Why Oil Spills, Leaks Are Not Ending Anytime Soon

Cleaning up the Santa Barbara oil spill. Feds have now issued a cleanup order to the company.

The horrendous images of sea birds and seals gooed up with black oil on the California coast near Santa Barbara may cause many to want to lose their lunch - and with good reason. This recent underground pipeline failure caused up to 105,000 gallons of crude to spill into one of the most picturesque beaches of the coast and has threatened many species of aquatic animal.  No cause has yet been determined though the spill is among the largest in the U.S. over the past few decades.

The oil covered sand and rocks with a tar-like goo and a fifth of the crude reached the Pacific Ocean turning it into a brackish scene no normal person would stick even a toe into, e.g.


But if you believe such leaks or spills can be stopped anytime soon, you are dreaming. The reason is that neither the oil industry or the government seems willing to invest the billions needed to bring the aging pipeline and delivery infrastructure up to scratch. As a point of reference, nearly two -thirds of all the leaks since 2009 have been linked to the corrosion of the material - as well as welding and equipment failures. These are problems associated with older pipelines - though they can occur in newer ones as well. The so-called failure rate can in fact depend on a number of factors.

The potential for massive failures and leaks also inheres in the fracking infrastructure now operating across dozens of states. In the documentary 'Gasland II'.  Tony Ingraffea, a Cornell Professor of geological engineering.  explained clearly and with easily understood diagrams, how cement can fail and methane can migrate into ground water owing to failure in fracking pipes..  Referencing one of the pipes, Ingraffea sketched the interior cement annulus of 1 -inch which is the sole barrier between the fracking contaminants and the water supply. As he observed, "what you don't want is for that cement to fail".

"Failure" includes: corrosion, crumbling, or disappearing entirely as a barrier over time. If that happens, then "what's down there" (i.e. the contaminants) can get into the annulus. For effect, Ingraffea then rubbed out the chalk barrier representing the cement in the annulus,  and indicated an arrow moving into it from outside. To quote. Ingraffea:

"So now shallow gas goes into the open annulus, pressurizes the annulus, and the gas migrates into an underground source of drinking water."

Once this happens, other frack contaminants can also migrate into the water, such as benzene, toluene and dozens of  other cancer causing chemicals.

In the case of fracking,  Ingraffea noted that the cement failure phenomena he illustrated was "very well known and at least as long as we've been drilling wells and casing them".  He added that in his view there were only "three things that are certain: death, taxes, and fracture".  In the latter case, he explained that among the thousands of gas wells including those offshore, there is a probability that 1 in 20 will immediately show a failure (opening between the well casing and rock), and that meant methane migration. It also meant anything else stored in the rock, including salts, heavy metals, other deleterious things now have a pathway.

That is, 5 percent of all wells will be affected rapidly and woe betide any home owners in their vicinity. Ingraffea invoked the 100,000 odd wells in PA alone, noting that failure rate meant  5,000 wells immediately failed in Pennsylvania alone. That translates to 5,000 methane migrations into the ground water and ruination of citizens' lives. Just one well going bad means one aquifer will be polluted, such as in Dimock. PA

Even the companies don't deny the disastrous leaks and assorted documents Josh Fox obtained show that. For example, in one document, from Southwestern Energy, a diagram clearly showed that the gas well had a cement barrier with a casing that prevented gases from migrating upwards. But this wasn't a Powerpoint poster about drilling wells but rather about how cement and casings fail and allow methane gas and other substances to migrate into aquifers.

Another document from Schlumberger, showed that cement failure occured at alarming rates - as depicted in one of their graphs showing 'fraction of wells affected by cement failure' vs. the well age in years.  The graph depicted a failure fraction of 40 percent after only 12 years, and a failure fraction of 50 percent after 30 years.  That meant if 1.5 million new wells are added in the U.S. by 2025 as projected, 750,000 will leak after thirty years. If 180,000 are added to PA, that means 90,000 will leak after 30 years.
.
Crude oil pipelines fare no better and leaks can often spring from human error - such as a backhoe striking a pipeline in a vulnerable place, as well as natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes) and welding failures. When we visited the Alaska pipeline in March, 2005,

We were informed by our guide that repairs were already underway to several sections they believed wouldn't be able to withstand even a minor (Richter 4.0) earthquake.

In the case of the pipeline causing the Santa Barbara spill, Plains All American Pipeline LP- the company which operates the pipeline and its subsidiaries, have reported 223 accidents since 2006 which have resulted in a total of 864,300 gallons of spilled oil, hazardous liquids with damages payouts topping $32 million. (With 25 enforcement regulations by federal regulators)

In 76 percent of the incidents corrosion was determined to be the major cause. Meanwhile, failures in materials, welds, and other equipment were cited more than 80 times.  The company and its affiliates have the fifth highest number of significant pipeline accidents since 2006.

Last Friday, Plains All American Pipeline insisted it "spent $300 million last year on maintenance and integrity".

Bit what they haven't said, and no other pipeline company likely will (whether for crude transport or fracking) is that the more pipelines generated the greater the incidence of failures. In a world of limited resources the maintenance costs will always exceed benefits beyond a certain level. The question is what is that level? If the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) gets passed there will be no limit on the demand for additional fracking infrastructure and crude pipelines in the U.S. - to meet global demand. There may then be such a frequency of spills, leakage that no amount of maintenance will contain them - or fed enforcement regulations.

Bottom line, if the oil industry continues to get its way - especially with indiscriminate fracking as well as drilling in the Arctic - look for a very bleak, and blackish oil spill future!

Now We Know Fracking Is Making People Sick

Well, many of our fears about fracking have been confirmed as the largest study to date of the link between natural gas drilling and public health shows that those forlorn folks living near fracking sites and relying on well water are more than twice as likely to report skin and respiratory problems. But this shouldn't be news given the hundreds of nasty chemical toxins used in fracking, including toluene, benzene and other carcinogens.

The study, from Yale University and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, surveyed 492 people living in 180 randomly selected households in southwestern Pennsylvania, an area containing more than 600 active natural gas wells. A full 39 percent of those living less than a kilometer (0.6 miles) away from a well, researchers found, said they’d experienced upper respiratory symptoms, including coughing, itchy eyes and nosebleeds, compared to 18 percent living 2 kilometers away or more. And 13 percent of those living close to wells reported skin conditions like persistent rashes and unexplained hair loss, compared to just 3 percent of the others.

The researchers have asserted that they are only reporting on the correlation so they can’t say whether fracking caused these symptoms.   Nor could they be more specific about what mechanism might have been at play. Drawing on past research, they say it’s possible that fracking is contaminating underground wells or causing air pollution, but it could also be that "the symptoms are just being caused by the stress and anxiety associated with living near major drilling operations — or by something else entirely."

This take, however, is hardly plausible given the first hand visual evidence seen, for example, in Josh Fox's Gasland II and the evidence we now have from Colorado investigations revealing that soil, air and ground water have been contaminated. The psychological proximity theory is also bollocks, given all those cases of animals that have died horrific deaths from drinking fracked water - leading their owners to have to send in hundreds of gallons of bottled water for their use too.

Ok, so it’s not a smoking gun and the evidence is primarily anecdotal but it still counts for something.  We also know, predictably, that diehard fracking supporters have been quick to underplay the findings. Enter PR misfit Katie Brown, spokesperson for the pro-drilling Energy in Depth, who asserted after the new results that it’s “just a poll.”

But this is typical dismissive PR reaction such as noted in the terrific anti-PR book by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

In the book, people who have been the recipients of toxic sludge -based fertilizers,  replete with hundreds of chemicals,  were asked about ill effects and they detailed them. However, the PR industry backing the fertilizer manufacturers argued that the people are wrong because it's "just a poll" and besides,  this toxic sludge was great for crops.  Never mind the vomiting, breakouts in rashes and convulsions, which could also be just in their minds. (They saw and smelled the sludge fertilizer and it induced a violent psychological reaction.)

So it's definitely uncanny to behold the parallels to what the pro-fracking PR hacks say here.

The Yale researchers also take care to note that their findings are consistent with earlier studies of these same health symptoms, including those reported by Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald. Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell,  recently explained to Salon that industry secrecy and lax regulations made it difficult to prove a definitive link between fracking and health symptoms. In some states, for example, it's against the law to disclose the content of fracking liquids - though it seems to be ok for a Neoliberal gubernator assholes like John Hickenlooper to drink them to show "they're okay" . It is also against the law in many fracking states for physicians to run tests for the presence of fracking chemicals causing adverse health effects and to disclose them to patients.

Given this Neoliberal foreclosure of evidence, the so-called polls and surveys (such as those made by the Yale researchers in the recent study) assume supreme importance in exposing what these turkeys are doing to us - along with documentaries like Gasland I and II. Let's keep in mind the PR factories will never tolerate the truth, as in the case of anthropogenic global warming, so we must always expect their egregious and reckless counter attacks.

In Pennsylvania, where drilling has exploded in the past six years, whistle-blowers recently accused the state Department of Health of deliberately ignoring health complaints. Critics added that the state has yet to conduct even one study on fracking’s potential health risks.  We want to make sure people know it’s a preliminary study,” lead author Peter Rabinowitz told the New Haven Register, adding, “to me it strongly indicates the need to further investigate the situation and not ignore it.”

But you may be sure these fracking maniacs and their paid off pols won't be put off. They are determined to poison us all for a temporary profit - for energy, fuels likely not even to be used in the U.S. but shipped to China or other places that will pay top dollar.

Despicable! To see the partial list of the chemicals exposed in fracking liquids thanks to the work of those like Colorado Sen. Dianne Dégette, check out the list below:

---

 Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer
Keep i
- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.

---

Now that this new study is circulating we need to come down even harder on the frackers and that means no longer buying into their codswallop.  They must be made also to conform to the precautionary principle, meaning they must prove fracking is safe - it's not our duty or job to prove it's unsafe!
 

Frackers Break the Law Again with Toxic Dumping in Colorado

Let's concede the frackers and all those who support them are shameless liars, apart from their yen to destroy the environment. Their talk about preserving both the environment and economy is great for PR - and likely emanates from one or more PR outfits - but isn't credible when one beholds how they consistently violate laws.

One of these laws in Colorado, since 1997, prohibits injecting or dumping diesel without a permit - which assigns specific regions for emitting effluent. This is important because diesel contains benzene and other carcinogenic chemicals that can easily spread in groundwater - and so can cause major health problems. Will the indiscriminate frackers or their supporting whore politicos pay for cancer treatments? I doubt it.

According to a Denver Post report ('Fracking Probe Finds Illegally Injected Diesel in Colorado',  August 14, p. 31) an investigation leading to a report released Wednesday - by attorneys for an environmental protection group- revealed 9, 173 gallons of diesel illegally injected while fracking wells in Colorado.  To many people in the state these illegal injections bring to mind the horrific consequences of the Parachute creek frack liquid spill which contaminated thousands of cubic meters of water.

Of course, industry groups have challenged this report as they challenge any semblance of negative news around fracking and its consequences. Their job is to spout PR to try to assuage the gullible.  Their claim (ibid.) is that the substance injected in 280 of the 351 wells reported was kerosene, not diesel. (Hey, doncha know kerosene is good for ya! See also the terrific PR -skewering book, "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You")

Fortunately, Environmental Integrity Project spotted this codswallop and called it out for what it was, noting: "kerosene and diesel have long been recognized as virtually the same thing...and the companies still lacked the proper permits to dump it."

Williams, PDC and ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy, were a few of the companies identified as dumping without permits.

These issues assume increasing importance given that Colo. Sen. Jared Polis has taken his two initiatives for local control of fracking off the table for the November ballot  - leaving the way open for nonstop pollution of our soil, air and water. The so-called "compromise" erected in the initiatives' place is a joke - translating into "we will examine the issues with a new commission and make recommendations." All Coloradans ought to be outraged.

Do the people have any say any more, or are we forever hostage to the frackers - as here in Colorado? Evidently, that may well be the case. Neolib governor John Hickenlooper constantly advises Coloradans that just because they own a home and property at XYZ location doesn't mean they control or own what lies beneath the surface land. He has consistently said it is the state and "other interests" which control and own the "mineral rights" - which means any of these claimants can rip out what's beneath your place anytime they desire.

Got a beautiful backyard with nice trees, and a small creek and all. Say hasta la vista to them if the powers that be, including corporations,  want those minerals!

Mensa Bulletin Looks At The Two Sides of Fracking - What Should You Believe?

The latest issue of the Mensa Bulletin featured two interesting back to back articles on fracking. The first, 'Energy and Economic Freedom' by Leonard Gaston, sang the praises of fracking for both natural gas and shale oil (kerogen) and how it is helping to make us energy independent. The second, 'Selling Our Health and Homes', by Al Bell, examined how fracking is undermining not only our environment - devastating water sources and ecological systems - but also our own health by extension.


 According to Gaston, in his frack- praising piece (p. 20):

"The Independent Energy Agency indicated in its 2012 world energy outlook, that by 2018 North America will provide 40 percent of new supplies  through the development of tight oil and oil sands and that the expected steep rise in U.S. shale oil reserves will change the global balance of power between existing producers and new producers."

 Note that "tight" oil means that extracted at or near the "breakeven point", i.e. the energy input to extract it is nearly equal to the energy that will be delivered by it. In most instances of kerogen fracking, I am putting in about 1.1 barrels of high EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) light crude oil, to get about 1 barrel back.  This is based on the additional energy needed to clean up nasty fracking waste pits, spills, leaks and other collateral damage. And btw,  this is heavy, volatile, 'skank'' oil of the type that has recently been traced to explosions in rail way storage cars - in Canada and in the U.S.

From there, Gaston goes on to sing even more praises and presses the case for pie-eyed optimism, quoting the head of British Petroleum (surely a font of insight), stating that the rise in U.S. oil production -  largely due to shale oil - would make the United States "completely independent of imported oil, likely by 2030."

Maybe, but what condition will the planet be in by then- with over ten million fracking wells and more added all the time? Is it really worth all that extra energy and to boast of "energy independence" to live in a ravaged world where you can barely breathe and looking across the landscape you see only barren, shredded terrain, with barely any water left to drink (all poisoned by methane and other effluent)? What kind of a parent would even want to bring a kid into such a world?

These questions are left to Al Bell to answer, but even before he does, Robert Heinberg ('Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future'  ) has butchered the whole Pollyannish nonsense that fracked oil and natural gas are our energy saviors - oh, and will be kind to the environment.

As Heinberg observes, while it may cost less to extract a cubic foot of natural gas or a gallon of oil shale today, it will cost much more in just five years and even more in ten - such that one would have to spend as much or more to get the energy as the benefit it delivers. Heinberg summons a point that most of the snake oil salesman humping fracking won't tell you, that it costs energy to get energy. And if you are a nation that resorts to employing 15 to 1 EROEI energy to extract  5 to 1 EROEI  oil shale energy.....well, can we say 'stupid'?

As Heinberg puts it (p. 116):

"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Heinberg's book is essentially a tour-de-force exposing the false promise of fracking with hard statistics and basic energy principles.  Regarding the much ballyhooed "shale oil" or kerogen, Heinberg is blunt (ibid.):

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. Therefore the EROEI in processing oil shale is bound to be pitifully low. According to the best study to date, by Cutler Cleveland and Peter O'Connor, the EROEI for oil shale production would be about 2:1. That tells us that oil from kerogen will be far more expensive than regular crude oil."

Many Mensans, I think, would not have read any of this before seeing Bell's account, and hence may be skeptical (especially since way too many Mensans buy into the libertarian nonsense.)  I will be looking to see what sort of responses come in over the next few months,

Bell's bona fides and familiarity with oil and natural gas came from his father who had been president of the Southern Gas Association and a member of the American Gas Association. No surprise he had largely been into the "drill, baby, drill" meme.  His education on the deleterious effects of natural gas fracking, however, came by virtue of seeing Josh Fox's Gasland and Gasland II documentaries, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-too-intense-for-wifey-to.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-fracking-is-worse-than-you.html

As Bell observes (p. 22):

"My views have now been completely reversed by two documentaries, Gasland and Gasland II, and by the all out and totally unscrupulous efforts by the gas industry to discredit the information provided by those two films.  I have little love for environmentalists, but when they are right we must pay attention and this is such a case."

He goes on to elaborate on the pro-frack propaganda, leading to too many brainwashed citizens:

"Gas industry ads blanketing television now are intended to show you how safe this process is and how we all benefit from it. The ads show how this fracked shale is separated by thousands of feet of rock from the aquifers high above and how steel casings and cement liners prevent any gas escaping into the aquifer."

He goes on to show what bollocks this is by citing the gas industry's own stats that disclose 5 percent of cement liners fail immediately, and more fail progressively with time.  In Gasland II, for example, Josh Fox shows an actual document from Schlumberger, revealing that cement failure occurs at alarming rates - as depicted in one of their graphs showing 'fraction of wells affected by cement failure' vs. the well age in years'.  The document showed a failure fraction of 40 percent after only 12 years, and a failure fraction of 50 percent after 30 years.  That means if 1.5 million new wells are added in the US of A, as projected, 750,000 will leak after thirty years. If 180,000 are added to PA, that means 90,000 will leak after 30 years.

So the natural gas and other ads pumping "safety" are all BS.

The result of all the leaks, as Bell notes (p. 23): "The result is tap water that contains methane, other gases and chemicals" (Like benzene).  He also shoots down the idiocy, pushed e.g. by Niall Ferguson, that the quality of air is unaffected. He writes (ibid.):

"Special FLIR cameras have captured scenes of massive amounts of methane escaping from the drilling sites, polluting the air."

As here in Colorado, Bell has noted "frequent fogs of brown gas escaping from wells, blanketing homes and herds".  Such instances have caused gas companies to erect enormous walls, some fifty feet high and blocks long, in some Denver metro communities - to try and prevent the noise and effluent from affecting communities excessively.  One of them near Denver is shown below:


But the negative health impacts can't be cordoned off so easily - especially as the frackers can extend their drilling underneath the walls, even into neighboring properties.  Bell observes (ibid.):

"You may now be eating meat from cattle raised in this environment. Much of our country is being destroyed by fracking. Just the sight of dead wildlife, poisoned streams, sick children and burning wells  - and government mendacity and collusion will disgust you."

Indeed! And lo and behold there on CBS Early Show this a.m. was the little shyster, Lloyd Blankfein - of Goldman Sachs - which made out like bandidos in the aftermath of the '08 financial meltdown ( by making credit default bets against good lenders). Here he was proclaiming what a "blessing" it is to now have energy independence in the near future. As the little rat said:

"Here we had all taken it for granted that we'd have to import energy from the most troubled places in the world. Now, all of a sudden, we have a completely different view forward.  And if you want to think how that will change the world going forward - just think of how the world might have been different if we didn't have the energy situation we had. Going forward, we have a terrific situation and we should recognize it. It's a gift and it has to be picked up."

Which makes me wonder what turnip truck this little prick fell off of. For one thing, his reference to what "might have been" is totally disingenuous. What is he saying? That if we'd only started to plumb natural gas and shale oil sources 40 years ago we'd have avoided becoming embroiled in Middle East geopolitics? Or the Arab Oil Embargo? Hello! It was precisely that HIGH EROEI light sweet crude that enabled everything that advanced the nation - from powerful machines leading to efficient manufacturing, to jet aircraft in modern aviation (and mass transport via such) to air conditioning, and  petroleum byproducts (including fertilizers for growing crops). It was that HIGH quality oil, not degraded kerogen, that enabled it,  you doofus! Hence, without that Arabian  (and domestic) light sweet crude, our economic growth up until the 1970s or so never would have been what it was!

As for shale oil fracking being a "gift", tell that to the kids dealing with sores and rashes all over their bodies, and unable to breathe without coughing half the time.

Blankfein also pointed to the creation of "2 million new jobs"  but as Al Bell observes, these are mainly in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and North Dakota where the frack craze has brought in drillers by the tens of thousands, to try and grab their brass ring.  The result? "Motels in Texas and Louisiana are doubling all their prices" and roads are clogged with many more thousands that the towns were not developed to accommodate. Meanwhile, pollution and noise reigns supreme.

Meanwhile, the claim that  these new fossil fuel "plays" are resulting in a "5 percent reduction in greenhouse gases" is just plain balderdash. In fact, greenhouse gases- including methane and CO2 -are now increasing at an ever more dangerous level (See 'The Years of Living Dangerously' which can also be viewed online.)

At the end of his PR appearance, Blankfein claimed that:

"Everybody is pro-environment and everybody is pro-energy. It's not a question of somebody being right and somebody being wrong".

But in Al Bell's essay, it is! Key among the issues is the loss of water supplies, especially, since each fracked well consumes 3-5 million gallons of fresh water  So that question, not to be facetious, becomes:

"Would you rather have clean water to drink and use, OR energy?"

This puts the issue in a more objective form than Blankfein's.   Since no one can live without water, and we can live with less energy (though yes, it might be hard to surrender all those smart phones and notebooks) it is a no -brainer. "Balancing" the two seems to be a fool's errand, because as it is,  the gas industry isn't interested in being balanced. They will not, for example, allow communities here in Colorado to establish limits to fracking. (It has been left to Jared Polis to table such a referendum for vote in November  - to enable all CO communities to decide for themselves if they want fracking or not).

Given the lack of balance, the environment and human health must trump the energy mandate. However, don't look for industry, government or Wall Street to go along with anything citizens want.  On this score, Bell is perhaps correct when he ends his piece with:

"If we do not stop plans to frack (in the CA Central Valley, where most of the nation's produce is grown) we will be totally fracked!"