2 17 14 Work Session Materials_ESAC Hydraulic Fracturing ReportMasterpiece on the Mississippi
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing
DATE: February 11, 2014
Dubuque
kitgal
AI- AmericaCi4
1I !,
2007 • 2012 • 2013
INTRODUCTION
At their November 18, 2013 meeting, the City Council directed the Environmental
Stewardship Advisory Commission (ESAC) to provide information on the impacts of
hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Hydraulic fracturing is a method of extracting natural
gas from the ground, and has been noted as an internationally controversial method
that has led to increased availability and decreased costs for natural gas as a fuel
source in the United States in recent years.
The City Public Works department currently has one pick -up truck retrofitted to
demonstrate using compressed natural gas (CNG); this conversion was funded by
Black Hills Energy. The Refuse Collection vehicles are fueled with biodiesel. One
public fueling stations exist in Dubuque, at the Kwik Stop station on East 16th Street.
Other stations are being planned to open. During the FY2015 budget process, the City
Council will decide if the City will be investing in CNG- fueled vehicles in the future.
It should be noted that in addition to fueling stations that draw from a natural gas
pipeline, such as those listed above, additional opportunities for fuel sources do exist.
Two potential examples include the methane derived from the Water & Resource
Recovery Center and from the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency. In
order for either of those options to be considered, further information about costs of
fueling station construction and other variables would need to be considered.
In addition to conducting their own review of credible, objective information regarding
hydraulic fracturing to prepare this paper, The ESAC collected public input. Two public
input sessions were held on January 23 and 24, 2014. The opportunity to provide
information electronically was also available to the public. The primary purpose of the
public input sessions was to gather additional credible information regarding hydraulic
fracturing. However, individuals were also able to provide their opinions or other
information they wanted to share. (See Appendix 1, Public Comments)
DISCUSSION
1. What is Hydraulic Fracturing?
Fracking is the common name used for hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas extraction
technique. Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract oil and gas resources that are
otherwise difficult to get out of the ground. In short, hydraulic fracturing uses high
pressures (15,000 ps.) to crack underground oil /gas- bearing rocks. Then water, sand,
detergents, and other potentially toxic chemicals are pumped at high pressure into a
well which targets the rock formation. The sand is used to help hold the fractures open
and the chemicals help the gas and oil come out of the rock. Many of the shale gas
resources in the United States have been known to exist for many years, but the way
they sit in the ground and the type of rock they are in made it difficult to remove the oil
and gas. Recently improved drilling and fracking techniques have allowed it to be
economically feasible to extract that resource. (USEIA, 2012) Hydraulic fracturing is
exempt from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and
most other Pollution Prevention Federal laws.
a. Geographical impacts of hydraulic fracturing
Most United States fracking occurs in three different regions for two different types of
gas recovery. In the Eastern U.S., in Ohio and especially Pennsylvania, fracking is
being used largely to recover hard to get material from old oil fields. In the Northern
Plains region of the United States, fracking is being used to get oil and gas from the
Bakken oil shale formation. The gas from this formation is mostly being flared off rather
than captured as an energy source. There is also increasing interest in the Texas
region to expand hydraulic operations. There are an estimated 80,000 wells in the US
used for hydraulic fracturing.
b. Frac Sand Mining
Some of the best frac sand mine potential in the US is located in Northeast Iowa, West
and Central Wisconsin, and South and East Minnesota (WIDNR, 2012). In Iowa there is
a frac sand mine in Clayton County, with some interest in development of other frac
sand minds in that region (Libia, 2013), including Almakee County. Voter approved frac
sand mining moratoriums are currently in almost all of these areas.
2. Opportunities and impacts associated with fracking.
The topic of hydraulic fracturing has strong opponent and proponents. There are
economic and environmental benefits to using the gas extracted via hydraulic fracturing
and economic, environmental, and social impacts. The information in this report
attempts to present both the opportunities and negative impacts associated with
fracking in an objective and researched way.
The hydraulic fracturing industry has grown significantly in recent years as the U.S.
focuses on energy independence, cheaper fuel sources, and cleaner- burning fuels.
Hydraulic fracturing increases the extraction of oil and natural gas from unconventional
sources. The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) estimates that
hydraulic fracturing is used to stimulate production in 90% of domestic oil and gas wells.
Shale and other unconventional gas recovery utilizes high - volume hydraulic fracturing to
2
a much greater extent than conventional gas development does. Horizontal wells,
which may extend two miles from the well pad, are estimated to be two to three times
more productive than conventional vertical wells, and see an even greater increase in
production from hydraulic fracturing. One alternative to hydraulic fracturing is to drill
more wells in an area, a solution that is often economically or geographically prohibitive.
(Jackson, RB 2011) Proponents of hydraulic fracturing claim it has no or very minimal
negative environmental impacts while it greatly increases the amount of oil and gas we
can extract from the ground.
Opponents claim that hydraulic fracturing creates massive negative environmental
impacts that greatly offset any gains in energy independence, opponents also claim the
impacts cited outweigh economic benefits because natural gas is currently significantly
cheaper than coal or oil, and environmental benefits because natural gas is a cleaner
burning fuel source than traditional coal or oil (not necessarily of biodiesel). Some other
issues pointed out by opponents are that hydraulic fracturing creates few jobs, has
human health impacts for people and animals living near areas where fracking happens,
and often affects land values and causes some to move away from their homes due to
pollution concerns.
2.1.1 Green House Gas (GHG) emissions
Use of natural gas has increased quickly as a cleaner burning alternative to oil or coal
use. No matter what the other environmental impacts are, use of oil and gas still has
impacts on the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the cause of the most
human activity - related global warming (NRC, 2013). Some Iowa - centric examples
include ethanol, biodiesel, solar, and wind. All of these technologies are becoming
mature and are increasingly cost effective. Some biofuels in development and current
bio- diesel blends and electric vehicles have fewer impacts on climate change than CNG
using 100 year calculations. However, 20 year calculations indicate CNG has less
climate impact. (Clean Air Task Force Report, 2012)
The IPCC reported in 2013 that new methane released into the atmosphere is 86 times
more potent than CO2 in the initial 20 -year timeframe. Newer fracked gas wells have
lower percentages of fugitive methane emissions. However, a large number of older
fracked gas wells have significantly higher emissions. (NRC, 2013)
In April 2012, the EPA issued the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are
hydraulically fractured. These rules are designed to reduce annual emission reductions
in VOC's, air toxics and methane. The regulations are predicted to reduce methane by
1 -1.7 million short tons, or 19 -33 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
2.1.2 Groundwater contamination.
a. At well site. One major environmental concern of hydraulic fracturing is its impact on
groundwater resources. While there is much anecdotal information about impacts on
drinking water wells, including contamination, the impacts of oil and gas drilling from
hydraulic fracturing on both groundwater and surface water are just beginning to be
published. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has initiated studies to look
3
more closely at the impacts (USGS, 2012). Groundwater issues from hydraulic
fracturing are likely dependent both on the care taken to drill and manage wells and on
local geology. Routes of introduction of contaminants into groundwater include:
improper well installation, well casing cracks, improperly closed old wells, migration
through preexisting rock cracks, and creation of more cracks in the rock from fracturing.
Simply, hydraulic fracturing involves pumping water with chemical mixtures into the
ground under high pressures so that they can crack rock and, in many areas, those
chemicals work their way through newly created and already existing cracks in the rocks
and eventually make their way to groundwater. Instances of groundwater quality
degrading, and in some cases becoming undrinkable or causing severe health
problems, have been reported (Fitzgerald, 2013).
b. Disposal of fracturing fluid. Significant concern also exists with disposal of the
fracturing fluid as a potential ground water contaminate and air pollution source, and a
serious risk concern is transportation of the fluid to disposal sites. The disposal of the
water - chemical mixture typically occurs through conventional waste water treatment
methods such as site evaporation from storage, use as a brine solution for treating
roads for ice in the winter, recycling or transportation to off -site injection into wells for
deep underground permanent disposal. Traditional waste water treatment plants
cannot remove many of the pollutants before releasing effluent to receiving surface
waters. (USEPA)
Approximately 44 million Americans rely on a private water supply for household and
agricultural use, typically sourced from shallow aquifers. In areas of extensive shale
gas drilling, some homeowners have claimed that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated
their drinking -water wells with methane and waste waters. (Jackson, RB 2011) EPA is
doing extensive research and evaluation on drinking water. See Appendix 2, "Study of
the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress
Report."
Methane is not regulated in drinking water by the EPA drinking water standards.
Methane in water is a safety hazard; it can cause asphyxiation or explosive hazards in
confined spaces when it migrates from water into the air. (Jackson, RB 2011)
2.1.3 Surface Water
Concerns exist both regarding the large quantity of water that is used during the
hydraulic fracturing process and in the potential quality impacts on surface water.
Hydraulic fracturing requires between two and five million gallons of water per well, up
to 100 times more than traditional extraction methods. Surface water concerns are also
due to the way chemicals are handled during well site construction, but can also come
from post - fracking contaminated ground water sources that feed surface water. One
third of the water used comes out of the well at the end of the process and needs to be
disposed of safely. (UCS, 2014) and (Schumacher, J and Morrissey, J; 2013)
The chemical mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing vary depending on the local geology
and are proprietary formulas, so a complete list of the chemicals used is neither
4
available nor required. (USGS, 2012: Fitzgerald, 2013) Companies claim they are
"trade secrets ", and these proprietary formulas are currently excluded from the Clean
Air, Clean Water and Right to Know Acts under an exclusion referred to as the
Haliburton Exclusion. Although industry lists most chemicals used, any unknown
information may put first responders and medical professionals in a compromised
position when responding to potential accidents and illness. Chemicals typically include
friction reducers, surfactants, gelling agents, scale inhibitors, acids, corrosion inhibitors,
antibacterial agents and clay stabilizers (Jackson, R.B., 2011)
2.1.4 Humane Health Effects
People living within a half -mile of oil and gas well fracking operations were exposed to
air pollutants five times above a federal hazard standard, according to a 2012 University
of Colorado- Denver School of Public Health study.
In a study published in January 2014, "an association between density and proximity of
natural gas wells within a 10 -mile radius of maternal residence and prevelance of
congenital heart defects and natural gas development." Although not conclusive, the
study and other researched health effect associations indicate a need for further study
and research in air quality and hormone disrupters for human health effects. (C.
McKenzie, R. Guo, R. Witter, et al 2014)
2.1.5 Earthquakes
There is recent evidence that suggest injection wells can cause local earthquakes
(Ellsworth, 2013). These earthquakes tend to be very small, with magnitudes below
two, but there is some concern that because hydraulic fracturing typically happens
deeper in the crust than most human activities that cause earthquakes, there may be a
risk of larger earthquakes.
2.2 Economic impacts from hydraulic fracturing
Just like other fossil fuel resources, the natural gas resources currently being mined will
not last forever. However, the current estimates, although uncertain, suggest that there
are at least several decades worth of natural gas resources (USEIA, 2012; Fitzgerald,
2013).
3. Non -Well Site Implications
3.1 Frac Sand Mining
The industry also impacts parts of Iowa due to Frac sand mining, which has created its
own set of controversies. The environmental concerns from these mines mainly are
related to health impacts from particulate matter in the air around the mines (small air -
born silica sand grains), various pollutants from equipment and sand processing in the
mines, damage to roads from transporting the sand, noise, loss of property values near
mines and degradation of roads connecting to transfer facilities, and general
environmental degradation. Demand for this specifically -sized sand preferred by
hydraulic fracturing companies has thus greatly increased along with the increase in
fracking. (WIDNR, 2012)
5
3.2 Transportation (truck, rail, pipeline)
Truck and train accidents have occurred while shipping oil and gas. Pipelines are also
have risks from leaks. Other transportation issues are primary related to air quality,
whether it is from transporting frac sand, or all of the issues involved in transporting the
gas and its used waters from extraction.
CONCLUSION
Many of the above - discussed environmental hazards are a product of the rapid
development of this industry, and recent trends in improved safety indicate that many
problems could be avoided or reduced in the future. Technology has evolved quickly in
this industry and regulations, research and monitoring has not yet caught up to it,
leaving private companies to determine their own processes and procedures. In our
review of the available research data and public input of credible information, and
multiple studies that were currently underway the ESAC found, indicating that a delay in
any decisions made regarding fracking may be prudent.
6
References
Clean Air Task Force, Strategic Environmental Consulting, 2012.
Ellsworth, W.L. 2013. Injection- induced earthquakes. Science. 341:1225942
Fitzgerald, T. 2013. Frackonomics: Some economics of hydraulic fracturing. Case
Western Law Review. 63:1337 -1362.
Jackson RB, B Rainey Pearson, SG Osborn, NR Warner, Avengosh 2011 Research
and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale -Gas Extraction.
Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Libra, RD 2013. Annual Report of the State Geologist. Iowa Geological and Water
Survey, Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
McKenzie, L; Guo, R; Witter, R; et al 2014. Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential
Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306722.
US Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2012. What is shale gas and why is it
important? http: / /www.eia.gov /energy in brief /article /about shale gas.cfm (accessed
on 2014- 01 -03).
USGS. 2012. Water quality studied in areas of unconventional oil and gas
development, including areas where hydraulic fracking techniques are used in the
United States. Fact Sheet 2012 -3049.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (VVIDNR). 2012. Silica sand mining in
Wisconsin. http: / /dnr.wi.gov /topic / Mines / documents /SilicaSandMininiFinal.pdf
National Research Council Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels.
2013. Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels. National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). How it Works: Water for Natural Gas.
http: / /www. ucsusa.org /clean_energy /ou r -e ne rgy-cho ices/e nergy-a nd- water - use /water-
energy- electricity - natural- gas.html (accessed on: Feb. 8, 2014)
Schumacher, J. and J. Morrissey. 2013. The legal landscape of "fracking ": The oil and
gas industry's game- changing technique is its biggest hurdle. Texas Review of Law &
Politics. 17:239 -303.
7
APPENDIX 1
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Please identify any incorrect information on draft report. Include why it is
incorrect.
• I don't see economic benefits in fracking, when the environmental impacts far
outweigh them.
• Additional information will be submitted prior to February 2.
• I am no expert on fracking, but I see no significant mistakes. One thing that I do
greatly dislike, however, is when a report that was prepared on Jan. 17th refers
in the past tense to public input sessions being held on Jan. 23rd and 24th. The
wording of the document makes it seem as though the results of these sessions
are a negligible formality only. I hope that this sentiment is not, in fact, reflective
of the feelings of the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission.
• Supplemental Information on Hydraulic Fracturing Before the Dubuque
Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission January 31, 2014 Chairman
Buelow and members of the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer additional information to the Commission to
supplement the formal written comments you have received regarding your
interest about hydraulic fracturing, and the potential expanded use of natural gas
for fueling the City's fleet. Black Hills Energy respectfully believes that the
Commission's draft report contains inaccurate information about fracking, lacks
sufficient detail about the comprehensive regulation of the fracking process and
its exceptional safety and environmental record. We have attempted to offer
additional information to address many of those statements of concern and
believe that a comprehensive review of this issue would determine it is in the
City's best interests to strongly consider moving forward with the expanded use
of natural gas to fuel its fleet. ESAC Draft Report & Discussion Questions 1.
What is Hydraulic Fracturing? The draft report provides some general
background about the fundamental process of hydraulic fracturing, but does not
mention that it has been regular practiced by the oil and natural gas industry for
more than sixty years in the U.S. Hydraulic fracturing has become a routine
industry activity across the country with a consistent track record of safety. A
detailed explanation of the hydraulic fracturing process was included in our
original comments. The background section also seems to imply that the practice
is not subject to federal law by listing several laws which do not regulate the
practice. This might lead to a conclusion that the practice is not regulated, which
is inaccurate. In addition to extensive and ongoing EPA review, there are
comprehensive federal laws and regulations, in combination with state
regulations and local laws to address every aspect of exploration and production
operations, including hydraulic fracturing. Further, state and local regulation is
the most appropriate government oversight, as each oil and gas producing state
employs highly trained and educated personnel in their oil and gas regulatory
agencies to effectively regulate oil and gas exploration and production. State
governments are best equipped to monitor issues and determine the appropriate
responses for their jurisdiction. States have demonstrated that their regulations,
processes and enforcement are comprehensive and have shown an exemplary
safety record for more than sixty years. This section goes on to state that there
are an estimated 80,000 wells in the U.S., but in fact there are more than 1.2
million oil and gas wells throughout the United States that have been developed
using this technique since the late 1940s. In 2009, it was reported there were
more than 500,000 active wells, with over 90% of those wells being fractured. 2.
Opportunities and Impacts associated with fracking The report cites that
opponents of (racking claim this process "creates massive negative
environmental impacts" which is not supported. There is insufficient evidence
presented within this report to conclude these negative environmental impacts,
and many of the topics listed in the report of environmental concern do not tie
back directly to hydraulic fracturing. Further, those claims do not take into
account the net environmental benefits from replacing competing energy sources
that natural gas replaces. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, U.S. carbon emissions
are at twenty -year lows. The same section states that there might be economic
benefits, but "hydraulic fracturing creates few jobs." The jobs and positive net
economic impact created with the increased usage of natural gas cannot be
understated. Production of natural gas through shale gas supports 600,000 jobs
in 2010 in the U.S. rising to 870,000 by next year, paired with a positive impact of
$118 billion by next year. These statistics do not even consider the indirect
economic impact. Additionally, natural gas usage is directly responsible for or
has a role in virtually every good and service that is consumed in our country and
their associated price. Finally, everyone who uses natural gas can witness the
economic benefit, as the average U.S. family saves $900 annually thanks to
hydraulic fracturing. Section 2.2 finally implies that supplies of natural gas cannot
last, or there may be "at least several decades' worth of natural gas resources."
However, most current estimates predict that the U.S. has a century's worth of
reserves providing the City with a long -term viable option for fleet fueling. 3. Non -
Well Site Implications The final section of this draft report discusses issues
related to sand mining and transportation. While those issues are indirectly
related to the larger topic of hydraulic fracturing, those issues would certainly
continue to evolve regardless of the budget decision before the City Council. The
section also reports that many studies are underway, and therefore "a delay in
any decisions made regarding this topic may be prudent." Black Hills would
respectfully disagree with that assessment as studies are continually and
regularly a part of the ongoing process and governmental framework. These and
other studies, current and any future regulations, and greater education of the
public at large will continue to help educate the public on the benefits of hydraulic
fracturing. There have already been numerous studies completed on the subject.
CNG Vehicles There is currently a large wave of activity across the country
associated with the growth of CNG vehicles. Communities of all sizes have been
joining this wave with demonstrated benefits. While the economic advantages
are clear, these vehicles also benefit the environment by having fewer emissions
than conventional vehicles. This committee has also heard commentary about
the option of biodiesel as another option to consider. ESAC should also consider:
1. Biodiesel engines require special handling in cold weather (additives are
available to keep biodiesel fuel from gelling). 2. Biodiesel fuel has the tendency
to absorb atmospheric water if not used right away, so cars that tends to sit and
not be used for long periods may have issues with this. 3. Biodiesel is 20 times
more susceptible to water contamination compared to standard diesel, and this
could lead to corrosion, rotten filters, pitting in the pistons, etc. 4. Biodiesel
engines have a tendency to deteriorate any "non- synthetic" (rubbers) in your fuel
system parts in some engines (lines, seals, etc). 5. Biodiesels produce less
energy than diesel engines so you may not have as much pulling power as you
would like. (approximately 11% less compared to a standard petroleum diesel) 6.
Biodiesel fuel is about one and a half times more expensive than petroleum
diesel fuel. 7. Biodiesel cleans the dirt from the engine, this dirt can then get
collected in the fuel filter, thus clogging it. So, filters have to be changed after the
first several hours of biodiesel use. 8. Biodiesel fuel distribution infrastructure
needs improvement and investment. 9. Biodiesel can release nitrogen oxide
which can lead to the formation of smog. 10. Biodiesel, despite emitting
significantly less harmful carbon emission compared to standard diesel, still
somewhat contributes to global warming and climate change. Conclusion
Hydraulic fracturing has certainly become a topic moving to the forefront of the
energy industry and garnering additional public input. Whether it is President
Obama touting the benefits to the country in last week's State of the Union
Address or other government officials, hydraulic fracturing has led to the greatest
economic boom to our country in the last decade. The positive impacts to our
economy and environment are well established through numerous studies. There
are certainly concerns that have evolved, and the industry will continue to work
tirelessly to continue increase education of the public on the subject. The subject
of hydraulic fracturing will continue to evolve in the coming years, but the benefits
to the City and its constituents are in front of you today. This is the same natural
gas already being used to heat our homes and benefit business interests across
Iowa and the country. The infrastructure needed for fueling stations already
exists locally as well, ending the "chicken or the egg" challenge of CNG
development in some areas. If the City were to approve the budget with the
inclusion of fleet upgrades, the City would lower their carbon footprint and help
the environment, as well as lower fueling costs and save tax revenue. Black Hills
Energy is committed to continuing to work with ESAC as well as the City to
address any concerns that might still exist, but believe this proposal of upgrading
the City's fleet is a positive net benefit. Thank you for the opportunity to offer
comments throughout this process. Respectfully submitted, Justin Jones Black
Hills Energy For more additional information about the various aspects of
hydraulic fracturing, please refer to the following informational sources: • The
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission ( "IOGCC ") at:
http: / /www.iogcc.state.ok.us /, is a multi -state government agency that supports
the conservation and efficient recovery of oil and natural gas resources, while
protecting health, safety and the environment. • Coloradans for Responsible
Energy Development: http: / /www.cred.org • Interstate Oil & Gas Compact
Commission: http: / /www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ • FracFocus Chemical Disclosure
Registry: http: / /fracfocus.org/ • Energy In Depth: http: / /energyindepth.org/ •
http: / /energyindepth.org /national /shale- exempt- from - federal - laws -um- not -even-
close/ • Energy Tomorrow: http: / /www.energytomorrow.org /energy- 101 /hydraulic-
fracturing •
http: / /water.epa.gov/ type / groundwater /uic /class2 /hydraulicfracturinci/wells hydror
eq.cfm
• Nothing is particularly "incorrect;" however, the report does have a tendency to
take supported facts, "injection wells can cause {small} local earthquakes ", and
extrapolate into hyperbole, "there may be a risk of larger earthquakes." There are
also a number of places in the report where facts about dangers of fracking
methods and risks of oil and gas transport are represented, but these don't
necessarily connect to a direct cause of natural gas production.
• I am attaching a document with suggested changes to more clearly communicate
objective unbiased information - in my opinion. I am willing to answer any
questions as to why I suggested such changes in language. this form does not
accept tracked changes in the document. I will email my tracked changes
document to Cori, Mary Rose, Julie and Chad.
• "Hydraulic Fracturing is exempt from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and
most other Pollution Prevention Federal Laws. " - Clarify that fracturing is exempt
from all EPA regulations, i.e., "Halliburtan Loophole"
• Section 2.1.3 Groundwater Contamination- Groundwater issues from hydraulic
fracturing are likely dependent both on the care taken to drill and manage wells
on local geology. There are no mandates of methods of drilling or extraction.
• Section 2.1.3 Groundwater Contamination- I would like to have information about
the 64 oz of chemicals that go into the process of drilling and what are the health
effects to humans.
• Frac -Sand Mining permits are under a moratorium in Alamakee County and
Winnishiek County, so perhaps note this in Discussion 1, paragraph #3
2. What information from credible sources is missing?
• What source are you getting how B20 biodiesel fuel is cleaner burning than
CNG?
• Dirtier air, dirtier water, threat of earthquakes, not sustainable for even several
generations. Very bad for humans. Other sources of energy available.
Specifically, local (Farley) bio- diesel.
• Under "Environmental Impacts" 2.1.2 Green House Gas Emissions- Mentions
CO2 is reduced from burning natural gas compared to oil /coal. But doesn't
mention the horrible effects of fugitive methane emissions on the atmosphere,
methane is >2 times more potent than CO2 in the air.
• "Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formation."
Robert W. Horvath; Santano, Renee in the Journal Climate Change. Section
2.1.5 "A commentary on 'Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural
gas from shale formulation." Lawrence M. Cathelis; Brown, Larry et. Al — Climate
Change
• Since bio- diesel is produced in the Midwest, the Dubuque Area would benefit by
keeping honey in the area rather than petro giant corporations.
• The environmental impact of frack sand mining in NE Iowa
• Dubuque should become an example of learning how to evaluate the use of CNG
in trucks. They should record all details of the use including performance,
temperature, weather and all other facets. They can become a positive or
negative example for decisions all over the country. An example of "good
science." We need to work to establish state regulations, enforcement,
transparency and related factors. These regulations need to be adequately
funded to prevent problems.
• Section 1, A. Geographical Impacts- There are many other states, West Virginia,
Kentucky, etc. that have had severe repercussions on not only the water /air
quality, but the landscape. Thus causing the land to be toxic and unlivable. Also,
I feel the health issues should be sited. Especially the 1,000's of cases in Texas
alone.
• Recent studies show leakage of methane at fracking sites causing as much
climate change as burning coal. Leakage of methane from the wellheads is
correctable but some of the methane is leaking from the shale and there is no
way to prevent the leakage from the shale bedrock.
• Fracking affects not just individual water supplies (wells) but municipal supplies
as well, especially where there is illegal /unregulated dumping of frack liquids.
See Salon.com, August 2012, "Gas Profiteers' Shocking Crimes." This article
describes events in Green County, PA. I lived there during the time covered in
the article.
3. What outstanding questions /issues need to be addressed in the report?
• We are known for our pristene drinking water and have been ranked for our
quality drinking water in the past. We have tourists, sportsmen and women,
hikers, bird watchers, and conservationist that visit Dubuque County for the
exposted limestone bluffs and the geology /water resources; do we want to risk
what makes us special to extract a small about of natural gas. Our natural
resources: migratory birds, bobcats, reptiles /amphibians, plant species, and
invertebrates depend on the bluffs and unique habitats the limestone bluffs offer.
Has anyone addressed how this would affect state endangered species? Has
anyone addressed how this would affect migratory pathways? Has anyone
addressed how this would affect local drinking water and groundwater?
• Additional information in a pdf will be emailed to Mary Rose Corrigan.
• I can't think of any outstanding questions or issues which were not at least
touched upon in the report.
• Section 2.1.5 is missing. Otherwise, it seems to be very thorough, including not
only direct impacts at the fracking site but also indirect ones like sand mining.
The only thing I'm uncertain about is whether the current biodiesel- fueled
vehicles can be economically retrofitted to use CNG. If not, switching over seems
to be an even bigger waste.
• As I wrote on a form at the library, fracking waste water pollutes not just
individual wells but also municipal water supplies. See Aaron Skirball, "Gas
Profiteers' Shocking Crimes," Salon (August 2012),
http : / /www.salon.com /2012/08/18/gas profiteers dumping waste salpart /.
• Is the net environmental effect of having a few vehicles using CNG positive or
negative? How much natural gas, by comparison, is currently used by the city
departments for building heat, water and sewage treatment, or other uses? In
light of the other natural gas usage, is the addition of a few vehicles statistically
meaningful?
• In addition to the attached below ESAC Draft Report with my suggested edits, I
am including bullets related to new issues that needed to be addressed in the
revised report: Insurance coverage and exclusions Extent of fracking number of
wells Number of moratoriums Credible concerns where research data is currently
lacking Role of profits and tax revenues CNG comparison to B20 in trucks using
Clean Diesel Technology Worker accident rates OSHA Well productive lifespan
Fracking frequency per well under extreme pressures Tons of chemicals per well
Up to 700 different chemicals in use Toxicity of the chemicals Failure rate of well
casings Problems and safety in disposing fracking fluids and flowback Hormone
disrupters in surface waters GHG potency of methane and climate impact
Fracked gas is on a net worse than coal related to climate impact Higher birth
defects related to living within 10 miles of fracking sites Frac Sand Mining
impacts on water, tourism and quality of life Gas transmission pipeline safety and
explosions Gas transmission pipeline ecosystem damage and fragmentation
Fracked gas into CNG is not a currently acceptable sustainable vehicle fuel
choice it does not lead to either broad economic prosperity, environmental
integrity, or social /cultural vibrancy. Nor does it help "create a sustainable legacy
for generations to come ".
• I do NOT want fracking at all. I do not want to invest in products that require
fracking for the products (cars, trucks) to function.
• Question should not be benefits to Dubuque, who is on the receiving end, but
what is the environmental, social, and health impact on people who live where
fracking takes place?
• The environmental and health effects of fracking sand for the use in the actual
drilling is hurting our neighbors to the north in Alamakee Co. Transportation of
the frack sand in open rail cars is a health hazard. By "open" I mean uncovered
rail cars which go through cities and towns.
• Will the water coming out of the wells be treated so that somehow it can be
reused? With the aquifers in Iowa and the future needs of water- could we be
facing the same problems as Western Virginia?
• Fracking is an immediate source of needed energy but are we looking at this
short -term solution without enough information about the long -term
consequences of this effort. I don't know how this might have been exactly
included but I think this needs to be considered.
• Address the difficulty in conducting and report results of studies. More
transparency needed.
• Which is more important to society: The environmental benefits in using natural
gas extracted in fracking? OR The environmental concerns and health risks of
sand fracking and the fracturing method of obtaining natural gas.
• It is my understanding that in the Clayton County storage above the Mississippi
River, that corn is stored in there as well as silica sand. What does this do to
harm the cars stored there? Train derailment this past week in WI due to the
extreme cold effort on rails. No covering was seen on those pict. Cars in the
computer. I saw on computer news. Where is the silica sand being washed with
chemicals- at the site on side of Hwy 52 or in the cave above Mississippi River?
• Long term effect for future generations? What footprint are we leaving? Use of
huge amount of water- Where is our social conscious? Isn't there a justice
principle?
• The impact of hydraulic fracturing on communities outside of the extraction area.
For instance, what are the long -term impacts on communities in which sand is
mined. In Allamakee County, the rural roads are not built for the amount of
heavy truck traffic that is occurring. In addition, the rail traffic is heavier. Rail
cars do not have to be covered. The local economy can be adversely impacted
as tourism is impacted. Local residents are also dealing with high traffic.
• What recourse individuals and /or communities have with any damage or harm to
their environment from the fracking procedure. The Haliburton Exclusion has
made it more difficult to make the fracking industry responsible for harmful
outcomes.
4. Please state anything else you'd like to share.
• http : /lwww.dangersoffracking.coml
• The following comments are intended to provide more accurate information and
references regarding hydraulic fracturing as well as comments from Randy
Harris, Director of Corporate Development for Black Hills' oil and gas exploration
and production division. Black Hills respectfully believes that the Commission's
draft report contains misinformation about fracking, lacks sufficient discussion
about the comprehensive regulation of the fracking process and its exceptional
safety record. Hydraulic Fracturing The fundamental process of hydraulic
fracturing is not new. Fracking, as it is typically referred, has been practiced by
the oil and natural gas industry for more than 65 years; literally becoming a
routine technology. Over 1.2 million oil and gas wells throughout the United
States have been developed using this technique since the late 1940s. The
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission ( "IOGCC ") at:
http: / /www.iogcc.state.ok.us /, is a multi -state government agency that supports
the conservation and efficient recovery of oil and natural gas resources, while
protecting health, safety and the environment, and reports that out of all oil and
gas wells in the U.S., 90% have safely utilized fracking. The process injects high
pressure fluids and sand or other propent to induce cracks in the rock, which
increase the flow of natural gas and /or oil. Commercial production of natural gas
would not be possible from shale formations without this fracking technique. The
process includes comprehensive steps to protect water supplies, which include
multiple strings of steel pipe inside one another and cemented in the drill hole at
depths typically between 1,000 and 4,000 feet or deeper. This ensures that
neither the fluid used in the fracturing process, nor the oil or gas that will
eventually be produced from deeper formations, enters the water supply. For a
more detailed description of how water supplies are protected, please go to the
FracFocus website at: http: / /fracfocus.org /hydraulic- fracturing- how -it-
works /casing. The IOGCC reports that there have been no confirmed or
documented cases of contamination to underground sources of drinking water
from the fracking procedure. The advancement of fracture technology over the
past 10 years has opened up vast energy supplies across the United States;
something desperately needed in this volatile time of international unrest and the
need for affordable, energy independence. Without hydraulic fracturing, the U.S.
would be producing significantly less oil and natural gas, thus increasing the cost
of energy and relying heavily on foreign imports. Recent estimates predict that
natural gas from shale formations will compromise more than 20% of the total
U.S. gas supply by 2020 — the fastest growing source of natural gas in the U.S.
Half of the natural gas consumed in America today comes from wells drilled in
the last 4 years, increasing estimates of our supply to more than 100 years.
Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing Each oil and gas producing state in the U.S.
employs highly trained and educated personnel in their oil and gas regulatory
agencies to effectively regulate oil and gas exploration and production. This
creates the source of common law of the domestic oil and gas industry because
of their unique position and their collective expertise on matters within their
boundaries. Comprehensive laws and regulations at the State level began more
than 50 years ago to provide for safe operations and to protect the nation's
drinking water sources. Each state is uniquely invested in the protection of
groundwater and the environment and will continue to regulate fracking
effectively, taking into account the particular nature of the geology and hydrology
within their jurisdictions. Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana,
Michigan, Arkansas, and New York are examples of states that have recently
implemented additional rules to strengthen existing regulations. Comprehensive
federal and local laws in combination with State regulations address every aspect
of exploration and production operations. These include well design, location,
spacing, operation, water and waste management and disposal, air emissions,
wildlife protection, surface impacts and health and safety. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been studying hydraulic fracturing
regarding its potential impact on drinking water, human health and the
environment, and has held public meetings. Their work is ongoing. On May 24,
2011, EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, said, "I'm not aware of any proven case
where the fracking process itself has affected water." http://www.cred.org/lisa-
jackson- testimonial/ Composition of Fracturing Fluids Water and sand account
for 99.5% of the fracture fluid mixture. Chemical additives account for one -half of
one percent (0.5 %) of the mixture. The following is a typical mixture for fracture
fluid used in fracking shale formations: Companies are required to disclose the
constituents used in their fracking procedure which can be found on -line at
http: / /www.fracfocus.org. For an example regarding this process and the
regulatory requirement, please also refer to the State of Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission at: http: / /cogcc .state.co.us /rr_HF2011 /Orderl R-
114FinalFracingDisclosureRule.pdf Black Hills has used hydraulic fracturing for
35 years on thousands of wells that we have been involved with throughout many
Rocky Mountain, Mid - Continent, and neighboring states. We use this critically
important technology and have never had an incident where our fracking
procedure has caused a negative impact on drinking water. The development of
natural gas from shale formations holds the potential to grow our economy
through cost - effective energy solutions. Regulation of hydraulic fracturing is
primarily a state -level function. State governments are best equipped to monitor
issues and determine the appropriate responses for their jurisdiction. States have
demonstrated that their regulations, processes and enforcement are
comprehensive and have shown an exemplary safety record for more than 65
years. For more information about the various aspects of hydraulic fracturing,
please refer to the following informational sources: Coloradans for Responsible
Energy Development: http: / /www.cred.org Interstate Oil & Gas Compact
Commission: http: / /www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ FracFocus Chemical Disclosure
Registry: http: / /fracfocus.org/ Energy In Depth: http: / /energyindepth.org/
http: / /energyindepth.org /national /shale- exempt- from - federal - laws -um- not -even-
close/ Energy Tomorrow: http: / /www.energytomorrow.org /energy- 101 /hydraulic-
fracturing Also:
http: / /water.epa.gov/ type / groundwater /uic /class2/ hydraulicfracturing /wells_hydror
eg.cfm In addition, please find accompanying these remarks a report titled:
"Freeing Up Energy, Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America's Natural Gas
Resources ". American Petroleum Institute, 2010. Thank you for the opportunity to
offer comments during this process. Respectfully submitted, Randy Harris
Director of Corporate Development Black Hills Exploration & Production, Inc.
1515 Wynkoop St., Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Email:
randy.harris @blackhillscorp.com Phone: (720) 210 -1346
• I very much hope that the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission will
come down on the side of protecting our local environment, versus forging ahead
in hopes of economic benefit. The City of Dubuque has crafted for itself a
reputation of concern for sustainability and environmental protection. Honestly, I
think that some of that reputation is justly deserved and some of it is only so
many pretty words, but there has been some laudable, indisputable action. The
City of Dubuque and its employees (and citizens) are to be commended for what
has been accomplished. While the jury may still be out as to the real impacts and
concerns with the practice of fracking, it is undeniably a hot - button issue in the
country right now. I see no compelling economic reason why the City of Dubuque
would want to move forward into such contentious territory. Giving a green Tight
to fracking would, at the very least, be bad PR for Dubuque. It would be
tantamount to standing up and publicly renouncing any concerns for a
"Sustainable Dubuque." There are plenty of concerned citizens here who would
take this matter seriously enough to not let the issue die down. Dubuque does
not need this sort of divisive action. I urge the Environmental Stewardship
Advisory Commission to treat this matter as off - limits for a city that cares about
the natural environment and the health and well -being of its citizens. Thank you
for your time in reading this.
• I hope the City Council pays attention to this. I appreciate the ESAC's work on it.
• My family moved to Dubuque from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, in 2012, in part
because of the havoc caused by fracking. In the few years we lived in
southwestern Pennsylvania, an algae bloom killed 30 miles of the creek behind
our favorite bakery (Dunkard Creek); a nearby town, Carmichaels, got a boil -
water order because its water system couldn't handle all the particulates in the
local river; and the owner of a wastewater disposal company, Allan Shipman,
was charged with illegally dumping millions of gallons of frack waste in
watersheds across six counties. He was fined but served no jail time. All of these
events are recounted in the August 2012 Slate article "Gas Profiteers' Shocking
Crimes." While all of this was going on, the county infrastructure crumbled, and
the school district shut down an elementary school for lack of funds. No
economic boom offset the environmental disaster. Fracking made Greene
County, PA, a horrible place to live, and the local government did nothing to
protect its citizens. Dubuque needs to make sound environmental choices, taking
into consideration the "wells to wheels" impact of its energy sources. Dubuque
also needs to maintain transparency in its local government, to assure citizens
that their common good - -and the good of the environment - -is a priority. I do not
want to have to move my family again because I don't feel safe in my own city.
• Do not allow fracking in our area this will poison all of us please watch Gasland 1
and 2
• I would like to voice opposition to the CNG fueled vehicles for the public works
department. By supporting such industry efforts we contribute, and justify
additional fracking practices in the U.S.. By in large the process of fracking has
been linked to various marginalized environmental disaster sites and the
contamination of ground water aquifers. While natural gas does burn more clean
= less emissions, etc. the process of extraction and the unintended
consequences are too great to support it fully.
• I am trying to figure out why a city like Dubuque would decide to go ahead with
converting to CNG vehicles. To call CNG a sustainable fuel is just not accurate.
The environmental consequences of fracking are devastating in many cases and
the costs of frac sand mining in the upper midwest are, too. I think we all know
what those are. In 30 years we may start to understand the public health
consequences associated with thousands of trucks and /or train cars hauling frac
sand through upper midwest communities. I don't believe that there would be
much greenhouse gas reduction or cost savings associated with converting,
especially when converting from a locally produced and clean burning biodiesel
fuel. If there are limited or no environmental benefits, limited or no cost benefits,
limited or no public health benefits, and potentially huge costs associated with
each of these, why in the world would the city even think about converting from a
locally produced and clean burning biodiesel fuel?
• While it is appreciated that the city staff is trying to be a careful steward of the
environment, it is hard for me to understand that the city's purchase of a few
natural gas - fueled trucks will change the trend toward more natural gas
production and environmental damage. Most of the issues brought up in the
report are being investigated by the federal government, and exisiting
transportation of fossil fuels is already heavily regulated. I would encourage the
city to move forward in the acquisition of a few CNG vehicles which might provide
an example for local businesses to replace or retrofit their vehicles to use a
cleaner fuel than their current gasoline.
• Fracking: Suggested edits by Paul Schultz 2 -2 -14 Introduction At their November
18, 2013 meeting, the City council directed the Environmental Stewardship
Advisory Commission (ESAC) to provide a report on the impacts of hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking. Fracking is a method of extracting natural gas from the
ground, and is an internationally controversial method that has led to increased
availability and decreased costs for natural gas as a fuel source in the United
States in recent years. The City Council requested a balanced, objective, concise
report to provide background information as they prepare to make decisions on
the City's budget for fiscal year 2015. The City Public Works department has one
pickup truck retrofitted in October 2013 to operate using compressed natural gas
(CNG). During the FY2015 budget process, the City Council will have the
opportunity to decide whether the City should commit to investing in CNG - fueled
solid waste collection vehicles for the foreseeable future. This information is
provided to help inform that discussion. It should be noted that in addition to
fueling stations that draw from a conventional natural gas pipeline additional
opportunities for Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) sources do exist. Two I sources
include potential energy that could be increased from the Water & Resource
Recovery Center and the methane currently captured and flared off at the
Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency Landfill. In order for either of
those options to be considered, further information about significant costs of
fueling station construction and other variables would need to be considered.
INTRODUCTION At their November 18, 2013 meeting, the City Council directed
the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission (ESAC) to provide a report
on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Hydraulic fracturing is a
method of extracting natural gas from the ground, and is one method that has led
to increased availability and decreased costs for natural gas as a fuel source in
the United States in recent years. The City Public Works department has one
pickup truck retrofitted in October 2013 to operate using compressed natural gas
(CNG). The heavy -duty solid waste collection fleet is fueled with biodiesel. One
of the three public- access CNG fueling stations in Iowa exists in Dubuque at the
Kwik Stop station on East 16th Street. During the FY2015 budget process, the
City Council will have the opportunity to decide whether the City should commit
to investing in CNG- fueled solid waste collection vehicles in the future. This
information is provided to help inform that discussion. It should be noted that in
addition to the public- access fueling station that draws from a conventional
natural gas pipeline, additional opportunities for converting biogenic natural gas
to CNG exist. Two potential RNG sources include 1.) Potential energy expansion
derived from the Water & Resource Recovery Center; and, 2.) The methane
currently captured and flared off at the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
Agency landfill. In order for either of those options to be considered, further
review of the significant costs of fueling station construction and other variables
would need to be considered. In addition to conducting their own review of
credible, objective information regarding hydraulic fracturing to prepare this
paper, the ESAC consulted with experts in the field, including University of Iowa
Professor Tom Peters, and collected public input. Two public input sessions were
held on January 23 and 24, 2014. The opportunity to provide information
electronically was also available. The primary purpose of the public input
sessions was to gather additional credible information regarding hydraulic
fracturing. However, individuals were also able to provide their opinions or other
information they wanted to share; that information can be found in Appendix A.
DISCUSSION 1. What is Hydraulic Fracturing? Fracking is the common name
used for hydraulic fracturing, which is an oil and gas extraction technique.
Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract oil and gas resources that are otherwise
difficult to get out of the ground. In short, hydraulic fracturing uses high pressures
to crack underground oil- bearing rocks. Then water, sand, detergents, and other
potentially toxic chemicals are pumped at extremely high pressure (15,000 psi)
into a well which targets the rock formation. The sand is used to help hold the
fractures open and the chemicals help the gas and oil come out of the rock.
Recently improved oil drilling and fracking techniques have allowed it to be
economically feasible to extract that resource. (USEIA, 2012) Hydraulic fracturing
is exempt from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning Right to Know
Act, National Environmental Policy Act and most other Pollution Prevention
Federal laws. Insurance claims arising under Comprehensive General Liability
(CGL) Coverage often have significant gaps due to the "pollution exclusion"
found in many CGL industrial policies, as well as similar types of exclusions. a.
Geographical impacts of hydraulic fracturing Most United States fracking occurs
in four regions: In Eastern states: Ohio and especially Pennsylvania; in the
Northern Plains: especially in North Dakota and Montana where gas from this
shalefield is significantly being flared off rather than captured as an energy
source; in the South: in Texas and Oklahoma: and in the West: in Colorado,
Wyoming and Utah. There are an estimated 80,000 wells currently in operation in
the US. Another source states that there are an estimated 495,000 known
fracking wells in the USA. There are hundreds of moratoriums related to fracking
in places all over the country and world. Some of the best frac sand mines in the
US are located in extreme Northeast Iowa, West and Central Wisconsin, and
South and East Minnesota (WIDNR, 2012). In Iowa there is a frac sand mine in
Clayton County, with some interest in development of other frac sand minds in
that region (Libia, 2013), including Allamakee County. There have been
moratoriums on frac sand mining approved by voters and local governments in
almost all of these areas. 2. Opportunities and impacts associated with fracking.
Like many issues, the topic of hydraulic fracturing has strong opponents and
proponents. Significant research is underway but not yet published. There are
economic and environmental benefits to using natural gas extracted via fracking
and offsetting economic, environmental, and social consequences. This
document attempts to present both the opportunities and negative impacts
associated with fracking using objective research where possible and include
credible concerns where research data is currently lacking. The hydraulic
fracturing industry has grown significantly in recent years as the U.S. focuses on
increasing profits, tax revenues, energy independence, cheaper fuel sources,
and cleaner- burning fuels. Proponents of hydraulic fracturing claim it has no or
very minimal negative environmental impacts while it greatly increases the
amount of oil and gas that can be extracted from the ground. Fracked natural gas
is currently significantly cheaper than coal or oil. Natural gas is a cleaner burning
fuel source than traditional coal or oil. Opponents claim that current practices in
hydraulic fracturing create massive negative environmental impacts that offset
gains in energy independence and economic benefits. Also, fracked natural gas
is not necessarily cleaner burning than of B20 biodiesel using the City's current
Clean Diesel technology. Additionally, hydraulic fracturing creates few jobs, has
very high worker accident rates, has health impacts for people and animals living
nearby, noise, and dust and negatively affects adjoining home values and causes
people to move away from their homes, farms and ranches due to pollution
concerns and the loss of their quality of life. 2.1 Environmental impacts 2.1.1 Air
emissions for vehicle fleets Compared to gasoline, natural gas is a cleaner
burning fuel source. However, compared to clean diesel technology using B20
biodiesel fuel, such as is produced and marketed locally from Farley Iowa, CNG-
burning vehicles have similar local air impacts. 2.1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions
Use of natural gas has increased quickly as a cleaner burning alternative to oil or
coal use. No matter what the other environmental impacts are, use of oil and gas
still has impacts on the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the cause of
the most human activity - related climate impacts. Some Iowa - centric examples of
non - fossil fuels include ethanol, biodiesel, solar, and wind. All of these
technologies are becoming mature and are increasingly cost effective. Some
biofuels in development, and current bio- diesel blends and electric vehicles have
less net impacts on climate change than shale gas extraction from fracking and
end use as CNG. 2.1.3 Groundwater contamination. a. At well site. One major
environmental concern of hydraulic fracturing is its impact on groundwater. While
there is much anecdotal and verified information about impacts on drinking water
wells, the impacts of oil and gas drilling from hydraulic fracturing on both
groundwater and surface water are just beginning to be published. The United
States Geological Survey (USGS) has initiated studies to look more closely at the
impacts (USGS, 2012). Groundwater issues from hydraulic fracturing are likely
dependent both on the care taken to drill and manage wells over their 20 to 45
year productive lifespan and on local geology. Wells can be fracked up to 18
times using high pressures up to 15,000 pounds per square inch. Eighty to three
hundred tons of up to 700 chemicals are used to frack each well. Routes of
introduction of contaminants into groundwater include: improper well installation,
well casing cracks, improperly closed old wells, migration through preexisting
rock cracks, and creation of more cracks in the rock from fracturing. Simply,
hydraulic fracturing involves pumping water with chemical mixtures into the
ground under high pressures so that they can crack rock and, in many areas,
those chemicals work their way through newly created and already existing
cracks in the rocks and eventually make their way to groundwater. Instances of
groundwater quality degrading, and in some cases becoming undrinkable or
causing severe health problems, have been reported. (Fitzgerald, 2013). While
additional improvements are being made in new well construction, the existing
concrete well casing failure rate has been estimated by engineers serving the
gas industry to reach 30% to 50% over the productive life of the average fracked
well. b. Disposal of fracturing fluid. Significant concern also exists with disposal of
the high volume of fracturing fluid and "flow- back" as a potential ground water
contaminate and air pollution source. It is a serious risk concern in transportation
to disposal sites. Approximately 44 million Americans rely on a private water
supply for household and agricultural use, typically sourced from shallow
aquifers. In areas of extensive shale gas drilling, many homeowners, ranchers
and farmers have claimed, and some have proven, that hydraulic fracturing has
contaminated their drinking -water wells with methane and waste waters.
(Jackson, RB 2011) Methane is not regulated in drinking water by the EPA
drinking water standards. Methane in water is a safety hazard; it can cause
asphyxiation or explosive hazards in confined spaces when it migrates from
water into the air. (Jackson, RB 2011) 2.1.4 Surface Water Concerns exist both
regarding the large quantity of water that is used during the hydraulic fracturing
process and in the potential quality impacts on surface water. Hydraulic fracturing
requires between two and five million gallons of water per well, which is up to 100
times more water than traditional extraction methods. Surface water concerns
are mostly due to the way chemicals are handled during well site construction,
but can also come from any post - fracking contaminated ground water sources
that feed surface water. One third of the fracking fluid used comes out of the well
at the end of the process (flow -back) and needs to be disposed of safely. The
chemical mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing vary depending on the local
geology and are proprietary formulas, so a complete list of the chemicals used is
not available nor required. (USGS, 2012: Fitzgerald, 2013) Many of these
chemicals are highly toxic, mutagenic, hormone disrupting and known
carcinogens. Companies claim they are "trade secrets ", and these proprietary
formulas are currently excluded from the Clean Air, Clean Water and Right to
Know Acts under an exclusion referred to as the Halliburton Exclusion. This
unknown may put first responders and medical professionals in a compromised
position when responding to potential accidents and illness. Chemicals typically
include friction reducers, surfactants, gelling agents, scale inhibitors, acids,
corrosion inhibitors, antibacterial agents and clay stabilizers. (Jackson, R.B.,
2011) The disposal of this water - chemical mixture typically occurs through
conventional waste water treatment methods like on -site evaporation from
storage lagoons, use as a brine solution for treating roads for ice control in the
winter, recycling or and transportation to off -site injection into wells for deep
underground storage. Traditional Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs)
cannot remove most pollutants before releasing effluent to receiving surface
waters. A team of researchers from the University of Missouri found evidence of
hormone - disrupting activity in water located near fracking sites — including
samples taken from the Colorado River near a dense drilling region of western
Colorado. The Colorado River is a source of drinking water for more than 30
million people. The peer- reviewed study was published in 2013 in the journal
Endocrinology. The University of Missouri team found that 11 chemicals
commonly used in the fracking process are "endocrine disrupters" — compounds
that can affect the human hormonal system and have been linked to cancer, birth
defects, and infertility. 2.1.5. Fugitive Methane and Other Gas Emissions at Well
Sites Newer fracked gas wells have lower percentages of fugitive methane
emissions. However most fracked wells have significantly higher emissions.
These emissions are very potent Green House Gases. The IPCC reported in
2013 that new methane released into the atmosphere is 86 times more potent
than CO2 in the initial 20 year time frame. This means that the average fracked
gas well and related transmission gas losses have a more negative climate
impact than burning coal. People living within a half -mile of oil- and -gas well
fracking operations were exposed to air pollutants five times above a federal
hazard standard, according to a 2012 Colorado study. The University of
Colorado- Denver School of Public Health analysis is one of a string of studies in
Wyoming, Utah and eastern Colorado that highlight the air - quality impacts of
drilling and fracking. The unborn children of pregnant women who live within a
10 -mile radius of fracking sites are far more susceptible to congenital heart
defects (CHD), according to Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity
to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado, the latest study from the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) and Environmental Health
Perspectives' (EHP). The study examined data from 124,842 rural Colorado
births from 1996 to 2009. 2.1.6 Earthquakes There is recent evidence that
injection wells can cause local earthquakes. (Ellsworth, 2013) These
earthquakes tend to be very small, with magnitudes below two, but there is some
concern that because hydraulic fracturing typically happens deeper in the crust
than most human activities that cause earthquakes, there may be a risk of larger
earthquakes. These smaller earthquakes related to fracking have caused
structural damage and could lead to increased failure of fracking well liners that
are installed to help prevent ground water contamination. 2.2 Economic impacts
from hydraulic fracturing Just like other fossil fuel resources, the natural gas
resources will not last forever. However, the current estimates, although
uncertain, suggest that there are at least several decades to a century worth of
natural gas resources (USEIA, 2012; Fitzgerald, 2013). 3. Non -Well Site
Implications 3.1 Frac Sand Mining Previously- discussed environmental hazards
occur at or near the well sites. The industry also impacts Northeast Iowa and
Southwest Wisconsin. Frac sand mining has created its own set of controversies
revolving around local pollution and short -term economic gain. The concerns
from this sand mining mainly are related to health impacts from particulate matter
in the air around the mines (small air -born silica sand grains), various pollutants
from equipment and sand processing in the mines, damage to roads from
transporting the sand, noise, loss of property values and quality of life near
mines, degradation of roads connected to transfer facilities, ground water
depletion, impacts on trout streams, impacts on tourism and general
environmental degradation. Demand for this specifically -sized sand preferred by
hydraulic fracturing companies has thus greatly increased along with the
increase in fracking. (WIDNR, 2012) 3.2 Transportation (truck, rail, barge,
pipeline) There have been recent reports of truck and train accidents due to
expanded shipping of oil and gas. Pipelines are not necessarily safer as they
have high potential for dangerous leak and have exploded on a too frequent
basis. Expanded transmission pipeline construction fragments ecosystems with
clear -cut swaths through backyards, farm fields, woods and forests, up and down
hills and mountains and across streams and wetlands, often taking the land
through eminent demand. Other transportation issues are primarily related to air
quality, whether it is from transporting frac sand, or all of the issues involved in
transporting the gas and its "fresh" and "flow- back" waters from extraction. 4.
Conclusion Many of the above - discussed environmental hazards are a product of
the rapid development of this industry. Recent trends in improved safety indicate
that many problems could be reduced in the future. Technology has evolved
quickly in this industry and regulations and monitoring have not yet caught up,
leaving private companies with flexibility and some new options, procedures and
technology opportunities. In our review of the available research data and other
credible information, the ESAC found multiple studies that were currently
underway, indicating that a delay in any decisions made regarding this topic may
be prudent. The current net benefits gained in the rush to extract natural gas
from shalefields by fracking does not lead us to consider fracked gas related to
CNG as a currently acceptable "sustainable vehicle fuel choice" for the City of
Dubuque. In our opinion, it does not lead to either broad economic prosperity,
environmental integrity, or social /cultural vibrancy. Nor does it help "create a
sustainable legacy for generations to come ".
• There are many undocumented /anecdotal bits of information about the health
issues particularly related to water pollution. Even at that I am very concerned
that Dubuque not contribute to further pollution of this critical resource through
purchase of natural gas. Why natural gas and not bio- diesel?
• There is a documentary called "Gasland" from Netflex that provides information
on fracking. some of the information, of course, is biased, but there is information
that I think would be helpful in your research. thanks for your work on this project.
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT COMMENTS ON HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
Please identify any incorrect information in the draft report. Include why it is
incorrect.
• Incorrect information stated in this article said that hydraulic fracturing was
popular in the southern areas of the United States. It was found on many other
websites and reports that fracking is most popular in Pennsylvania and North
Dakota.
• "Use of natural gas has increased quickly as a cleaner burning alternative ", pg 3.
Although fracking reduces CO2 emission it releases methane which pollutes the
air just as much if not more than CO2 (see additional information).
• In the section 2.1.4 Surface Water, Paragraph 1 states that between 2 and 5
million gallons of water are used per fracking well. From the source
http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com / states that there is almost 8 million gallons
used in each fracking well.
• From my research on http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com / written by Linda Dong,
there are approximately 50,000 active wells in the U.S. not 80,000. Another thing
I found during my research was that each fracking requires 8 million gallons of
water per fracking instead of two to five million gallons.
• In the article on page three, you state that "Creates few jobs" and that is
incorrect. Reports have shown that up to 600,000 jobs have been made just from
fracking, and that's a lot.
• In the article you stated "Additionally, hydraulic fracturing creates few jobs," In the
research that I have done, I have read that Fracking will actually help create
close to 600,000 new jobs.
• It was stated in the article that "opponents claim that hydraulic fracturing...
creates few jobs." This is incorrect information because according to the
Huffington Post, the fracking industry currently employs 1.7 million jobs and is
projected to have 3.5 million workers by 2035.
What information from credible sources is missing?
• No answers.
What outstanding questions /issues need to be addressed in the report?
• How long will it take for the research to be done, and in that time, how much
more potential damage could there be? — What are the effects on the human
body of the chemicals used for fracking, and how long would it take for there to
be indications of health problems? If these chemicals somehow got into our
groundwater, would they be life threatening? — Other than the lower prices, are
there any other perks to CNG over bio -fuel, which doesn't have as much of a
negative impact on the local air conditions?
• Why is Hydraulic Fracturing exempt from the Clean Air Act and other Pollution
Prevention Federal laws? What are the environmental benefits of Hydraulic
Fracturing? Is the city going to pay for the effects on land values that cause
people to move away from their homes do to pollution concerns weather they live
in Dubuque or not? How do we know that the well will be installed correctly so
that way there won't be well case cracks, migration through preexisting rock
cracks, and creation of more cracks in the rock from fracturing? How do we know
that the well will be closed correctly? How are we going to dispose of that
fracturing fluid so it does not seep into the groundwater and pose a potential
threat not only to us but to other people's water supply? What kind of trucks and
trains are being used to transport the dangerous chemicals and water that is
being used in Hydraulic Fracturing?
• I am curious what kind of chemicals are used in fracking and how much is used.
It would also be nice to know what the possible health problems /risks are from air
contamination and water pollution from fracking.
• The article reported that "...use of oil and gas still has impacts on the amounts of
CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the cause of the most human activity - related
global warming." It should also be noted that the fracking process releases
methane, which is much more potent that carbon dioxide and traps more heat.
Methane can also seep into the groundwater. According to the Global Research
website, "...a recent report from Texas found methane in drinking water after the
Environmental Protection Agency decided not to test it, following reports that the
company doing the drilling had supposedly already done that and gotten negative
results." It was recently found that fracking can cause birth defects and infertility.
The Telegraph UK reports that "US scientists found that ground and surface
water had been contaminated by hormone disrupting chemicals because of
accidental spills." The Global Research website also states that if a pregnant
woman lives within a 10 -mile radius of a fracking well, the chances of the baby
inheriting congenital heart defects increase by 30 %.
• In the article you stated that "The primary purpose of the public input sessions
was to gather additional credible information regarding hydraulic fracturing." I
think you should include in the article, how you know that the information you got
from the public is credible enough to use. I think that you should include where
you think you will most likely get the natural gas from because that's an important
point in deciding whether or not any harm will be done to the environment in that
specific place. In the article you state "The chemical mixtures used in hydraulic
fracturing vary depending on the local geology and are proprietary formulas, so a
complete list of the chemicals used is neither available nor required." My
question was why isn't this available? You also continued to say that this could
put first responders and medical professionals in a certain position. Therefore, I
think you should include in the article, why the list of chemicals isn't available.
• How expensive would the proposed CNG- fueled vehicles be at the outset
compared to biodiesel vehicles, and how much money would be saved in the
long run? Where would the money for the primary investment come from — raised
taxes, city funding, etc.? If taxes would be raised, about how much of an increase
should be expected?
• In page two of the report, it says, "Hydraulic fracturing is exempt from the clean
air act, the clean water act, and most other pollution prevention federal laws."
Why should fracking be exempt from these federal regulations? I just want to
know more about WHY it is exempted. In page three of the report it states,
"Causes some to move away from their home due to pollution concerns." Why is
this happening and do you think it is right? I feel that we should go deeper and
actually interview some people affected by fracking and why they moved away,
from their homes and families. On page four of the report it states that,
"Concerns also exist with disposal of the fracturing fluid and a potential
groundwater contaminate." Where do they dispose of this fluid at?
• How do we know that the sources supplying this information are telling the truth
and if the information given is accurate and up to date? Also in section 2.1.5,
there is no information.
• Besides the Environmental Protection Agency's December report on hydraulic
fracturing in 2012, are there any primary sources that can prove or disprove the
environmental hazards that come with hydraulic fracturing? Is there a difference
between frac sand mines and hydraulic fracturing mines, or are they the same?
• What chemicals are used? Why won't the fracking companies release certain
information to us? How many /much greenhouse gases are given off? Will all of
the vehicles in the City of Dubuque be able to use CNG? Some additional
information that I think could be included are: Compare the efficiency of fracking
to other energy sources. Compare the negative effects of fracking to other
energy sources. Include more data from previous research.
• When would scientists start investigating the effects of fracking on the
environment with permission from the fracking companies? It doesn't seem right
to frack when we don't know the full effects of getting natural gas to Dubuque. If
the public doesn't know the full effects of fracking- how can we make an
educated, informed decision?
• How much natural gas does one well get? More information on the affects of
fracking. How would fracking harm Dubuque? How will the fuel get to Dubuque?
Will all of the City of Dubuque vehicles be retrofitted to use CNG?
• Are there any certain plans or ideas about how to handle certain aspects of
fracking to make it safer for the environment and the public, that you're aware of?
For example, when it says "surface water concerns are mostly due to the way
chemicals are handled during well site construction..." Are there any plans to fix
this? I say this because, until all the potential risks are proven no longer a risk, I
don't think hydraulic fracturing is something we should be supporting.
• I would like to see more on section 2.1.5 in the draft of January 17, 2014. Also,
what is average composition of natural gas obtained during fracking? What about
predicted long term effects on the environment or humans that may be caused by
using natural gasses?
• Some questions that I believe should be addressed in the report: How much
does it cost to frac a well once? What kind of chemicals are involved in fracking?
Where does water used in fracking originate?
• By using fracking, are CO2 emissions increased or decreased? If there does
happen to be an earthquake due to the fracking and houses are damaged, will
people get coverage? If people's health is affected due to fracking, will they be
reimbursed for their medical bills? Also, including some information about CO2
and methane emissions from fracking and other forms of energy would add a
large reason to why it should be used or not. Maybe adding how fracking would
affect global warming or how many times one well can be fracked.
• I believe that this draft could use some work in these aspects. I believe the draft
should have a title. This will help the reader or the person making the decision
know what the paper is about. Next I believe that a conclusion paragraph should
be added to the end. This will help the reader draw a conclusion about the paper.
It can also create a nice ending so it isn't so abrupt.
• I believe that there could be more on the dangers of fracking, however most of
the information regarding that subject is adequate. The report should go more
into depth on fracking directly related to the city of Dubuque. Including
information such as how CNG would be used in community vehicles, and if it
would be offered to citizens vehicles (and if it already is, mention it), if it would
create more or less jobs, where we'd conduct the fracking, how it would get here,
the costs of transportation; etc. More on how it would affect our community.
• I believe the report should include elaboration in the Discussion section part 1.
What is Hydraulic Fracturing? Paragraph 1 when "chemicals" are mentioned. I
think it would be more informative to include some of the chemicals used in this
fracking process. This may persuade people who don't agree with the idea of
holding off on using CNG if they know the types of chemicals causing possible
contamination to our groundwater.
• None of the information was lacking, but you could explore other cons a little
more. My source states that fracking related contaminates have been linked to
incurable ailments such as Autism, Cancers, Asthma, etc. This has proven to be
a great source listing many other cons you may not have known
about.( http:/ /www.catskillmountainkeeper.org /our - programs /fracking /whats-
wrong - with - fracking -2 /economics /)
• Why is it that the companies that do the actual fracking have no regulations on
the chemicals they use while fracking? This is a huge deal because we don't
know what is contaminating our water. We must act on this now.
• In my research into this topic I thought that in your draft an issue that should be
stated is the fact that 1 -8 million gallons of water are needed to create 1 fracture.
And that approx. 40,000 gallons of extra chemicals are thrown in some of these
chemicals are Uranium, Radium, Hydrochloric Acid, Formaldehyde, and Ethylene
Glycol. Also on the same site there is math that states there are 500,000 wells
that are active in the U.S X 8 million Gallons per frack site X 18 times a well can
be fracked= 72 TRILLION gallons of water and 360 BILLION gallons of chemicals
to run all of our current gas wells (site will be referenced at the end) this
contaminates ground water and there have been over 1000 documented cases
of water contamination next to areas of fracking sites as well as cases of
sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingestion of the
contaminated water. Only 30 -50% of the fracking fluid is recovered, the rest is left
there and IS NOT biodegradable. References: Author of site: Linda Dong Title:
the Dangers of Fracking No date of release found. URL:
http: / /www.thedangersoffracking.com/
• In other articles I've read, I understood that some of the chemical waste left over
from the fracking process was stored in holes in the ground until dealt with
otherwise. I would hope that the chemicals used to obtain the gas that is planned
to be used in Dubuque won't be disposed of that way. Our city is known as
"sustainable Dubuque" and if roads are damaged from the excess weight and
travel used to transport machinery to perform fracking, will the city do something
to deal with fixing the damage? In the article I saw two different sides, one for
fracking and one against fracking, I would like to know what side the article is
taking and what other benefits come with fracking besides a new gas resource.
• I only have a few questions whose answers I think should be included in this
report. First I'd like to know how ill effects can be avoided as stated in this article.
It says that ill effects can be avoided but it'd be very influential if methods were
stated on how to prevent accidents while fracking. Also I'd like to know if and how
leaks of gas and oil can be prevented. Another thing that could be included is
how will the economy be affected by CNG use?
• In many articles I have read I understood that Hydraulic Fracking has many
negative impacts on the environment. In this draft I was reading two different
sides that said it was bad for the environment and another side that said it was
not. I want to know what side this article is taking. If this is bad for the
environment what steps would we take to make sure it does not cause much
damage?
• During the Introduction, possibly go into more detail about how fracking works.
So for example, go more in depth about where compressed natural gas is being
evacuated, which is in layers of impermeable rock, mostly shale.
• The fracking Companies might have an increased need for water, and might start
asking if they can tap into Dubuque's water source. What will you do then?
• There should be more information on vehicles that use the gas from fracking.
• A comparison between the greenhouse gas emissions of coal, oil, and
compressed natural gases would give a sense of fracking's impact on global
warming. - More numeral facts. "More polluting," is not an accurate measure, and
may not truly demonstrate an effect. For example, displaying the amount of
pollutants in exact or near -exact percentages will help give an idea of their
damages.
• A question I have is: How many jobs would hydraulic fracturing create? The draft
says, "Hydraulic fracturing creates few jobs," but more availability of jobs would
still help out the Dubuque community. Another question I have is: Where would
the CNG be drilled from? If it's true that fracking does hurt communities, I would
not wish harm to anyone for our personal gain.
• Though CNG emits significantly less CO2 we can't ignore other potentially
harmful emissions. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a powerful
greenhouse gas, being 25 times stronger than CO2 over a 100 -year time horizon
and 72 times stronger over a 20 -year horizon. Though methane represents only
about 10 -12 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it is a significant
driver of short -term warming, and reducing methane emissions can help slow the
rise in global temperatures. Producing, processing, and transporting of natural
gas can release some of this methane into the atmosphere. Source of
information: http: / /www.wri.org /blog /close -look- fugitive- methane - emissions-
natural -gas
• More information needs to be given regarding vehicles that use the gas from
(racking.
• You could list some potential solutions to the environmental problems. You also
might include right now, how many people in Dubuque are either for or against
(racking.
• Methane gas is released when fracking is used. How dangerous can the
earthquakes be? How big was the biggest one? What has happened to workers
after working on fracking? How much water is used compared to how much
water we have?
• The best sand for fracking is mined in parts of Illinois and Wisconsin. So is it
possible that the removal of the sand for fracking could let unwanted things sink
into the groundwater in these areas?
• How much would switching to natural gas from gasoline save Dubuque?
According to http: / /www.usa.com /dubuque -ia- air - quality.htm , our air pollution is
lower than the state average. How would converting to natural gas affect our air
pollution?
• Will the conversion to Compressed Natural Gas engines in this area affect the
taxpayers in any monetary way. How long does a CNG engine last compared to
a BIO- diesel engine.
• After reading your draft, a question I have would be, how are you planning to
transport and hold the waste fluid from the hydraulic fracturing wells? I think it is
important to know whether or not the waste fluid from the fracking process if
being handled safely, because the exposure of this fluid can lead to
environmental problems when it is handled poorly. Another question from this is
whether or not Dubuque will be affected by poorly handled waste fluid and the
potential dangers that come with it. If transported by truck, it is not efficient and
the possibility for a crash can be a concern. If handled by train, the possibility of
derailment could be a huge concern because the waste fluid could end up in The
Mississippi and be there forever. If transported by pipe, the pipe could burst and
the waste could seep into our ground and potentially even our ground water.
• Your draft raised a question, how is the natural gas going to be transported to
Dubuque from the hydraulic fracturing wells? What vehicles will be used in the
process? I am concerned about the environmental issues of (racking, and I think
it is important to know if the natural gas will be transported safely, considering it
can be very dangerous if handled poorly. If handled by train, the train could derail
and the natural gas could spill into the Mississippi, if transported by pipes, the
pipe could burst and groundwater could be exposed by the natural gas, lastly if it
is transported by a truck it could also end poorly due to the fact that it could get in
a crash and it is not very efficient.
• How are we transporting this natural gas to Dubuque? What would be the side
effects if an accident were to occur? How would this directly and indirectly affect
Dubuque? How would this be fixed? If the gas were to be transported by train
would we be using updated railroad cars?
• Over 29 different highly toxic chemicals are used in 650 products of hydraulic
fracturing, as stated in the official United States House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce report. These products are either known or
possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Water Drinking Act or
listed as hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act. A few of these chemicals
regularly used are benzene, lead, and methanol. Products of hydraulic fracturing
are being transported to and affecting places across the country. If the city of
Dubuque decides to receive and use the natural gas obtained from fracturing
sites, will we be able to hold an active role in the process to ensure the
maintenance and containment of these chemicals?
• Some of the articles that I've read on this subject state that anywhere from one to
eight million gallons of water is used per fracturing. If Dubuque decides to use
compressed natural gas, where will the fracking sites that we get the gas from be
located? My concern is for those areas. What source will this water come from?
Will it be groundwater or surface water? How will the fracturing fluid be disposed
of after it's used?
• Will a change in Dubuque's policy on using natural gas in city vehicles,change
where we obtain our natural gas from? If so, where will this new location be and
will Dubuque be active in making sure that this specific site is environmentally
safe?
• How will fracking affect Iowa's economy? How mighty the mining of this sand
become a problem for our aquifer?
• Does fracking impact the recharge zone for the Dresback aquifer? Only 30 %-
50% of chemicals used for fracking are recovered from the ground. The rest of
those chemicals stay in the ground and are able to leak into the recharge zone
and contaminate the water leading into the wells. This would make the drinking
water unsafe.
• What is the susceptibility to contamination where fracking will occur?
Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing. Let's say they
drill 2 miles horizontally and have to crack the shale every half mile. That's
160,000 gallons of chemicals being used for just two miles. How do we know that
the people and environments around fracking won't be susceptible to all of those
chemicals?
• Do we know the environmental regulations of the company that would carry out
the fracking? What could Dubuque do to ultimately force the company to reveal
their procedures and the chemicals involved in fracking? Perhaps boycott the
company and start a petition for them to release this information?
• In the process of fracking, a volume of back flow fluids are brought to the surface.
These fluids, according to the EPA, are usually disposed of in on -site pits. Other
disposal procedures include injection into underground wells or sent to treatment
waste facilities. However, the Ohio House of Representatives reports that these
procedures are not always adequate for disposal. That leaves the question: if the
decision is made to start fracking, where would these back flow fluids go? How
would they be disposed of in the most efficient, and safe way?
• As of 2014 where is Dubuque obtaining their natural gas from?
• How will fracking benefit jobs in Dubuque?
• What are the chemicals used in fracking? Where are fracking operations going to
take place? How much money can be saved by using fracking to get natural gas
vs. importing it from other nations? What was the price to buy natural gas before
and after fracking operations have taken place?
• According to dangersoffracking.org, over 600 chemicals are used the fracking
process. We feel it is our right to know if any of these chemicals could be
potentially dangerous to our environment. So the question is; are there any
chemicals used in fracking that could prove harmful to our environment?
• According to http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com / it takes between 1 and 8 million
gallons of water per well during the hydraulic fracking process. I feel that we
should know where all this water is coming from and is it vital to any ecosystems.
• What are the health impacts on the frac sand mining in Iowa? The problem with
the frac sand mining is how much dust is created. If a citizen has asthma, then
the dust could be a problem. It could make breathing for them, even harder than
it is. Well there aren't very many known hazards; Crystalline Silica is starting to
draw attention. Breathing crystalline silica dust can cause silicosis, which in
severe cases can be disabling, or even fatal. Some of the symptoms are
shortness of breath, weight loss, and weakness; this often leads to death.
• Is there any health affects in Iowa from sand mining for fracking?
• Where is the 8 million gallons of water coming from for fracking?
• What Chemicals are used? We should find out before using this because if we
begin to see these chemicals in the ground water here or around the area where
the Fracking is taking place then we could be harming the people by using this
product.
• There have been accusations of toxic chemicals polluting ground water and air
quality from fracking. We are concerned about what chemicals are being used in
the fracking process and if the chemicals are harmful to us. Is it possible to not
make a final decision until the chemicals used are released to insure that we will
not be harmed?
• From other resources that I've read, fracking will proceed to expand in many
different places including Wisconsin. Would it effect our groundwater if Wisconsin
had an accident with their drilling procedure? What are any other possible sites
for fracking?
• It is known that fracking uses up a lot of water through its process. This has
become a concern for some people. Where is all of this water coming from to
complete this process? Along with where all the water is coming from it is very
well known that this process uses many different chemicals. This has become
one of the largest concerns of the people. Is there anyway of safely getting rid of
the water and how can it be done successfully?
• The Cedar Rapids Gazette stated that the silica sand particles in the air can
degrade habitats and pollute surface water. Doctors from the Mayo Clinic are
concerned about the dust from mining and working with silica sand causing lung
cancer in workers and nearby inhabitants. Overall, what would the major impacts
from increasing demand for Frac Sand Mining be on human and environmental
health? What would be the long -term effects?
• Where and how would the fracking companies dispose of the waste water from
the fracking fluid?
• Based on the information on www.earthjustice.org, there have been over 70
hydraulic fracturing accidents reported, including, but not limited to, explosions,
cattle deaths, and aquifer pollution. Do you believe that the risk is worth the
benefit?
• The amount of chemicals and other materials used in the fracking process.
• What is the risk to fracking in our Recharge Zone?
• There have been numerous reported and unreported fracking accidents, and
very little has been done about this. Is this dangerous industry something that
Dubuque wants to support?
• Fracking could be beneficial but there are so many health and environmental
risks. One concern is, how are we going to dispose of the fracking waste water.
In manchester, Iowa's waste water treatment involves releasing the treated
wastewater into the Maquoketa River. This information was received from
http: / /www.manchester- ia.org /index.asp? along with the statement that typically,
95 to 98% of the pollutants entering the plant are removed during the treatment
process. Could this be how fracking wastewater is going to be treated? Even the
small 2% can build up and cause harmful effects to the environment and the
health of all organisms in that area. Five of the most common disposal options for
fracking wastewater are: recycling for additional fracking, treatment and
discharge to surface waters, underground injection, storage in open air pits, and
spreading on roads for ice or dust control. None of these respect the risk to
public health or the environment. This information was recovered from the site,
http: / /www.nrdc.org /media /2012/120509.asp . "Only 30 -50% of the fracturing fluid
is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground." According to
http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com / . This could be very dangerous to the health
and sOne issue that needs to be addressed in regards to fracking is the
possibility of trains containing fracked materials exploding. Last year, three train
derailments and explosions occurred in six months, beginning with a train in
Quebec, which exploded in July of 2013, and killed 47 people. Several other
accidents have occurred, including one in Casselton, North Dakota on December
30, 2013. Both of these explosions forced residents of the towns to evacuate due
to fires and possibly toxic fumes. Both of these trains, and others which
exploded, were carrying oil which came from a shale formation under North
Dakota, Montana, and Saskatchewan- the Bakken shale. The oil was extracted
using fracking, which is commonly used in the Bakken to retrieve oil and natural
gas. (http: / /www.resilience.org/ stories / 2014 -01 -10 /the -4- big- dangers -of- fracking)
The chemicals that are pumped into the ground during fracking may remain in
the oil, and some of them may be highly flammable. This could cause the oil to
be more flammable that it typically would be. For example, hydrochloric acid,
which is highly corrosive, is widely used in the process of fracking at the Bakken
shale, and possibly at other sites as well. (http: / /grist.org /climate- energy /fracking-
chemicals- may- make -oil- extra - explosive /) Since fracking is exempt from many of
the nation's environmental protection acts due to the Halliburton loophole,
companies do not have to reveal the chemicals they use in the process of
fracking. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively proven that the hydrochloric acid is
the only culprit. It may not even be used at all fracking sites; we don't know. But
the fact remains that trains have been exploding, and those trains contain oil that
was obtained through the process of fracking. Many trains pass through
downtown Dubuque, and these trains pass very near where many people live
and work. If an explosion were to occur, the effects would likely be disastrous. An
evacuation could be necessary, and the river ecosystem could be in jeopardy. In
conclusion, the big question that this issue raises is this: Would natural gas
extracted by fracking have the same potential to explode as fracked oil? afety of
the environment and organisms living in the area.
• What kinds of pollutants can end up in our air and what effects can they have on
us?
• What would happen if CNG became less available or fracking became less cost
effective due to legislation? What risks are there to Dubuque? We worry that
because of the potential future litigation costs due to environmental impact, that
the price of natural gas may go up considerably.
• What other impacts (other than the cost - saving benefits) would the purchase of
these CNG cars have on Dubuque? Would any jobs be created or businesses
stimulated by the purchase, or is the cost the only potential impact?
• One issue of fracking that needs to be addressed is the fact that some of the
materials used in creating frac sand (the sand used during hydraulic fracturing)
are mined from areas with an abundance of St. Peter Sandstone, Jordan
Sandstone, Oil Creek Sandstone and Hickory Sandstone, even if it means taking
the materials directly from aquifers (the underground rock areas where most
drinking water is naturally filtered and replenished). "Many of the rock units that
are currently being mined for frac sand are also aquifers. This makes
groundwater research publications, such as the ground water atlas series of the
United States Geological Survey, valuable prospecting documents for
determining the presence, thickness and structure of sandstone rock units."
http: / /geology.com /articles /frac -sand/ (last image on the right) As seen on the
map, the Dubuque region and surrounding area has a large quantity of Jordan
Sandstone, one of the main choices for frac sand. "Rock units such as the St.
Peter Sandstone, Jordan Sandstone, Oil Creek Sandstone and Hickory
Sandstone have been potential sources of frac sand material" (from above
article). This means that fracking companies could decide to strip away the
beautiful landscape of the Dubuque area in order to get to this material. Mining
for frac sand also evades many environmental rules and guidelines. "There are
no rules or regulations at the state level, nor within any county that we are aware
of, which address: 1.) Test drilling deep into vital groundwater aquifers (Jordan
and St. Peter Sandstone Formations); 2.) Removing entire landscapes during the
strip mining process for frac sand; 3.) Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) of vital
underground aquifers; 4.) Frac sand processing facilities that traditionally use a
million gallons of water per day of operation; 5.) Transporting frac sand on small
to large roads and highways; and 6.) Health concerns stemming from such new
issues as carcinogenic fugitive silica sand dust, spillage of chemicals directly into
exposed groundwater aquifers, and other as yet unidentified issues."
http: / /statefracsandmining .blogspot.com /2013/10/frac- sand - mining- in -ia-
wregional- map - of.html In conclusion, the production of frac sand is very harmful
to the environment, but the fracking companies will not get in trouble for any
damage that they cause. And because frac sand is an essential part of hydraulic
fracturing, it makes this process environmentally unethical.
• How much money does it cost to ship and mine for the natural gas from fracking?
Will we save more by using the hydraulic fracturing production in the long run
compared to the current fuel?
• Here in Dubuque, we use sand to build roads, construction, etc. If fracking was to
use the sand in our area, and use more than we are producing, could the sand
be potentially used up? If fracking companies pay more for our sand, would the
prices of sand grow exponentially for the companies of Dubuque?
• Dubuque's aquifer, the Cambrium /Ordovician, has a recharge zone that is not
located in Dubuque. Since we know that the fracking would not be in Dubuque,
and there is the possibility of contamination of that aquifer's groundwater through
fracking; is there potential fracking near the recharge zone for our water supply?
• Compressed natural gas is the main product of hydraulic fracking. It can be used
as an alternative to gasoline. Both have pros and cons but which one is more
efficient and cost effective?
• Since the water used for fracking is taken from local rivers and streams could it
drain them?
• I have found one source http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com/ that states that over
six hundred chemicales are used during the proces of fracking, but the website
http: / /www.trendingcentral.com /10- fracking- facts - everyone -know/ states that only
twelve or so chemicals are used, some of which are harmless or common
chemicals that are found around the house. What chemicals are really used and
how harmful are they?
• Drilling thousands of feet into the ground is a huge task. Shale deposits
containing natural gas can be mined using high power explosives. This process
can be used to extract natural gas, but what about the environment? Can such
force have an impact on seismic activity? Could tectonic plates be affected by
our current fracking techniques? Even though we don't have any hydraulic
fracturing in our area, if we were to use natural gas obtained this way, what
happens to other areas where seismic activity and fracking cross paths? What
about the effects that'll have on the rest of the country? When dealing with
fracking, you have to look at the big picture.
• Northeast Iowa produces some of the sand used in fracking. The increase in
demand for these sands by fracking companies can cause sand prices in
Dubuque to rise, making construction more expensive. Does this outweigh the
savings from switching to C.N.G fuels for city vehicles.
• My concern is that each fracking job uses up to 1 -8 million gallons of water and
40,000 gallons of chemicals. Where are the fracking companies getting this large
amount of water from? Are they drawing it from our underground wells, or from
lakes, streams, and rivers that eventually empty into the Mississippi? Also, where
will all these chemicals end up? Only 30 -50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered,
the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground. Methane concentrations are also
17x higher in drinking water wells near some fracking sites. Will these chemicals
end up seeping into Dubuque's drinking water aquifer?
http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com/
• The sand used in hydraulic fracking, silica sand, is not a renewable resource.
Silica sand is made up of broken quartz crystals from the Earth's crust. My main
concern is when the silica sand is used up; will fracking operations come to a
halt? Will oil prices go up if there are no fracking operations? How long will the
supply of silica sand last?
• 30 % -70% of the chemicals used in fracking will resurface and will contaminate
surface water and air. To prevent this from happening, the chemicals would need
to be treated before any contamination can occur. How would the city of
Dubuque go about using the product of fracking and yet minimize the
environmental effect on communities where fracking occurs?
• The process of hydraulic fracturing requires a certain type of sand, which is found
in sand mines. How is this sand shipped from these mines to the site of hydraulic
fracturing? Fracking produces waste in the process of acquiring natural gas from
underground. How is this waste shipped, and will any of this waste pass through
Dubuque?
• Fracking; it's a topic that can either be negative, positive, or neutral, depending
on who you talk to about it. For some, it is a cheap way of collecting an energy
source. Others, it is evil and full of pollution. I shall give my opinion about this
controversy, being against the use of the product of fracking. My question is: if
our ecosystem would be at risk to the fracking chemicals and if it would somehow
pollute our groundwater? 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used for each time one
well has been fracked. These chemicals are harmful to us and everything around
us. Research shows that only 30 -50% of fluids used in the fracking processes
have been recovered. That means that the other 50 -70% is still in the ground or
the air, bringing harm to anything that comes to contact with it. The contaminants
that evaporate release toxic VOC's (volatile organic compounds) into the air that
we breathe. 1000 documented cases have shown water pollution as well as
respiratory and neurological damage to humans and other living creatures.
Would there be potential fracking nearby that could somehow put our
groundwater at risk? If so, what could the city of Dubuque do to prevent
contamination? Sources: http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com/
• What form of transport will be used to transport the natural gas? How will this
impact transit and shipping of resources through Dubuque?
What else would you like to share with us?
• Biofuel is a cleaner fuel source than CNG. If we switch over to CNG, where will
the money to pay for environmental damage come from? Is it possible that, in the
long run, there will end up being more expenses than were paid for by this
money- saving natural gas? There are also about five more negative impacts than
there are positive impacts on this draft. These point to a stronger argument
against fracking.
• It could contaminate other people's water supply. What is that showing other
towns? We are known as sustainable Dubuque. Other towns look up to us. It
would look bad on our part because of the risks of contaminating others water
supply when we have the 3rd best water in the nation. I don't think that it sets a
good example for other towns. If we are going to get the CNG then I suggest that
we wait until the hydraulic Fracturing companies have rules and regulations that
help protect the environment.
• Overall, this is a well- constructed draft. My opinion on fracking is that the cons
out -weigh the pros. I think that public safety is a must and that it is top priority.
• There are still many things unknown to fracking. Consequences are unknown
and few tests have been finished and released to the public. The fracking
industry is also exempt from many pollution prevention laws. Fracking companies
also have refused to test water quality and pollution. Some evidence suggests
that fracking can be dangerous to the health of both the people and the
environment, and may emit more pollution than it reduces. In my opinion, the city
of Dubuque should delay the decision to use compressed natural gas harvested
from fracking until further information is acquired.
• Based on all of the information that I have conducted, I believe that we should
not use Fracking as a source for energy. There are a lot of things that Fracking
can do to the environment and the public health. Before Dubuque makes a well -
thought out decision, I think we should think of ways to take care of "accidents"
that Fracking can cause.
• I believe that in general fracking should not be supported and that more focus
should be placed on developing present technology to both harvest and use
energy from more renewable sources such as wind, hydraulic, geothermal, and
solar energy. Fracking is in essence a more efficient, cheaper way of extracting a
type of fuel that is nonrenewable and unhealthy for us and the environment. In
my opinion the time and energy spent supporting the entire petroleum industry
would be better spent cultivating practical and cheap ways of using
environmentally friendly forms of energy.
• I feel that we should wait on fracking and see/ learn more about it. Yes, it has
been going on for over lo years, but it can take that long for the groundwater to
actually travel far, and communities have been destroyed because of our need to
'save money'. Overall, I think that we should wait a few more years before we
make the decision of (racking.
• If you make the decision to get the natural gas, you are making someone have to
frack, and if the people fracking accidentally mess up and release the waste
water into groundwater it would indirectly be because of you. If we don't ask for
the gas, we could possibly prevent an environmental catastrophe.
• If any additional information is used from the Environmental Protection Agency's
December report on hydraulic fracturing in 2012, the information may not be
used to draw conclusions on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources. This is stated in the introduction of the report.
• Fracking can be very beneficial with the right technology and resources.
Reducing greenhouse gases is crucial, but polluting our water supply is a big
setback if it were to occur. I don't understand why the fracking companies refuse
to release key information that scientists need to know. However, fracking would
benefit Dubuque just from the money people would be saving. For example,
converting vehicles to be able to use CNG would save money and resources. I
agree with the last paragraph in the draft in which we are not quite ready to frack
in the U.S. Preceding to frack without the knowledge of the damage that could be
done can prove to be very treacherous.
• The article states that diesel is a cleaner fuel source than natural gas. Why don't
we use diesel instead of possibly harming our ground water? Also, there are
about 600 chemicals used in the fracking fluid for hydraulic fracturing. These
include methane, radium, lead, etc. and many of these chemicals don't show up
in our bodies for years. Do we want to be partially responsible for another town's
illnesses- just to lower our gas prices?
• Fracking could be an amazing thing for Dubuque to become a more sustainable
city, which is the goal, but there are also a lot of dangers of hydraulic fracturing
that need to be addressed first. The benefits of fracking and the harm fracking
can cause are major issues to think about, but the benefits outweigh the costs of
what we know right now. We need to know more information on the harm of
fracking before we make the final decision. If something goes wrong with
hydraulic fracturing, not only does it hurt the workers on the plant, but the first
responders, the doctors who treat them, and the community exposed to it,
causing more harm than the profits. As stated in your draft, I agree that the
decisions should be delayed until more information comes out on fracking.
• According to the report, "There are at least several decades worth of natural gas
resources." So, in my opinion, we should hold off on contributing to the potential
risks caused by fracking. At least until some of the problems are solved.
• In the draft of January 17, 2014, in section 2a, at the end of the first paragraph, it
would be, to some proportion, logical to have the other side say something after
the proponent's statement.
• Methane gas is released during hydraulic fracturing. This could possibly become
a threat to locals if the amount of methane in the air is enough to become
explosive (5 %).
• I think that delaying until you can finalize some information would be best.
• I believe that any binding decisions should delayed until further information is
gathered. Throughout my research, I've found fracking to be dangerous and
unsafe until further research proves it safe, or finds ways to reverse the damage
fracking can do. Fracking will benefit the economy, but not forever. As the Draft
states, "natural gas is currently significantly cheaper than coal or oil, "and
eventually CNG prices will rise and become just like the oil and coal industries. I
realize that the coal and oil industries are just as bad or worse yet for the
environment, but I also believe that tacking another harmful way to harness
energy onto the list would not be a good or permanent solution. We should invest
in cleaner, greener ways to create energy such as solar powered, water and wind
powered solutions. There are many, many oppositions to fracking and only few,
close minded supporters who are only looking at the economic benefits and
money money money. We should keep in mind that if we destroy our Earth trying
to save money or make money, we'll have nothing left to spend it on.
• I concur with the ending statement in deciding to delay this decision. I believe if
we were to go forward with using CNG powered vehicles without proper
investigation into the effects on our environment there could be consequences
that greatly outweigh the gains. I believe in time, once we develop a safe and
earth friendly solution to the pollution caused by fracking; hydraulic fracturing
could become a great source of energy.
• It was stated in the draft that the majority of the frack sand comes from mining
operations in Northeast Iowa. These mines only last so long.... and since
operations like these reduce local tourism and the profits of other small
businesses, and later leave the area with little more to support it's local economy
than a depleted mine, what could make buying into this business worth it? Is
there a way to battle these costs?
• When researching information on the topic of fracking I found that 50,000 active
wells in the U.S. times 8 million gallons of water per fracking times 18 times a
well can be fracked equals 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of
chemicals needed to run our current gas wells. Also, the waste fluid is left in
open air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful volatile organic compounds (VOC's)
into the atmosphere creating contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone.
There are up to 600 chemicals that are used in fracturing fluid, including known
carcinogens and toxins such as lead, uranium, mercury, radium, methanol,
ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde. This can be contaminating,
there has been approximately 1,000 documented cases of water contamination
next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and
neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. Lastly, it takes an
average of 400 trucks to carry water and supplies to and from a site per gas well.
• This article has shown me that fracking may be a valuable way to get energy in
the future. But for right now, there are too many loopholes that these "frackers"
can get through and we must put regulations on what they can and can't do.
• I don't think that Dubuque should use compressed natural gas in our
maintenance vehicles. Even though we support the jobs that make this happen
the environmental hazards are to great to be ignored.
• Using natural gas decreases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, however,
methane emitted in the fracking process is more dangerous than the CO2;
Methane is 20 to 100 times more potent as a greenhouse gas.
http: / /insideclimatenews.org Study Delivers Good News, Bad News on Methane
Leaks from Fracking Operations By Lisa Song and Jim Morris Sep 16, 2013 In a
study for crystalline silica in 11 fracking sites, all sites contained an amount that
was above the relevant occupational health criteria for exposure. Crystalline
silica can cause an incurable lung disease, called silicosis, if inhaled.
http: / /serc .carleton.edu /NAGTWorkshops/ health /case_studies /hydrofracking_w. h
tml Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston
Basin, Montana By Joe Hoffman Sep 16, 2013 I agree with the last statement of
the draft- that there should be a delay. I don't feel the possible environmental
damage is worth the risk.
• In the last line of this article it states that there is a delay until you can find a way
to use fracking in a safe manner. I enjoyed reading this because I myself agree
on this delay. Another concern I had was the small Earthquakes that Fracking
causes. Although they are small could they damage cumulate over time and
cause harm?
• There was one part in the report talking about people complaining of methane in
their water (page 4, paragraph 3). I'm just wondering how they know that
methane is in their water and how they know it's from fracking. I feel like in order
for this to be completely convincing, data from an experiment done by somebody
with credibility should be included.
• In the Discussion section, be more descriptive of what the chemicals are and
effects from them. My conducted research from the website
http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com / states that approximately 40,000 gallons of
chemicals are used per fracturing. Then, in the fracking fluid, some of the
chemicals used include: Led, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium,
methanol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde. All of these chemicals are toxic
to the human and animals, let alone destructive damage these cause to habitats
and plants.
• I think fracking could lower the City's debt by using a cheaper source of fuel.
• Professor Robert W. Howarth states that, "The GHG (greenhouse gas) footprint
for shale gas is at least 20% greater than and perhaps more than twice as great
as that for coal when expressed per quantity of energy available during
combustion." This is something to consider with the rising issue of global
warming.
• I concur with the last statement of the draft. I personally would want to delay the
decision of using the CNG or not until myths are proven or dis- proven through
various experiments, and if there are problems, I would wait even longer until
improvements can be made so this harms no one and environments are safe.
• A fact I think you should know about is that 30 -50% of the fluid used in the
fracking process is pumped out of the ground. The other 50 -70% is left in the
ground and is not biodegradable. This could raise a major concern and
potentially seep into the nearby aquifers.
• Researchers have identified some chemicals used in fracking fluid, such as
benzene and ethylbenzene. Over one year of exposure to benzene it can,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cause "...harmful
effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading
to anemia." Also, according to the EPA, short -term exposure to ethylbenzene can
cause throat and eye irritation, chest constriction, and dizziness.
• I know that some fracking sand comes from Northeastern Iowa. How mighty the
mineing of this sand become a problem for our aquifer?
• According to http: / /www.fueleconomy.gov /, using natural gas instead of gasoline
in cars is more efficient. An advantage of natural gas is that it produces about 5-
9% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline.
• Deciding to proceed with fracking could be a long investment. However, the wells
produced can last for a very long time. According to "The Shale Gas Shock" by
Matt Ridley, each well drilled for fracking can last approximately 30 -50 years. The
wells can also extract quite a bit within the first couple years of production. In the
report previously mentioned, 25% of a shale gas well's production emerges in the
first year, and 50% within four years. After that, the output of the well declines
very slowly. So although it lasts for a while, most production is shown within the
first few years.
• Fracking has made generating energy with natural gas cost about the same as
generating energy from coal, but ifs cleaner than coal to use because it gives off
two to three times less CO2 emissions. All coal power plants in Dubuque have
reported health and safety issues. Studies have shown that fracking can cause
small earthquakes. Natural gas plants are relatively cheap to build and easy to
scale so that everyone gets energy. Fracking uses a lot of chemicals that are
mixed in with the water used. Any runoff from fracking operations has significant
environmental damage. Dubuque has oil power plants that most likely rely on
fracking for fuel.
• When fracking is finished they say they get the toxic fluid out of the well. What
they don't say is that only 30 -50% of the fluid is obtained. So there still is 50 -70%
of all those chemicals, water, and sand still down there contaminating our ground
water. If fracking were to take place in the recharge zone of Dubuque's aquifer,
water could be contaminated and we wouldn't be able to use the ground water. It
also says the toxic water is NOT biodegradable. Which means it'll just sit there
and not decompose in the ground. Using CNG in Dubuque increases the need
for fracking somewhere and there are just too many health problems and risks.
Site: http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com/
• We need to ask ourselves this before we continue ruining our environment. Iowa
got a 250,000 dollar grant for research into frack sand mining, what did we get
from that research? Did any environmental issues show up in the results? We
cannot start fracking or sand mining until we know what we are getting ourselves
into.
• We need to know what chemicals are being used in fracking to know if they are
coming up in our water. What are good and bad effects and we need to see what
is more important and look at the long term effects for our health and our planet.
• There are 600 Chemicals used in Fracking. We need figure out what these
chemicals are and if any are toxic. It needs to be determined how dangerous
they can be if they do end up in our ground water.
• Some chemicals used in Hydraulic fracturing are bad for the wildlife and humans.
The chemicals are known to cause cancer. In my opinion, the risks of fracking
are too great. I think the city of Dubuque should use natural gasses developed
from our landfills. Yes, it may cost more money, but our health and safety isn't
being risked.
• How much it would cost to drill one well was not discussed in the packet. It costs
$7.6 million to drill one well and to dig up one deposit of natural gas. The cost of
hydraulic fracturing would balance out the money saved by obtaining natural gas
in the U.S. as opposed to importing it from another country. It would not save as
much money as everyone is promising (
http: / /marcellusdrilling.com /2011 /09 /how- much - does -it- cost -to- drill -a- single-
marcellus- well -7 -6m/ ).
• Fracking is known for having many accidents and problems. Not only does it cost
money to clean up these accidents it costs 7.6 million dollars to drill one well.
Wisconsin has a fracking site; Dubuque's recharge zone for our water is in
Wisconsin. If Wisconsin has an accident with drilling this could affect our ground
water.
• Fracking companies have two options when it comes to dealing with waste water,
or, brine: store the waste (the left -over chemical solution used to split the rock) in
underground reservoirs, or bring it back to the surface and dispose of it above-
ground. an above - ground storage facility must have capacity of at least 1,320
gallons. An underground storage facility must be at least 42,000 gallons.
http: / /www.biggerpieforum.org /How- does - fracking -work
• To run the current wells 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of
chemicals are needed. There are up to 600 chemicals involved, some including
lead, uranium, and radium. The majority of the water used comes from rivers,
lakes, and streams, the main source of fresh water. Almost 40,000 gallons of
chemicals are used per fracking. Only 30 -50% of fracking fluid is recovered the
rest is left behind- and isn't biodegradable http://www.danciersoffracking.com/
• Hundreds of chemicals can be used as additives,but a limited number are
routinely used in hydraulic fracturing. A problem with identifying chemicals used
in fracking is that some chemicals have several names. For example Ethylene
Glycol is also Ethylene alcohol; Glycol; Glycol alcohol; Lutrol 9; Macrogol 400
BPC, and called antifreeze. To find the correct chemical you need to search
using its CAS number, because the name on the record may not match. This
method avoids confusion in identifying which chemical is used. Searching the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) website will list the
different names of chemicals used in fracking. Below is a list of a few chemicals
used in fracking, several of which are harmful to humans. Hydrochloric Acid
Helps dissolve minerals and initiate cracks in the rock Glutaraldehyde Eliminates
bacteria in the water that produces corrosive by- products Sodium Chloride
Product Stabilizer Calcium Chloride Product Stabilizer Sodium Chloride Prevents
clays from swelling or shifting Methanol Product stabilizer and / or winterizing
agent Acetaldehyde Prevents the corrosion of the pipe Ethylene Glycol Product
stabilizer and / or winterizing agent. Citric Acid Prevents precipitation of metal
oxides Sodium Hydroxide Adjust the pH of fluid to maintain effectiveness of other
components as crosslinkers Potassium Hydroxide Adjust the pH of fluid to
maintain effectiveness of other components as crosslinkers
http: / /fracfocus.org /chemical - use /what- chemicals- are -used
• Methane as a Greenhouse Gas According to epa.gov, "Methane (CH4) is the
second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human
activities." They also said that, "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4
on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100 -year period."
And it says that, "CH4 is emitted to the atmosphere during the production,
processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas." Climate
change could greatly affect Dubuque farmers. In order for the city of Dubuque to
approve of cars that run on natural gas they must wait until a better way to
dispose of this toxic gas is found. In conclusion the process and release of
chemicals during hydraulic fracturing should be altered and researched before
Dubuque makes their choice. Fracking is a huge source of methane, which is a
greenhouse gas, and is very dangerous. In the mean time further research
should be done on the potential alternative natural fuels listed in the third
paragraph of the introduction in the city's draft. Site:
http:// epa .gov /climatechange /ghgemissions /gases /ch4.html
• A recharge zone is an area where water infiltrates into an aquifer. Dubuque's
aquifer (Cambrian /Ordovician) is located in Wisconsin. However according to
earthjustice.org the area our recharge zone is in, is now being considered to be a
potential fracking site. If our recharge zone was affected by fracking, it would
eventually run into our groundwater, then polluting it. With all the fracking
accidents already recorded, there have been instances where this has
happened. Dubuque should consider this when deciding whether or not to
support this dangerous industry.
• There have been many reported fracking accidents. However it is likely that there
have been even more unreported accidents. Here are some examples of
reported accidents: "In September 2008, a natural gas pipeline operated by
Williams has exploded in a rural area outside Appomattox, Virginia.II a quarter to
a half mile long and tall, destroyed two homes The explosion, described as a
massive fireband, and injured five people." "January, 2012: Two homes in
Granger County have been deemed a public health threat by a federal health
agency because of potentially explosive levels of natural as in their drinking
water. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry stated that the
problems with the wells originated from the nearby drilling of two gas wells.
Levels of "explosivity" are considered hazardous when they exceed 10 %: the
wells of the two homes were at 34.7% and 47.4 %. The high gas levels inside and
nearby the house led Columbia Gas to shut off services fora period of time
because of the likelihood of an explosion." "In January 2012, a Nomac Drilling
Rig drilled into a shallow gas pocket, causing an explosion and fire that burnt the
gas well to the ground. Witnesses nearly a mile away hear a loud 'boom' from
their homes and one resident claimed that it sound 'like a jet engine was right
outside our home. "' "In 2000, Ballard Petroleum built a gas well less than 250
yards from the home of Laura and Larry Amos. In May 2001, while the family was
away on vacation, three wells were hydraulically fractured. That same day, the
metal cap on the home's water well was blown into the air by a fountain of murky,
fizzin water that flooded the surrounding pasture.After that incident, their tap
water was gray, bubbly and foul smelling. State inspectors found high levels of
methane in the well, but did not test for fracking fluids. Three years later Laura
developed an adrenal gland tumor. In 2005, EnCana (which purchased Ballard)
revealed that 2 -BE, a carcinogenic [cancer causing] fracking ingredient, had
been used in at least one well adjacent to the Amos property." Unreported or
Misreported Fracking Accidents: "In July 2011, workers for Petro Harvester, a
small, Texas -based oil company, noticed a swath of dead vegetation in a field
near one of the company's saltwater disposal lines. The company reported the
spill the next day, estimating that 12,600 gallons of brine had leaked. Later state
officials who assessed the spill found that it had sterilized about 24 acres of land.
The assessment estimated that 2 million gallons of brine was leaked; however,
they did not record the new estimate. If they had, it would have made it the
largest spill recorded in a state: state annals did not change and kept the 12,600
gallon figure." "On December 12, 2009, Chief Gathering, LLC was boring a path
for a pipeline 13 feet under a stream, wetland and road in Penn Township, in
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, when the synthetic muds used to drill the hole
erupted to the surface. Between 3,000 and 6,000 gallons of synthetic drilling mud
spilled into the wetland and some of it reached the stream. The state's
Department of Environmental Protection inspector who visited the site also
discovered there had been a previously unreported spill of about 110 gallons on
December 10, 2010." source: http: / /earthiustice.orq /features /campaigns /frackinq-
a cro ss -t he -u n ited- states
• There are other sources of methane, (natural gas,) than fracking. For example, in
oil drilling, you get extra N.G. as a byproduct, but most of the time they just burn
it off, (what a waste.) There is also Non - Associated gas, which is gas that is
stuck in a pocket underground without a source. Finally we come to fracking.
Fracking is the best way to get shale methane. For many years, if you wanted to
get it out of shale, you would have to rely on natural fractures in the shale. If
there were no fractures in the shale, then it would not come out in commercial
quantities. If we take part in this, it can only get cheaper as technologies improve.
And we will do it while we save on money, and emissions. It will pay for itself.
http: / /en.wikipedia.orq /wiki /Natural gas#Natural gas
• There is an estimated 80 -140 tons of chemicals are used in the process of
fracking, which are already known for having serious potential effects on the
aquifers surrounding the fracking area. However, it has not been addressed that
the new jobs created by fracking will involve people being around and handling
these toxic chemicals. For instance, Hydrochloric Acid which is used to dissolve
minerals and initiate cracks in the rock has serious health consequences. Acute
inhalation of Hydrochloric Acid may cause inflammation and ulceration of the
respiratory tract. http://www.epa.govittnatw01/hlthef/hydrochl.html
http: / /fracfocus.orq /chemical- use /what- chemicals- are -used
• It has come to our attention as a class that the City of Dubuque wants to license
out fracking in our county and surrounding area. Though some of our peers may
be opposed to this idea, and possible decision, we are not. On an economic
standpoint, fracking would help our community, as well as our country. There are
roughly 7.5 gallons in a cubic foot, that means gasoline costs roughly 24 US
dollars per cubic foot, and 24,000 dollars per 1000 cubic feet. In relation, natural
gas extracted from fracking only costs around 10.2 US dollars per 1000 cubic
feet, which means that it is a HUGE economy booster, and would help our city
and community save a lot of money.
• Another problem with fracking would be the effects that the chemicals have on
the people who work around them. The health consequences can include
infertility, birth defects, and cancer. Also, exposure to the fluids and flow back
can affect the skin, eyes, nervous system, kidneys, and cardiovascular system.
These fluids can also be toxic. In a study done by Colborn and colleagues, they
examined 353 fracking chemicals identified by TEDX in a hydraulic fracking
operation. They found that over 75% of these chemicals affected the skin, eyes,
and other sensory organs, 52% affected the nervous system, 40% affected the
immune system and kidney system, and 46% affected the cardiovascular
system. In a second study done by Colborn and colleagues, they examined the
airborne chemicals due to the fracking process. The group categorized the
human tissue types into 12 categories and found 35 chemicals affected the
brain /nervous system, 33 the liver, and 30 the endocrine system, which includes
reproductive and developmental effects.
http: / /en.wikipedia.orq /wiki /Hvdraulic fracturing
• Fracking might release air pollutants such as BTEX compounds, Carbon
monoxide, Hydrogen sulfide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur dioxide, and Methane
according to http:/ /www.catskillmountainkeeper.orq lour - programs /frackinq /whats-
wronq- with - frackinq -2 /air- pollution/
• We know that that frac sand comes from northeastern Iowa and parts of
Wisconsin. This process of extracting sand offers benefits, but also some
concerns. It will create jobs and property owners get benefits, which ultimately
helps our economy. The negative impacts of fracking sand include loss of
scenery and increase of noise nearby pumps. The pumps can also lower the
water table and as we know, sandstone is an aquifer, so removing it could pollute
our groundwater. Semis also are needed transport the sand, so these may
damage our bridges and roadways over time as well as create a traffic hazard
near mining areas.
• One issue of fracking that needs to be addressed is: what happens to these
fracking wells once they have been dried up of their resources? Shale wells start
strong and fade fast, and producers are drilling at a break neck pace to hold
output steady. This is important because this means that the oil wells are pulling
up less every year. Even though they say that these wells last for twenty years,
what is that point when they stop sucking up resources because it is
economically invaluable? Global Sustainability's Hughes estimates the U.S.
needs to drill 6,000 new wells per year at a cost of $35 billion to maintain current
production. His research also shows that the newest wells are not as productive
as those drilled in the first years of the boom, a sign that oil companies have
already tapped the best spots, making it that much harder to keep breaking
records. Wells no longer producing economically or wells that did not produce oil
or gas must be plugged. Plugging consists of the placement of cement at
intervals in the wellbore to prevent the movement of fluid up or down the well to
prevent groundwater contamination and potentially hazardous discharge to the
surface. http: / /www.businessweek.com /articles /2013- 10 -10 /u- dot -s- dot - shale -oil-
boom - may- not - last -as- fracking- wells -lack- staying -power
http: / /www.watershedcouncil.org /learn /hydraulic - fracturing/
• The sand is coming from western Wisconsin, southern Minnesota, and eastern
Iowa.
• I have read a lot of statements concerning the fact that the Fracking might pollute
aquifer wells, but at http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com/ says most wells are
drilled at 500 feet but Fracking wells are drilled at 6,000 to 10,000 feet
underground. So the concern of pollution in the aquifers is very minimal.
• Fracking is a potentially dangerous form of obtaining natural gas. Concerns
center on the amount and kinds of chemicals used which could lead to possible
subterranean problems. Another dangerous component of fracking is the amount
of surface water taken to complete the process. There are 500,000 fracking wells
across America each well uses up to 8 million gallons of water each time it is
used and gas can be obtained from a single well 18 times that's 72 trillion gallons
of water being taken from our rivers and streams. This is a major problem
because it takes away some drinking water, and affects the habitats of many
animals. http : / /www.dangersoffrackinq.com/
• Water that has been used in the fracking process may be contaminated and
would no longer be able to be returned to the bodies that they were taken from
without extensive water treatment. This causes loss of water that can affect the
quality and availability, as well as possessing threats to the aquatic species and
the surrounding habitat.
• First, is how fracking affects seismic activity. Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia
University's Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory
http : / /spectrum.ieee.orglenergywise /energy /fossil -fuels /can- wastewater- injection-
from- fracking- cause - earthquakes, finds that a Chilean earthquake on 27
February 2010 triggered, a significant earthquake in Prague, Oklahoma, where
there was a set of water injection wells used for fracking. Unusual seismic activity
continued near Prague for almost two years until late November 2011, when an
earthquake destroyed 14 homes and injured two people, according to a Lamont -
Doherty press release. My second concern is potential contamination of our
groundwater. In a study published on Oct.2 in the Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology, researchers found high levels of radioactivity, salts and
metals in the water and sediments downstream from a fracking wastewater plant
on Blacklick Creek in western Pennsylvania. According to
http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com / only 30 -50% of toxins pumped into the
ground is recovered, the remaining is left in the ground.
• There are many potentially harmful chemicals used in fracking such as lead,
radium, hydrochloric acid, ethylele glycol, and mercury. These may cause harm
to humans if released into drinking water or not handled properly.
( http : / /www.dangersoffracking.com) I feel that the city of Dubuque should
consider these consequences of obtaining natural gas before converting to
natural gas as fuel.
• The CNG powered vehicles that The City of Dubuque plans on purchasing would
be a step in the right direction both environmentally and economically. But the
natural gas used to power these vehicles would come from hydraulic fracturing
operations. Hydraulic fracturing has many negative environmental effects like
contaminated groundwater and air pollution. While it is a cheap source of fuel,
the environmental effects greatly offset its viability. With this in mind, The City of
Dubuque could potentially obtain the same quantity of gas through other, less
harmful, methods. As mentioned in the draft, methane can be captured from the
landfill, or produced as bio methane from controlled anaerobic digestion. If these
are feasible options, then The City of Dubuque should be taking steps to utilize
them and make our community more self- sustaining.
• According to the United States Department of Transportation pipelines are the
safest and most cost - effective way of transporting natural gas.
• In bio- diesel vehicles emissions of NOx and PM are higher than CNG vehicles.
But CO and HC were lower than bio- diesel
Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report December 2012
APPENDIX 2
Executive Summary
Natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future. The United States has vast reserves
of natural gas that are commercially viable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing technologies, which enable greater access to gas in rock formations deep
underground. These advances have spurred a significant increase in the production of both natural
gas and oil across the country.
Responsible development of America's oil and gas resources offers important economic, energy
security, and environmental benefits. However, as the use of hydraulic fracturing has increased, so
have concerns about its potential human health and environmental impacts, especially for drinking
water. In response to public concern, the US House of Representatives requested that the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct scientific research to examine the relationship
between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources (USHR, 2009).
In 2011, the EPA began research under its Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. The purpose of the study is to assess the potential impacts
of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, if any, and to identify the driving factors that
may affect the severity and frequency of such impacts. Scientists are focusing primarily on
hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas, with some study of other oil- and
gas - producing formations, including tight sands, and coalbeds. The EPA has designed the scope of
the research around five stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Each stage of the cycle is
associated with a primary research question:
Water acquisition: What are the possible impacts of large volume water withdrawals from
ground and surface waters on drinking water resources?
Chemical mixing: What are the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing fluid surface spills
on or near well pads on drinking water resources?
Well injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on
drinking water resources?
• Flowback and produced water: What are the possible impacts of flowback and produced
water (collectively referred to as "hydraulic fracturing wastewater ") surface spills on or
near well pads on drinking water resources?
• Wastewater treatment and waste disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate
treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on drinking water resources?
This report describes 18 research projects underway to answer these research questions and
presents the progress made as of September 2012 for each of the projects. Information presented
as part of this report cannot be used to draw conclusions about potential impacts to drinking water
resources from hydraulic fracturing. The research projects are organized according to five different
types of research activities: analysis of existing data, scenario evaluations, laboratory studies,
toxicity assessments, and case studies.
1
Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report December 2012
Analysis of Existing Data
Data from multiple sources have been obtained for review and analysis. Many of the data come
directly from the oil and gas industry and states with high levels of oil and gas activity. Information
on the chemicals and practices used in hydraulic fracturing has been collected from nine companies
that hydraulically fractured a total of 24,925 wells between September 2009 and October 2010.
Additional data on chemicals and water use for hydraulic fracturing are being pulled from over
12,000 well- specific chemical disclosures in FracFocus, a national hydraulic fracturing chemical
registry operated by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission. Well construction and hydraulic fracturing records provided by well operators are
being reviewed for 333 oil and gas wells across the United States; data within these records are
being scrutinized to assess the effectiveness of current well construction practices at containing
gases and liquids before, during, and after hydraulic fracturing.
Data on causes and volumes of spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewater are being
collected and reviewed from state spill databases in Colorado, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.
Similar information is being collected from the National Response Center national database of oil
and chemical spills.
In addition, the EPA is reviewing scientific literature relevant to the research questions posed in
this study. A Federal Register notice was published on November 9, 2012, requesting relevant, peer -
reviewed data and published reports, including information on advances in industry practices and
technologies. This body of literature will be synthesized with results from the other research
projects to create a report of results.
Scenario Evaluations
Computer models are being used to identify conditions that may lead to impacts on drinking water
resources from hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has identified hypothetical, but realistic, scenarios
pertaining to the water acquisition, well injection, and wastewater treatment and waste disposal
stages of the water cycle. Potential impacts to drinking water sources from withdrawing large
volumes of water in semi -arid and humid river basins —the Upper Colorado River Basin in the west
and the Susquehanna River Basin in the east —are being compared and assessed.
Additionally, complex computer models are being used to explore the possibility of subsurface gas
and fluid migration from deep shale formations to overlying aquifers in six different scenarios.
These scenarios include poor well construction and hydraulic communication via fractures (natural
and created) and nearby existing wells. As a first step, the subsurface migration simulations will
examine realistic scenarios to assess the conditions necessary for hydraulic communication rather
than the probability of migration occurring.
In a separate research project, concentrations of bromide and radium at public water supply
intakes located downstream from wastewater treatment facilities discharging treated hydraulic
fracturing wastewater are being estimated using surface water transport models.
2
Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report December 2012
Laboratory Studies
Laboratory studies are largely focused on identifying potential impacts of inadequately treating
hydraulic fracturing wastewater and discharging it to rivers. Experiments are being designed to test
how well common wastewater treatment processes remove selected contaminants from hydraulic
fracturing wastewater, including radium and other metals. Other experiments are assessing
whether or not hydraulic fracturing wastewater may contribute to the formation of disinfection
byproducts during common drinking water treatment processes, with particular focus on the
formation of brominated disinfection byproducts, which have significant health concerns at high
exposure levels.
Samples of raw hydraulic fracturing wastewater, treated wastewater, and water from rivers
receiving treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater have been collected for source apportionment
studies. Results from laboratory analyses of these samples are being used to develop a method for
determining if treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater is contributing to high chloride and bromide
levels at downstream public water supplies.
Finally, existing analytical methods for selected chemicals are being tested, modified, and verified
for use in this study and by others, as needed. Methods are being modified in cases where standard
methods do not exist for the low -level detection of chemicals of interest or for use in the complex
matrices associated with hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Analytical methods are currently being
tested and modified for several classes of chemicals, including glycols, acrylamides, ethoxylated
alcohols, disinfection byproducts, radionuclides, and inorganic chemicals.
Toxicity Assessments
The EPA has identified chemicals reportedly used in hydraulic fracturing fluids from 2005 to 2011
and chemicals found in flowback and produced water. Appendix A contains tables with over 1,000
of these chemicals identified. Chemical, physical, and toxicological properties are being compiled
for chemicals with known chemical structures. Existing models are being used to estimate
properties in cases where information is lacking. At this time, the EPA has not made any judgment
about the extent of exposure to these chemicals when used in hydraulic fracturing fluids or found in
hydraulic fracturing wastewater, or their potential impacts on drinking water resources.
Case Studies
Two rounds of sampling at five case study locations in Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and
Texas have been completed. In total, water samples have been collected from over 70 domestic
water wells, 15 monitoring wells, and 13 surface water sources, among others. This research will
help to identify the source of any contamination that may have occurred.
The EPA continues to work with industry partners to begin research activities at potential
prospective case study locations, which involve sites where the research will begin before well
construction. This will allow the EPA to collect baseline water quality data in the area. Water quality
will be monitored for any changes throughout drilling, injection of fracturing fluids, flowback, and
production. Samples of flowback and produced water will be used for other parts of the study, such
as assessing the efficacy of wastewater treatment processes at removing contaminants in hydraulic
fracturing wastewater.
3
Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report December 2012
Invigorating the Research Study Through Consultation and Peer Review
The EPA is committed to conducting a study that uses the best available science, independent
sources of information, and a transparent, peer - reviewed process that will ensure the validity and
accuracy of the results. The agency is working in consultation with other federal agencies, state and
interstate regulatory agencies, industry, non - governmental organizations, and others in the private
and public sector. In addition to workshops held in 2011, stakeholders and technical experts are
being engaged through technical roundtables and workshops, with the first set of roundtables held
November 14 -16, 2012. These activities will provide the EPA with ongoing access to a broad range
of expertise and data, timely and constructive technical feedback, and updates on changes in
industry practices and technologies relevant to the study. Technical roundtables and workshops
will be followed by webinars for the general public and posting of summaries on the study's
website. Increased stakeholder engagement will also allow the EPA to educate and inform the public
of the study's goals, design, and progress.
To ensure scientifically defensible results, each research project is subjected to quality assurance
and peer review activities. Specific quality assurance activities performed by the EPA make sure
that the agency's environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support the data's
intended use. Research products, such as papers or reports, will be subjected to both internal and
external peer review before publication, which make certain that the data are used appropriately.
Published results from the research projects will be synthesized in a report of results that will
inform the research questions associated with each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle.
The EPA has designated the report of results as a "Highly Influential Scientific Assessment," which
will undergo peer review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, an independent and external federal
advisory committee that conducts peer reviews of significant EPA research products and activities.
The EPA will seek input from individual members of an ad hoc expert panel convened under the
auspices of the EPA Science Advisory Board. The EPA will consider feedback from the individual
experts in the development of the report of results.
Ultimately, the results of this study are expected to inform the public and provide decision - makers
at all levels with high - quality scientific knowledge that can be used in decision - making processes.
Looking Forward: From This Report to th ext
Progress
Report
Science
Advisory
Board
Individual
Reports
and Papers
Technical Roundtables and Workshops,
Public Webinars
Draft
Report of
Results
Science
Advisory
Board Peer
Review
i
Final
Report of
Results
J
4
APPENDIX 3
LISTING OF ARTICLES AND WEBSITES
ARTICLES
"Why Not Frack ?" —Bill McKibben
"Beyond Natural Gas: Protecting Our Air, Water, and Communities" — Sierra Club
"Bridge Out: Bombshell Study Finds Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Production
Far Higher Than EPA Estimates" —Joe Romm, thinkprogress.org
"Community Right to Know" —Union of Concerned Scientists
"Research and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale -Gas
Extraction" — Robert B Jackson, Brooks Rainey Pearson, Stephen G Osborn, Nathaniel
R Warner, Avner Vengosh (Duke University)
"Fracking Strikes Out In Cooperstown- Towns Across US Follow Suit" — Jessica A
Knoblauch (Earth Justice, Fall 2012)
"Food & Water Watch" — National Resources Defense Council
"Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in
Rural Colorado" —Lisa M McKenzie, Ruixin Guo, Roxana Z Witter, David A Savitz, Lee
S Newman, John L Adgate (Environmental Health Perspectives)
"On Fracking Lawsuits: 'Stop Suing Our Communities"
"Fracking Update: What States Are Doing to Ensure Safe Natural Gas Extraction" —
Jacquelyn Pless
"Freeing Up Energy. Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America's Natural Gas Resources"
— American Petroleum Institute
"How to Talk to Your Relatives About Fracking During the Holidays"
"Fracking and Our Food Supply" — Shelly Stonebrook (Mother Earth News)
"Fracking Unleashed: New Drilling Boom Imperils America's Last Wild Places" — Natural
Resources Defense Council (www.frackalarm.org)
"Board Denies Permits for Frac Sand Mine" —Mary Nevans- Pederson (Telegraph
Herald, August 23, 2013)
"Not So Fast, Natural Gas!- Why Accelerating Risky Drilling Threatens America's Water"
—Food & Water Watch
"Myths About Natural Gas" — Popular Mechanics
(http:I /www. popularmechanics.com /science /energylcoa1- oil - gas /top -10- myths- about-
natural -gas- drilling- 6386593 #slide -1)
"Should the US use Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) to extract natural gas ?" — Submitted
by Tom DeGree
"Toward an Evidence -Based Fracking Debate" —Union of Concerned Scientists (2013)
"Waxman, DeGette Urge White House to Curb Toxic Diesel in Fracking Fluid" — Stephen
Goss (November 18, 2013)
"America Risks Wasting Fracking's Potential" —Peter Harkness (January 2014)
"Bakken Oil Rail Transportation Issues- SE Minnesota /La Cross, WI Area"
"Injection- Induced Earthquakes" —WL Ellsworth (Science, 2013)
"Frackonomics: Some Economics of Hydraulic Fracturing" — Timothy Fitzgerald (Case
Western Reserve Law Review. Volume 63, Issue 4. 2013)
"Annual Report of the State Geologist" — Robert D Libra (State Geologist of Iowa, Iowa
Geological and Water Survey, IDNR. February 2013)
"Frac Sand Mining: Are There Public Health Risks ?" —Ginny Yingling, Minnesota
Department of Health (NEHA- Region 4. September 2013)
"Anthropogenic Emissions of Methane in the United States" —
www. pnas.o rg /cgi /contents /sho rt/1 31 43921 1 0
"Silica Sand Mining in Wisconsin" — Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(January 2012)
"Water Quality Studied in Areas of Unconvential Oil and Gas Development, Including
Areas Where Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques are Used, in the United States" —US
Geological Survey Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis (April 2012)
"Clean Diesel versus CNG Buses: Cost, Air Quality, & Climate Impacts " - Dana Lowell,
MJB & A. February 22, 2012.
WEBSI TES
BAE Systems Converts Conventional Trucks and Buses to Hybrid -
http:// www. hybriddrive.com /hybriddrive -fo r-
trucks.asp ?gclid =CJf2I NCE I7wCFe87Mgod8AgA70
www.fracfocus.orq
www. e ne rgyto m o rrow. o rq
www.api.orq
www .foodandwaterwatch.orq /fracking
http://www.carbontracker.orq/carbonbubble
http: / /www.desmogbloq.com/ 2013 /04 /29lfaster- drillinq- lower- returns - shale- plays-
nationwide
http://www.eia.qov/dnav/nq/nq move expc s1 z.htm
http: / /www.quardian.co.uk /environment /2013 /aprll 9/ carbon - bubble - financial- crash - crisis
http: / /th inkprog ress. o rq /cl i mate /2013/04/19/1894051 lap ri l-19- news - when - will -the-
carbon- bubble - pop - costing- fossil -fuel- investors -6- trillion / ?mobile =nc
http:// www2. sunysuffolk. edu /westn /fossi[fuelbubble.html
http://www.thinktosustain.com/ 2013/04/ fossil - fuel - investors - risk -6- trillion- carbon-
bubble/#. UaayxkDVAdq
http://en.wikipedia .0 rq/wi ki/ca rbo n cycle
http: / /ecowatch.com /2013 /5- reasons -Ing- exports- very- bad -idea/
http: / /ecowatch.com /2013/ doe - approves - fracked- qas -Ing- export- terminal/
http:// news. nationalgeographic .com /news/2010/10/101022-
breaking -fuel- from -the-
rock/?user_id= 11692605& email= mcorriga %40cityofdubuque.o
rg &conf= 089e0f17- b685 -4d b4- 993f -42b5d 11ff85 b #close-
modal
1. Water
Acquisition
S
2. Chemical
Mixing
4. Flowback and
Produced Water
3. Well (Wastewaters)
Injection
5. Wastewater
Treatment and
Waste Disposal
Ern
SEM
,
Natural gas flows from fissures
into well
t9
Rcaighty 200 tanker
trucks deliver wafer flax
the lraciurrrg process_
'00VIINWITg -
-et a--
zeido
a ow
-4.
A purrrper truck romp a
'mu el sand, water and
reacts into tM
00 00
Wafer fad Well'
Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing. or
'having.' involves the injection
of more thana million gallons
of water, s.artd and chemicals
at high pressx, re down and
across into horizontally drit ed
woli_s as far as 10,E lest
belcrw the sug1aoe, The
pressurized mixture causes
tho rot Dyer, in this case the
Marcellus Shale. to Vic.
These fissures are held open
by iho sand particbers so that
na.1ural gas 'Rom tho shale can
flow up the well,
Marcellus Shale
Nalurat pas iIQw out of well.
r
Recovered water is scored irk open
pits, the taken to a treatment
plant
Itm,:k Pit
L
Storage Natural g s is piped
tanks 10 MAW
Sand keeps
fissures open
Natural gas
trews Dorn
Iissufe s
Into well
Shale
— Rtau■*
Mixture of
water, and
and chemical
agents
Fissures
Well turns
horizontal
The shale is fractured
by the pressure inside
the welt,
Grdprib tiy Al Grart:t erg
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Disposal
Well
\SPS �QSQpS
P 1j0
`NP `NP
Recycling
Facility
'°'"°°' ~ pipe) oeq c
k
0..: F) wq FR
C
tiFMic
q
Wellhead 000 MIX/A'...N111.111110—Sr-
,G
Nig DER PcQV,SO�eN
Ground Water
Drinking
We Well
AQUIFER
I
Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission
Hydraulic Fracturing Report Timeline
Date
Purpose
artirmw
January 23, 2014
January 24, 2014
February 4, 201
February 17, 2014
February 18, 2014
March 5, 2014
6:30 PM -8:00 PM
Public Input Session
12:00 PM -1:30 PM Public Input Session
5:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:30 PM
ESAC Meeting
- Finalize Hydraulic Fracking Report
- Prepare for City Council Work Session
City Council Work Session on Hydraulic Fracking
(No Public Input)
Public Works Department Budget Hearing (Public
Input Allowed)
6:30 PM Final Public Hearing for City Budget
Carnegie -Stout Public Library, y
Aigler Auditorium, 360 W 11th St
Carnegie -Stout Public Library,
Aigler Auditorium, 360 W 11th St
Carnegie -Stout Public Library,
Aigler Auditorium, 360 W 11th St
City Council Chambers, Historic
Federal Building
City Council Chambers, Historic
Federal Building
City Council Chambers, Historic
Federal Building
Public Input
1. Identify any incorrect information on the draft report.
Include why it is incorrect.
2. What information from credible sources is missing?
3. What outstanding questions need to be addressed in the
report?
4. What else would you like to share with us?
Mayor Roy D. Buol & City Council
City Hall 50 W. 13th
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Mayor Buol and Council Members,
RECEIVED
14 FEB 14 PM 2: 21
City Clerk's Office
Dubuque, IA
We realize public imput is wanted to assist you with the concern
about Sand Fracking and mining of natural gas. Some of us have
had three opportunities of learning about this through the programs
offered in Dubuque. Since there are problems and drawbacks
ecologically, economically and healthwise to our people and the
farming community, we ask you to take the opportunity to do more
study before any final decision is made.
• The point in mind is converting city trucks to compressed
natural gas from biodiesel fuel which is just as clean. We ask
you to consider the drawbacks of this decision.
' c.'5'z.,.L .l h.
�J��'ti �' (_. `.-(�CS'
v
is 7n
d