Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 29: Where should we go from here?

So what do we know?

After reading the Wolf Eagle Environmental reports for the Town of Dish, Texas, after reading the Fort Worth League of Neighbors report to the Fort Worth Independent School District, after reading the TCEQ report on the Health Effects for Barnett Shale, after reviewing the ERG report and BSEEC report regarding air in the Barnett Shale, I can state pretty much unequivocally:

We have enough samples to show that the oil & gas production sites in this area are not emitting contaminants into the air at levels that would pose a health concern, provided...they are adequately maintained.

So the statement from the TCEQ on 10 Sep 2010:

“After several months of operation, state-of-the-art, 24-hour air monitors in the Barnett Shale area are showing no levels of concern for any chemicals. This reinforces our conclusion that there are no immediate health concerns from air quality in the area, and that when they are properly managed and maintained, oil and gas operations do not cause harmful excess air emissions.”

 ...is valid today, especially now that we have all this data.  Let's put looking for carbon disulfide and carbonyl sulfide to bed.  It is not a health issue at these low levels, regardless of its source.  The TCEQ seems to also agree with this:

So that is what we do know about these levels of contaminants in the air.  You can continue to sample and it will not add any more substance or weight to what is known already.

But there is something else we know from reading all these reports and memos.  These oil & gas operations do put stuff into the air, especially when they are not properly maintained.  And for that reason, a stronger commitment to reduce the amount of contaminants over all - their environmental 'footprint' - should be the focus for the community and the operators going into the future.

According to the ERG report, based on emission rates calculated through a more sound methodology then "backed in" ambient air sample results, the operations they tested put VOCs, TOCs, and HAPs into the area's air.  And when you multiply that by the number of operations...:

...it adds up.

And when you look at what proper maintenance was able to provide in terms of reduced emissions (Sadlier/Honeycutt: Barnett Shale Study), it becomes apparent that maintenance...:

...and new green completions...:

...must become the industry standard; adopted and wholeheartedly supported by both big and small producers.

So where should we go from here?  Reduce the overall air emission footprint and provide proper and continuous maintenance.

Or as Buzz Lightyear might say:

 "To infinity...and beyond compliance!"


Next Post: Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 30: The End... finally!


.

Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 12: Oil & Gas, it's better if you go green!

Took some time off for the holiday which is why Part 12 has been late in coming.

OK, so in my last 11 posts I have concentrated on two main issues revolving exposure to chemicals:

1. It's all about the dose
2. It's all about the K.C. Donnelly Risk Paradigm

Yeah, I have also spent a good deal of Currier font lambasting the work of Alisa Rich, a fellow MPH who - through her company Wolf Eagle Environmental - produced data and reports for the Town of DISH, Texas that are misleading and flawed.

It would be easy to discount my analysis and explanation as being oil & gas friendly, but as I pointed out in my first post, i have no dog in this hunt other than to make sure the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is presented.  I'll cover this in my next post to hopefully shed more light on where I am coming from and what my bias is - or may be. 

The point here is that my last 11 posts should not be seen as "look!  There is no issue.  You people who are complaining should just shut the heck up and let the O&G industry do what ever they please." 

There are two things in play here that cannot be swept under the rug or discounted.

1. Oil and Gas production contributes to air pollution - they are a point source.
2. Those that live near Oil & Gas production wells are impacted.

The degree of that air pollution and the type of impact (health, odor, view, noise, dust) is what needs to be addressed in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.  This is where the battle lines are drawn.  Somewhere between a business' "Zero Cost" mentality and a "Zero Risk" desire of the public there can be found some middle ground - what I refer to as "Harmony".

Because there are emissions from Oil & Gas production - and - because these operations have impacted the surrounding community - primarily through noise and odor - the O&G Industry must be cognizant about their past mistakes and how their current operations and intentions are perceived.  It can no longer be business as usual.  A new model for drilling, operating, storing, and transporting must be adopted, and, in my opinion, they must change how they currently operate or the tide will continue to turn against them regardless of actual risk posed.

Dr. Al Armendariz with the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering at Southern Methodist University in his report for the Environmental Defense Fund, titled "Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements" has calculated the following emissions from the various source categories related to O&G in the Barnett Shale area:

So what does this table show?  Well for one thing, the "Total Daily Emissions" is in "tons per day" or tpd.  It is really hard to imagine 174 tons of VOC being spewed into the air.  That's 348,000 pounds of Volatile Organic Constituents being released into the air per day.  That's a lot.

So the question becomes this:  If the O&G industry in the Barnett Shale will put into the air 12,702,000 pounds of VOC in a year - and - this amount of VOC, according to the TCEQ, "will [pose] no immediate health concerns from air quality in the area, and that when they are properly managed and maintained, oil and gas operations do not cause harmful excess air emissions," should the O&G industry continue to operate with no additional changes to its current methods?

Or....can they make reasonable changes to their standard operating methods to reduce the amount of pollutants they currently are putting into the air?

You can see the dilemma here can't you?  From a business point of view, why should I reduce something that is not causing any harm?  My answer to that is because you can and should - simply for the fact that every reduction in the amount of pollutants you put into the air improves air quality over all.  Plus, going "green" improves the bottom line in ways that are unrelated to the actual cost of the operation.  O&G needs to look at the big picture here, not just the monthly bottom line.

So what "reasonable" changes should be adopted - or - imposed?  Dr. Armendariz proposes the following which I think should be considered by the O&G industry:

1. The use of "green completions" to capture methane and VOC compounds during well completions
2. Phasing in of electric motors as an alternative to internal-combustion engines to drive gas compressors
3. The control of VOC emissions from condensate tanks with vapor recovery units
4. Replacement of high-bleed pneumatic valves and fittings on the pipeline networks with no-bleed alternatives

Texas A&M is also actively involved in a joint industry partnership with a number of public and private entities working on a program called "Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) Systems" as a means of "integrating advanced technologies into systems that significantly reduce the impact of petroleum drilling and production in environmentally sensitive areas."  All of this is designed to make a positive change that is both cost effective and beneficial to the community and environment.

So what we need here is a new paradigm shift.  We can drill and produce oil & gas in an environmentally friendly manner.  As the folks at EFD concluded:

It 's not so hard to be green!

Next Post: Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 13: Why bother writing about this?


.