Monday, June 25, 2012

Access to Frack Fluid Ingredients provided by Private Citizen at NB Govt.'s Public Meeting on Shale Gas in Bouctouche


Friday evening June 22nd in Bouctouche the government of New Brunswick held another one in its series of Public Consultation Meetings on Shale Gas atl'ecole Clément-Cormier.These meetings have ostensibly been employed by government as a way to hear from the people of the province and the questions came fast and furious right out of the starting gate.
As has been the case at previous meetings, the public has broached the topic time and time again on the subject of "frack fluid ingredients".The government's proud response to these queries has been that the New Brunswick government, unlike governments in other jurisdictions, will force Industry to reveal- via full disclosure - the ingredients of the frack fluids to the public. However nearly two years into the Industry's presence in the province, government Hydro-geologist Annie Daigle, had to admit the ingredient' list for fracking fluids had not been released to the public.
While the government has repeatedly held the promise of 'disclosure' up as evidence of their transparency to the public and their "hard line with the Industry" - it simply doesn't wash with this public, and they are getting tired of this 'well-worn' promise, yet unfulfilled.
The weariness showed itself yet again Friday night at Bouctouche when a question related to the frack fluid ingredients was asked by a member of the audience:"Will the pre-testing of nearby drinking water wells include tests of the fracking fluid ingredients for comparison purposes post-fracking?". While the govt. panel hedged their responses, the audience was clearly not satisfied.
A rejoinder on that same topic came a few minutes later when a member of the audience holding up a two-inch binder stated that she had 30 material safety data sheets that she had downloaded from internet containing 30 chemical cocktails and single ingredients of "fracking fluid. " If I can download them so easily why is it that the government has not provided them to New Brunswickers?" she inquired. If the govt. is not going to provide the information and no one else will provide this information, then I will," she stated, as she proceeded to recite an email address for audience contact.
At this point Annie Daigle was forced to jump in with damage control - finally revealing to the audience the name of a website where the audience could view a list of frack fluids, insisting that there was no need to 'spam this lady's email'.
Could it be that the possibility that people in the audience could use this opportunity to make further connections and solidify relationships over this common bond of anti-shale sentiment distressed Ms Daigle to the point where she had no other choice but to resort to helpfulness? It seemed a trifle odd that Ms Daigle had not offered this vital information prior to this time in the proceedings.
Her insinuation that the audience would be "spamming" a total stranger was a Public Relations faux pas that underestimated her audience's knowledge on the topic.This tech savvy audience knew enough to know that "an outright" and public invitation to an email box can in no way be construed as 'spamming' - maybe a magnanimous offer, but not spamming. 
No doubt, steering the audience away from the generously 'offered email' and toward the Frac Focus site was Ms Daigle's best chance of extricating herself from the "non-disclosure" corner into which she had painted herself.
As for the website Frac Focus that was revealed by Ms Daigle - the site gives a laundry list of complicated and unpronounceable chemical names to be sure, but provides no information whatsoever as to the toxicity or human permissible exposure limits (PEL's) of these chemicals.The site is industry-run and chemicals used by industry tend to be shrouded in secrecy.The Frac Focus site does an excellent job of perpetuating that secrecy. After all, the real focus on the Frac Focus site is on Fracking not on public health.
Ms Daigle may think she pulled the Alward government's reputation for transparency 'out of the fire' by providing the Frac Focus website to the audience.However, New Brunswickers - being a very discerning public - don't like to be trifled with - and by this time, many, if not most of her audiencehave logged onto Frac Focus only to discover that the transparency that this government so proudly displays on its sleeve is simply another diversionary tactic intended to delay full disclosure and obscure the truth from public view.
In fact, rather than satisfying the public's appetite for greater disclosure, Ms Daigle has led the public down the garden path to a dead end, and in so doing, she has simply re-enforced the belief by the voters of New Brunswick that their government cannot be trusted.
But one nagging question will continue to linger in the minds of New Brunswickers (who are only two years away from a provincial election): Why was it necessary for a member of the public to threaten disclosure of frack fluid chemical ingredients before Ms. Daigle would provide a source document?Why indeed?
If this is an example of the "full disclosure" that the Alward government intends for the public regarding 'fracking' - then it's a little late in coming because the Govt.'s Johnny-Come-Lately attitude about frack fluid disclosure has revealed the cracks in this government's facade concerning "full disclosure" and New Brunswickers are way ahead of the 'game' leaving their government once again, behind in their dust.

Parents Against Everyday Poisons (P.A.E.P.)
NOTE:Fracking Chemicals can cause liver, kidney and lung damage, blindness and coma.The best way for the public to gain meaningful information about the chemicals in fracking fluid is to consult the Material Safety Data Sheets.These documents contain information on toxicity, permissible exposure limits (P.E.L.'s) by the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (U.S.), dangers posed to aquatic life, first aid measures, physician advice and fire fighting protocols.
Thirty of the MSD Sheets can be viewed at:
http://public.bakerhughes.com/shalegas/additives.html?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850
Alternatively, the public can attach the words "Material Safety Data Sheet" to any chemical name they find and just"google" for the results.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Govt. Panel Tries to Shut Out Speaker for Verbatim Reading of Frack Toxin Facts from Safety Data Sheet: Hillsborough Public Consultation on Shale Gas

Note: The below article should be read in the context of the following information containing Material Safety Data Sheets: http://public.bakerhughes.com/shalegas/additives.html?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850

Shale Gas in Hillsborough, N.B. Canada.  There was a crowd of about 75 people who attended from as far away as Memramcook across the river and Fredericton - people who were incensed by what is being perpetrated against them in the name of Corporate Profit and made no bones about it.   I actually was not planning to speak at any of the Public Consultation meetings at all, but yesterday morning a friend whom I respect and admire - called to ask me if I would, and I could not turn him down.   I had no idea what I would talk about  10:00 a.m. yesterday morning as I had nothing prepared  and little time to do so, but I pulled together some research and a few comments a couple of hours before the meeting, and the gist of it - as I delivered it to the govt. panel and the public last night went something like this:

Hello, my name is Stephanie Stoneleigh and I am the Founder of Parents Against Everyday Poisons.   I started this organization several years ago and I originally studied the health effects of Fabric Softener for about 7 or 8 years.   It's amazing how - when you think you've conquered one thing a bigger and worse boogey-man appears on the scene.  And I believe that Shale Gas is the Real Boogey Man.
I'm speaking tonight as a person who has experienced first-hand the effects of chemically -induced illness.  Due to a chemical exposure some years ago I have suffered from Chronic Respiratory Problems since 2001.  Chemically-induced illness ravages its sufferers as it is often the case that it affects multiple organ systems of the body  -  I would not want anyone to have to suffer what I have suffered through in the last several years.  And I am sure this illness is not something you would want to have affect your family, your children or grandchildren.  But the risks for chemically-induced illness increase as we become more and more exposed to chemical pollutants.  And we know Shale Gas Industry utilizes a large array of chemical pollutants to frack gas wells.

So I have to wonder about my grandchildren, the children and grandchildren of New Brunswick and I worry - what kind of legacy are we leaving them?
I've obtained a List of some of the chemicals used in Fracking from a Supplier to the Frack Industry Baker-Hughes of Texas.  The Baker-Hughes List contains 46 Chemical cocktails and subsidiary list of 37 constituents of Frack Fluid.   I will direct my comments to only 2 or 3 of these chemicals.

The difference between the 46 Chemical Cocktails and the 37 constituents is that the 37 constituents are not accompanied by MSD Sheets.  The absence of such safety sheets might suggest that safety data sheets are not needed for the Constituents because they are innocuous substances, but as you will see in a moment this is not the case.

What I have here in my hand is a Material Safety Data Sheet also known as an MSDS. Now an MSDS is what we use in North America (for those of you who are not familiar) to tell us which substances are toxic, what their level of toxicicity is, and what organ systems of the body are targeted by a particular toxin because toxins tend to be attracted to particular organs in the body.   The MSD Sheet is supposed to be our  protection in North America against harm from chemicals.

I'm going to start with a Chemical Cocktail called CI-111- a corrosion inhibitor used in Frack Fluid and these are some of the facts about this "Cocktail". First of all, it's composed of three chemicals: Quaternary Ammonium Compound, Sulfur Compound and Isopropanol.  The primary routes for exposure are listed as skin, eye and lung (inhalation).  (The list of exposure effects was long so I pointed out only the first on the list and the most important:  which warned that the chemical may cause central nervous system depression or Lung Damage.)

As I continued to the section on Exposure Limits I pointed out that the LD50 was Not Available (LD stands for "Lethal Dose".  LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The LD50 is one way to measure the short-term poisoning potential (acute toxicity) of a material.)   And the PEL (Permissable Exposure Limit) for Quaternary Ammonium was also NOT AVAILABLE.  The information was simply not there (indicating at best that the substance had never been tested).  I pointed out to the Panel that the Document was incomplete and that this was the document that was supposed to supply us with the information for our protection.   Pointing out the first of what would become a litany of fatal flaws in the Material Safety Data Sheet's reliability, I then went on to discuss other important topics from the so-called "Safety Data Sheet".

For First Aid measures it was stated that, "if the victim is not breathing give artificial respiration".  (At this point, there was an audible gaffaw that arose from the crowd.)  I continued to read verbatim from the document: "Remove contaminated clothing and launder before re-use.  Remove contaminated shoes and discard.  "If breathing is difficult give oxygen.  Only Trained personnel should administer oxygen."   At this juncture I had to interrupt myself to divulge a little-known fact about Quaternary Ammonium compounds, and that is that there's a reason why this advice is given.  There are some Quats (Quaternary Ammonium Compounds) that actually damage the lungs so severely that adding oxygen to the mix merely compounds that damage because of a synergistic chemical reaction between Quats and Oxygen.   Was it a murmur or an audible hush that I heard after that revelation?  

It was at this point I believe that the Government's Moderator for the evening interrupted me telling me that there were a number of people behind me who wanted to ask questions and advising me that I could leave my research with "their people".  However, as I had not used up even a quarter of the time that had been permitted for some others to speak, I recognized this tactic as one intended to have the TRUTH shunted out the door and I would not tolerate it.  I stood my ground and continued with information that showed that even though the MSD Sheet is intended to be our protection, that the company Baker Hughes at the end of the MSD Sheet makes the following Disclaimer, and I quoted: "no warranty is expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of these data...... vendor (that is, the Seller of the CI-111) assumes no responsibility for injury to vendee or third persons (I interjected: "that would be us - the public, our families, our children and our grandchildren") ... even if reasonable safety procedures are followed."  

I then went on to talk about the Constituents List that is pain-stakingly "dressed up" in descriptions of Common Use so benign that one would think the Constituents could be added to one's morning coffee with no harm done.   I chose just one item from the "Constituents List" - Propargyl Alcohol on which to speak, starting with the fact that the PEL (permissible exposure limit) for that Constituent is 1 ppm over an eight hour time period and pointing out that the safety parameters have been based on this short space of time only.  (I noted for the benefit of the audience that the parameters established for safety of these chemicals is most usually based on an eight hour work period and testing is done for an average healthy male.) The further information on this "Constituent" revealed that it is classified as a harzardous waste by the EPA, has been placed on the Toxic Release Inventory in the States and is a reportable substance under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

I summarized thus: 
So I guess my question in all of this is "Who is going to oversee this "Constituent" of Fracking Fluids to make sure my eight year old grandson is not breathing in more than 1 ppm in an eight hour time period?

Can we reasonably expect this to be regulated?  I don't think we here in New Brunswick believe it can be done. 
At least not this Grandmother. 
My question was not a rhetorical one - but was never answered by the Govt. Panel. 





Monday, June 4, 2012

Holding Oil & Gas Industry Accountable - A Crime in Texas?


Dr. Al Armendariz (was also in the Texas portion of Gasland) was the EPA Region 6 Administrator that spoke before the citizens of DISH TX shortly after his appointment, and was discussing how he would attempt to hold the Oil and Gas Industry accountable for their actions. A video of this was made public and a brief clip of this was blown out of proportion by the oil and gas industry.  Subsequently Dr. Armendariz resigned from the EPA, and is still being forced to testify before congress, below is a campaign to show support for Dr. Armendariz. If you support what Dr. Armendariz was attempting to do, please consider participating.                


Calvin Tillman






Former Oil Industry Exec. Blowing the Whistle

» Cover Story »   Artvoice Weekly Edition » Issue v11n22 (05/31/2012) »
http://artvoice.com/ 
From the ArtVoice Website - Weekly News on the Net from Buffalo

Why is This Texan Against Fracking New York?

by Buck Quigley
James “Chip” Northrup brings his straight-shooting views to a forum at the Burchfield Penney
He looks like the kind of guy you’d get from central casting if you were trying to make a Western movie. A long, tall Texan with pioneer roots and the drawl to match, you quickly get the sense that while he believes in fairness, he is not an hombre to mess with. Then again, it’s not every cowboy who spends his younger days getting degrees from Southern Methodist University and the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. No, this dude didn’t spend windswept nights out on the range, yodeling around the campfire and tending cattle.
Like many successful Texas businessmen, James “Chip” Northrup spent a lot of time heavily involved in the fossil-fuel industry from 1986 to 2006. He currently winters in Dallas, but spends summers in Cooperstown, New York. That’s why his thoughts on the issue of high-volume, deep-well horizontal hydraulic fracturing as a way to tap natural gas in New York State carry weight. Artvoice caught up with him at his home in the Lone Star State.
“In Texas, I’m just another oil and gas investor. There are thousands of guys like me in Texas who’ve had experience in oil and gas deals. And there’s a more limited number who’ve invested in oil rigs—maybe only dozens I guess, if that,” he explains. “Most of what I did for over 20 years was invest in oil rigs. The reason why people should listen to me in New York—it’s not because I’m so brilliant—it’s because what I know, not that many people know, in New York. And the ones that know what I know are not going to tell the truth. Meaning they work for the industry. I’d defy anybody in the state of New York to say they’ve owned more oil rigs than I have.
“What sets me apart, what sets [former Mobil Oil vice president] Lou Alstadt apart, what sets [Cornell University engineer] Tony Ingraffea apart, is we know what the industry guys know—and we’re not gonna bullshit people about it. It’s a cliché, but it is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.”
Northrup points out that he’s retired from the drilling business. He sold off his last interest in a well in 2006. He doesn’t invest in drilling anymore. When you boil it all down, another reason not to frack New York, he argues, is because it doesn’t make financial sense.
“First, the financial aspect of it is there’s damn little of that stuff up there—and I’m putting it mildly—that makes any economic sense whatsoever. That’s the cold, hard fact of the thing. Secondly, I got out of the business before the EPA was fracked out of business. So everything we ever did was subject to state and federal regulations. We never drilled any horizontal wells. None of what we did was remotely as polluting as horizontally fracking shale. I wouldn’t do that in New York. I’d do it in west Texas, probably. If I was out in west Texas or New Mexico, where there are no groundwater wells, where it’s flat and remote as the desert, I might. But I certainly wouldn’t do it if I knew I was going to gas somebody.
“This is something that cannot be understated: It is just flat uneconomic to drill for shale gas in New York, and that’s not likely to change for years—well into the next decade, because of the depressed price of natural gas,” he says.
He likens much of the fracking boom to the housing bubble that precipitated the global economic crisis that led to all the bank bailouts, recession, and unemployment we are still struggling with today.
“Wall Street, et cetera, literally threw too much money at shale gas. Now, you think that’s a good thing because the price of natural gas is $1.85. This is similar to the mortgage crisis. The housing market was grossly overbuilt because money was being thrown willy-nilly at building houses and condominiums and whatnot. There was a 10-year overbuilt supply of housing, which depressed the price.
“Similarly, they drilled more wells than they knew what to do with,” he says. “The domestic natural gas market has collapsed.”
One way to get around that problem is to export it overseas. This, Northrup points out, eats away at the original arguments in favor of going ahead with fracking despite its attendant environmental damage here at home.
“The domestic market is saturated for the next 10 years. That’s why they’re trying to convert these inbound LNG [liquid natural gas] terminals to outbound—so they can export it to Europe and to Asia. So this whole business about ‘We’re gonna drill, baby, drill’ to be energy independent—in a sense, that mission is accomplished, at least, vis-à-vis natural gas. So now, we’re gonna have to ‘Sell, baby, sell’ to the Chinese. There’s a real irony there, because the pollution and the problems are created locally, but the commodity goes overseas—and cheap. There’s nothing patriotic about it. They tried to wrap it in the flag early on, but there’s no glory in selling this stuff to the Europeans.”
It’s going to be a job creator for New York—that’s another big argument for lifting the ban on fracking here. Northrup sets the record straight about that:
“The whole thing is a carny deal. A rig is a carny worksite. When the rig moves, the camp moves. They all go with the rig. They set the tent up, they have the carnival, they take the tent down and go to the next town. I tell people, look, even in Texas, if you got hired to work on a rig in Texas, the first thing you’d do is you’d leave town. You don’t stay in your own town. The rig doesn’t stay in town—it moves. If you’re lucky, you wind up in the North Sea, or the Bay of Campeche, or the South China Sea. And with the glut of gas, there’s no reason to train a crew in New York State. If you’re gonna explore for gas with wildcat wells, you’re gonna bring experienced crews in from out of state.”
Viewed through Northrup’s experienced eyes, it’s difficult to see how lifting the moratorium on horizontal fracking would be a good move for New York. What does he think about the recent bills introduced by Republican State Senator Mark Grisanti—who is also the chair of the Senate’s environmental committee—which claim to insert regulations that would make fracking safe here?
“The ones that go through that relate to fracking will be trivial,” he says. “I think that what Grisanti is doing is playing this little marginal game of incremental regs that won’t mean much. And frankly, the wording on some of this stuff is pretty flawed on top of that. He’s just beating around the bush with that stuff.”
Part of the problem Northrup sees is that New York legislators, in general, have little understanding of the technology involved in fracking. This sets them up to be the rubes at the carnival—the same as many of us in the economically pinched Empire State—where the idea of a gas boom gives some folks visions of the Beverly Hillbillies. Even a lot of the anti-frackers would be hard-pressed to speak intelligently on the subject for any length of time.
“[The legislators] are basically dependent on people who are paid liars,” he says. “Lawyers turned lobbyists. PR guys turned lobbyists. Whatever. Ex-government employees…now basically paid to lie. Unfortunately, on the other side, I get these environmentalists that really don’t know entirely what they’re talking about. They know they just don’t like it. And there’s no in-between.”
What’s Northrup’s advice for New Yorkers?
“He doesn’t seem like a bad guy, really, but I think they’re gonna have to get rid of Grisanti, because the Democrats are gonna have to get control of that State Senate,” he says.
But what about Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo? He hasn’t exactly come out as being against fracking.
“I think Cuomo got sold a bill of goods. He bought it. And I think he really thought that it was gonna be the great economic boon for a depressed part of the state. And the DEC could deal with the environmental issues. I think he wanted to buy it because obviously it would make him look good if it worked. But the people who bet on this being an economic boon for the state bet wrong. They got it wrong. They were extrapolating out of Pennsylvania—and it stopped. We have to call them out on that. We have to say, ‘Look, you were for it because you thought it was gonna be a lot of jobs and a lot of money. Now what are you gonna do? Now why are you for it? There’s no jobs, there’s no tax money. Why? Tell me.’
“That’s what it’s come down to. There’s no fracking rush. If there ever was one, there is now no rush to do this in New York State. They have years to prepare for this. The drillers say, ‘We’ve waited long enough.’ Well, sorry. There’s certainly no reason to do it now.”
Won’t the outcry then be that New York is unfriendly to business?
“They’re so silly. Nobody is buying the leases that were for sale in Otsego County. The leases that were for sale in Chenango County, nobody will buy them. The leases that were for sale in were for sale in Tioga County, nobody will buy them. And it’s not because of Cuomo. It’s because there is no economic reason for them to come buy those leases. It’s like, ‘We have all that we can handle in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana…thanks a lot, fellas, we’ll call you back in five years.’
“That’s the reality of the situation. It’s got nothing to do with the DEC or anything else. They could issue permits tomorrow, and those leases would still be worth nothing. The mineral rights owners themselves know that this is dead, but the PR guys won’t admit it. And the politicians who’ve supported this will not admit it. They will not admit that it’s dead.”
Online
Visit Northrup’s blogs at blog.shaleshockmedia.org and www.scribd.com/northrup49 to get a fuller sense of his take on fracking in New York State. You can also hear more of Northrup’s straight-shooting views when he speaks in person this Saturday, June 2, at A People’s Hearing on Fracking. Click here for details.
So what is the motivation for the PR machine to continue the push to frack? According to Northrup:
“The more hastily the regulations are written, the worse they’re going to be. It helps them for the DEC to do this in haste. What they are spending on PR in New York is trivial compared to what they are making nationally. It always amazes me that they hire these local PR types to be their spokesman. When you look at who these people are—they have no oil and gas experience. I was supposed to debate Chesapeake’s PR guy in Dryden. I say I was supposed to because I showed up and he didn’t. I read his bio on the way over to the debate and it was a guy who’d worked in the planning department in the city of Binghamton. He didn’t know a damn thing about the gas business. But he was a local, and he could go through the spiel.
“It’s not that much money. They basically bought governor Corbett in Pennsylvania for about $600,000. PR and lobbying is by far the best return on investment the industry has. Think about what they bought in Pennsylvania. There’s no government severance tax. There’s no state production tax. So for whatever they spent they avoided tens of millions of dollars in tax, which they have to pay in every other state.”

search engine optimization services