Category Archives: fracking

A Whole Lot Of Shaking Could Go On – Those old Sky Scrapers could come a tumblen down

Posted on by
Reply

It is true none of the tall buildings in either St. Louis or Memphis are even earthquake resistant let alone earthquake proof. To top that off they are built on alluvial soil. Then there are the bridges across the Mississippi, Nebraska and Ohio rivers.So even a moderate earthquake in the area could be its own little disaster movie.

Today (Tuesday, 11/19/2013) is Day 5 of the IDNR 45 day comment period on hydraulic fracturing, aka “fracking.” 
We’re asking for a little something extra from you today.  In addition to making today’s comment, which is about fracking-induced earthquakes (see below), will you also sign a petition that would allow Johnson County–which is in the heart of the New Madrid fault zone–to assert its right to local self-government in order to ban corporate fracking?  This would be a test case for Illinois and might open the door to local county governments banning fracking.  They need signatures.  You can sign here:
Today’s comment is on Seismicity: Insufficient Protection, Two Types of Risk
Here’s what to do to make your comment today:
Comment:  In subsection (a), “Applicability”, DNR proposes that this rule apply ONLY to Class II  injection wells, not to any other.  DNR has not proposed any rules for fracking wells.  This is insufficient protection of the population in southern Illinois where citizens are at risk of a major earthquake.  Southern Illinois sits above two active seismic zones: the New Madrid and the Wabash Valley.
There are two distinct earthquake risks: (1) the risks from injection wells inducing earthquakes that would not otherwise occur and (2) the risks of substantial injuries and damages created when the toxic fracking fluid left in the ground, in pipelines, and in wells (injection and otherwise) is let loose as a result of a major earthquake.  There are NO rules establishing guidelines for stopping fracking wells in the event of earthquakes, and NO considerations for siting any wells specifically in active seismic zones.  That omission is a reckless disregard for the safety of Southern Illinois residents, their property, and the ecology of the region.
Furthermore, in light of recent studies (see below), the risk of earthquakes can extend far beyond local areas.  See:
  • http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3072 :  A new study is the latest to tie a string of unusual earthquakes, in this case, in central Oklahoma, to the injection of wastewater deep underground. Researchers now say that the magnitude 5.7 earthquake near Prague, Okla., on Nov. 6, 2011, may also be the largest ever linked to wastewater injection. Felt as far away as Milwaukee, more than 800 miles away, the quake—the biggest ever recorded in Oklahoma–destroyed 14 homes, buckled a federal highway and left two people injured.
  • http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1
  • http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3706&from=rss#.UohRF40hRL8  “Why America’s Heartland is Earthquake Country”, United States Geological Service, September 30. 2013
  • “Enhanced Remote Earthquake Triggering at Fluid-Injection Sites in the Midwestern United States”, Nicholas J. van der Elst et al., DOI: 10.1126/science.1238948, Science 341, 164 (2013).
We would love it if you would let us know if you made a comment today!  And please feel free to call us with questions, comments, or to volunteer your time at (309) 827-9627.  Please share this with others you know and encourage them to make comments too.
In solidarity in the struggle for environmental justice,
Your friends at IPA
To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.
510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

alt

:}

Go there and comment. More tomorrow.

:}

Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Is Incompetant – But we kinda knew that

Posted on by
Reply

This was forwarded to me by Doctor Lora and other people have pointed out that this has been going on. This is why in my first post I said go to  this website:

http://www.ilagainstfracking.org/

They will deliver a printed copy to IDNR which gets you around the whole computer/internet thing.

AND Dr. Laura is suggesting that you send your comments to JCAR who must approve the final regulations before they become law. I am not sure how effective that would be but it takes so little time it can’t hurt. But still run them through IDNR repeatedly if you have to.

If you want to echo my remarks at JCAR, I think it would be very helpful, thanks,  L

 


Urgent — After two days of complaints from many residents concerned about fracking that their comments to the IDNR on the fracking rules weren’t going through, we learned that NO COMMENTS ON RADIOACTIVITY HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH!   According to IDNR, there was a technical problem that has now been fixed, but that doesn’t address the fact that Comments from last Wednesday, yesterday and today did not get registered.
If they can’t get their website right, how are they going to get the rules right? 
Please share the comments below that were sent in by hundreds of residents with JCAR members, just in case the IDNR is trying to suppress comments about radioactivity in all fracking waste water and debris,

— General Summary of Rules on Radioactivity
Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
245.850 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements

Comment: Subsection (d)(1) of Section 245.850 provides for testing radioactivity only one time–during the early flowback stage–and only for “naturally occurring radioactive materials”. The problems with this are identified below.
Problems:
The proposed rules do not include any standards or protocols to follow if testing of flowback water shows unacceptable levels of radioactivity. 
The proposed rules do not require the testing of “produced water”, which is the water produced from a well in conjunction with oil or natural gas production. This is where radioactivity is most likely to show up. It should be noted that while these Rules have been purported to be the strongest in the nation, PA law requires the testing of produced water at two separate intervals.
The proposed rules do not require testing for added radioactive materials, like depleted uranium, which can be used in the perforation/fracturing operation.
The proposed rules do not test work areas for levels of radioactivity that would call for OSHA standards of occupational safety. 
These deficiencies, cumulatively or singly, would pose a significant risk to the public health and safety, property, aquatic life, and wildlife, in violation of section 1-75(a)(2) of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act.

— Produced Water Needs to Be Tested for Radioactivity (same subpart-H, and section: 245.850)
Notably absent from this section is a requirement for the testing of “produced water”, the fluid that returns from the well later during production and is most likely to contain radioactivity. Under the proposed rules, “produced water” can be stored on site and/or can be “recycled”, yet there is no testing requirement.
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technologically enhanced naturally occuring radioactive material are both found in “produced water”. See Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials in the oil industry (TENORM), Nukleonika 2009; 54(1):3?9, and sources cited therein, especially for TENORM in produced water in the U.S., available athttp://www.nukleonika.pl/…/full/vol54_2009/v54n1p003f.pdf. See also
NORM is also found on scale in oil pipes and on fracking equipment. (See Kentucky Resources Council Proposes Comprehensive Plan For Investigating Radiological Contamination In Martha Oil Field. August 11, 2005.http://www.kyrc.org/webnewspro/112381723236086.shtml.)
IDNR’s definitions of “flowback water” and “produced water” are different. They are treated differently by both the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act and by the DNR Rules. The Department knows that produced water will be in contact with the naturally occurring radioactive elements in the ground for a longer period that the flowback and that it is much more likely to be radioactive. Therefore it should require it to be tested and handled accordingly.
Problems: Failure to test produced water for radioactivity is problematic for a variety of reasons including:
The health and safety of workers on the site who will be unaware of the levels of radioactivity they are being exposed to.  The health and safety of workers transporting produced water who will also be in the dark regarding the levels of radioactivity they will be exposed to. 
The risk of storing radioactive material in tanks not created for storing radioactive materials.
The risk of “recycling” produced water—radioactivity cannot be removed by recycling.
The risk to the public in transporting radioactive materials
Argonne National Laboratory recently cautioned about radiological doses: “It is commonly accepted that efforts should be undertaken at all times to keep radiological doses ‘as low as reasonably achievable,’ which is referred to as the ALARA principle or requirement.” Overview of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment (April 2011). DNR is failing to even adequately test for radioactivity and therefore, will not know the levels of radioactivity. How, then, can DNR adequately protect workers and the general public?
Revisions needed:
At a bare minimum, the rules should require that “produced water” be tested at two separate intervals across time for radioactivity. This is already required in Pennsylvania. The rules should also require that the requirements of the Illinois Low Level Radioactivity Waste Management Act be followed. 

— Rules need to include requirements or standards when radioactivity is found (same subpart-H and section:245.850)
The proposed rules include no follow-up requirements or standards if testing shows radioactivity levels in flowback to be high. In other words, these proposed rules treat flowback the same whether it is highly radioactive or not! DNR knows that naturally occurring radioactivity material occurs in Illinois oil and gas operations. See 62 Ill. Admin. Code secs. 240.860(e)(3), 240.861(k)(1)(C).
Revisions Needed: The rules must specify how flowback AND produced water will be treated if they test positive for radioactivity. The rules should also require that the requirements of the Illinois Low Level Radioactivity Waste Management Act be followed.
 
Sincerely, 
Frack Free Illinois
contact, Dr. Lora Chamberlain
drlora2@yahoo.com
773-486-7660

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Chevron Brings Good Fracks To You – Illinois is going to get the heck fracked out of it

Posted on by
Reply

Will Chevron have wells in Illinois? Probably not.  They are to busy illegally fracking their wells off of California’s shoreline. But chatting them up can’t hurt.

Day 1 on 11/15/13

Topic: Who can and can’t testify and public hearings when fracking permits are requested. 

 

Go to:   http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/OilandGas/Pages/OnlineCommentSubmittalForm.aspx

Radio Button: Subpart B: Registration and Permitting Procedures (245.200-245.270)

 

Comment: Because air and water travel freely, IDNR should not limit comments during public hearings to individuals living within 1500 feet of wells.  Toxins can travel far beyond 1500 feet via air and water.  Therefore, any person, regardless of where they live, should be allowed to testify.

 :}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Polluted Water Floods Colorado – That stuff is not your pure mountain springs

Posted on by
Reply

My cousins Matt and Andy live in Boulder and my bestest friends Julie and Wayne live in the flood basin out near Frederick. Neither is in any danger, but life has become inconvenient for them all. Bottle water is hard to find. I do not drink the stuff because it is environmentally stupid and a landfill threat but some people drink nothing else. Wayne has to call the State Police before he sets off for work at night to make sure he can get through. But nobody is talking about the pollution this flooding is spreading.

And now they are saying in Weld County that a pipeline has broken and they have to idea what is leaking out. The pictures from this piece make me sick to my stomach.

http://www.texassharon.com/2013/09/15/is-there-a-media-blackout-on-the-fracking-flood-disaster-in-colorado/

Is there a media blackout on the fracking flood disaster in Colorado?

 

by TXsharon on September 15, 2013

See update below before trying to post a comment.

 

I will update this post as residents send me pictures and video.

 

We need the national news stations to go cover the environmental disaster that’s happening in Colorado right now.

This picture taken by a resident is from yesterday:

>>Picture omitted<<

From an email.

 

I see you’ve noticed the underwater wells in Weld County, Colorado. Amazing; we’ve emailed the Denver TV stations, other media, and state and local politicians. We’ve sent pictures that our members have taken. It’s like the media and politicians have been TOLD not to say anything about it. There has been no mention of the gas wells on the Denver newscasts either last night or this evening although all stations have had extensive and extended flood coverage. You can see underwater wells in the background of some of the newscast videos, and yet the reporters say absolutely nothing.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}