Industry funded science

The oil and gas industry has funded another “scientific” study that is not a real study.  What they are spinning as a “study” is actually a report–conducted by an industry paid adviser–of air testing from one pad site in Mansfield, Texas. Despite industry spin, their testing found a chemical cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic air pollution at the one pad site where testing took place.

This is not the first time industry has used this adviser. And it’s not the first time their adviser found a chemical cocktail near oil and gas wells.

In Southlake/Colleyville, citizen testing found dangerous chemicals over TCEQ levels. Modern Geosciences did testing and said they found nothing but reading the report gave a different story. They found the same thing we found.

This latest industry funded science comes as the oil and gas industry is under fire for funding fake science. Two recent revelations:

• The oil and gas industry spent millions attempting to block action against climate change.
• Energy In Depth “spins research to shape the scientific debate over horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.”

Teasing out the truth isn’t easy for policymakers or the public. In fact, it’s a predicament common to a range of public health issues going back more than 100 years. Experts noted that a small but vocal number of scientists as well as some industry groups continue to borrow from a playbook first drafted by lead paint manufacturers in the early 20th century and expanded by Big Tobacco in subsequent decades. The tactics are chock full of legal and public relations tactics designed to preserve profitability, they say.

As HuffPost reported Wednesday, manipulated science can pose serious public health harms. Manufactured data, concealed conflicts of interest and misleading conclusions are evident in influential research on vaccination, organic food, secondhand smoke and industrial chemicals.

Fracking apparently is no exception.

This latest spin by Energy In Depth attempts to block any updates to the Mansfield drilling ordinance, no matter how reasonable.

Breathing Petroleum Vapors can Cause Death and Harm to Health.

Energy In Depth is asking Mansfield residents to believe that petroleum vapors released at gas wells is harmless. We know that’s not true.

• Three recent industry worker deaths where tied to inhalation of petroleum vapors released during flowback.
• A real study shows health effects on workers and communities.
• Industry’s own “Internal memorandums, emails, letters and meeting minutes” show they know about health harms and their attempts to hide those.
• Results of Earthworks’ investigations in PA were documented in this peer-reviewed study. This study shows:
  • Oil and gas chemicals are showing up in neighborhoods where fracking occurs.
  • Health complaints increase with oil and gas development.
  • Health symptoms are consistent with oil and gas chemicals detected in neighborhoods.
• There is a compendium of studies, reports and investigations showing harm to health.

This industry continues to be stuck on stupid. Rather than solving problems they use the same misleading tactics to dodge responsibility.

Chemical Cocktail Found at Mansfield Gas Well

Let’s take a quick look at what the report actually found.

November 20, 2014 and December 1, 2014:

This testing was conveniently done during fracking when they are putting stuff down the hole so you would not expect to find anything/much coming up the hole. The testing was done at only one pad site.

It rained during the testing, which means fewer emissions in the air. (NOTE: Photo Ionization Detector (PID) performance is affected by rain.)

Precipitation was noted during the evening of November 22, 2014 with a total of approximately 0.63 inches recorded during the one event and minor events noted earlier in the day.

There were high winds, which means the emissions will blow away and be much harder to detect.

Wind speed at the Site ranged from approximately 0 to 23 mph during the monitoring period.

Despite these unfavorable conditions, a cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals were detected. From page 7:

Concentrations of benzene, toluene, and p‐xylene were noted above the equipment detection limits.

Keep in mind that recent toxicology in the fracking zone shows the mixture of chemicals is what is important.

“The major problem is the mixture problem. And I can’t overemphasize how serious that is in trying to understand what’s going on… The presence of one agent can increase the toxicity of another agent by several fold.”

Here is a list of chemicals detected downwind:

• Trichloromonofluoromethane
• Ethane, 1,2‐dichloro‐
• Benzene
• Carbon Tetrachloride
• Propane, 1,2‐dichloro‐
• Methane, bromodichloro‐
• Toluene
• Methane, dibromochloro‐
• Tetrachloroethylene
• Ethylbenzene
• p‐Xylene
• Styrene
• o‐Xylene
• Ethane, 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloro‐
• Benzene, 1,3‐dichloro‐
• Benzene, 1,4‐dichloro‐
• Benzene, 1,2‐dichloro‐

December 17, 2014 and December 24, 2014

It was raining!  2.5 inches of rain is not minor. (NOTE: Photo Ionization Detector (PID) performance is affected by rain.)

Minor precipitation was noted periodically throughout the monitoring event, with nearly 2.5 inches of rain being recorded over the course of the week.

There was a strong wind, at least, part of the time.

Wind speed at the Site ranged from approximately 0 to 21 mph during the monitoring period.

Chemicals were still detected.

Concentrations of benzene, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, cyclohexane, Freon 113, tetrahydrofuran, heptane, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), methylene chloride, naphthalene, styrene, toluene, Freon 11, o‐xylene, and m,p‐xylene were noted above the equipment detection limits.

Recommendations:

Modern suggests the consideration of ambient air monitoring during future padsite operations (e.g., drilling, hydraulic fracturing, flowback, or production) where potential emissions from the padsite could impact neighboring properties. Any monitoring program should allow for short term data to be obtained and relayed to the operator in a timely manner so any impact could be addressed while operations were ongoing.

Modern recommends the use of periodic padsite inspections once the site has entered production to ensure emissions are minimized and gas capture/sales are maximized. This should include the use of audio, visual, and olfactory observations supplemented with near‐equipment inspection using optical gas imaging and hand‐held meters as well as air monitoring inclusive of VOC evaluation and meteorological conditions.

Chemicals detected:

• Benzene
• Benzene, 1,2,4‐trimethyl‐
• Benzene, 1,3,5‐trimethyl‐
• Benzene, 1,3‐dichloro‐
• Benzene, 1,4‐dichloro‐
• Carbon disulfide
• Carbon Tetrachloride
• Cyclohexane
• Ethane, 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloro‐
• Ethane, 1,1,2‐trichloro‐1,2,2‐trifluoro‐ (Freon 113)
• Ethylbenzene
• Furan, tetrahydro‐
• Heptane
• Methyl Butyl Ketone (MBK)
• Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
• Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)
• Methyl Methacrylate
• Methylene Chloride
• Naphthalene
• o‐Xylene
• m,p‐Xylene
• Styrene
• Tetrachloroethylene
• Toluene
• Trichloroethylene
• Trichloromonofluoromethane (Freon 11)

{ 1 comment }

Are you confused about ISIS beheadings? If you need help sorting out your feelings about beheadings, let Ms. Fracky Pants clear up your confusion:

@WCGasette @TimRuggiero @saeverley @TXsharon @Fishcreek1269 If you oppose US fracking, then you support the ISIS beheadings and foreign oil

— Charlotte Batson (@BatsonandCo) February 17, 2015

{ 7 comments }