, the Clearfield blowout did not kill or injure workers or spill five million gallons into the ocean, but it does raise significant public health preparedness and environmental health questions.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) released a report stating that untrained EOG Resources personnel and improper control of the well were the cause of the blowout that released wastewater and methane gas into the atmosphere for 16 hours. EOG also failed to notify the DEP about the incident until several hours after it began.
The Clearfield well site in question is located in the center of PA off of I-80 (see map below).
[image removed]
Figure 1. The red square indicates multiple violations that occurred in one geographic location, the Clearfield blowout. Click on “i” to learn more about each square (record). (The map used to be private and visible on the DataTool only to members of CHEC, but it can now be seen by anyone.)
Many concerns and questions are associated with a blowout of this type:
On the part of emergency responders, some progress is being made. CHEC continues to receive reports that more and more local first responders, including volunteer firefighters, are being trained in PA and WV to deal with potential accidents and blowouts on well sites. Additionally, the PA DEP has hired a team of responders throughout the state who are no more than five hours away from any drill pad.
Read the DEP’s full report on the Clearfield gas well blowout. [link removed]
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – CHEC Communications Specialist and BCHS Doctoral Student, University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health
When the ‘new’ methods for gas extraction first appeared on the horizon in Pennsylvania, many citizens expressed concern that their water could become contaminated by the hydraulic fracturing process used to obtain natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. At the same time, the natural gas industry’s PR group, the Marcellus Shale coalition, claimed that “hydrofracking has [a] safe record and spurs [the] economy.” Preliminary research conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the U.S. EPA in Pavillion, Wyoming suggest that a portion of citizens’ concerns might be warranted. (To learn more, read the PDFs numbered 2, 3, and 4 at the end of this post.)
Some researchers believe that gas extraction cannot be done without negatively impacting water quality due to the likelihood of well casings leaking over time (Dusseault, 2000). See excerpt below:
The consequences of cement shrinkage are non-trivial: in North America, there are literally tens of thousands of abandoned, inactive, or active oil and gas wells, including gas storage wells, that currently leak gas to surface. Much of this enters the atmosphere directly, contributing slightly to greenhouse effects. Some of the gas enters shallow aquifers, where traces of sulfurous compounds can render the water nonpotable, or where the methane itself can generate unpleasant effects such as gas locking of household wells, or gas entering household systems to come out when taps are turned on. Methane from leaking wells is widely known in aquifers in Peace River and Lloydminster areas (Alberta), where there are anecdotes of the gas in kitchen tap water being ignited. Because of the nature of the mechanism, the problem is unlikely to attenuate, and the concentration of the gases in the shallow aquifers will increase with time. (Dusseault, 2000)
In an attempt to reduce the risk that the increased drilling in PA would negatively impact groundwater and drinking water supplies, the PA Environmental Quality Board published its proposed rulemaking measures to update existing state requirements for many of the processes involved in natural gas drilling, including: casing and cementing the well, monitoring and inspections, and plugging of oil and gas wells. (A significant portion of the existing regulations in PA that dictate water supply replacement and how gas wells are constructed were created in 1989.)
Whether natural gas drilling – when done properly – can contaminate well water or the acquifer from which well water is obtained is a significant research question. Public health would suggest that this is an imperative issue considering the number of violations sited against companies drilling in Pennsylvania by the PA DEP. (See map below that shows Marcellus Shale wells drilled since 2007 and violations as of September 22, 2010. To view an individual record, click the “i” in the toolbar below the map and then click on the record about which you would like to obtain more information.)
[image removed]
The potential impacts that the natural gas industry could have on water quality and public health are some of the major reasons that the U.S. EPA is conducting a $1.9 million study on hydraulic fracturing, including a life-cycle analysis of the process. In order to better understand the relationship between drilling products and water resources, the EPA recently sent a letter to select hydraulic fracturing service providers that requests they release the constituents of their fracturing fluid, as well as specific information about other industry processes.
By Kyle Ferrar, MPH – EOH Doctoral Student, University of Pittsburgh GSPH
Wastewater discharges are regulated through national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits, and are based on the concept “the solution to pollution is dilution.” However, what happens when the diluting capacity of a river diminishes? If the natural gas industry will be producing 20 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater in 2011, but only retrieves 20% to 70% of the water used to drill and hydrofracture a well, over 28.5 to 100 MGD must be withdrawn from water resources1.
Water withdrawals for the natural gas industry are permitted through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) with the approval of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). As water is withdrawn, the volumes of stream flow decrease. Water withdrawals must be conducted responsibly, so that the volumes of stream flow are not impacted. Decreasing flow decreases the assimilative capacity of waterways to dilute pollution, such as TDS. In the late summer and fall, lack of precipitation causes drought conditions, and accounts for the lowest flow periods each year. But in 2008 through 2010, flow in parts of the Monongahela River have been less than half than what they are typically, at this time of the year, according to the Army Corps of Engineers2.
[image removed]
Figure 1. Permitted surface water withdrawals in Pennsylvania are shown on the map, active as of April 2, 2010.
Figure 1 shows the permitted water withdrawals in Pennsylvania for commercial, industrial, and agricultural use, as well as the permitted water withdrawals for the oil and natural gas industry. There is a multitude of groups that rely on water withdrawals for their livelihood, including the oil and gas industry, labeled as red stars. The capacity of river flow to dilute pollutants to safe levels also depends on river flow, and has precise limits. The current assimilative capacity for pollution and TDS in the Monongahela River is showing signs of saturation, and is characteristically oversaturated during the dry season. Monongahela River communities are already urged to rely on bottled water rather than their own municipal tap water, for certain periods of the year. Therefore, at the current rate of natural gas industry water withdrawals, there is no longer any room left for further economic development of water resources in other sectors of industry within the Monongahela River basin, if public health is to be conserved.
The current water management practices of the natural gas industry during the regional dry season are likely to have contributed to higher TDS concentration in the Monongahela River. New regulations for treatment and discharge of wastewater are designed so that the wastewater does not result in a severe impact, but the issue of mediating sustainable withdrawals has not been addressed. The majority of the pollution in the Monongahela River is still suspected to be caused by issues of legacy pollution, such as extensive acid mine drainage within the watershed3. On the other hand, the water withdrawals in the Monongahela River watershed are potentially causing a cumulative impact on flow volume in the river that magnifies all forms of pollution by increasing the pollutant concentrations. Much more research needs to be conducted on this issue, to ensure safe and sustainable permitting practices for water withdrawals.
 |
| Natural gas drilling site in Susquehanna County taken by Garth Lenz. View other RAVE photos in the online gallery. |
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH
As Dr. Volz and I presented as part of Geneva College’s Colloquia Series today – right in the heart of PA’s Marcellus Shale play – I found myself brainstorming on what issues FracTracker’s DataTool can be used to help address, and what future research questions might result from its use. The next few blog posts of mine will follow that theme.
So the first question I would like to propose is what will happen to our region’s farms and their products if an industry can offer $5,000 an acre and 18% royalties (an approximation based on recent verbal reports from owners of mineral rights) to farmers, many of whom are feeling the squeeze financially?
This is a close up map of southwestern PA to take a closer look at how land is being used in Washington County, PA and comparing that with where gas wells are being drilled. The coral area of land, where more than 50% of it is cultivated as you can see, has several wells located within it.
Since many farmers are experiencing financial hardships, it is understandable that the monetary assistance that can at times be provided by leasing out their mineral rights would be a very beneficial (and attractive) option for the farmers. But what does this new temptation mean for the quality of our nation’s agriculture down the road? How will public health be affected, e.g. will access to local and fresh foods improve or decline? Will certain land owners be less motivated to farm? Will they use their signing bonuses and royalty checks to purchase new and better farming equipment, which hypothetically would improve the quality and quantity of the agricultural system? Or even, will more events like this one occur, when cattle had to be quarantined because they came in contact with waste water that leaked from an impoundment?
I would like to personally add… The consideration should be made that this is quite a rural / socio-economic environmental justice issue. On a related note, in this link you can read about an economic study published through the Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development. Below is the summary of the project’s purpose and goals.
The purpose of this project was to assess the current social and economic conditions relating to gas well development in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania, with the goal of obtaining baseline data for future longitudinal assessment of subsequent community changes that occur in Appalachian counties. The study includes:
- A Survey of Residents living in the Marcellus Region. A mail survey of a sample of households within selected Appalachian counties in the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania was carried out to ascertain current views of residents concerning gas industry development in their areas and to obtain information about their perceptions of their communities.
- Interviews with Key Informants. Interviews of approximately 60 stakeholders from public, private, nonprofit, and institutions were conducted in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Arkansas to ascertain their perceptions of current and future economic, social, and environmental impacts associated with large scale natural gas development.
This is an invitation to hear your opinions about any or all of the topics discussed above.
Piloting FracTracker in the Marcellus Shale Region
By Conrad (Dan) Volz, DrPH, MPH – Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health (GSPH); Director, Center for Healthy Environments and Communities; Director, Environmental Health Risk Assessment Certificate Program, GSPH
This document explains the fractracker.org web-platform for tracking shale gas environmental and environmental health, social and behavioral health, emergency preparedness, community, general, and public health, and associated land use impacts. Over time, we envision it to be able to track economic, demographic, and other important variables that any organization or individual is interested in exploring. This is being written in part because we at CHEC have been actually overwhelmed in the past few weeks by requests from other shale gas plays to use the platform.
So to start, FracTracker is funded by the Heinz Endowments, managed by the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) [a center within the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health], and hosted by the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds. The platform architecture was built by Rhiza Laboratories [a division of Maya designs].
If you notice at the top of this blog that it says it is dedicated to tracking Marcellus Shale gas extraction impacts—please do not be put-off if you are interested in other shale gas plays or even in other oil and gas extraction and hybrid activities. This site can help you — and also you can help it!
FracTracker’s Data Tool is being piloted in the Marcellus Shale, but any citizen, organization, activist, even government organizations and industries themselves can use this tool to help visualize oil and gas extraction impacts in any region of the country or even throughout the world. It is mainly being developed though to help in tracking impacts of unconventional gas and oil and other byproduct extraction by stimulation technology commonly referred to as hydrofracturing within the United States. Although a better term might be ‘high pressure chemical fluid fracturing’; industry words don’t characterize well many of the processes, as we often hear about flowback and produced water, which are best labeled contaminated fluids. Flowback water bears as much resemblance to water as waste effluent from steel or chemical plants do.
So our focus right now is to pilot this web-platform in the Marcellus Shale and general Appalachian Devonian shale formations that are primarily in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia but also cover portions of Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and even across Lake Erie. The site was launched in the last week of June 2010 at a meeting in Bedford, PA that included data providers and users from community groups, environmental organizations, regulatory agencies, academia, and foundations-primarily from the state of Pennsylvania. Following this ‘kickoff’ meeting, others have been held in Pittsburgh, PA (SW PA – epicenter of gas extraction), Danville, PA (NE PA – an epicenter of gas extraction activity), and Ithaca NY. The purpose of these meetings has been to inform groups and institutions about this tool and get buy-in for data gathering and sharing and most importantly forming a network of groups interested in visualizing impacts of gas extraction operations and predicting environmental and social impacts, and health effects under multiple scenarios of the development of the industry. Certainly we know from past shale gas and oil plays that this is unlike industrial process such as coal burning for power production in that the oil and gas industry develops over a wide geographical area with many sources for both air and water pollution. Many gas extraction processes are small enough to not need permitting under existing regulations, but taken as a whole will contribute widely to air pollution effects such as ozone formation and surface water quality deficits from disposal of contaminated fluids into sewage treatment plants.
Our funding for this project is thus limited right now to Marcellus Shale, but it has always been envisioned that the platform would be used across the country. The design of this tool is therefore an ongoing project. Although CHEC does not have funds to actively manage data from other shale plays currently, we certainly encourage groups-individuals-regulatory agencies-environmental organizations to use the tool in areas of the country that you are interested in and to populate the data tool with databases that would be useful in showing locations of wells, population density, income, natural resources, landforms, endangered species, air and water quality, health outcomes, watersheds and rivers etc. All data must be geolocated (with a latitude and longitude), as that is what allows visualization of the dataset on the Google earth maps.
The tool is really pretty easy to use once data is stored on it (getting data on it is not so simple at the present time, as there are only a few types of file formats it accepts, and knowledge of how to transform some databases is necessary; we are working on that also). It is quite easy to overlay databases on each other to visualize and tell stories about extraction activities and for academics it is an interesting hypothesis generating device. Two stories highlighted on the blog that were easily produced were:
Gesundheit – Dan Volz
FracTracker General Contact Information:
Samantha L. Malone, MPH, CPH
Communications Specialist, CHEC
Phone: (412) 624-9379
Email: malone@fractracker.org
How Organic Compounds Contained in the Shale Layer Can Volatilize Into Air, Become Hazardous Air Pollutants and Cause Ozone Formation
By: Conrad Dan Volz, DrPH, MPH; Drew Michanowicz, MPH, CPH; Charles Christen, DrPH, MEd; Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH; Kyle Ferrer, MPH – Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC), University of Pittsburgh, GSPH, EOH department
Part II explains how volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), which are HAP’s, form ozone in the lower atmosphere (otherwise known as ground level ozone) and uses maps generated for other regional studies of other precursor contaminants to lay a basis for formation ozone over the Marcellus area.
Since this article is on potential human exposure to airborne volatile organic compounds from shale gas operations, we will limit the following narrative conceptual model to how organic compounds in the shale gas layer itself can be mobilized by the hydraulic fracturing and above ground operations to become airborne and present an inhalation hazard.
An exhaustive search of the literature was done to obtain peer reviewed articles on Marcellus or other shale play flowback and produced water and concentrations of organic compounds in this water; no scientific articles were found that look specifically at organic compounds when well stimulation technology is used. Additionally, no papers were found that characterize organic compounds in flowback or produced water from Marcellus Shale wells over the region, which may vary significantly; anecdotal information suggests that wet gas containing organic compounds is an important byproduct in SW PA, whereas dry gas is more common in NE PA.
However, we can piece together good evidence that flowback and produced water from shale layers themselves contain organic compounds that could offgas into the environment when brought to the surface. First, gas-productive shale formations occur in Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks in the continental United States and are characterized as fine-grained, clay- and organic carbon–rich rocks that are both gas source and reservoir rock components of the petroleum system (Martini et al., 1998). Gas is of thermogenic or biogenic origin and stored as sorbed hydrocarbons, as free gas in fracture and intergranular porosity, and as gas dissolved in kerogen and bitumen (Schettler and Parmely, 1990; Martini et al., 1998). Kerogen and bitumen are extremely large molecular weight and a diverse group of organic compounds that could also be broken into many smaller organic compounds during the hydrofracturing process given the high pressures used, the temperatures at depth and the chemical additives added to make the water slick. The USGS factsheet 2009–3032 states clearly that hydrofrac water “in close contact with the rock during the course of the stimulation treatment, and when recovered may contain a variety of formation materials, including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides, and organics that can make wastewater treatment difficult and expensive” to dispose of, although no supporting documentation is provided (Soeder and Kappel, 2008).
Certainly gas shales contain numerous organic hydrocarbons; we know, for example, that the Marcellus contains from 3-12% organic carbon (OC), the Barnett: 4.5% OC, and the Fayetteville: 4-9.8% OC (Arthur et al, 2008 ). A whitepaper describing produced water from production of crude oil, natural gas and coal bed methane and prepared by researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory, reports that volatile hydrocarbons occur naturally in produced water and that produced water from gas-condensate-producing platforms contains higher concentrations of organic compounds then from oil-producing platforms (see below a description of organics from oil and gas producing platforms in the Gulf of Mexico) (Veil et al., 2004). Organic components of this produced water consist of C2-C5 carboxylic acids, ketones, alcohols, propionic acid, acetone and methanol. The concentration of these organics in some produced waters can be as high as 5,000 parts per million (ppm). This study further states that
Produced waters from gas production have higher contents of low molecular-weight aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene than those from oil operations; hence they are relatively more toxic than produced waters from oil production. (Veil et al., 2004)
… aliphatic and aromatic carboxylic acids, phenols, and aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. Partially soluble components include medium to higher molecular weight hydrocarbons (C6 to C15). They are soluble in water at low concentrations, but are not as soluble as lower molecular weight hydrocarbons. They are not easily removed from produced water and are generally discharged directly. (Veil et al., 2004)
A dated but very informative paper on the contaminants in produced water in the Gulf of Mexico is “Petroleum drilling and production operations in the Gulf of Mexico” by C.S. Fang (1990). Here, “produced water” is referring to formation water or water condensed from the flowing gas mixture in the production tubing string only since these wells are not stimulated. The paper states that the largest discharge by volume from an offshore platform is from produced water. The organic compounds in the produced water come from three sources:
Exposure to ground level ozone has been linked in many scientific studies to:
Ground level ozone also interferes with the ability of sensitive plants to produce and store food, making them more susceptible to certain diseases, insects, other pollutants, competition and harsh weather. It damages the leaves of trees and other plants, and reduces forest growth and crop yields, potentially impacting species diversity in ecosystems (EPA, 2008).
The best explanation for formation of ozone that I know of is contained in the 2008 EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (The entire 3 part EPA document is attached after this article). Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is formed in polluted areas by atmospheric reactions involving two main types of precursor pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Carbon monoxide (CO) from incomplete combustion of fuels is also an important precursor for ozone formation. The formation of ozone and other oxidation products (like peroxyacyl nitrates and hydrogen peroxide), including oxidation products of the precursor chemicals, is a an extremely complex reaction that depends on the intensity and wavelength of sunlight, atmospheric mixing and interactions with cloud and other aerosol particulates, the concentrations of the VOC’s and NOx in the air, and the rates of all the chemical reactions. The EPA figure below shows all the possible reaction pathways and products that might be formed in both the troposphere (the lowest major layer, extending from the earth’s surface to about 8 km above polar regions and about 16 km above tropical regions) and the stratosphere (that is from the top of the troposphere to about 50 km above the earth’s surface). What happens in the lowest sublayer of the troposphere known as the planetary boundary layer (PBL) is most important for formation of ground level ozone and other reactive species that can cause health effects and is most strongly affected by surface conditions.
“VOC refers to all carbon-containing gas-phase compounds in the atmosphere, both biogenic and anthropogenic” (biological and manmade) “in origin, excluding CO and CO2. Classes of organic compounds important for the photochemical formation of O3 include alkanes, alkenes, aromatic hydrocarbons, carbonyl compounds (e.g., aldehydes and ketones), alcohols, organic peroxides, and halogenated organic compounds (e.g., alkyl halides) Remember these are given off into air from produced water and flowback water at shale gas sites. This array of compounds encompasses a wide range of chemical properties and lifetimes; isoprene has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately an hour, whereas methane has an atmospheric lifetime of about a decade” (EPA, 2008). So the majority of ground level ozone is formed when ozone precursors NOx, CO, and VOC’s react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. We have established that these VOC’s can come from volatilization of organic compounds from frac ponds-condensers and other gas processing equipment and compressor-transmission operation. Motor vehicle exhaust, emissions from coal powered electrical generation stations, industrial emissions and release of chemical solvents all put these precursor ozone producing chemicals into the air.
These precursors chemicals most often originate in urban areas, but winds can carry NOx hundreds of kilometers, causing ozone formation to occur in less populated regions as well. Methane, a VOC whose atmospheric concentration has increased tremendously during the last century, contributes to ozone formation but on a global scale rather than in local or regional photochemical smog episodes. In situations where this exclusion of methane from the VOC group of substances is not obvious, the term Non-Methane VOC (NMVOC) is often used. (EPA, 2008)
Now let’s examine the specific case of ozone and precursor chemicals for ozone as they exist over the Marcellus shale area without the addition of VOC’s from shale gas operations and the addition of diesel exhaust that also accompanies this process (from the thousands of truck trips to deliver water, chemicals, equipment, and sand and remove equipment and contaminated fluids – conservatively 1000 trips per well – thus over a year when 2000 wells are drilled there would be 2,000,000 truck trips). The maps that we are going to show were developed for the Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Threat Analysis (PRETA), in progress now (check back to fractracker.com in mid-September 2010 to visualize data on VOC’s, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates [PM 10 and PM 2,5], carbon monoxide and other air contaminants across the four state region of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia- these data and the maps presented below represent air contaminant means of the second highest 8-hour daily maximum values from 1998 -2008).
Map 2, NO2 Levels 1998-2008 over 4 state region shows existing NO2 levels when monitoring station data are averaged and smoothed.
Environmental and Environmental Health Considerations and Sources of Data on Pipeline Incidents
By Conrad (Dan) Volz, DrPH, MPH
[image removed]
Two recent articles highlight this activity. The first, published by Greater Binghamton NY pressconnects.com, describes a pipeline that would run through Forest Lake, Susquehanna County, PA and Great Bend PA into Broome County, NY connecting to the Millennium Pipeline in Windsor, NY. The proposed pipeline would require construction of three compressor stations in Windsor NY (see the article’s correction). The second story published in the Wayne Independent announces that Penn State Cooperative Extension will host a workshop titled “Understanding Natural Gas Pipelines and Rights of Way” in Honesdale, PA on Wednesday, September 8 at the Wayne County Park Street Complex. This meeting will start at 6:30 pm and will include representatives from the Cooperative Extension, Tennessee Gas Pipeline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Wayne Conservation District and the law firm of Tressler-Saunders LLC, Scranton. Topics of discussion of this meeting will be the Tennessee Gas Pipeline looping project, federal pipeline regulations and understanding right of way agreements.As the shale gas industry continues to develop and expand, and in some areas to expand to produce byproduct gases and organic compounds, pipelines are needed to connect these new producing areas with major supply lines. Byproduct gases and other useful organic chemicals will also need to be more efficiently transported to petrochemical facilities, and/or new petrochemical facilities will need to be built. This also means that new compressor plants will need to be established.
 |
| Installing pipeline – Photo from DownSteamToday.com |
Methane gas pipelines and pipelines carrying other organic gases and vapors, their site requirements, and proximity to population centers have important public health implications for both occupational and environmental health and community and behavioral health and have been the subject of public health research in the past (Binder S, 1989). Also, gas pipelines can have significant impacts on forests, fragmentation of habitat and endangered and threatened species and severe ramifications for wildlife systems in the event of catastrophic releases (Dey PK, 2002). Pipeline explosions and fires and acute inhalation of gases, which can have immediately dangerous to life and health consequences, occur at varying frequencies throughout the United States and in fact around the world. A branch of public health termed “emergency preparedness” is dedicated to the prevention of accidental or intentional incidents resulting in infrastructure failures and includes nuclear power plants, water treatment systems as well as oil and gas pipelines. More info: see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Preparedness for All Hazards and the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Public Health Preparedness (UPCPHP) that trains public health professionals, including professionals in related organizations, to respond to public health threats and emergencies. This project is funded through the Center for Public Health Practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cooperative agreement number U90/CCU324238-05.
In the United States the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), acting through the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), administers a regulatory program to assure the safe transportation of natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials by pipeline. OPS develops regulations and other approaches to risk management to assure safety in design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities. PHMSA is committed to a data-driven approach to developing and refining pipeline safety programs.
In the last category of all reported incidents, the reports provided are generated from numerous data sources maintained by PHMSA and span decades of collection, evolving methods of oversight and multiple reporting formats. To generate these reports, PHMSA has standardized the data over various file formats, normalized incident costs over time to a common basis year- 2009 dollars, and standardized incident cause categories – all with the goal of producing a coherent and meaningful picture of National and State-specific trends in pipeline incidents. If you prefer to produce your own analysis, the raw data used in these reports are available to the public.
On this site PHMSA offers access to significant incident data. This is a treasure trove of important data that are all available to the public. In addition to 2010 data to present, there are data on flagged and significant incidents from 2006 to 2/17/2010. Below is the gateway to each year’s incident reports:
These files are a flagged version of all operator reported incident files that can be accessed from the PHMSA FOIA On-Line Library (a Freedom of Information Act library). The above flagged version of files differs from the FOIA on line library in they have been flagged to indicate incident significance, flagged to indicate fire-first Gas Distribution incidents, and include indexed costs in addition to raw (nominal) costs.
The 2010-present PHMSA flagged dataset reports 38 total incidents across the country. Thirty Three (33) or about 87% of these incidents were reported as significant incidents. Reported in this dataset is an explosion and fire at a major natural gas pipeline; it occurred June 7, 2010 in Johnson County, Texas near Cleburne. The blast and fire killed one worker and injured seven others. It was caused by utility workers digging holes for utility poles. There was only one home within ½ mile of the explosion and fire, and it was not affected. CHEC recently converted some of this data from excel spreadsheets to comma separated values so that it could be displayed and visualized on FracTracker’s data tool:
[image removed]
A whitepaper produced by principle investigator Mark Stephens of C-FER Technologies under contract with the Gas Research Institute presents an approach to sizing ground area potentially affected by the failure of high pressure natural gas pipelines (Stephens M, 2000). It states that rupture of a high pressure natural gas pipeline can produce threats to both people and property in the area where the failure occurs. In this whitepaper an equation was developed relating both the diameter and operating pressure of a pipeline to the area that is affected in the event of a real world worst case failure incident. The model on which the hazard area equation is based depends on three factors:
There has been some very good comments from Fractracker contributors, and I would like to share and help to facilitate further commenting…
216 Franklin St, Suite 400, Johnstown, PA 15901
Phone: +1 (717) 303-0403 | info@fractracker.org
FracTracker Alliance is a 501(c)3 non-profit: Tax identification number: 80-0844297