HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180408.tiffEsther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Maydean Worley <mamworl@gmail.com>
Friday, February 2, 2018 2:31 PM
Esther Gesick
County Council
for distribution to Weld Commissioners and Weld County
Measure BenzeneAJ Damn It! (3).pdf
REchIVtU
FEB 022018
WELD COUNTY
Cc OMMISSIONERS
Benzene can better be detected at ground level.
Windsor residents were exposed to high levels of benzene hours before the explosion. However, they weren't evacuated
until the explosion occurred.
I'll bet the COGCC has no benzene detecters like the one discussed in the document below. If I had the money I'd buy
this equipment and start testing the air near the ground around well pads in Greeley and Windsor. The kit looks easy
enough to use and produces instant results. I'd want special gas mask though.
Since the county has limited personnel, the county could form a committee of residents to take these measurements.
If Weld County doesn't have but will purchase two kits, county personnel could train residents to test for Benzene and
sulfur dioxide.
I also worry that children near the Vetting/Bella well pad will experience these benzene releases and perhaps sulfur
dioxide releases.
Sorry about the language added to the .pdf title. I'm sure commissioners and councillors have heard worse.' didn't write
the .pdf below and whoever did wanted to remain anonymous —must be someone whose job could be at risk.
C,ryr►nvnu U cL LoKS
t%
1
2018-0408
Measure Benzene, Damn It!
On Dec 22, 2017 an inexperienced worker apparently manually overrode a mechanism that
had shut down a new well's production in Windsor, CO, due, perhaps, to a pressure upset
(unexpected, uncontrolled pressure from a Track hit' communication with a nearby well's
drilling/fracking operation). A subsequent leak of toxic, explosive gases lasted for hours before
a pad -wide explosion was finally triggered possibly by an on -site electrical generator (1). An
ongoing atmospheric inversion abetted creep of leaked methane into residential areas, as it did
in Cleveland, OH where it exploded, destroying a square mile of structure (2). Windsor dodged
that bullet.
According to scientific monitoring near Boulder, CO, a very unusual benzene data spike on
that date registered about 1 ppb (part per billion). Likely from the Windsor explosion, the
benzene release, having undergone 40 miles of dispersion, must have been much higher at its
source, perhaps at the ppm (parts per million) level. Toxic and explosive concentrations were
likely getting high enough near the well site that compulsory evacuation of residents and toxic
chemical warnings were warranted. No measurements of benzene releases were made,
however, in the Windsor area, and no general warnings were issued.
An oil -well map from the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission gas Commission (COGCC)
was used by Boulder scientists to identify possible sources for their unexplained large spikes in
VOC (volatile organic compound) data. The map showed the Wattenberg (core part of the D J
Oil Basin) as a nearly solid brown blot due to proximity -overlap of old, largely depleted
wells. Perhaps the indeterminacy of this map is why the explosion's release location, almost
certainly from the point source of Windsor's Stromberger well # 7 explosion, became only
vaguely characterized by Boulder's monitoring as merely "from the NE" (3). Later, after an
alert from a Windsor resident, a possible connection of the Boulder data spike to the Windsor
explosion became plausible.
Not that many big, large footprint, "new -efficiency" well pads (longer laterals and more
frack stages) yet exist. Familiarity with their locations and fugitive emission levels could better
connect researchers to specific release locations and yield much improved health and safety
assessments.
As long as the nature of major, toxic oil -patch releases remain vague, cause and effect
connections will never be solidly made. Investigators might want to avoid oil's considerable
pushback on culpability, thus seek the same -old, accommodating research renewals. Needed
links between observed, oil -related data spikes and point -source releases could be made
functionally clear, with government support. Researchers' reservations, as in, "I cannot specify
the cause", could be overcome.
We, who are suffering in health from big -pad benzene releases and their lack of adequate
scientific assessment, are only secondarily concerned about a climate (i.e. methane) emphasis in
research or how it might be funded. The people need research conclusions that are benzene -
specific enough to prompt actions and prevent further poisonings.
But alas, narrow academic achievement and a public relations focus by our state agencies,
not public safety and general welfare, remain operative. Accordingly, benzene research can not
be expected. The people's case in Colorado also suffers from a seeming pro-fracking bias from
the state's corporately controlled media. Only a few weekly papers have dared to take a
people's perspective. No wonder Colorado's official research on fracking's harms runs contrary
to the larger body of peer -reviewed findings; for example, those documented by the New York
Compendium (4th edition) (4).
An important example of local, misleading research follows: In Colorado State University's
(CSU's) `Collett Study' of 2016 (5), CSU scientists partnered with Operators Encana,
Anadarko, PDC, and Noble, and with the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE). From known emission rates of an acetylene tracer in a Gaussian
dispersion model, concentrations of oil -pad VOC releases were inferred. The study is based on
the assumption that VOC emission rates will be proportional to their concentrations upon
collection for measurement. Collection was done by canister at distances ranging from about
100 feet to a half mile and at heights of 3m to 10 m, during various stages of the pad's
production cycle.
Canisters samplings were taken at different times and distances within the tracer -identified
emissions plume. Canister contents were transported to a lab and there analyzed by gas
chromatography. Acetylene was chosen as the tracer (to establish emission rates) because it's
molecular weight is similar to that of methane (being both predominant in the plume and of
particular interest because experimentally `well-behaved'). Benzene, by contrast, is unique
among the VOCs in that it dissolves in water, thus can hide in liquids under small pressures,
then chronically volatilize later.
The Collett Study's experimental protocol could legitimately infer concentrations of the
lighter VOCs such as methane. Being lighter than air, they would rise and waft on air
currents thus behave similarly to the acetylene tracer. This protocol would not be suitable,
however, for measuring the heavier VOCs such as benzene. The heavier-than-air VOCs
would tend to separate from the methane plume, cling low to the ground, and seek out ever
lower places, finally pooling at the lowest reach of topography. This would create a plume
anomaly and likely result in significant differences between modeled and observed
concentrations.
Deployment of a benzene -friendly tracer (one near its molecular weight) would still be
problematic because the study's Gaussian (bell curve) dispersion model works only for the
lighter VOCs. As already noted, heavier benzene will pool at lowest available locations,
instead of wafting in a dispersion plume. Put simply, since benzene concentrations can only
be properly collected for measurement at pooled locations, they are being improperly
represented by the Collett Study: the heavier VOCs are not proportional to their emission
rates, thus in violation of the fundamental premise of the study's model.
No wonder the study's benzene findings are only in parts per billion for all pad operations.
Such low concentrations are inconsistent with other studies which found benzene levels 1000
times greater, or in ppm (parts per million). For example, see Macy's finding of benzene at
34 ppm (6) and Rich's at 3 ppm (7). Also, ground -clinging benzene cannot be accurately
measured at tower heights. Tower measured benzene levels, which will typically be at
health -innocuous concentrations, have sometimes whitewashed industry harms, as in the Erie,
CO study. If it were true that benzene releases at pad operations have never reached ppm
levels, as official studies are claiming, tower measurements at Boulder could never have
detected plume -aversive benzene, still at about 1 ppb, after traveling 40 miles from Windsor's
well explosion.
Also canister integrity is an issue. Might canister tampering by industry personnel be an
uncontrolled variable? Can canister integrity be maintained during shipment to and from
measurement labs? Is the lab's chromatography well calibrated? On this issue, consider
Accutest labs, the testing firm currently employed by the COGCC. Accutest has been sued,
multiple times, for violating scientifically established testing protocols (including calibration
errors), but have settled by issuing payouts in the millions (no fault agreements) (8). Their
current lab testing serves mainly corporations and governments.
Other issues: Did industry personnel operate the plume tracker? Who collected the
canisters? Why were the `flowback' samples, most suspect of high benzene concentrations,
only taken after the well completion's return stream had been turned into closed tanks and
emission control devices had been activated? Would data collectors know if they were being
lied to about operational conditions? Were benzene concentrations ever measured directly as
a check on the Study's instrumental integrity?
Given the Collett Study's shortcomings, why not measure benzene concentrations
directly? This can be done quickly, accurately, easily, and during relevant site emissions
with a simple, inexpensive, hand held device called a Dreagger tube. After all, benzene
poisoning is the health issue here. It is super toxic (9). Methane is nontoxic. If health were
truly a primary concern, direct knowledge of benzene emissions would be paramount.
Legitimate investigators would not be using inferential protocols geared to methane.
Of course, studies of fracking's contribution to climate change from fugitive methane are
highly useful. Nevertheless, Colorado Universities and the CDPHE should have direct
measurement programs that specifically address fracking's immediate health, safety, and
welfare consequences. And, that means a special focus on benzene concentrations.
Health and safety concerns, revitalized in response to a number of recent, major toxic
releases and fatalities, are now a vital issue for Coloradoans. There is a publicly perceived
negligence at the COGCC and CDPHE. Unfortunately, Colorado's agencies are responding
only defensively, for example, even invoking new rules (COGCC) to further limit public
input.
NOTES
1. Interim COGCC inspection reports and Operator accounts.
2. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/natural-gas-explosions-rock-cleveland
3. Research presentation by Detlev Helmig of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
(INSTAAR): http://video.ucar.edu/mms/acom/2018/d helmig.mp4
4. http://www.psr.org/resources/fracking-compendium.html?referrer=android-
app://com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox
5. Jeffery L Collett, Jr: "North Front Range Oil and Gas Air Pollutant Emission and
Dispersion Study", CSU Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Sept 15, 2016.
collett@atmos.colostate.edu
6. Macey, et al. "Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a
community -based exploratory study." Environ health 2014; 13:82.
7. Rich AL, "Elevated atmospheric levels of benzene and benzene -related compounds from
unconventional shale extraction and processing: human health concern for residential
communities. Eviron Health Insights 2016; 10:75.
8. http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2014/2014-05-27-alpha-
accutest-spectrum-con-test-settlements.html and
accutest_ final_ executed _settlement_agreement.pdf
9. Benzene exposure has been linked to: Cancer, anemia, low birth weight, delayed bone
formation, nervous system depression, skin disorders, and inhalation injuries. No benzene
exposure, at any level, is safe.
Hello