A Toxic Spew?
Officials worry about impact of 'fracking' of oil and gas.
Cathy Behr says she won't forget the smell that nearly killed her. An emergency-room nurse in Durango, Colo.'s Mercy Regional Medical Center, Behr was working the April 17 day shift when Clinton Marshall arrived complaining of nausea and headaches. An employee at an energy-services company, Weatherford International, Marshall, according to Behr, said that he was caught in a "fracturing-fluid" spill. [Fracturing chemicals are routinely used on oil and gas wells where they are pumped deep into the ground to crack rock seams and increase production.] The chemical stench coming off Marshall's boots was buckling, says Behr. Mercy officials took no chances. They evacuated and locked down the ER, and its staff was instructed to don protective masks and gowns. But by the time those precautions were enacted, Behr had been nursing Marshall for 10 minutes--unprotected. "I honestly thought the response was a little overkill, but good practice," says Behr, 54, a 20-year veteran at Mercy.
A few days later, Behr's skin turned yellow. She began vomiting and retaining fluid. Her husband rushed her to Mercy where Behr was admitted to the ICU with a swollen liver, erratic blood counts and lungs filling with fluid. "I couldn't breath," she recalls. "I was drowning from the inside out." The diagnosis: chemical poisoning. The makers of the suspected chemical, Weatherford, tell NEWSWEEK that they aren't sure if their brand of fracking fluid can be blamed for her illness.
Throughout the Rocky Mountain states, Behr's run-in with fracturing fluid is getting a lot of attention and exacerbating already frayed nerves. After nearly eight years of some of the most intense oil and gas development ever recorded in the American West, concerns over the environmental and health impacts are bubbling over. On Tuesday, Colorado's top oil and gas regulatory authority—the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC)—endorsed a sweeping set of rules that environmentalists call long overdue; industry warns of dire economic impacts.
And the stakes are getting higher. Last week, against public protests by much of the state's congressional leadership and governor, the federal Bureau of Land Management sold off drilling leases in a wilderness area called one of the region's most pristine ecosystems and which is home to enough natural gas to power Colorado for 34 years. "It's just huge," says Gwen Lachelt, executive director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), a nonprofit regional watchdog group, of the recent oil and gas plays in the state. "All eyes are on Colorado right now."
These have been boom years for the West. From New Mexico to Montana, more than 33,000 new oil and gas wells have been approved since 2001. Last year, nearly 90 percent of onshore federal drilling permits were issued in the Rockies. In the heart of the rush is Colorado. A 2007 survey from the Fraser Institute, an energy think tank, put the state as the No. 1 global spot to explore and develop oil and gas.
Central to that development is the use of fracking fluids. Largely unregulated, they've been employed by the energy industry for decades and, with the exception of diesel, can be made up of nearly any set of chemicals. Also, propriety trade laws don't require energy companies to disclose their ingredients. "It is much like asking Coca-Cola to disclose the formula of Coke," says Ron Heyden, a Halliburton executive, in recent testimony before the COGCC. Despite its widespread use and somewhat mysterious mix, fracturing fluid was deemed in 2004 by the Environmental Protection Agency as safe for the environment and groundwater. Dave Dillon, the COGCC's top engineering manager, says nearly every one of Colorado's 35,600 wells are "fracked" and that a minimum of 100,000 gallons are used per well, resulting in millions of gallons pumped into the ground each year. And since it's typically pumped far below groundwater tables, Congress exempted fracking fluids from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: OBWan @ 09/05/2008 11:23:25 PM
Comment: mccainsupporter -TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around x-ray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why those little radiation detection badges. I know people you have required isotope treatment because of exposure.
As far as the rant on nuclear - that would be the American public after Three Mile Island, not just Democrats. There are some good plants in the US - How long do you think a takes to build a plant? (10-20 years?)
As for your Obama comments:
Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon
generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is
considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste
storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To
prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked
closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R???IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the
smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti???terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage,
Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look
for safe, long???term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime,
Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is
contained using the most advanced dry???cask storage technology available.
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 08/26/2008 8:44:33 PM
Comment: Does the Democratic leadership under Barack Obama expect current electric power plants to provide all the huge electricity requirements to recharge and power all the new hybrid and electric cars will be coming on line. There will have to be new power plants built and these must be nuclear plants. If Democrats think that wind or solar will recharge all of these new cars, they have to be joking because the wind does not blow all the time. The new sources of additional electricity to charge up all these cars will have to come from nuclear energy.
Why is there such an ingrained irrational paranoia about nuclear energy and waste disposal among some Americans especially the Democratic leadership under the direction of Barack Obama. Importantly also why is it somehow okay for hundreds of thousands of Navy sailors to have served for nearly thirty-five years aboard nuclear power American aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines and air force personnel to handle nuclear bombs but Democratic leadership under Barack Obama will not consider to even remotely assume any risks involved with nuclear power. Is it okay for our servicemen to be exposed to alleged risks but not the Democratic leadership who oppose nuclear power. This paranoia is particular evident with the Democrats acceptance of risks that are associated with other aspects of modern American living. Forty thousand people die every year in the United States in auto accidents but there is no outcry to ban all automobiles in the United States. Bridges have collapsed recently in Minnesota and tunnels ceilings in Boston have fallen but there is no consensus on eliminating bridges or tunnels. There have been airplane crashes that have also involved injuries on the ground but there is no outcry to ban air travel. There have been repeated rail and ship accidents but no outcry to ban railroads or ship travel. The irrational fear involving nuclear power and waste disposal has no justification. American people undergo multiple medical and dental xrays and CT scans yearly and have no fear. TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around xray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure. There were no documented adverse health events associated with the Three Mile Island release of minor radiation in the 1970s and no payments for health losses were ever made involving lawsuits related to that accident. The containment vessel held at Three Mile Island. In light of most Americans acceptance of risks associated with automobiles, trains, planes, and ships, the fear on the part of the Democratic leadership of nuclear power can not be viewed as rational. John McCain's proposals to build 45 new nuclear power plants along with his other energy proposals on conservation and renewable energy will help America achieve relative energy independence in the near term and long term.
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 08/26/2008 8:43:53 PM
Comment: While camping and attending a bluegrass music festival, I took a tour of Comanche Peak Power Plant,the last nuclear power plant built in the United States. The plant is unobtrusive and is at perfect harmony with its environment. It is located near Glen Rose Texas a beautiful area that has bluegrass band festivals in the summer. It is a wonderful scenic country area and home to Dinosaur World and a state park. There are dinosaur tracks from 100 million years ago along the riverbed that can be seen some say are heading in the direction of New York City. The Brazos river flows through and the place is an environmental heaven. There is old green Sinclair Oil Company dinasour statue that stands at the park. Ironically most of the stations and assets of Sinclair Oil Company was bought by Arco Oil Company. Arco Oil Company was a jewell of an American oil company that explored and developed the Alaskan North Slope and at one time owned eighty percent of our Alaskan oil reserves. Arco Oil Company was subsequently bought out later by foreign owned British Petroleum during the second administration of Bill Clinton. The point of this comment is twofold. Democratic hostility toward United States owned energy companies has led to the sale of United States oil companies to foreign interests and that nuclear power plants can even be located next to wonderful wildlife and park areas and make good unobtrusive neighbors. Nuclear power is a friend of the environment and does not emit green house gases.