Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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