IMPACTS OF GAS DRILLING ON HUMAN & ANIMAL HEALTH

Honour Rosser

Kenya Plant Reverse Osmosis at Chinchilla

Projected life: Currently 20 years, although the plant has been built with a 40-year lifespan. 
Operator: Veolia Water Australia. 
Staff: 25. 
Power source: 33MW gas-fired plant. 
Production capacity: 95ML per day (currently about 40-60ML). 
Desalination rate: 97 per cent, with the balance of concentrated salt to be held on site prior to removal. 
Process: At the plant, water released from the Walloon Coal Measures to liberate CSG is filtered to remove suspended particles. 

The water then passes through an ion exchange to remove minerals and reverse osmosis to remove dissolved salts. It is then remineralised and its pH corrected to meet SunWater’s requirements. The plant’s three boiler-like structures are brine concentrators, which concentrate dissolved salts through thermal evaporation. 

Sister plant: QGC’s Woleebee Creek Water Treatment Plant is due to open next year and has a projected maximum daily output of about 100ML. It will be used for irrigation and commercial mining and carried via a pipeline to the Glebe Weir on the Dawson River. 

Overall project: QGC’s Queensland Curtis LNG plant includes a pipeline that will link the Kenya plant and points south to Woleebee Creek and the Curtis Island LNG plant at Gladstone to supply liquefied natural gas to the export and domestic markets.

QGC Pty Limited awarded a contract worth up to A$800 million to Veolia Water Australia Pty Ltd to operate and maintain QGC's three water treatment plants in the Surat Basin.

From June 2013 Veolia Water electricians, instrument technicians, plant operators and water engineers will operate and maintain ultrafiltration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis and brine concentration equipment in addition to pump stations and electrical substations. 

Under the 20-year contract Veolia Water will operate and maintain the plants, which will treat groundwater produced alongside natural gas. QGC is investing more than A$1 billion in infrastructure to treat this generally unused salty water for use by agriculture, industry and towns.

The two main water treatment plants to be maintained and operated are under construction at sites known as Kenya and Woleebee Creek, about 35 km from Chinchilla and Wandoan respectively. These facilities will have a combined capacity to treat about 200 megalitres a day - or about 80 Olympic-sized swimming pools - during peak production. A smaller, 6-megalitre treatment plant operates at QGC's Windibri site near Chinchilla, providing water to Cameby Downs coal mine and Condamine Power Station.
 


Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Jeff Seeney 
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Water plant shows benefits of resources sector

QGC’s Kenya Water Treatment Plant near Chinchilla will help to drought proof agricultural producers, providing an example of how the resources sector is delivering wider benefits to Queensland communities. 
Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Jeff Seeney officially inaugurated the plant in the gas fields west of Brisbane today.
Mr Seeney congratulated QGC on its investment of around $1 billion on water infrastructure in the Surat Basin.
“Projects such as this are not only important for the local farmers and communities, but for the sustainability of the region,” Mr Seeney said.
“The output of this plant will ensure that a considerable number of agricultural producers are effectively drought free.”
“It shows that CSG water is a valuable resource, not the waste product always portrayed by the previous Labor Government.
“I have always acknowledged CSG water as a valuable by-product, not a problem, and that is the difference with the Newman Government,” Mr Seeney said. 
The Kenya plant will purify water collected as a by-product of gas production and deliver it to local farmers, irrigators and communities.
It is one of two major water facilities QGC will build as part of its gas production operations in Surat Basin.
A second plant is currently under construction at Woleebee Creek near Wandoan. 
Mr Seeney said the CSG industry was injecting billions of dollars into the Queensland economy and providing tens of thousands of new jobs.
“The resources sector is critical to continued prosperity and this plant shows that there are significant additional benefits for Queenslanders from resource development,” he said.
“Resource companies are spending significant funding on community facilities across the state.”


Sunshine Coast Daily
'The plant was built by a consortium of GE Power and Water and Laing O'Rourke Construction Pty Ltd, and involved about 250 people at peak construction.
Laing O'Rourke built the plant and GE provided technical expertise and process equipment, including advanced ultra-filtration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis and brine concentration technology.
About 25 people will operate the plant, one of two large QGC water treatment facilities in the Surat Basin that will be operated and maintained by Veolia Water Australia Pty Ltd as part of a 20-year, A$800 million contract.

Associated infrastructure includes a 33-megawatt gas-fired power plant to run the reverse osmosis process, and ponds and pipelines related to the water treatment facilities.'

 


QGC water plant is not all good news

25 October 2013

The long-awaited QGC Kenya water treatment plant, which officially opened on Wednesday, is not the saviour to agricultural and community water security that the government and industry are claiming it to be, according to the Basin Sustainability Alliance (BSA).

The plant will see water, which is extracted from underground as part of the coal seam gas mining process, treated and then delivered by pipeline to the Chinchilla Weir.

BSA Chair David Hamilton said it was difficult to listen to glowing praise of the plant, when so many farmers are under extreme stress and angst over the security of groundwater supplies now in jeopardy because of CSG development in the area.

“This is a complex issue and we are concerned that we are seeing the government promote the benefits to one part of the community while turning a blind eye to the impacts elsewhere.

“There’s no doubt that’s it’s better to do something useful with the water rather than see it evaporate in a pond, but BSA has said all along that the extracted water must be used to mitigate impacts before it’s put to new uses.

“This desalination plant doesn’t magically manufacture water; it is water that has been drawn from underground as part of the gas extraction process.

We don’t deny the treatment of this water provides short term benefit to some farmers and supplements Chinchilla’s water supply, but we can’t forget that that extracting the water is potentially depleting an aquifer and affecting current users.

“It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Mr Hamilton said BSA was calling on the industry to be proactive by offering to replace groundwater bores before they are impacted, instead of waiting for three years for government modelling to direct the companies do so. Such a gesture would go a long way to repairing the break-down of trust and the fracturing of local communities.”

He said it was only a matter of time before landholders accessing their water supplies from the Walloon Coals Seams will see the impacts from CSG.

“Farmers whose bores have been identified in the Government’s underground water modeling as expecting to suffer long term loss, will be offered “make good” arrangements. However, BSA is still not clear where the “make good” water will come from.

“We are very concerned that the only option for some will be to accept financial compensation to make up for their loss of water. Unfortunately money doesn’t water crops or livestock.

The other big issue that BSA fears has been brushed under the carpet is the disposal of salt.

“This industry is expected to generate millions of tonnes of salt and at this stage, none of the CSG companies seem to have a suitable solution for its disposal. We are very fearful that the salt will end up in landfill, resulting in another serious environmental hazard .”

 

 

I urge all visitors to this page to read this report attached, although not based in Australia, without a doubt I feel we will be subjected to the same scenario and this indeed may well be happening with food supplies and cattle grazing.  There is extreme unrest over this issue and it won't be deemed safe by all members of the public until further intensive testing is completed and the Government faces the issues at hand instead of thinking of the monetary value.  These cases illustrate the importance of considering both animal and human health. I hope inclusion of these cases shows you without a doubt water, air quality and soil must be a priority. A Royal Commission has been called for - it is now essential - we as the people of Australia deserve the right to know what we are eating and drinking and that it is safe for all uses.

 

IMPACTS OF GAS DRILLING ON HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH

by MICHELLE BAMBERGER and ROBERT E. OSWALD 

Environmental concerns surrounding drilling for gas are intense due to expansion of shale gas drilling operations. Controversy surrounding the impact of drilling on air and water quality has pitted industry and lease - holders against individuals and groups concerned with environmental protection and public health. Because animals often are exposed continually to air, soil, and groundwater and have more frequent reproductive cycles, animals can be used as sentinels to monitor impacts to human health. This study involved interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling operations. The findings illustrate which aspects of the drilling process may lead to health problems and suggest modifications that would lessen but not eliminate impacts. Complete evidence regarding health impacts of gas drilling cannot be obtained due to incomplete testing and disclosure of chemicals, and nondisclosure agreements. Without rigorous scientific studies, the gas drilling boom sweeping the world will remain an uncontrolled health experiment on an enormous scale. 

Two homes (A and B) are located within two miles of approximately 25 shale gas wells. The closest pad, drilling muds pit, and wastewater impoundment are within one mile of both homes; the impoundment is approximately 4.5 acres in area and is at a higher elevation than either home. Two compressor stations are located within one mile of both homes. The owners have a variety of companion and farm animals, and reported no unusual pet morbidity or mortality preceding drilling operations. Predrilling tests on water sources were not done for either home. Soon after drilling began, the owner of Home B noted that her well water had an odour and black sediment, and the owners of Home A observed a decreased quantity of their water sources (a well and a spring). Once the wastewater impoundment was constructed, the owners of Home A noted a dramatic decrease in quantity, as well as poor quality, of both the well and spring water. The spring served as the sole source of water for the owners' farm animals. Approximately nine months after drilling began, the owners of Home A began hauling water from a nearby creek, to supplement the spring water.

Since drilling operations began, both owners have observed wastewater being spread on the roads (IT IS NOTED HERE THIS DOES OCCUR IN QUEENSLAND) during all weather conditions, and noted that cats and dogs in their neighborhood licked their paws after walking on the road, and also drank from wastewater puddles; some of these animals became severely ill and died over a period of one to three days following these exposures. According to the owner of Home B, the wastewater impoundment was not initially fenced and animals had direct access to the wastewater. An accident involving the wastewater impoundment was noted by both owners; after filling, a truck carrying wastewater drove away from the impoundment site with an open valve, releasing approximately 20 gallons of wastewater onto the impoundment access road and onto the road near the property of Home A. Most recently, both the drilling company and the state environmental regulatory agency were notified of a spill from the wastewater impoundment that flowed past temporary barriers and into a creek; based on soil erosion patterns, the owners of Homes A and B reported that this spill had been ongoing for months. Soon after this accident, a malfunction occurred in the wastewater impoundment aeration system, producing a raw sewage smell that persisted in the air around Homes A and B for days and sickened the families in both homes. When the owner of Home A complained, the drilling company offered to pay motel expenses for her and her family; this offer was declined because the owner refused to leave her animals.

Approximately a year after drilling began, an 18-year-old intact female American Quarter Horse in Home A had an acute onset of anorexia, malaise, rapid weight loss, and mild incoordination after testing normal on a physical examination a few weeks earlier. The horse was treated symptomatically with an antibiotic, steroid, and antihistamine. A few days later, the horse had become ataxic, and was treated for equine protozoal myeloencephalitis, although no diagnosis was made. The horse did not improve after three to four days and was treated again. Within a few days, the horse's neurological symptoms had pro - gressed such that the horse was unable to rise. Blood and clinical chemistry parameters indicated acute liver failure due to toxicity. The veterinarian sus - pected heavy metal poisoning as a cause of the horse’s sudden illness; this was not confirmed, as toxicology tests were not done. The horse was euthanized two weeks after onset due to poor prognosis and failure to respond. Similar neurologic signs were reported in another case in this study that involved two horses living adjacent to a deep, vertical gas well operation.

In addition, both homeowners were caring for animals that were bred at this time: the owner of Home B had a three-year-old intact female Boer goat that aborted two kids in the second trimester, and the owners of Home A had a five-year-old intact female Boxer that experienced dystocia with a fourth litter (after previously whelping three normal litters), producing one stillborn pup and one pup with cleft palate that died soon after birth. This same dog subsequently whelped a fifth litter of 15 pups in which seven pups were stillborn and eight pups died within 24 hours. All the pups were afflicted with congenital hypotrichosis; that is, they were born with the complete or partial absence of normal hair.

Soon after drilling and hydraulic fracturing began for the first well, a child living in Home B began showing signs of fatigue, severe abdominal pain, sore throat, and backache. Six months later, the child was hospitalized with confusion and delirium and was given morphine for abdominal pain. After the deaths of several animals as cited above, the child's physician suspected that the child’s symptoms were of toxicological origin. A toxicology test revealed arsenic poisoning as the cause of the child’s sickness. The family stopped using their well water despite test results indicating that the water was safe to drink, and the child gradually recovered after losing one year of school.

During high-volume hydraulic fracturing, substances that occur naturally in the shale, including arsenic, come to the surface in wastewater. In this case, the wastewater was stored in the impoundment, where aerators misted the chemicals into the air, increasing the chances of inhalation by animals and people; also, surface spillage of wastewater, as noted above, could have contaminated the ground water. Tests on well water from both Homes A and B, and the spring from Home A, did not show elevated levels of arsenic; however, it is possible that, given fluctuations in the water table and water quality, high levels of arsenic may have initiated symptoms in the child in Home B and then dropped to low levels before water testing was done more than one year later. Also, reported arsenic levels may be deceptively low because arsenic can be converted to arsine-a toxic gas that dissipates rapidly [38]. In people, both acute and chronic oral exposure to inorganic arsenic causes gastrointestinal effects as well as effects on the nervous system: short-term effects include headaches, weakness, and delirium, while long-term effects include peripheral neuropathy [39]. Acute exposure of people to arsine can produce many effects including abdominal pain and headaches [39]. Animals exposed acutely to inorganic arsenic may show many symptoms including staggering gait, extreme lethargy, and intense abdominal pain, while animals exposed over a longer period of time may manifest signs including anorexia, depression, and partial paralysis of the rear limbs [40]. Animal studies show that arsenic can also cause fetal malformations and fetal death [41].

As the family in Home B continued to be screened for toxicants, random urine tests on all family members were positive for phenol, a metabolite of benzene, with dramatic increases over a period of a few months. Based on occupational health studies [e.g., 42], the testing laboratory judged these results to be consistent with chronic exposure to 0.5 to 4.0 ppm benzene in the air. The most recent symptoms observed by families in both homes include extreme fatigue, headaches, nosebleeds, rashes, and sensory deficits (smell and hearing). The child in Home B also had difficulty breathing, and again had to be taken out of school. Doctors of the families in both homes warned them to leave their homes for at least 30 days or suffer more severe health consequences. The owner of Home B followed her doctor's advice, and moved her children out of her home, returning each day to care for her animals; the owners of Home A elected to remain at their home to care for their animals. After one month of being away, the phenol levels as well as the symptoms of the children in Home B decreased, while the owner of Home B, who returns to the home for a few hours each day, has increased phenol levels and worsening of symptoms. One of the owners in Home A, who works at home, has experienced worsening of symptoms.

This case illustrates the importance of considering both animal and human health. Animals live among us and are exposed to the same environmental influences; however, they tend to suffer more direct exposure and have shorter life and reproductive cycles. If it were not for the numerous deaths of animals soon after shale gas operations began in this neighbourhood, the child’s doctor might not have ordered toxicology tests, as arsenic poisoning is not a common diagnosis. 

 

CASE 2

In this case, a beef cattle farmer had a herd of 96 cattle (Angus Limousine cross) that was divided among three pastures. The farm is located in an area of intensive gas drilling, with two active shallow vertical gas wells on the farmer’s property and approximately 190 active gas wells within five miles of the property; of these, approximately 11 are shale gas wells and approximately 26 are deep vertical gas wells. In one pasture, 60 cows (a mixed herd, mostly 5- to 10-year-old bred cows) had access to a creek as a source of water. In a second pasture, 20 cows (bred yearlings) obtained water from hillside runoff, and in a third pasture, 14 feeder calves (8 to 14 months old) and two bulls had access to a pond. Over a three-month period, 21 head from the creek-side pasture died (17 adult bred cows and 4 calves). All the cattle were healthy before this episode. Despite symptomatic treatment, deaths occurred 1 to 3 days after the cows went down and were unable to rise. Basic diagnostics were done, but no cause of death was determined. On rendering, 16 of the 17 adults were found to have dead fetuses, nearly doubling this farmer’s losses. Of the 39 cows on the creek-side pasture that survived, 16 failed to breed and several cows produced stillborn calves with white and blue eyes. The health of the cattle on the other two pastures was unaffected; on the second pasture, only one cow failed to breed. Historically, the health of the herd was good, the farmer reporting average losses of 1-2 cows a year in his herd of nearly 100 cattle.

This is an interesting case because it has a natural control group. That is, the cattle that were kept along the creek suffered severe problems while the cattle in pastures at a higher elevation and away from the creek experienced no morbidity or mortality. As discussed below, the contamination of the creek may have been caused by illegal dumping of wastewater. Fortunately, these cows were not taken to slaughter, as they died on the farm. However, they still may have entered our food chain as well as that of our pets: rendering plants produce feed for many non-ruminants including chickens, pigs, cats, dogs and horses, so it is possible that chickens, raised for egg production or meat, and pigs were fed the flesh from these cattle. 

 

CASE 3

This case concerns farmers that have raised beef cattle (Herford Simmental cross) for the past 21 years. Before drilling operations began the farmers lost one or two animals out of a closed herd of 33 (yearlings, heifers, mature cows, two bulls) every few years to illness or accident. There is one active shale gas well on the farmers’ 530-acre property, and approximately six active shale gas wells within two miles of their property. A private well provides water for the family’s 64 / BAMBERGER AND OSWALD use; the water for the herd comes from a creek that originates from springs above and below the well pad, and spillover from a pond below the well pad. The gas wellhead is 300 feet from the farmers' house and 250 feet from their water well. The well pad is 75 feet from their barn at higher elevation, and slopes directly down to the door. A one-acre impoundment, used to collect wastewater from the high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations, and a 1/3-acre drilling muds pit, used to collect the chemicals and fluids brought to the surface during drilling operations, were both within 350 feet of the farmers' water well, and within 200 feet of the creek and the pond where the cattle drink.

Soon after hydraulic fracturing operations concluded, the farmers noticed that on the far bank of the wastewater impoundment, two dark spots could be seen adjacent to a 20-acre cow pasture. According to the farmers, these two spots were a concern as they grew in size from day to day; approximately one month after first observing these spots, the farmers found ankle-deep water in one-third of an acre of the pasture with the wet area extending another one-quarter of an acre into the pasture; the pasture grass in these areas appeared to be burned. Fearing their herd drank the wastewater, they voluntarily quarantined their farm and notified the state environmental regulatory agency.

According to the farmers, drilling company workers informed them that the liners of both the wastewater impoundment and the drilling muds pit had two-foot tears, and that the tear in the liner of the wastewater impoundment had caused the leak into the cow pasture. Except for the two bulls, the entire herd was exposed to the wastewater leakage.

Four notices of violations were issued to the drilling company by the state environmental regulatory agency: failure to notify the agency, improperly lined impoundment (pressure testing of liner revealed a failed patch), pollution of a spring and farm pond due to leakage of the impoundment, and mismanagement of residual waste (wastewater leaked from the impoundment onto the ground and surfaced in an adjacent pasture).

Testing of the wastewater in the impoundment indicated the presence of calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, strontium, fluoride, chloride, sulfate, and bromide; there was no reported testing for any organic compounds. Strontium was of most concern: it can be toxic to both animals and people because it replaces calcium in bone, especially in the young, and because it may take years to be eliminated from the body [43]. The state environ - mental regulatory agency placed a quarantine on the herd such that mature cows would be held from slaughter for six months, yearlings would be held for nine months, calves exposed in utero would be held for eight months, and growing calves would be held for two years. Six of the exposed cows eventually went on to slaughter, and, according to the farmers, there was no testing before or after slaughter. Pre-drilling tests were not done on any of the cattle’s sources of water; post-drilling tests were done and revealed no significant findings. Soil tests done IMPACTS OF GAS DRILLING / 65 on the cow pasture contaminated by the leaked wastewater revealed high levels of chloride, sulfate, sodium, and strontium when compared to background samples. The liners from both the wastewater impoundment and drilling-muds pit were removed, the affected soil removed, and areas remediated; sulfate concentrations remained at high levels in the cow pasture despite remediation.

During the spring of the first calving season following the leakage of wastewater into their cow pasture, the farmers lost two calves: one calf was aborted late-term, and the other calf lived for approximately seven days before dying [44]; both calves were exposed in utero to the wastewater. In the second calving season post-drilling, the farmers lost 11 out of 17 calves: seven were stillborn, three died a few months after birth and one was born alive but severely ill; the dams of all the calves had previously been exposed to the wastewater. The severely ill calf and a stillborn calf were sent for necropsy: the ill calf was diagnosed with E. coli septicemia, and the stillborn calf was diagnosed with goiter (diffuse thyroid hyperplasia); both calves were also diagnosed with low liver vitamin E and selenium.

This case illustrates several important points. First, the testing was not complete. According to the farmers, they were not informed of the chemicals used during either drilling or hydraulic fracturing operations. Testing of the water well and cattle’s sources of water excluded organic compounds except for a pasture spring; the wastewater analysis also excluded organic compounds. No toxicology tests were done on live cattle, and the tests at necropsy omitted volatile organic compounds, endocrine disruptors, and many minerals present in the wastewater. The cattle’s sources of water were tested only after the farmers lost many calves. Soil tests were not done in the area affected by the leakage of the drilling-muds pit. Second, the cattle were exposed to sulfate in the wastewater for at least one month and to elevated sulfate in the grass and soil [45, 46] for over a year. Studies show that increasing dietary sulfur decreases the bioavailability of selenium [47-50], and that Vitamin E and selenium deficiency is associated with reproductive failure in cattle [51, 52]. Third, the liner tear and subsequent leakage of drilling fluids onto the farmers' land were not considered a potential problem and not officially recorded as a violation by the state environmental regulatory agency. Due to gas drilling operations on their property, the farmers now have 26 head of cattle instead of 33, and have lost 40 to 50 acres of hayfields. These farmers received no compensation from the drilling company for the loss of their animals, damage to their land, or the treatment of the animal health problems they have encountered since gas drilling began. 

NOTE

The most striking finding of our investigations was the difficulty in obtaining definitive information on the link between hydrocarbon gas drilling and health effects. However, the results point to a number of ways policies can be changed to facilitate better data collection and to avoid obvious risks to animal and human health. 

Attachments
Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_in_press.pdf (194.46 kb, 33 views)