Environmental

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Water = Life (or maybe just some more natural gas)

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

It’s almost impossible in any discussion of fresh water resources not to run up against what by now should be an obvious fact; our Earth is a closed system, so the same water that was here millions of years ago is still here now, it just keeps getting recycled through the water cycle we all remember from grade school science class.  The revelation Will Rogers famously had about land also holds true for water, “They ain’t making any more of the stuff.”

Water is known as a “flow resource” due to this ability for the same mineral to be recycled and used over and over again.

Flow resources are resources that are not permanently expendable under usual circumstances; they are resources which are replaced. They are commonly expressed in annual rates at which they are regenerated. Examples are fresh-water runoff and timber. Stock resources can be permanently expended and whose quantity is usually expressed in absolute amounts rather than in rates. Examples are coal and petroleum deposits.  From Ecology Dictionary

This definition ceases to be true for water in unusual circumstances, say when it is used for commercial purposes and then injected deep within the Earth’s crust rather than getting cleaned up and put back in the system.  Unusual use of this sort, which nature hasn’t had to deal with up until now, effectively takes our most precious, valuable-to-life, recyclable, flow resource and makes it a stock resource.  This is a particularly troubling development because life on earth is possible only due to the happy accident that we have the right amount of liquid, available water in the system.  Much more water and we’d all have fins.  Much less and most of us wouldn’t be here at all.

With the explosion of the human population, global deforestation, global climate change, the industrialization of large, once third-world countries like China and India, and the associated increased demand we are making on our planet’s water we are headed toward a future where water will become so coveted and rare that we will go to war over it.  (Call it blood water.)  We simply cannot afford to squander water any longer.

As a brief historical aside, early in the development of oil and gas as energy sources it was common practice to “flare off” or burn the gas so you could get the oil out of the ground without getting blown-up.  The practice is illegal in most areas today except during exploration, before a pipeline is completed to transport the gas,  or at sea where no other way of dealing with it is available.*  At the time they didn’t realize that they were squandering what would become a very valuable commodity and contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Today we think, “Morons.”  *From The Dictionary of Petroleum Exploration by Norman J. Hyne.

Speaking of oil and gas production, it is fast becoming the biggest user of water as a stock resource through a process called Hydraulic Fracturing, Hydro Fracking, or just Fracking.  Briefly, hydro fracking drills a hole down into the gas bearing rock, and then at right angles to the rock layers.  Then millions of gallons of water mixed with a proprietary, toxic witch’s brew of chemicals and sand are pumped into the holes under enormous pressure to fracture the rock strata, releasing natural gas trapped in small pockets within the rock.   (Oh, and sometimes the gas or fracking fluid gets into the local aquifer and poisons it.)

Here is a YouTube video that shows the process generically.

Once this is done the millions of gallons of badly polluted water are pumped out of the well and hauled away to be deep well injected, never to be used again for drinking, watering the garden or crops, as a home for fish, for outdoor recreation, rain, snow or fog.  It is locked away forever deep within the earth because it can’t be treated with current water treatment facilities, and the oil and gas industry and our government(s) have determined that it just isn’t cost effective to make drillers develop the tech to treat the water so that it can be reused.  (Remember when we used that excuse for municipal and industrial sewage until we killed one of the Great Lakes and our rivers were catching on fire?  And as to the wisdom of burying toxic wastes to get rid of them, Google “Love Canal.”  No, it isn’t porn, but it is disgusting.)

Economics has historically had a hard time putting a value on ecosystem services and flow resources because of the fact that commonly used market models don’t work so well for them.  But economists are pretty good at valuing stock resources like oil and natural gas.  I would like to propose that we start demanding that our governments do the work to figure out what the cost for an eternally wasted gallon of water is in terms of lost value to our ecosystems, and add that to the value it has to oil and gas drillers as a fracking fluid, and start charging oil and gas companies for our water that they are removing from the global ecosystem forever.  And the cost needs to be a steep one, not a token, with the goal being to charge such a high price that treating water so that it is able to be safely released back into the environment becomes economically attractive, not to get in the water selling business.  Just make the price of a barrel of water used for fracking the current price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil.  A better solution still would be to demand a complete ban on fracking until such time as the treatment facilities to deal with the insane volumes of water involved are in place.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that we have the public support to accomplish either of these solutions today.  The discussion on fracking has been centered on the toxic soup fracking fluid becomes, not the scandalous misuse of the foundation of life on Earth.  We can’t live without LOTS of clean, fresh water.  We can’t make new water.  Global warming scenarios predict that Great Lakes summers will be hotter and drier.  And we are letting corporations permanently destroy our water to produce energy for their financial gain?  Pardon the vernacular, but “WTF!?”  In what universe does this make any kind of sense?

If T. Boone Pickens is willing to invest $100 million in fresh water to sell it later to water utilities in cities, and believes that water is going to be the new oil, I think we should listen-up and quit giving away the thing upon which all life depends.  Right now oil and gas companies are buying up water rights in the west so that they can use the water at their discretion.  On our side of the Mississippi we don’t have the same water laws, and so we are trying to limit water withdrawals by all industries with very scientific models, which are being challenged by some of our state legislatures and ignored by some in our governor’s mansions.

Even if the water withdrawal limits are adhered to (they won’t be), they don’t adequately take into account the cumulative effect of permanently removing hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the system forever, as fracking and a few other industries are doing.  It is like the miracle of compounded interest, only we are paying it.

And the cost we are being asked to pay is too dear to to be allowed to continue another day.

 What do you think? Tell us by leaving a comment below.

The Round River has been covering the fracking debate for a while.  Search our archives for more articles on this subject.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

WTF?* Hydraulic Fracturing in Antrim Shale will impact water resources

Friday, March 19th, 2010

(*What the Frack?  Research indicates that you have to use some variant of this pun in any discussion of the topic.  Sorry.)

There has been a lot of interest lately in the implications of increased use of hydraulic fracturing technology in gas and oil bearing shales to enable extraction of stocks of gas or oil that are not recoverable by conventional means.  First, what is hydraulic fracturing?

A really good introduction (with some industry and scientific jargon) is a paper written by ALL Consulting of Tulsa, OK.  In part, they say that-

The process of hydraulic fracturing as typically used for shale gas development involves the pumping of tens of thousands of barrels of sand laden water into the target shale zone. Fluids pumped into the shale creates fractures or openings through which the sand flows, at the same time the sand acts to prop open the fractures that have been created. Once the pumping of fluids has stopped the sand remains in place allowing fluids (both gas and water) to flow back to the wellbore.

A quicker overview was made by an intern from Cornell University in this PowerPoint presentation on fracking for the Broome County, NY county health department.

While we need natural gas, we also need clean water, and must protect our surface and ground water from both pollution and depletion as oil and gas reserves are extracted.  This presents challenges everywhere you might drill a well, and there are some particular implications for drilling in the Antrim shales in northern Michigan.  These challenges are made all the more difficult because fracking fluids are specifically exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, at the urging of (wait for it!) VP Cheney!!  What a shock, huh?

In a February 18, 2010   memo to Energy & Environment sub-committee members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey point out some of their concerns with fracking, including the exemption from EPA oversight.

In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the SDWA as part of the Energy Policy Act.18 Many dubbed this provision the “Halliburton loophole” because of Halliburton’s ties to then-Vice President Cheney and its role as one of the largest providers of hydraulic fracturing services. Specifically, Congress modified the definition of “underground injection” to exclude “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.” As a result of this exemption, EPA cannot use the SDWA to regulate hydraulic fracturing unless it can show the use of diesel fuels.

Environmental groups, public health officials, and communities across the country have raised other concerns about hydraulic fracturing, beyond potential impacts on drinking water. In Texas, state regulators are responding to tests showing high levels of benzene in the air near wells in the Barnett Shale gas fields. In Pennsylvania, state regulators are facing a new challenge of how to ensure proper disposal of the millions of gallons of wastewater generated from natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. In New York, the state Department of Environmental Conservation analyzed wastewater extracted from wells and found levels of radium-226 as high as 267 times the limit safe for discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink. Others have raised concerns about water scarcity, since the drilling and hydraulic fracturing of a horizontal shale gas well may require 2 to 4 million gallons of water.

This is a big issue when it comes to water here in Michigan.  Most gas bearing shales don’t produce as much water as the Antrim “play” during extraction, in part because the Antrim formation is shallow, only 200 feet below the surface in some areas, and less than 2500 feet everywhere.  Most other gas bearing shale formations are thousands or tens of thousands of feet below the surface.  The Antrim is already naturally fractured to a good extent, yet still needs additional fracking.  And fracking isn’t a one and done procedure.  It will need to be re-fracked several times to keep production up, and with the water present in the formation it probably won’t hit peak production volumes for a year or more after fracking, while the fracking fluids and the natural water, bearing a variety of chemicals and NORMs (Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials), are pumped out to allow the gas to flow.  All of this water has to be treated, which means hundreds or thousands of trips over the surrounding roads with big tank trucks, or pipelines.  Municipal water treatment plants aren’t set up to deal with this type of pollution (and in the case of fracking fluids, they won’t even know exactly what is there due to “trade secrets”) so often drillers seek to inject the polluted water deep underground and forget about it.  Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.  Recycling and re-use sounds better, and would lessen the demands on local water supplies (aquifers, streams, lakes) as well.

And the demand on local water resources will be phenomenal.  Horizontal bore fracking uses lots of water, as was pointed out in the congressional memo above.  According to the Michigan Public Service Commission web site there were 9700 producing wells in the Antrim play in 2008.  If we add just a few thousand that aren’t producing, but will with fracking we can easily imagine 10,000 wells working at a time.  If they all are fracked every few years, to the tune of 4 million gallons of water each time, we are talking about a whole lot of water that won’t be available to drinking wells, irrigation wells, rivers, streams and lakes.

The area’s major river is the Jordan, Michigan’s first wild and scenic river.  According to the USGS, the 40 year average mean daily flow in East Jordan ranges from 218 cubic feet per second in April to 171 cfs during July and August.  My back-of-an-envelope math translates that into about 14.77 million cfs/day.  One cfs = 7.48 gallons per second.  That’s about 110.5 million gallons per day (if my math is good.  YMMV.)  So fracking 27 wells would use the equivalent of all the water that flows through the town of East Jordan in a day.  Fracking 10,000 wells would use more water than flows through the river in East Jordan in a year.

And that is each time they are fracked, and we know that they will need to be given repeated treatments to keep the gas flowing.

We need natural gas.  But in northern Michigan, we need abundant, clean, cold, water more.  Pollute that water, or seriously reduce the volume available, and our regional ecology, quality of life, and our number one industry, tourism suffer proportionally.

Until we have rock solid rules and procedures in place to safely monitor and regulate hydraulic fracturing, it isn’t a practice we should accept.  Until we have assurances that our water resources won’t suffer, either through pollution from extracted water and fracking fluids or excessive de-watering of our aquifers and surface waters, hydraulic fracturing is a gamble we can’t afford to take.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

Mr. Carp goes to Washington

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Rep. James Oberstar (D – MN8) did a nice job of chairing a hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the Asian Carp problem the Great Lakes faces.  It was the first time I have watched a webcast of a Congressional hearing, and I have to say I liked it a lot better than I thought I would.  I’ve worked in state, local and county government, and lobbied state legislatures, so this had a pretty familiar feel.

There were the elected officials being sufficiently non-committal (regardless of what they really thought) to encourage the panel of speakers.  The administration’s man, Cameron Davis, (late of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, now the EPA Great Lakes Czar) was holding up the framework from the Carp Summit the day before and politely pointing out that he had been trying to get action on the Carp issue for 5 years or so, but assuring everyone that the administration had the bit in their teeth and were now on the right track.  The guy from the Army Corps in full dress uniform assuring all assembled that they are studying the hell out of the situation, just like they were directed to do, and that their existing projects were really important and everyone should back off and let them engineer stuff.  Everyone else was predictable as well.  I want to congratulate Michigan DNRE Director Humphries for being very cordial, well spoken & sticking to her guns, insisting that the lakes must be physically separated from the Mississippi drainage permanently.  Period.  Another stand-out was Professor Lodge from Notre Dame, the guy who has been developing the eDNA techniques that let us know where fish have been even if we can’t find the fish (which, as any fisherman will tell you, happens more than we care to admit).  He appeared to be a careful academic, and chose his words carefully in answering questions, even though you could tell that he wanted to say something like, “Just fill the damn canal in, will ya?”

Rep. Oberstar runs a good hearing.  He was even-handed and was respectful to everyone there, even thanking them several times for braving the east coast blizzard and the likely-hood of being stranded in town for a while.

My favorite part of the whole affair was when Chairman Oberstar drew a parallel between the environmental and human suffering that was inflicted on New Orleans by the MRGO canal, which also only sees very light and easily re-routed shipping traffic, to the CSSC, and asked the USACE officer if he couldn’t see closing the Chicago canals as being as beneficial as the closing of MRGO .  The USACE officer completely avoided answering the question but talked instead of the complexity of the engineering issues involved in Chicago and ways that they might regulate the locks differently, but not necessarily better.  I got the impression that it hurt the Corps feelings to be told to shut down MRGO, and they don’t want to close another cool, old, canal just because it has some problems that they can engineer more solutions for, if we give them more money.  Unfortunately, the most recent plan to put $78 million into band-aids won’t fix the problem, and there is still no permanent solution to the trans-basin migration of invasive alien species.

The Army Corps reminds me of a gear-head neighbor I used to have.  He didn’t have lots of money, but he loved tinkering on old cars just to prove that he could make them run again, if only for a short time.  This wasn’t Jay Leno pouring all the money needed into a project car to restore it to better-than-new condition.  He would fix one thing only to find another problem.  But he kept at it, because that’s what he liked to do.  At one point his wife told me that his hobby was, “Buying old, junk cars and working on them until he had to pay someone to haul them away.”   It was dirty, smelly, and loud work carried on in and around his garage.  The projects would sit around for months with no discernible progress being made.  The neighbors all grumbled.  But at least  it was his place and his money.

The Corps, on the other hand,  isn’t playing with their own land & money, but ours.  It’s time they were told that their canal and diversion projects at the south end of Lake Michigan need to go because they’re an eyesore, are creating a public nuisance, and are a health hazard.  As Chicago’s neighbors on the lake, we need to put our foot down and not let the tiny bit of out-dated commerce created by these dinosaurs ruin our property values.  And Chicago needs to clean-up their sewage like the rest of us and put the water back where they found it in no worse shape than when they borrowed it.  This won’t just benefit the Great Lakes, but the waterways and communities downstream from Chicago all the way to and including the Gulf of Mexico who are now getting, literally, shit upon.  You’d think that not having 2 billion gallons of water a day flowing down the river might help with downstream flooding a little as well, wouldn’t you?

What is complicated about getting a big suction dredge to the south end of the lake and filling the places where Lake Michigan leaks out with sand?  There are only about 6 of them from Burns Harbor, IN  to north of Chicago.  They could do it in a couple months, tops.  Then we would have a permanent physical separation of the Mississippi and Great Lakes drainages with no easy way for invasive alien species to cross from one to the other.

Just like it was before 19th Century Chicagoans “improved” it by building the canal in the first place.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
Proudly using Dynamic Headers by Nicasio WordPress Design