Download summary of recent reports-April 13

Update for Unions on Fracking:
Health concerns, industry job numbers, and fugitive methane
Supplementary briefing paper prepared by Sean Sweeney for TUED
April 2014
This TUED briefing paper summarizes the main findings of two recent studies on fracking
in the U.S. dealing respectively with fugitive methane and inflated job estimates.
The paper also summarizes the contents of a letter to president Obama from 1,000
health care professionals based in the United States that, citing clearly established
health risks, urges fracking be stopped in order to protect the public.
Contents:



1,000 Health Care Professionals Appeal to President Obama to Stop Fracking
New scientific study warns of serious climate impact of methane leakage from
drilling
Study on fracking in six U.S. states claims industry job numbers are extremely
overstated – jobs in shale gas are now falling.
_____________________________________________________________________
1,000 HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS APPEAL TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
February 20, 2014:
Letter to President Obama from more than 1,000 U.S. health professionals calling for a
stop to fracking, “Let’s Protect America’s Health from Fracking”
1
The letter presents a summary of the negative health impacts of fracking (see below)
and concludes: “The prudent and precautionary response would be to stop fracking, and
are calling for immediate action from your administration and other elected officials to
protect public health.”
The letter also states:
“Left unchecked, high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing could soon emerge as one
of the greatest environmental health threats we have faced in a generation. We urge
you to take action now.”
Main points:

Fracking operations have contaminated drinking water sources from
Pennsylvania to New Mexico. Leaks and spills of fracturing fluid that often
contain known carcinogens (e.g. benzene) and endocrine disrupting chemicals
have polluted rivers and streams. Other contaminants have flowed into
residential wells. And fracking wastewater often containing heavy metals (e.g.
lead, arsenic) and radioactive materials (e.g. radon, uranium) has leached from
hundreds of waste pits into groundwater.

Air contaminants released from fracking operations include volatile organic
compounds (VOCs); some are carcinogenic, and some damage the liver, kidneys
and central nervous system. Researchers at the University of Colorado School of
Public Health found that people living within a half mile of gas fracking wells had
a higher excess lifetime risk of developing cancer than people living farther away.

There are a growing number of documented cases of individuals suffering acute
and chronic health effects while living near fracking operations including nausea,
rashes, dizziness, headaches and nosebleeds. Physicians reviewing medical
records in Pennsylvania have called these illnesses “the tip of the iceberg” of
fracking impacts on health.

Fracking operations release significant volumes of global warming pollution.
Methane, which scientists now say is 86 times more potent than carbon as a
greenhouse gas over 20 years, is released at oil and gas fracking wells, and also
during the processing, transmission, and distribution of gas. Global warming
presents a major threat to human health via heat waves, extreme weather
events, flooding, water contamination, sea level rise, expansion of insect borne
diseases, worsening air quality, crop damage, and social instability and conflict.
Full text of the letter to President Obama is here:
http://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/resources/Compiled%20
2
HP%20Letters%20to%20President%20Obama.2.20.14.pdf
More information on health impacts of fracking:
Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (SWPA-EHP)
http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/
Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in
Rural Colorado:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/122/1/ehp.1306722.pdf
Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional
natural gas resources:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/setbackstakeholdergroup/Presentations/Health%20Risk
%20Assessment%20of%20Air%20Emissions%20From%20Unconventional%20Natural%2
0Gas%20-%20HMcKenzie2012.pdf
Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional
Natural Gas Development: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404621d
_________________________________________________________________
FUGITIVE METHANE FROM SHALE GAS DRILLING
Name of study: “Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane
emissions from shale gas development.”
The paper appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS,
approved March 12, 2014)
The paper is here (but a subscription is required. TUED can send a PDF, on request –
[email protected])
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/10/1316546111.full.pdf
Authors: A number of scientists, including Cornell’s Robert W. Howarth (Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology) and Anthony Ingraffea (Civil and Environmental Engineering)
The report is the latest of a series of studies into methane leakage and its implications
for GHG emissions. 1
1
Howarth, Robert, et al. Climatic Change, Volume 106, Issue 4, pp 679-690. 6/11. “Methane and the
greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations;” Lovett, Richard A. Scientific American.
2013. “Study Revises Estimate of Methane Leaks from U.S. Fracking Fields Leaks are minimal during
removal of fracking fluids but increase once gas is flowing." Retrieved 1/15/14 from:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-revises-estimate-of-methane-leaks-from-us-
3
Main points from the March 2014 PNAS paper:
Recently natural gas has been explored as a potential bridge to renewable energy,
owing in part to the reduction in carbon emissions produced from electricity generation
by natural gas compared with coal.
Methane (CH4) from shale gas drilling sites appears to be considerably higher than first
believed. The advantage of switching from coal to gas to generate electricity essentially
disappears. These data suggest that the continuation of coal use could actually
preferable from the perspective of GHG emissions – although coal-fired generation is
itself a serious contributor to emissions.2
Other important points:
Given that CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, quantifying CH4
emissions has become critical in estimating the long- and short-term environmental and
economic impacts of increased natural gas use.
If total CH4 emissions are greater than approximately 3.2% of production, the
immediate net radiative forcing for natural gas use is worse than for coal when used to
generate electricity.
The study used an aircraft-based approach that enables sampling of methane emissions
between the regional and component level scales and can identify plumes from single
well pads, groups of well pads, and larger regional scales, giving more information as
to the specific CH4 emission sources.
The results show that the methane emission flux from the drilling phase of operation
can be 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than inventory estimates, providing an
example and improved understanding of the differences between observed data and
bottom-up inventories.
fracking-fields; Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. Climatic Change. 1/10/12.
"Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: response to Cathles et al." Retrieved
1/15/14 from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/publications/Howarthetal2012_Final.pdf
2 As noted in TUED’s draft paper Global Shale Gas and the Anti-Fracking Movement: Developing Union
Perspectives and Approaches: Scientific data strongly suggests that shale gas (in full life-cycle terms) is as
GHG-intensive as coal due to methane leakage from drilling sites. 2 Moreover, the growing presence of
shale gas in the global energy system is undermining renewable energy (particularly in the U.S.) thus
exacerbating fracking’s likely climate effects. See: http://energydemocracyinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/Global-Shale-Gas-and-the-Anti-Fracking-Movement-Union-Perspectives-Jan20-FOR-DISCUSSION-draft1.docx
4
The investigators conducted measurements in southwestern PA in the Marcellus shale
formation region in June 2012.
The paper states, “The methane emissions from the gas wells are surprisingly high
considering that all of these wells were still being drilled, had not yet been hydraulically
fractured, and were not yet in production.”
Conclusions
Measured natural gas emission rates versus “official” inventory estimates found that
the official inventories consistently underestimated measured emissions.
The paper states, “These high leak rates illustrate the urgent need to identify and
mitigate these leaks as shale gas production continues to increase nationally.”
According to the paper, emissions during the drilling stage are 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude larger than official inventory estimates. This indicates the “need to examine
all aspects of natural gas production activity to improve inventory estimates and identify
potential opportunities for mitigation strategies.”
TUED note: If the estimates in this study are accurate, then the implications of fracking
for climate change are extremely serious. Industry arguments re. gas being more
climate-friendly than coal are therefore highly questionable based on these data.
____________________________________________________________
FRACKING JOBS ESTIMATES - DO INDUSTRY CLAIMS ADD UP?
Name of study: Exaggerating the Employment Impacts of Shale Drilling
Authors: Frank Mauro, Michael Wood, Michele Mattingly, Mark Price, Stephen
Herzenberg, Sharon Ward
Released by: Multi-State Research Collaborative. December 2013. The paper is
available here: https://pennbpc.org/sites/pennbpc.org/files/MSSRC-EmploymentImpact-11-21-2013.pdf
The 37-page report examines the job creation claims of the US Chamber of Commerce
and the gas industry. The Chamber originally claimed shale gas production “created over
300,000 new jobs in the last two years.” (2010-2012)
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy “Shale Energy in
Pennsylvania” fact sheet highlights, in an infographic, “238,000” as the number of “Jobs
5
in Shale-Related Industries (created) through 2011.”3
After some questioning on the part of anti-fracking groups, it then issued a revised press
release that changed the 238,000 jobs “created” to 180,000 jobs “supported” by natural
gas. The U.S. Chamber did not explain the basis for (or the source of) this revised claim.4
The Chamber’s numbers contrast sharply with the US Department of Labor and
Industry’s (DoL) job numbers. The DoL states that between the 4th quarter of 2008 and
4th quarter 2011, the industry created a total of 18,007 jobs in “core” Marcellus
industries, with an additional 5,611 jobs added in “ancillary” industries.5
In the report, Exaggerating the Employment Impacts of Shale Drilling the Multi-State
Shale Research Collaborative examines employment in the Marcellus and Utica Shale in
six states: Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Main findings:

Region-wide, shale-related employment accounts for nearly 33,000 jobs, one out
of every 794 jobs in the six states. The education and health sectors, by contrast,
account for 4.5 million jobs in the region, one out of every 6 jobs.

In the region as a whole 8,750 wells were drilled.

An estimated 3.7 jobs were created for every well drilled in the region during
the period 2005-2012. This figure stands in sharp contrast to the claims in
industry-funded studies, which included estimates as high as 31 jobs created per
well drilled.6

Shale-related employment across the six-state Marcellus/Utica region fell over
the past 12 months from the 1st quarter of 2012 to the 1st quarter of 2013.
The report acknowledges that employment impacts of the shale gas industry go beyond
the extraction and support activity jobs. Fracking creates jobs for suppliers to the
3
Available online at http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Pennsylvania_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
4
U.S. Chamber’s Energy Institute Launches “Shale Works for US” campaign in Pennsylvania, July 19, 2012,
http://www.energyxxi.
org/us-chamber%E2%80%99s-energy-institute-launches-%E2%80%9Cshale-works-us%E2%80%9Dcampaign-pennsylvania
5
Figures in this sentence come from Gilliland, Donald, “US Chamber of Commerce launches pro-gas
campaign with inaccurate jobs numbers,” July 19, 2012,
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/us_chamber_of_commerce_
launche.html.
6
Timothy Considine, Robert Watson, and Nicholas Considine, The Economic Opportunities of Shale Energy
Development, The Manhattan Institute, May 2011, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_09.pdf
6
industry, such as trucking companies that carry water to well pads, drilling equipment
manufacturers, and real estate companies that assist gas companies acquire drilling
leases on land rich in shale gas. Beyond suppliers, jobs are also created when workers,
business owners, and landowners spend the wages, profits, or royalties earned from the
shale industry or its suppliers.
However, the report claims that the numbers of ‘indirect’ and ‘induced’ jobs claimed by
pro-industry studies and the Chamber is more than double those that would have been
calculated based on standard research methods.
Conclusion of the Study:
The industry and its supporters have exaggerated the job benefits of horizontal drilling
in the Marcellus and Utica Shale. While the industry has created jobs, particularly in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the shale-related jobs numbers are far below industry
claims.
“Shale development is simply not a significant driver of job growth or the overall
economies of the six states with major deposits.” (page 35)
The report also notes “the beginning of a pull back of the industry which raises
questions about the stability and permanence of even the small number of jobs that
have been created.”
The study identified a drop in the number of wells drilled in 2012 and a drop in the
number of jobs consistent with a classic “boom and bust” pattern for extractive
industries.
7