The natural radioactivity of the Marcellus Shale has caused concern since the mid-1980s, when high levels of radon gas were found in the basements of homes in Marcellus, a town in upstate New York, where the shale reaches the surface. The question has long been, if the Marcellus can cause radioactive gas to seep into people's basements, how much radioactivity might be infused into the water left over from drilling? Add to that the question of how much human exposure can be expected from the radiation detected at some Marcellus drilling sites.
In its environmental review, the state said it couldn't answer those questions because exposure depends on so many variables and because the units of measurement for human exposure and concentrations in water are incompatible. There is "no simple or universally accepted equivalence between these units," the DEC wrote in its environmental review.
But Rick Kessy, operations manager for Fortuna Energy, a subsidiary of Canadian Talisman Energy and the largest gas producer in New York, says his company has assessed worker exposure at two of the company's well sites in Pennsylvania, where it found no serious risk.
And a U.S. Department of Energy expert who specializes in such exposure conversions said an analysis in New York should be "very easy to do."
"If they know the concentrations and they know the exposure pathways it should be straightforward to calculate that," said Charley Yu, who runs the national computer dose modeling program at http://www.talisman-energy.com/ for the U.S. Department of Energy.
In fact, New York's DEC used Yu's government modeling program, called RESRAD, in a 1999 study to establish radioactivity exposure risks for oilfield brine spread on roads, a common disposal practice. Its brine samples in that case contained far less radium than the Marcellus water. It laid out a simple scenario, assuming a person walked on the road for two hours a day over 20 years and a fixed quantity of brine was spread there. That study found no threat to human health.
No such analysis was included in the state's recent supplemental environmental impact statement.
Few Disposal Options
All this would be of substantially less concern if New York were like most of the other states that produce some radioactive waste during natural gas drilling. In those states, the waste is re-injected underground. But in New York, injection disposal wells are uncommon, and those that do exist aren't licensed to receive radioactive waste or Marcellus Shale wastewater, according to the EPA. Instead, most drilling wastewater is treated by municipal or industrial water treatment plants and discharged back into public waterways.
The radium-laden wastewater would almost certainly need to be carefully treated by plants capable of filtering out the radioactive substances. Kessy, the Fortuna manager, which operates five of the wells with spiked readings in New York, said the levels are higher than he has seen elsewhere. Treatment plants in Pennsylvania are accepting Fortuna wastewater with much lower levels of radioactivity from the company's wells there, Kessy said, but if plants can't take the higher concentrations, it could be crippling.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThe production zones for oil and gas in Kentucky also have radioactivity, which has resulted in surface contamination across the state. Although considered naturally occurring radioactive material ("NORM"), bringing that to the surface is a problem not widely publicized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an ancient and well known issue. Natural radioactive materials are common. How could this be a surprise or unexpected?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe radiation dose is totally trivial compared to what your doctor would prescribe without blinking an eye. Of course the radiation from modern medicine is not okay either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't New York just ask West Virginia how they dispose of their nuclear waste from gas drilling. West Virginia has enough nuclear waste to supply every nuclear power plant in the world...of course, West Virginia keeps that a secret or every state in the union would be flocking to them for nuclear fuel for their reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease get very vocal with your news......nag the media to get you on tv news every day with your news.... Otherwise the majority of Americans do not hear you...! Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNG wells don't produce that long. Just pump it down an old well back where it came from. If these wells hold NG, they will hold about anything.
If you are worried about these radiation sources, you better stop burning coal as they put out far more either in the air, scrubber of waste pile.
actually just because it came up from underground doesnt mean it goes back down safely. depends if the wells are constructed correctly, the injection is done under safe pressures so that it doesnt fracture rocks, etc. this practice has led to widespread groundwater contamination across the country. look at the Safe Drinking Water Act, Underground Injection Control program sometime. we just don't hear much about this because it's "out of sight out of mind"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood heavens, people, this isn't _news_.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNor is it trivial, despite the people who try to dismiss it.
You can look it up.
http://www.google.com/search?q=drilling+pipe+cleaning+radiation+hazard+oil+gas
In addition to radioactivity in the water, the cuttings removed from the Marcellus as they drill will also be radioactive. Where will they be disposed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaccording to the data used in the URS Corporations report to NYSERDA dated Sept. 16, 2009 - Water-Related Issues Associated With Gas Production In The Marcellus Shale , the Marcellus shale flowback water is radioactive on 24 ocassions out of 100. This means that the probability is 24 percent which is a large number. The median and maximum alpha and beta radiation of the effluent that will be discarged untreated with regard to radiactivity are 1,414.5, 18,950 and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1,395 , 7,445 respectively which by more than 3 orders of magnitute exceeds the standards. There are technologies available to remove the radioactive metals, but all these facts are being ignored
It's no wonder NY DEC isn't too interested in this. They are too busy trying to close down the Indian Point nuclear plants (which emit practically no radiation) by forcing them to put in gigantic cooling towers ten times more expensive than the solutions they have allowed for their more ideologically-favored methane plants down the river.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe shales, as a group, that the gas is being "fracked" from are a uranium resource. After WWII the Atomic Energy Commission assessed them as the biggest uranium resource the US had at the time. They aren't being mined because richer deposits were discovered. Its no wonder the water coming up is radioactive - the gas is also. The companies look for the gas by looking for the most radioactive shale. The gas is 5 times more radioactive and may be as much as 80 times as radioactive as regular gas. Using it will expose consumers to far more radioactivity than conventional gas, in some cases more than 1,000 times as much as living next door to a nuclear reactor would expose someone to. I have written an article: http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/47970/shale-gas-some-it-hot#comment-8120
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is proof of the folly of those who waste their time and money, to feel superior to others, because deep down they know, they are just like the others, mere mortals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not publish and promote OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama, as they do with the oil pipeline from Canada, the war in oil producing countries, and lately, the ancient, but now is reported as recent: shale gas?
The information provided in this article allows the answer: like them, do not has touched be creative, they need both oil and radioactive substances, for their weapons. Hydropower does not serve to that.
And in the case of other renewable energies, to the promote it, considered that their inadequacy and low reliability, sooner or later, would provoke its ridiculous, and it would be good propaganda to justify the use of all types of carbon for energy, and simultaneously, war and its destructive collaterals business.
Energy independence will be preamble to that, with atomic bombs, we will separate a piece of the earth for each madman? Someone will be thinking about bottling and selling atmosphere, so that later, we have to claim independence of air to breathe?