Pump is off and stinks something awful after crude oil.
Tom
Sent from my iPhone
Iceland Glacier Gone
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Why the ET Rover Pipeline should not be permitted
The ET Rover pipeline is currently planned as a 42 inch pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from the production site in Ohio and Pennsylvania to the final marketing site in Sarnia, Ontario (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: The proposed course, dimensions, and market segments of the ET Rover pipeline. Source: energytransfer.com
My comment is in regards to the scoping process within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are better energy provisioning alternatives to the proposed pipeline available and the environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline outweigh its potential benefits by far.
My comment has 4 parts:
- The natural gas to be transmitted is produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), which is a highly insecure, inefficient, and polluting technology that should not be further promoted, which it would, if this transmission and distribution line is build.
- The transmission of natural gas in pipelines leads to substantial leakage of the potent greenhouse gas methane, which has a climate altering potential that is estimated to be 28-84 times higher than that of carbon dioxide.
- Serious incidents in the transmission of natural gas in pipelines are less common but if they occur they are often more serious (explosions) and often cause fatalities.
- Fossil fuels caused and continue to cause global climate change, which already leads to hundreds of human fatalities every year and will substantially impair the survival and well-being of human and non-human life forms for many decades to come. Renewable energy sources are the only energy sources able to cut greenhouse gases and are available right now providing enough energy for all current and future energy needs. The sooner we switch to renewable energy sources the sooner planet Earth will recover from the inevitable consequences of fossil energies. Every new investment into fossil fuels is unnecessary and unethical and should therefore be avoided.
Below, I will provide arguments and evidence for each of my four statements.
- Fracking is insecure, inefficient, and causes environmental impacts that outweigh its benefits by far. Workers on fracking sites are at risk of silicosis caused by the exposure to high levels of silica, found in dust particles from hydraulic fracturing sand (OSHA 2014). In addition, many oilfield workers involved in “fracking” lost their lives or endured serious injuries (Earthjustice 2014; Meyer and Stepans 2014; Mountainkeeper Catskill 2014).
Hydraulic fracturing is a high input technology and is therefore in many cases highly inefficient. A lot of energy and water is needed to frack a well and many wells do not pay back the investment. The only reason why the business stays profitable are tax incentives and subsidies, the 2005 exemption of hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act – known as the “Halliburton Loophole”, the exemption of “smaller” oil and gas production sites from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NEHAPS) within the Clean Air Act, the exemption from stormwater runoff permits within the Clean Water Act, the exemption of oil and gas production sites from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCAA) governing the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, exemptions from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as the “Superfund Law”, and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which requires most industries to report toxic substances to the EPA (Earthworks 2014) – and the occasional high-output well. Most of the up to 5 Million gallons of water pushed underground in each well (Mielke and others 2014) is lost or cannot be used for anything else due to chemical contamination (Fontenot and others 2013).
The environmental impacts of the production end of fracking include ground- and surface water pollution (Fontenot and others 2013; Jackson and others 2013; Mall 2014; Vidic and others 2013), methane emissions (Field and others 2014; Howarth 2014; Schneising and others 2014), emissions of volatile chemicals, e.g. BTEX, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide and methylene chloride (Argo 2001; Colborn and others 2014; Macey and others 2014), and other concerns (Adgate and others 2014; Bamberger and Oswald 2012; Brittingham and others 2014; Colborn and others 2011). Most current comprehensive analyses of the environmental and social cost-benefit ratio of fracking come to the conclusion that the technology should be put on hold until its flaws are solved, or should not be continued because the production of shale oil and gas allows consumers to continue the wasteful use of fossil fuels and thus causing more severe global climate change (Newell and Raimi 2014; Sovacool 2014; Vengosh and others 2014).
- According to estimates by the EPA, most methane leakage occurs during the transmission of natural gas (0.7%).
Fig. 2: Picture credit: John Bellamy/Stanford University
While most independent studies consider the EPA’s estimates of the total amount of methane leakage from natural gas operations to be substantially below the real values (Brandt and others 2014; Field and others 2014; Howarth 2014), the allocation of leakage to be highest in transmission and distribution is undisputed (Alvarez and others 2012). Fugitive methane emissions from natural gas systems represent a significant source of global warming pollution in the U.S. (Bradbury and others 2014). In fact, compared to carbon dioxide, methane is considered to be 28x to 84x more potent as a greenhouse gas (Fig. 3) (Howarth 2014).
Fig. 3: Global Warming potential of methane compared to carbon dioxide. Picture credit: Allen (2014)
- Serious incidents in the transmission of natural gas in pipelines are less common but if they occur they are often more serious (explosions) and often cause fatalities. From 1994 until 2013, the PHMSA (Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) recorded 1236 significant incidences in gas transmission, causing 41 fatalities, 195 injuries and $1,717,072,424 of property damages (PHMSA 2013).
- Fossil fuels caused and continue to cause global climate change, which already leads to hundreds of human fatalities every year and will substantially impair the survival and well-being of human and non-human life forms for many decades to come (IPCC 2014). Renewable energy sources are available now and are capable to provide enough energy for all current and future energy needs (Becker and others 2014; Delucchi and Jacobson 2011; 2013; Jacobson 2009; Jacobson and Delucchi 2011). The sooner we switch to renewable energy sources the sooner planet earth will recover from the inevitable consequences of fossil energies (Jacobson and Streets 2009). Every new investment into fossil fuels should therefore be avoided.
Fig. 4: Technologically and financially feasible transition to a 100% renewable energy supply for Michigan. Picture credit: thesolutionsproject.org
References Cited
Adgate JL, Goldstein BD, McKenzie LM. 2014. Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development. Environmental Science & Technology 48(15):8307-8320.
Allen DT. 2014. Methane emissions from natural gas production and use: reconciling bottom-up and top-down measurements. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 5(0):78-83.
Alvarez RA, Pacala SW, Winebrake JJ, Chameides WL, Hamburg SP. 2012. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(17):6435-6440.
Argo J. 2001. Unhealthy Effects of Upstream Oil and Gas Flaring. Sydney, NS, Canada: SAVE OUR SEAS and SHORES (SOSS).
Bamberger M, Oswald RE. 2012. Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health. New Solut 22(1):51-77.
Becker S, Frew BA, Andresen GB, Zeyer T, Schramm S, Greiner M, Jacobson MZ. 2014. Features of a fully renewable US electricity system: Optimized mixes of wind and solar PV and transmission grid extensions. Energy 72:443-458.
Bradbury A, Obeiter M, Draucker L, Wang W, Stevens A. 2014. Clearing the Air - Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems [Internet]. World Resources Institute. Available from: http://www.wri.org/publication/clearing-air
Brandt AR, Heath GA, Kort EA, O'Sullivan F, Pétron G, Jordaan SM, Tans P, Wilcox J, Gopstein AM, Arent D et al. . 2014. Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems. Science 343(6172):733-735.
Brittingham MC, Maloney KO, Farag AM, Harper DD, Bowen ZH. 2014. Ecological Risks of Shale Oil and Gas Development to Wildlife, Aquatic Resources and their Habitats. Environmental Science & Technology 48(19):11034-11047.
Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M. 2011. Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 17(5):1039-1056.
Colborn T, Schultz K, Herrick L, Kwiatkowski C. 2014. An Exploratory Study of Air Quality near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 20(1):86-105.
Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ. 2011. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. Energy Policy 39(3):1170-1190.
Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ. 2013. Meeting the world's energy needs entirely with wind, water, and solar power. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(4):30-40.
Earthjustice. 2014. Fracking Across the United States [Internet]. Available from: http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states
Earthworks. 2014. Loopholes for polluters - The oil and gas industry’s exemptions to major environmental laws [Internet]. Washington, DC: EARTHWORKS. Available from: http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_fs_oilgasexemptions.pdf
Field RA, Soltis J, Murphy S. 2014. Air quality concerns of unconventional oil and natural gas production. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 16(5):954-969.
Fontenot BE, Hunt LR, Hildenbrand ZL, Carlton Jr DD, Oka H, Walton JL, Hopkins D, Osorio A, Bjorndal B, Hu QH et al. . 2013. An Evaluation of Water Quality in Private Drinking Water Wells Near Natural Gas Extraction Sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environmental Science & Technology 47(17):10032-10040.
Howarth RW. 2014. A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering 2(2):47-60.
IPCC. 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [Internet]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); [accessed November 2014]. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml
Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Down A, Poreda RJ, Osborn SG, Zhao K, Karr JD. 2013. Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(28):11250-11255.
Jacobson MZ. 2009. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy & Environmental Science 2(2):148-173.
Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA. 2011. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39(3):1154-1169.
Jacobson MZ, Streets DG. 2009. Influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 114.
Macey G, Breech R, Chernaik M, Cox C, Larson D, Thomas D, Carpenter D. 2014. Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. Environmental Health 13(1):82.
Mall A. 2014. Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination | Amy Mall's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC [Internet]. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available from: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html
Meyer S, Stepans P. 2014. Hydraulic fracturing oilfield accidents [Internet]. [accessed November 2014]. Available from: http://mss-lawfirm.com/oilfield-accidents-fracking/
Mielke E, Anadon LD, Narayanamurti V. 2014. Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion [Internet]. Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. Available from: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ETIP-DP-2010-15-final-4.pdf
Mountainkeeper Catskill. 2014. Gas Drilling Accidents [Internet]. [accessed November 2014]. Available from: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/accidents/
Newell RG, Raimi D. 2014. Implications of Shale Gas Development for Climate Change. Environmental Science & Technology 48(15):8360-8368.
OSHA. 2014. HAZARD ALERT - Worker Exposure to Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing [Internet]. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA); [accessed November 2014]. Available from: https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html
PHMSA. 2013. PHMSA - Data & Statistics - Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trends [Internet]. PHMSA - US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Available from: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/datastatistics/pipelineincidenttrends
Schneising O, Burrows JP, Dickerson RR, Buchwitz M, Reuter M, Bovensmann H. 2014. Remote sensing of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas production in North American tight geologic formations. Earth's Future 2(10):2014EF000265.
Sovacool BK. 2014. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37(0):249-264.
Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A. 2014. A Critical Review of the Risks to Water Resources from Unconventional Shale Gas Development and Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 48(15):8334-8348.
Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD. 2013. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340(6134):1235009.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
ET Rover Pipeline through Adrian is up for Puplic Comment on December 1
Reblogged from a post of the Sierraclub Michigan that can be found here
Southeast Michigan's Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Boom:
What's happening and How to have your Say
Enbridge Line 6B oil pipeline construction, photo by Ron Kar
Proposed natural gas pipelines in SE Michigan will cause
as many local impacts as the replacement of the Enbridge
Line 6B oil pipeline (above) and keep pushing fossil fuels,
instead of clean energy alternatives. Photo by Ron Kardos
Southeastern Michigan communities have been confronting at least three proposed new or expanded massive natural gas pipelines designed to move Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio fracked natural gas into and through Michigan to Ontario. Sierra Club opposes the massive ramp up in natural gas development around the nation through fracking that is one driver of these new pipeline proposals because the drilling, extraction and leakage in delivering this fossil fuel falls far short of being the "clean energy" the industry wants you to think it is. In addition, the construction of massive pipelines like these cause significant local environmental impacts as well.
Sierra Club leaders in the Michigan Chapter's Huron Valley, Crossroads, Nepessing and Southeast Michigan Groups are stepping up to the plate to fight pipelines and they encourage your engagement as well. Scroll down to find contacts for each of these four Groups who can help connect you with the fight in your area. We also encourage you to sign up below so that we can follow up with you as each project develops. These proposals are moving fairly fast, but there is time to weigh in now on at least one of the projects.
Three Natural Gas Pipelines Proposed:
Imagine a swoosh like the Nike logo aound the western end of Lake Erie and you'll have an idea of the maps showing three different proposed natural gas pipelines. The proposed pipelines are the ET Rover Pipeline, the Nexus Pipeline (a partnership of DTE Energy, Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy) and the Utopia Project. Each pipeline would start in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania or West Virginia, cross Ohio and Michigan before crossing the international border to enter Ontario, Canada. Each project provides information on the links provided above including maps of the intended path. But as has already been seen with the ET Rover project, the proposed location of the pipeline may be changed. There are several critical hurdles for any additional construction of these pipelines, which include: acquisition of rights of way from private or public landowners; local permitting approvals if warranted; and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must follow the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in particular by provide for a public environmental review process.
.
Public Input Opportunities on the ET Rover Pipeline
calltoaction.jpg
Currently, attention is focused on the ET Rover Pipeline which wants to build a new pipeline up to 42 inches in diameter from Defiance, Ohio, through Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario. The company is seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to weigh whether there are better alternatives to this proposal and whether the environmental impacts are too great to authorize the requested permits.
The first step in the EIS process for ET Rover is for FERC to take public comment under the Scoping Process. Scoping is an initial step in the EIS in which the public needs to raise questions, concerns, provide information and other knowledge that ensures that the agency considers all the questions that need to be addressed. The comments can be broad, such as this EIS needs to fully consider impacts of climate change related to the increased use of natural gas connected to increasing delivery of natural gas to Michigan and Ontario. Or these comments can be very localized, for example indentifying sensitive ecosystems or raising specific, local health concerns. Most important is for ALL concerns or questions to be raised now, or they may not be considered in the EIS. You don't need to be an expert to offer input, and asking questions about issues that concern you as part of your comments is just as valid as providing specific information in the Scoping Process.
Four Public Meetings in Michigan on ET Rover Scoping Process:
FERC has announced four public meetings to take public input on the Scoping process in Michigan (Google maps linked on the addresses):
November 20, 2014 at 6 p.m.
George Prinzing Auditorium
500 Washington Street
Chelsea, MI 48118
December 1, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Adrian High School Auditorium
785 Riverside Avenue
Adrian, MI 49221
December 10, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Holiday Inn Gateway Center
5353 Gateway Centre
Flint, MI 48507
December 11, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Maniaci Banquet
69227 North Main Street
Richmond, MI 48062
Written Comments on ET Rover Scoping Process:
The public can also provide written public comments by December 18th through FERC's online comment system or through regular mail. Below are instructions on how to file a comment on the proposed ET Rover Pipeline with FERC. Filing just a written comment as an individual does not require you to register as a user.
Go to the FERC eComment website. (www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp)
Click on the eComment button, which takes you to an authorization page.
Enter your name and email address, and type in the “authorization” letters / numbers that appear.
Click on authorize.
FERC will send you an email. Click on the link in the email.
You should be taken to a page on the FERC website with your name and email filled in.
In the field for “Enter Docket Number” type PF14-14 (no spaces)
Click on the Search button.
Click on the blue cross in the far right column under the heading labelled “Select”
Enter up to 6000 characters in the box for editing a comment.
Provide written public comments by US Mail by sending your letter and 14 copies to arrive before December 18th to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E. Washington 20426
.
Sierra Club Contacts:
Below you'll find Sierra Club volunteer leaders in each of the four regional Michigan Chapter Groups that are already tracking and working to stop the massive natural gas pipeline proposals coming through southeastern Michigan. In addition and if you are outside of these Groups but wish to help, please provide us your information by linking below the contact info. We'll do our best to keep you apprised of the new developments.
Nepessing Group (Genessee County, Lapeer County and Northwestern Oakland County)
Ellen Waara (ellenwaara (at) gmail.com)
Southeast Michigan Group (St. Clair County, Macomb County, part of Oakland and Wayne Counties)
Jean Gramlich (jeangramlich (at) msn.com)
Crossroads Group (Livingston County and western Oakland County)
Ron Kardos (rmichael (at) sbcglobal.net)
Huron Valley Group (Washtenaw, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties)
Nancy Shiffler
PLEASE USE THE LINK BELOW TO SIGN UP FOR UPDATES ON THESE PIPELINE PROPOSALS
Keep Me Up To Date on Pipeline Proposals in Michigan
Participate in this survey...
Southeast Michigan's Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Boom:
What's happening and How to have your Say
Enbridge Line 6B oil pipeline construction, photo by Ron Kar
Proposed natural gas pipelines in SE Michigan will cause
as many local impacts as the replacement of the Enbridge
Line 6B oil pipeline (above) and keep pushing fossil fuels,
instead of clean energy alternatives. Photo by Ron Kardos
Southeastern Michigan communities have been confronting at least three proposed new or expanded massive natural gas pipelines designed to move Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio fracked natural gas into and through Michigan to Ontario. Sierra Club opposes the massive ramp up in natural gas development around the nation through fracking that is one driver of these new pipeline proposals because the drilling, extraction and leakage in delivering this fossil fuel falls far short of being the "clean energy" the industry wants you to think it is. In addition, the construction of massive pipelines like these cause significant local environmental impacts as well.
Sierra Club leaders in the Michigan Chapter's Huron Valley, Crossroads, Nepessing and Southeast Michigan Groups are stepping up to the plate to fight pipelines and they encourage your engagement as well. Scroll down to find contacts for each of these four Groups who can help connect you with the fight in your area. We also encourage you to sign up below so that we can follow up with you as each project develops. These proposals are moving fairly fast, but there is time to weigh in now on at least one of the projects.
Three Natural Gas Pipelines Proposed:
Imagine a swoosh like the Nike logo aound the western end of Lake Erie and you'll have an idea of the maps showing three different proposed natural gas pipelines. The proposed pipelines are the ET Rover Pipeline, the Nexus Pipeline (a partnership of DTE Energy, Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy) and the Utopia Project. Each pipeline would start in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania or West Virginia, cross Ohio and Michigan before crossing the international border to enter Ontario, Canada. Each project provides information on the links provided above including maps of the intended path. But as has already been seen with the ET Rover project, the proposed location of the pipeline may be changed. There are several critical hurdles for any additional construction of these pipelines, which include: acquisition of rights of way from private or public landowners; local permitting approvals if warranted; and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must follow the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in particular by provide for a public environmental review process.
.
Public Input Opportunities on the ET Rover Pipeline
calltoaction.jpg
Currently, attention is focused on the ET Rover Pipeline which wants to build a new pipeline up to 42 inches in diameter from Defiance, Ohio, through Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario. The company is seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to weigh whether there are better alternatives to this proposal and whether the environmental impacts are too great to authorize the requested permits.
The first step in the EIS process for ET Rover is for FERC to take public comment under the Scoping Process. Scoping is an initial step in the EIS in which the public needs to raise questions, concerns, provide information and other knowledge that ensures that the agency considers all the questions that need to be addressed. The comments can be broad, such as this EIS needs to fully consider impacts of climate change related to the increased use of natural gas connected to increasing delivery of natural gas to Michigan and Ontario. Or these comments can be very localized, for example indentifying sensitive ecosystems or raising specific, local health concerns. Most important is for ALL concerns or questions to be raised now, or they may not be considered in the EIS. You don't need to be an expert to offer input, and asking questions about issues that concern you as part of your comments is just as valid as providing specific information in the Scoping Process.
Four Public Meetings in Michigan on ET Rover Scoping Process:
FERC has announced four public meetings to take public input on the Scoping process in Michigan (Google maps linked on the addresses):
November 20, 2014 at 6 p.m.
George Prinzing Auditorium
500 Washington Street
Chelsea, MI 48118
December 1, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Adrian High School Auditorium
785 Riverside Avenue
Adrian, MI 49221
December 10, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Holiday Inn Gateway Center
5353 Gateway Centre
Flint, MI 48507
December 11, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Maniaci Banquet
69227 North Main Street
Richmond, MI 48062
Written Comments on ET Rover Scoping Process:
The public can also provide written public comments by December 18th through FERC's online comment system or through regular mail. Below are instructions on how to file a comment on the proposed ET Rover Pipeline with FERC. Filing just a written comment as an individual does not require you to register as a user.
Go to the FERC eComment website. (www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp)
Click on the eComment button, which takes you to an authorization page.
Enter your name and email address, and type in the “authorization” letters / numbers that appear.
Click on authorize.
FERC will send you an email. Click on the link in the email.
You should be taken to a page on the FERC website with your name and email filled in.
In the field for “Enter Docket Number” type PF14-14 (no spaces)
Click on the Search button.
Click on the blue cross in the far right column under the heading labelled “Select”
Enter up to 6000 characters in the box for editing a comment.
Provide written public comments by US Mail by sending your letter and 14 copies to arrive before December 18th to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E. Washington 20426
.
Sierra Club Contacts:
Below you'll find Sierra Club volunteer leaders in each of the four regional Michigan Chapter Groups that are already tracking and working to stop the massive natural gas pipeline proposals coming through southeastern Michigan. In addition and if you are outside of these Groups but wish to help, please provide us your information by linking below the contact info. We'll do our best to keep you apprised of the new developments.
Nepessing Group (Genessee County, Lapeer County and Northwestern Oakland County)
Ellen Waara (ellenwaara (at) gmail.com)
Southeast Michigan Group (St. Clair County, Macomb County, part of Oakland and Wayne Counties)
Jean Gramlich (jeangramlich (at) msn.com)
Crossroads Group (Livingston County and western Oakland County)
Ron Kardos (rmichael (at) sbcglobal.net)
Huron Valley Group (Washtenaw, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties)
Nancy Shiffler
PLEASE USE THE LINK BELOW TO SIGN UP FOR UPDATES ON THESE PIPELINE PROPOSALS
Keep Me Up To Date on Pipeline Proposals in Michigan
Participate in this survey...
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Forum on the Dangers of Oil and Gas Operations, Industrial Agriculture and the Enabling Political System
CHANGE: Due to scheduling problems, only Prof. Kauffman will present!
I invite all readers of this blog to an event at the University of Michigan, Dearborn Campus, College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters (CASL) building, room 1030.on Tuesday, November 18, 4:30-6pm.
View Larger Map
Program:
And a representative of the Adrian Dominican Sisters on Ethical Issues of the Oil and Gas Extraction from Deep Shale.
I invite all readers of this blog to an event at the University of Michigan, Dearborn Campus, College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters (CASL) building, room 1030.on Tuesday, November 18, 4:30-6pm.
View Larger Map
Program:
| C. W. Kauffman, Retired, Professor, Retired, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan "Fire and Explosion Hazards for Hydrocarbons" and a few words about "The Current Corrupt Political Environment". Victoria Powell. Retired Pediatrician, "Health Risks Associated with the Fracking Process". Thomas Wassmer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Siena Heights University, “Risks for Water, Soil and Air Integrity Caused by Oil and Gas Extraction from Deep Shale.” Pam Taylor, retired high school teacher, International Baccalaureate program, business, and math teacher, "CAFOs – concentrated animal feeding operations". |
And a representative of the Adrian Dominican Sisters on Ethical Issues of the Oil and Gas Extraction from Deep Shale.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Oil Pump in Heritage and Flare in Witt Farm Cause Still Stink
Despite repeated comments by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that neither oil pumps nor the flare on Witt Farm should smell as this would indicate that something is not working properly, operations just go on as normal, and without any demands or repercussions for Savoy Energy - neither from the Michigan DEQ nor the EPA.
This confirms what I thought all along: There are no legal instruments to regulate this industry - they can basically do as they please.
Unfortunately, oil and gas operations are not the only effectively unregulated industries. The same is true for water pollution e.g. of the River Raisin. In 2008, the EPA found that most of the South Branch River Raisin has highly elevated coliform bacteria levels - way above the standards for safe partial body exposure (as in walking the river in protective waders). The law only required the river to be "flagged" for this dangerous condition - without anybody needing to come up with a solution or any steps towards fixing the problem.
Guess what? The problem does NOT vanish on its own with mega diary CAFO farms upstream and broken sewage systems everywhere. With my students I repeatedly measured more than 70,000 colony-forming-units of coliform bacteria two years in a row. That is more than 100x the safe levels for partial body exposure. Again, there are no legal instruments to pinpoint the culprits and fix the issue. Let us just wait until some flesh-eating strain of E. coli appear and somebody gets killed...
Does it really take that for people to wake up and realize that there is nobody to take care of you and rescue you if you do not take matters into your own hand??? It should be different - there should be laws protecting our health before commercial interest - but there aren't any - unless people demand them!
We would not have an EPA, a Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act today if there had not been massive protest in the 1970s. Since then, people went asleep - thinking all is fine now. Unfortunately, the EPA became an almost broken and powerless institution and the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were watered down and many exemptions were created. We are slowly in more need of a massive protest movement than in the 1970s but it seems people became more oblivious and delusional and it will probably take more than burning rivers and lakes to get them away from the latest sitcoms and newest sport scores and realize what happens every day. For heaven's sake, if not even the breakdown of Toledo's drinking water supply for several days due to agricultural wastes wakes up the masses - what does it take to wake people from this slumber?
This confirms what I thought all along: There are no legal instruments to regulate this industry - they can basically do as they please.
Unfortunately, oil and gas operations are not the only effectively unregulated industries. The same is true for water pollution e.g. of the River Raisin. In 2008, the EPA found that most of the South Branch River Raisin has highly elevated coliform bacteria levels - way above the standards for safe partial body exposure (as in walking the river in protective waders). The law only required the river to be "flagged" for this dangerous condition - without anybody needing to come up with a solution or any steps towards fixing the problem.
Guess what? The problem does NOT vanish on its own with mega diary CAFO farms upstream and broken sewage systems everywhere. With my students I repeatedly measured more than 70,000 colony-forming-units of coliform bacteria two years in a row. That is more than 100x the safe levels for partial body exposure. Again, there are no legal instruments to pinpoint the culprits and fix the issue. Let us just wait until some flesh-eating strain of E. coli appear and somebody gets killed...
Does it really take that for people to wake up and realize that there is nobody to take care of you and rescue you if you do not take matters into your own hand??? It should be different - there should be laws protecting our health before commercial interest - but there aren't any - unless people demand them!
We would not have an EPA, a Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act today if there had not been massive protest in the 1970s. Since then, people went asleep - thinking all is fine now. Unfortunately, the EPA became an almost broken and powerless institution and the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were watered down and many exemptions were created. We are slowly in more need of a massive protest movement than in the 1970s but it seems people became more oblivious and delusional and it will probably take more than burning rivers and lakes to get them away from the latest sitcoms and newest sport scores and realize what happens every day. For heaven's sake, if not even the breakdown of Toledo's drinking water supply for several days due to agricultural wastes wakes up the masses - what does it take to wake people from this slumber?
Sunday, August 31, 2014
New pipeline from Witt Farm to Wells off Spielman Rd Under Way
Savoy seems committed to use up the maximum of 10 wells permitted to be processed on Witt Farm and builds a new pipeline crossing M52 and going below Beaver Creek by horizontal drilling. There are currently 7 wells connected to Witt Farm and most of the natural gas is still flared off...
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Flaring of the Majority of Natural Gas Continues on Witt Farm
I need to come back to this part of my comments of the EPA findings posted earlier as this matter might have gone under the findings of leaks.
On page 3, paragraph 4, is stated that in contrary to earlier statements, only propane, which is only 20% of the natural gas produced from 7 or 8 wells is captured and used (Savoy's own gas analysis reported here). The report further states: "Methane and ethane are pulled off the propane tank and used as fuel gas for various pieces of equipment at the facility." Methane and ethane together contribute to 47% of the natural gas harvested in the 7 or 8 wells connected to the central processing facility on Witt Farm. I doubt very much that all of this gas is put to good use - how much machinery needs to be powered day and night? I suspect that either machinery is running just to consume these gas components - constituting a waste of energy and unnecessary carbon dioxide production (global warming!). Alternatively, methane and ethane are still flared off quantitatively. This is the more likely scenario as the hidden flare still shows a lit of flickering and shimmering air showing a lot of heat production at all times.
The more than likely still ongoing flaring of almost half of the natural gas of 7 to 8 attached wells is a massive waste of energy and absolutely unnecessary production of greenhouse gases increasing Adrian's impact on global warming! I hope we can trust the glycol dehydrator equipped with a condenser to trap VOCs (volatile organic compounds) especially BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), which are especially poisonous and cancerous and had driven my concerns in previous posts about the flaring on Witt Farm leading to a meeting of city and county officials, the DEQ, and concerned citizens on February 21 2014 reported here.
Even with these health threats being gone or reduced, the DEQ should not allow the ongoing waste of perfectly usable natural gas! I will especially inform Kristie Shimko about these concerns.
Reference:
According to CAUSE 18-2007, a order of the DEQ Supervisor of Wells, the allowable amounts and duration of flaring within the Trenton and Black River formations are specified. These procedures were agreed upon in a discussion between the DEQ and the following oil and gas companies: Continental Resources, Inc.; West Bay Group; Savoy Energy LP; Trendwell Energy Corp.; Matrix Exploration & Development, LLC and Titan Energy, LLC.
“Gas that is not reasonably marketable may be flared. The volume of gas flared is restricted to 100 MCFGPD (100,000 cft gas per day) for a 40-acre drilling unit or 50 MCFGPD for a 20-acre drilling unit, which shall be the net volume of gas flared not including gas used for reasonable and necessary lease fuel purposes. The permittee of a well that is flaring gas shall, within 30 days of a letter of request from the Supervisor, submit to the Supervisor data necessary to determine whether the well can economically market gas. If data is not timely submitted to the Supervisor, the Supervisor may require the permittee to cease the flaring of gas. Based upon the data supplied by the permittee and other information available to the Supervisor, and after meeting with the permittee as necessary, the Supervisor or his authorized representative shall determine whether gas from the well can be economically marketed and shall inform the permittee in writing of that determination. Within 90 days of a determination in the affirmative, or at such later date as the Supervisor may specify, the permittee shall cease the flaring of gas from the well. If the permittee disputes the Supervisor's determination, the permittee may file a petition and request a hearing; but the filing of such petition shall not stay the effectiveness of the determination. If the Supervisor determines that gas from the well cannot be economically marketed*, the permittee shall be allowed to continue flaring gas at the rate specified above. Permission to flare does not grant an exception to any other required permits or approvals.
*Marketing of gas be deemed not economic when an operator provides reasonable evidence to the Supervisor that the cost to connect a well to a pipeline or facility for the transportation and processing of gas will take in excess of two years to pay out based upon the average monthly natural gas production sales.
Get the full PDF-document here.
On page 3, paragraph 4, is stated that in contrary to earlier statements, only propane, which is only 20% of the natural gas produced from 7 or 8 wells is captured and used (Savoy's own gas analysis reported here). The report further states: "Methane and ethane are pulled off the propane tank and used as fuel gas for various pieces of equipment at the facility." Methane and ethane together contribute to 47% of the natural gas harvested in the 7 or 8 wells connected to the central processing facility on Witt Farm. I doubt very much that all of this gas is put to good use - how much machinery needs to be powered day and night? I suspect that either machinery is running just to consume these gas components - constituting a waste of energy and unnecessary carbon dioxide production (global warming!). Alternatively, methane and ethane are still flared off quantitatively. This is the more likely scenario as the hidden flare still shows a lit of flickering and shimmering air showing a lot of heat production at all times.
The more than likely still ongoing flaring of almost half of the natural gas of 7 to 8 attached wells is a massive waste of energy and absolutely unnecessary production of greenhouse gases increasing Adrian's impact on global warming! I hope we can trust the glycol dehydrator equipped with a condenser to trap VOCs (volatile organic compounds) especially BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), which are especially poisonous and cancerous and had driven my concerns in previous posts about the flaring on Witt Farm leading to a meeting of city and county officials, the DEQ, and concerned citizens on February 21 2014 reported here.
Even with these health threats being gone or reduced, the DEQ should not allow the ongoing waste of perfectly usable natural gas! I will especially inform Kristie Shimko about these concerns.
Reference:
According to CAUSE 18-2007, a order of the DEQ Supervisor of Wells, the allowable amounts and duration of flaring within the Trenton and Black River formations are specified. These procedures were agreed upon in a discussion between the DEQ and the following oil and gas companies: Continental Resources, Inc.; West Bay Group; Savoy Energy LP; Trendwell Energy Corp.; Matrix Exploration & Development, LLC and Titan Energy, LLC.
“Gas that is not reasonably marketable may be flared. The volume of gas flared is restricted to 100 MCFGPD (100,000 cft gas per day) for a 40-acre drilling unit or 50 MCFGPD for a 20-acre drilling unit, which shall be the net volume of gas flared not including gas used for reasonable and necessary lease fuel purposes. The permittee of a well that is flaring gas shall, within 30 days of a letter of request from the Supervisor, submit to the Supervisor data necessary to determine whether the well can economically market gas. If data is not timely submitted to the Supervisor, the Supervisor may require the permittee to cease the flaring of gas. Based upon the data supplied by the permittee and other information available to the Supervisor, and after meeting with the permittee as necessary, the Supervisor or his authorized representative shall determine whether gas from the well can be economically marketed and shall inform the permittee in writing of that determination. Within 90 days of a determination in the affirmative, or at such later date as the Supervisor may specify, the permittee shall cease the flaring of gas from the well. If the permittee disputes the Supervisor's determination, the permittee may file a petition and request a hearing; but the filing of such petition shall not stay the effectiveness of the determination. If the Supervisor determines that gas from the well cannot be economically marketed*, the permittee shall be allowed to continue flaring gas at the rate specified above. Permission to flare does not grant an exception to any other required permits or approvals.
*Marketing of gas be deemed not economic when an operator provides reasonable evidence to the Supervisor that the cost to connect a well to a pipeline or facility for the transportation and processing of gas will take in excess of two years to pay out based upon the average monthly natural gas production sales.
Get the full PDF-document here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)