Families sick from fracking exposure turn to concerned scientists

From an Article by Lisa Song, Inside Climate News, July 23, 2014

Like people in other regions transformed by the shale energy boom, residents of Washington County, Pennsylvania have complained of headaches, nosebleeds and skin rashes. But because there are no comprehensive studies about the health impacts of natural gas drilling, it’s hard to determine if their problems are linked to the gas wells and other production facilities that have sprung up around them.

A group of scientists from Pennsylvania and neighboring states have stepped in to fill this gap by forming a nonprofit—apparently the first of its kind in the United States—that provides free health consultations to local families near drilling sites. Instead of waiting years or even decades for long-term studies to emerge, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (SWPA-EHP) is using the best available science to help people deal with their ailments.

“As far as unconventional natural gas drilling goes, we are the public health service of the United States right now,” said Michael Kelly, the media liaison for the EHP.

David Brown, a toxicologist and the group’s co-founder, said government agencies haven’t done enough to study, analyze and mitigate the risks people face from drilling.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—which oversees the oil and gas industry—has no ongoing or planned health studies, though it is researching air and water quality at certain sites, Scott Perry, the agency’s director of oil and gas management, said at a media event last month. None of the hundreds of millions of dollars in impact fees the state has collected from the industry since 2011 has gone to state or local health departments.

InsideClimate News contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Health multiple times over a two-week period to ask how it manages the public health risks of unconventional gas drilling. The agency did not provide any answers, even though two spokespeople—Yasmin Coleman and Tom Hostetter—said the department would respond to the questions.

A governor-appointed commission recommended in 2011 that a health registry be created to track Pennsylvanians living near drilling sites. But no registry has been established. In June, the news organization StateImpact Pennsylvania reported that two former employees of the health department were told to avoid talking about Marcellus shale activity, and to stop returning phone calls from people concerned about drilling impacts.

EHP does not advocate for or against shale development. Too often, said Brown, residents who are sick end up “neglecting themselves” by spending all their energy trying to stop drilling in their backyards instead of seeking medical help.

Based in McMurray, a small community about 15 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, EHP’s services are available to anyone who makes an appointment at the clinic, where the staff of five will: (a) explain what scientists know and don’t know about the risks and impacts of shale gas development, (b) provide tips on how to reduce exposure to natural gas activities, perhaps by using indoor air filters or keeping daily logs of symptoms, odors and wind direction, and (c) lend simple air monitors so residents can track the air quality inside their homes to determine when and how often they are exposed to certain air pollutants.

When people blame their health problems on gas drilling, the EHP staff sifts through the clues to find the most probable explanation by taking into account a patient’s medical history, their proximity to shale activity and other industrial sites. In addition to the clinic staff, seven other EHP scientists based across New England provide support.

EHP’s nurse practitioner, Suann Davison, meets one-on-one with patients and also conducts house calls in and around Washington County. When health problems are likely linked to drilling, patients may be referred to pulmonologists or other specialists.

If someone lives 20 miles from the nearest well, their symptoms probably aren’t related to shale gas, said EHP director Raina Rippel. The link would be much stronger for a resident downwind of a gas well who develops new respiratory problems or worsening pre-existing symptoms after the drilling starts.

“If we can document there was a probable exposure and absence of a more likely explanation, like an underlying medical problem, then I think it helps us define it as more than just self-reported health impacts,” said Rippel.

Davison said her patients usually have a combination of symptoms including respiratory problems, rashes and lesions, irritated eyes, nosebleeds, numbness, tingling, headaches, nausea and vomiting. These symptoms have been linked to some of the chemicals emitted during shale development, including formaldehyde, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. Other compounds may be linked to water pollution.

Davison was attracted to EHP in part because of its neutral stance on gas drilling. “We’re not saying frack or don’t frack…I wanted to care for members in this community,” she said. “I’m not an environmentalist.”

EHP was launched in 2011 with a grant from the Heinz Endowments, a Pittsburgh-based philanthropic organization that funds educational, cultural and community efforts, with a particular focus in Southwest Pennsylvania. The group also receives support from the Pittsburgh and Claneil Foundations.

Philip Johnson, senior program officer of the Heinz Endowments’ environment program, began paying attention to the potential health risks of fracking in 2009, when he noticed a sharp increase in complaints from Western Pennsylvania residents.

“We realized we had a potential public health threat. Typically what happens when new threats emerge is you need information and data flows to separate anecdotes from empirical evidence…And there were really no intervention models like this we were aware of in the country,” he said.

Heinz Endowments approached some public health experts for help. As part of the planning for what eventually became EHP, they interviewed residents, studied the available scientific research and toured communities near drilling sites.

Rippel, the EHP director, remembers being shocked at the size of a processing plant they visited in Houston, Pennsylvania. She said it took up about as much space as a football field and looked like a refinery. “It [was] almost reminiscent of a Houston, Texas kind of scene,” she said.

Amelia Pare, a plastic surgeon in Washington County, said what EHP is trying to do is “laudable” and “the most positive thing we have. But it’s nowhere near enough…It’s a drop in the bucket for what’s really needed.”

Pare has lived in Southwest Pennsylvania for 15 years. Four or five years ago, she noticed patients coming in with strange symptoms, including lesions on their face. Most were poor and lived in areas with gas drilling. Pare began searching for guidelines and practical tips that could help her patients.

If someone comes in with a skin problem that could be linked to drilling, what medical tests should she run? What experts should she turn to, and which specialists would be willing to see her patients, many who are on Medicaid? But she found few satisfactory answers, despite contacting everyone she could think of—poison control, her state legislators, national representatives, the Pennsylvania medical society, the Pennsylvania health department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“There’s no one doing research on this.” Pare said EHP would have more of an impact if it went door to door collecting urine samples and tested them for exposure to fracking-related compounds. “The Heinz [Endowments] puts a lot of money into this, but not a lot has changed…The people that run [EHP] need to be more courageous. You’ve got to go out and test people.”

Kelly, the EHP media liaison, said that kind of research is beyond the scope of EHP, which has an annual budget of about $750,000. Instead, the peer-reviewed research the group publishes is usually an outgrowth of its public health service.

In March, four EHP scientists published a paper explaining that the air monitors used by most state regulators rarely detect toxic emission spikes in shale fields. Some of the data for that study came from simple air monitors EHP developed with scientists at Carnegie Mellon University. Local residents used the monitors to track concentrations of particulate matter—a respiratory irritant—inside their homes. The results showed dramatic but fleeting spikes throughout the day.

EHP has also analyzed data from 27 patients whose symptoms were likely caused by shale drilling activity. Rippel said the patients were screened to eliminate other probable causes, and that the results could help other health professionals working with patients in drilling regions. EHP presented the cases at a science conference last summer and is preparing the data for peer-reviewed publication.

This report is part of a joint project by Inside Climate News and the Center for Public Integrity.

Roman Bath, Bath, UK

Expert Raises New Fears Over Effects of Fracking

Bath Chronicle, England, UK, December 27th

A Bath university expert has expressed concerns about the wider environmental implications of a controversial gas extraction method, shale fracking.

Dr David Packham, senior lecturer in materials science at the Claverton Down university, has spoken out about the impact that fracking could have if it was given the go ahead in Bath and north east Somerset or on the Mendips. He said very little was known about what exactly would happen to Bath’s hot springs and he was concerned about the wider impact on the environment generally.

The Government has put its full support behind fracking, while at the same time trying to reassure communities that the necessary regulations will be in place to protect the environment. It has allowed drilling to resume at a site near Blackpool which had been blamed for minor earth tremors.

However, both Bath and North East Somerset Council and Bath MP Don Foster have said they are worried that any local drilling could have a devastating impact on the thermal springs. The nearest site being eyed for drilling is at Hick’s Gate at Keynsham.

Dr Packham said: “Certainly environmental damage has occurred in the past in the vicinity of wells and drilling sites, and could occur again. “This would be local, but in my opinion, a greater environmental threat is the acceleration of climate change which the large scale use of shale gas would produce.

“Government scientific advisers have been emphatic in issuing this warning. This to my mind is very serious indeed. “It opens the way for climate change to approach the point of no return, leading to an environmental domino effect where in a volatile and unpredictable dynamic, things such as melting ice and the release of carbon from the planet’s surface are set to feed off each other, accelerating and reinforcing the warming effect.”

These concerns have been echoed by Alex Hart, from Frack Free Somerset, who said the public was being sold a myth about the potential benefits of fracking. She said Prime Minister David Cameron should think again: “It is utterly depressing that the country’s leader is demonstrating such a lack of imagination and proving how short-sighted he is.

“Cameron and other fans of ‘natural gas’ are using a lower prices myth to sell a toxic product. Prices will only ever go up as wells produce rapidly falling amounts of gas.

“Shale gas and coal-bed methane supporters are also ignoring one (among many) glaringly obvious fact; all wells leak eventually. “So, regardless of whatever regulatory mechanisms, licenses or permits that the government put in place, prevention of pollution can never be guaranteed.

The Un-Balanced Sheet, by S. Thomas Bond, 
Newsletter, Guardians of the West Fork Watershed

It’s clear by this time that the Marcellus development is being promoted with a balance sheet that has only one side, assets. Liabilities are never mentioned. You read about all the money that will flow, the growth that will result, vague projections for a golden future, largely unquantified. The degradation of resources and the influence on people is never mentioned by the developers.

So what are these costs? In the case of the Marcellus, one is the very resource being extracted. The resource is fantastically large, but only 10% is removed, 90 % is left behind, degraded. The problem with virgin Marcellus is to bring the gas up from a mile or more deep. When it has been drilled by present methods the problem is to bring it up from a mile deep when the earth below has been saturated with water and chemicals.

The water pressure at the bottom of a well is much the same as it is that far down in the ocean. This restrains the production of gas now, and makes an additional, very serious problem, for secondary recovery in future generations. Marcellus extraction is grab it now, as much as you can, to hell with tomorrow. Executives claim there are no environmental problems. A recent article in an oil and gas trade magazine begins:

“Misrepresentation building in the eastern US threatens to limit a technology-based, multiple-location gas play that’s reshaping energy markets in the ways  that benefit US interests such as national security, air quality, employment, and tax receipts.  It’s the allegation that drilling and completing wells in gas-bearing shales threaten subsurface supplies of drinking water. If not discredited, repeated falsehoods will coalesce into a political force able to stop the most promising development in generations for US energy supply.”

The notion that water on the surface and in aquifers do not get contaminated has been disproven over and over again. The “easily imagined menace” as the author of the article calls it, is a fact on the ground. There is a regular constellation of problems that occurs everywhere horizontal wells with hydraulic fracturing occur. It not only includes water contamination and damage to streams by removing too much water and dumping in them, but also air and noise pollution, large disturbed surface areas, rural roads crowded and destroyed, and large demands on local services that the drilling companies do not pay for. And very serious health problems. Although reliable observers, primary care physicians are quite unlikely to publish their cases, and there is no agency collecting data, nor any likely to be in the present regulatory atmosphere if it must be paid for by government!

This is the way coal was promoted, too. No one ever looked at the decades of mine water, now being slowly remediated at public expense, nor the subsidence, nor the toll of miners, nor the blighted communities which take many decades to recover when the mines play out. The “big boys” got away with the money, though.  The Marcellus will play out, too. Probably in half a lifetime, the way the game is now being played, in little longer time at best. The rate of decline of shale wells is notorious – the fantastic early production is very brief. The decline is usually presented on a logarithmic graph by the industry, in terms of months. This is a tool to fool the unwary. 50 to 60% of the production is in the first year, less time than it takes to get the investment, get a permit and bring the well into production. The well is exhausted in a few more years.

Remember the early coal industry? Lots of jobs alright, but deadening, routine jobs where people and families had to turn into themselves to survive. No opportunity to travel, no opportunity to enjoy the better things of life, no opportunity to educate their children and most of all, no chance to change their circumstances. Technically they could leave, but the absence of surplus resources, the absence of other experience and contact with the outside held them to the mining towns like serfs on a medieval manor.

This time it won’t be as bad. But the jobs provided by Marcellus will be similar. Deadening, dangerous work, long hours with work in all kinds of weather. Kinds of work that make it difficult to change to other work. Mineral resource development doesn’t lead to a vibrant economy for the area where extraction takes place, the long term benefits go elsewhere. Marcellus will keep Appalachia right where it is in the national scheme of things, a sort of internal third world nation.

And look at our government! We are as helpless as the people in the Niger delta, Peru, or the Middle East. Was there advance planning to effectively utilize the resource, to regulate the industry to protect other interests, to minimize damage to us natives? Not on your life! Perhaps the most damning thing is that the most important force changing our future that could be controlled in the state was effectively bypassed by our government.

The governor couldn’t see fit to call a special session for a few days to iron out regulations for the industry. Why?  The best indication is that at least one legislator relates he has been openly threatened that he will never be elected to another term because of his support for regulation.  Doubtless, this runs all the way up to the Top Man. Can it be that other legislators are unaware of the same for themselves?  ”A politicians first duty is to get himself reelected,” they say. Will historians of the future look back and see funds for his campaign are more important to most politicians than his/her record of public service.

Guardians of the West Fork Watershed • 830 Benoni Ave • Fairmont, WV