Category Archives: fossil fuels

E&E: U.S. well sites in 2012 discharged more than Valdez

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, July 8, 2013
Story Tools sponsored by America’s Natural Gas

It went up orange, a gas-propelled geyser that rose 100 feet over the North Dakota prairie.
But it was oil, so it came down brown. So much oil that when they got the well under control two days later, crude dripped off the roof of a house a half-mile away. “It had a pretty good reach,” said Dave Drovdal, who owns the land where the Bakken Shale oil well, owned by Newfield Exploration Co., blew out in December near Watford City, N.D. “The wind was blowing pretty good. Some of it blew 2 miles.”

SPECIAL SERIES

There are thousands of oil spills at the nation’s onshore oil and gas well sites every year. But the data are scattered amid databases, websites and even file drawers of state agencies across the country. EnergyWire spent four months mining the data for the most comprehensive report available on the spills that result from the nation’s booming oil and gas industry.

It was one of the more than 6,000 spills and other mishaps reported at onshore oil and gas sites in 2012, compiled in a months-long review of state and federal data by EnergyWire. That’s an average of more than 16 spills a day. And it’s a significant increase since 2010. In the 12 states where comparable data were available, spills were up about 17 percent.
Drilling activity in those states, though, rose 40 percent during that time. More common than the Newfield blowout are 100-gallon leaks that are contained to the well site and get cleaned up the same day.

But together they add up to at least 15.6 million gallons of oil, fracking fluid, wastewater and other liquids reported spilled at production sites last year. That’s more than the volume of oil that leaked from the shattered hull of the Exxon Valdez in 1989. About 11 million gallons gushed from that ship.

And 15.6 million gallons is almost certainly an under count, because reports in drilling-heavy states such as Colorado, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania often exclude spill amounts. That figure also doesn’t include spills from interstate pipelines or offshore wells. Companies reported that at least one-third of the spill volume from well sites was recovered.

The frequency of the onshore spills shows companies aren’t doing enough to stop them, said Wilma Subra, a Louisiana-based environmental scientist who monitors the oil and gas industry. “They admit that it happens all the time,” Subra said.
People who live amid the country’s newly booming oil fields say the carelessness they see makes them worry about not only environmental damage, but also health and safety. “Every incident does make you pause and wish they weren’t so close to homes,” said Drovdal, a longtime Republican state legislator who goes by “Skip.”

Kristen Mesker and her husband have a 1,200-acre ranch in Burke County, N.D., amid the Bakken boom. They’ve seen a pasture and two wetlands (called “prairie potholes”) destroyed by a hot water spill and had a calf die after falling in a waste pit. “All this stuff happens to our fences and cattle,” said Mesker, who testified at the state Capitol earlier this year for legislation to keep wells farther from homes. “You wonder when that’s going to happen to a family.”

Kristi Mogen said it has affected her family’s health. One of her daughters had nosebleeds for days on end after a blowout last year that sent a stream of vaporized drilling chemicals into the air 2 miles from their house near Douglas, Wyo. A physical shortly after the incident showed she and her husband had depleted oxygen levels in their blood. “You feel helpless,” said Mogen, who traveled to Washington, D.C., earlier this year to press Congress for stronger regulation of drilling. “It’s not just us. It’s happening all over the United States.”

Oil and gas industry officials say companies have a good overall record of safety and environmental protection. “We do take safety seriously. It is a top priority,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a brief interview during a recent API safety and reliability conference in Washington. “Over the years, based on the nature of producing energy, there are risks associated with it. But we do have a strong safety record.”

An API spokesman provided a 2009 study indicating that overall oil spillage in the United States has decreased by more than 75 percent since the late ’60s. But it looks only at federal data, not the more detailed state data that EnergyWire reviewed. It also shows that the decreases were offshore, while inland spills increased.

Gerard stressed the job creation and other economic benefits of the country’s “game-changing” oil and gas boom. Drovdal said there’s a difficult balance. “As a landowner, I’m very conscious of the damage done to the land,” he said. “As a business owner, the checks are nice.”

Different types of spills

There is no central repository of spill records from oil and gas production sites. The Bureau of Land Management keeps a record of spills on public lands, but the rest are kept in the databases, and sometimes the file drawers, of state agencies across the country. EnergyWire assembled the records of thousands of spills into a central database for comparison. The reports highlight the vast variety of ways that spills can happen.

In the Newfield spill, there was a mechanical failure of well tubing. The drill pipe fired out of the hole like a bullet and lodged in the rig tower, spraying toxic mist into the wind. Newfield spokesman Keith Schmidt said the spill has been almost entirely cleaned up, and company officials “anticipate no lasting impact to human health.” It was one of the more spectacular accidents last year, but at 50,000 gallons of oil, 30,000 gallons of salty wastewater and 2 million cubic feet of gas, it was far from the largest.

More than a million gallons of salty “produced water” from coal bed methane drilling was released outside Gillette, Wyo., in August 2012. Earlier this year, there was a similar spill of nearly 3 million gallons. The water produced from shallow coal bed methane formations in that area can be clean enough for humans to drink, but the salt content can turn farmland hard as concrete.

More than 300,000 gallons of oil and produced water spilled from a Citation Oil & Gas Corp. well site in Healdton, Okla., in April 2012, down a dry wash and into pastureland.

Less dramatic accidents are far more common. Tanks overflow. Lightning strikes equipment and causes malfunctions. Valves get left open, letting oil or wastewater trickle into a ditch until the next crew comes in. Sometimes wandering cattle knock things loose. Pits and tank batteries can leak into groundwater for years before anyone notices. That’s what a crew found last year at an old well near an irrigation ditch and reservoir outside Greeley, Colo. Tests showed the groundwater had 300 times the state’s allowable limit for benzene.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is contending with a long legacy of pollution from old wells in the Salt Creek field near Casper, Wyo. The company reported about 50 spills in the field in 2012 as it cleaned them up in preparation for using carbon dioxide to flush out more oil.

Not all spills are accidental. Drillers reported vandalism at 21 Colorado well sites in 2012. And state officials are finding that truck drivers paid to haul briny drilling wastewater to approved disposal sites sometimes just dump it instead. Near Walden, Colo., last year a woman reported that she watched a waste hauler open the valves on his tanks. She followed his truck until he pulled into a nearby gas production site, leaving a trail of foul-smelling drilling wastewater on the county road. In Arkansas last summer, officials discovered at least 32 instances of wastewater haulers dumping their loads in the woods near well sites.

Who spills the most? Hard to say

North Dakota had the highest number of spills last year, 1,129, and one of its dominant producers, Continental Resources Inc., had more reported spills than any other company. But industry officials say that’s likely because companies in North Dakota have to report more spills than in other states. In North Dakota, they have to report any spill of more than 1 barrel (42 gallons). In Texas, the threshold is five barrels. And in Oklahoma and Montana, it’s 10 barrels. “The number of reports does not necessarily equate to large volumes, but more to achieving the transparency desired through state regulations,” said Continental President and Chief Operating Officer Rick Bott said in a lengthy statement. Records show that of Continental’s 233 spills in 2012, at least 90 were less than five barrels.

Continental, which got extra attention in 2012 when CEO and founder Harold Hamm served as an adviser to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, adopted a “no spill” policy focused on reporting, spill reduction and, ultimately, elimination, Bott said. It also has formed spill reduction task force teams to review incidents and implement solutions. Well sites are built and managed by a bevy of contractors, and Bott said Continental has a contractor management program that evaluates the firms’ environmental performance. Continental’s largest spill was in May 2012 in North Dakota’s Divide County. The company’s Hampton 1-2H well spilled about 80,000 gallons of produced water. No action was taken, state officials said, because it was contained to the site.

North Dakota officials stressed that nearly 80 percent of the spills in the state were contained to the well site. “That’s the important thing,” said Alison Ritter, spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources. “If a spill is contained to the site, the environmental damage is going to be a lot less severe.” Utah companies reported that 78 percent of spills were contained. In Colorado, the figure for how many were contained within a berm was lower, 38 percent.

Occidental Petroleum had the second-highest number of spills, with 207, followed by BP PLC with 190, XTO and Exxon Mobil with a combined 172, and COG Operating at 122. Occidental spokesman Eric Moses said the company’s spills have dropped dramatically in the past four years. The net volume of crude oil and condensate releases has dropped 80 percent, he said. “Preventing releases of crude oil is a priority in our operations,” Moses said.

Exxon spokesman Patrick McGinn said the company has sophisticated systems and training in place to prevent spills. He said most of its spills were water produced during operations. The rest, he said, “were small, and practically all were held within secondary containment systems without impacting the environment.”

Subra, though, cast skepticism on the idea that spills are contained as often as industry officials say they are, noting that state agencies rely on companies to self-report their spills. “You always say it was contained,” Subra said. “If you say it wasn’t, you have to answer a lot of questions. The easiest thing to say is that it was contained.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Peru This Week: Oil spill leaves 200 barrels in Peruvian ocean

http://www.peruthisweek.com/news-oil-spill-leaves-200-barrels-in-peruvian-ocean-100307

July 5, 2013

By Emily Culver

peru
The beaches of Lobitos were the most affected by a broken tube in an oil transport
El Comercio
Related Articles
* Ecuador oil spill reaches Peruvian river
* Peru’s biodiversity is vital to country’s history, and future
* Oil spill pollutes Peruvian waters
* Peru declares emergency in jungle over oil contamination

A broken tube in Savia Peru’s oil transport caused a spill of approximately 200 barrels of crude oil in the ocean in Piura, right in front of Punta Lobas and Batería Primavera beaches in Lobitos.

Savia Peru is one of the country’s top hydrocarbon companies. According to Gestión, Savia Peru’s total sales added up to $88.3 million from January to March of this year. Its latest project is a duct for transporting natural gas in Piura that has a $48.3 million value.

State oil company PetroPeru and the Marines sent some agents to the port to attend to the emergency around mid day yesterday. The oil spill was under control about two hours later.

The oil spill affected over 3,000 meters of ocean, although a full study of the effects on the ecosystem has yet to be completed.

Savia Peru has come out with a statement, promising to clean up the spill and assess the environmental damage. It is currently coming up with an appropriate contingency plan to deal with the accident.? Savia Peru reiterates its responsibility to care for the environment and the responsibility it has towards activities in the region› a representative told El Comercio.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Guardian UK: North Sea leaks ‘reality check’ for British oil industry, says Greenpeace. Environmentalists say industry’s arctic safety case undermined by figures showing 55 pollution incidents in last month

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/07/british-oil-industry-north-sea-leaks-greenpeace

Terry Macalister
The Guardian, Sunday 7 July 2013 13.44 EDT

north sea leaks oil industry
Facilities operated by Shell, BP and BG were all offenders, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Photograph: Royal Dutch Shell Ho/EPA

Britain’s offshore rigs and platforms have leaked oil or other chemicals into the North Sea on 55 occasions over the past month alone, challenging claims by the industry that it has a strong safety and environmental record.

Among the fields to have reported pollution discharges is Piper Alpha, the scene of the world’s worst offshore accident in terms of fatalities when it blew up, killing 167 workers, 25 years ago.

Facilities operated by Shell, BP and BG were all offenders, according to the latest petroleum operations notices (PON1s) reported to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

Greenpeace said the alarming statistics should act as a reality check for an industry that was trying to persuade the world it should be allowed to drill in the pristine waters of the Arctic.

“They’re trying to convince the world that they can operate safely in one of the world’s harshest environments, yet they can’t prevent this steady trickle of oil and other polluting chemicals leaking into the relatively safe waters of the North Sea,” said Greenpeace senior climate adviser Charlie Kronick. “This will do little to increase public trust in their ability to drill in the Arctic without damaging this incredibly beautiful and fragile corner of our planet.”
But the industry itself says the leaks often contain tiny amounts of relatively harmless substances and the reporting system is an example of a good regulation.

One of the worst offenders in the latest set of DECC figures is Shell, which on 3 June reported lubricant and other chemical discharges from its Brent Bravo and Brent Charlie platforms.

A Shell spokesman said: “Asset integrity and process safety is Shell’s foremost priority at all times. No spill is acceptable and we work hard both offshore and onshore to minimise risks to maintain a safe working environment for our workforce and reduce any environmental impact on the North Sea.

“Shell is actively participating in the Step Change in Industry safety initiative, which includes a focus on hydrocarbon spill reduction. The industry has achieved an almost 50% reduction in hydrocarbons leaks during 2012, based on a baseline set in 2009.”

In 2006, Shell was fined £900,000 after pleading guilty to safety lapses on the Brent B platform following an accident in 2003, when the facility was hit by a gas leak in which two oil workers died.

BP, which is still fighting criminal charges following the Deepwater Horizon accident of 2010 in the US Gulf, is reported to have had crude leaks off the Paul B Loyd Jnr rig, which was working on the Clair field on 6 June this year. There was also a release of “another” substance from the same drilling unit two days earlier. On 25 May there was discharge on the Marnock field.

BG had a leak on the Everest North platform on 31 May while Talisman Energy discharged chemicals the day before on the Piper Bravo platform that was built in place of the Piper Alpha structure destroyed by fire in 1988.

Petroleum operations notices are all reviewed and investigated by an offshore environmental inspector as they are reports of potential breaches of DECC-enforced regulations.

Some of the discharges are allowable under North Sea rules but most on the latest PON1s monthly data whose status is marked “completed” rather than still “under review” ascribed the source to various mechanical failures.Those incidents that do show how much product was released indicate small amounts but any unintended action is unwelcome at a time when safety and the environment are major concerns of the public.

Although the PONS1 data seen by the Guardian for the month from 6 May to 6 June show 55 different numbered notices, employers dispute the figures and downplay their significance.

Mick Borwell, Oil & Gas UK’s environmental issues director, said: “The vast majority of the 103 spills this year [in PON1 reports] are very small operational chemical spills. They have no potential to cause a major accident, so do not compromise the increase in safety standards reported recently including a year on year reduction in combined fatal and major injury rates and in all types of dangerous occurrence and a 48% reduction in hydrocarbon releases over three years.”

BP and Shell declined to comment. On Monday, BP will appear in court in New Orleans to argue that the huge compensation package agreed last year following the Deepwater Horizon disaster is being abused. Lawyers for BP will claim that large numbers of “fraudulent, excessive or improper claims” are being filed to the victims’ fund, to which BP set aside around $8bn.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Common Dreams: Hundreds Walk to “Heart of Destruction” for Tar Sands Healing.. Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben join activists and First Nations leaders in sacred ‘Tar Sands Healing Walk’

Published on Friday, July 5, 2013 by

– Lauren McCauley, staff writer

healing_walk_3_global_warming_images
(Image via Healingwalk.org)Environmental activists, indigenous groups and hundreds of other concerned citizens are heading to the “heart of destruction” in Northern Alberta Friday to conduct a healing ceremony for the land and the people suffering from the toxic and globally devastating expansion of tar sands mining.

Led by First Nations leaders and the Keepers of the Athabasca, the fourth annual “Tar Sands Healing Walk”—taking place July 5 and 6—will lead participants past the toxic lakes of tailings wastewater and massive mining scars along the Athabasca River in Fort McMurray, Alberta as an opportunity to witness first-hand the rampant destruction taking place.

Following a series of workshops scheduled for Friday, over 500 participants from Canada and the US, including notable environmentalists Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein, will take part in the march, walking 8 miles along what is now called “the sacrifice zone.”

The idea is not to “have a protest, but instead to engage in a meaningful ceremonial action to pray for the healing of Mother Earth, which has been so damaged by the tar sands industry,” said Clayton Thomas-Muller, one of the workshop presenters and a coordinator with the Idle No More movement.

“This is a sacred walk because it invites us all to begin a process of healing – healing the land from violence, healing ourselves from our dependence on an economy based on that violence, and healing our deeply imperiled democracy.” -Naomi Klein

And as the organizers wrote on the event website:

This is a different kind of event. Everyone is asked to participate but please leave your protest signs and organizational banners at home. Come and see the impacts of the tar sands and be a part of the healing. First Nations leaders will conduct a traditional healing ceremony on the walk but everyone is encouraged to bring their own spirituality, their own customs, and their own beliefs.

“This is a sacred walk because it invites us all to begin a process of healing – healing the land from violence, healing ourselves from our dependence on an economy based on that violence, and healing our deeply imperiled democracy,” author and activist Naomi Klein told the Guardian ahead of the walk.

The organizers hope the event will draw much-needed attention to both the ecological and community destruction which has occured as a result of, what activist Sarah Harmer refers to as, the “largest unsustainable development project on the planet.”

“The land is sick here. The people are sick from polluted air, water and food,” says Jesse Cardinal, co-organizer from the Keepers of the Athabasca.

The Keepers have also sent invitations, signed by over 7,000 people, calling on Canadian Minister for Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Premiere of Alberta Allison Redford to participate in the ceremony though no response has been given.

FuelFix: Commentary: Regulations for the oil & gas industry are a good thing

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/07/03/regulations-for-the-oil-gas-industry-are-a-good-thing-2/

Posted on July 3, 2013 at 3:59 pm by David Vaucher

A friend of mine recently shared an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Regulated States of America”. The article is very relevant: a lot of the political discourse today in the United States concerns the role (or non-role) of government, and its reach as it pertains to regulations. The oil & gas industry comes up frequently in this context, and stirs up strong opinions from all sides of the issue. I have my own thoughts to share with you in the hope that it stimulates some discussion, and I suspect what you read will surprise you coming from someone very “pro” oil & gas!

Full disclaimer here: I’m not an American citizen, and as a Green Card holder, I have no voting rights so in the strictest sense, my opinion literally doesn’t count. This means that I’m speaking entirely for myself with the only goal of sharing my views, and nothing I say today is meant as an endorsement of any political belief or party. As much as I’d like the country to recognize the continued supply of energy as a common problem to solve rather than a political line in the sand, the fact is that oil & gas HAS been politicized, so I think it’s important to state my political neutrality up front.

Ok

If you ask anyone what they think the oil & gas industry’s stance on regulation is, I’m sure the answer would be: “they don’t want it”. It just makes sense to give that answer: more rules means more complexity which means possibly more costs and less efficiency. To be fair, I’ll point out that NO industry is asking for more regulations, but the oil & gas business has a very particular public image and impact on society, so in that sense we should consider it separately from other sectors of the economy.

I do get the impression that regarding regulations, the message from the industry goes something like this: “the government doesn’t know the industry as well as we do, so there’s no way it can monitor us effectively or fairly. The bottom line is that regulations just get in the way of us operating efficiently.”

It’s a fair point, but I’ve said many times that the oil & gas industry has a clear public relations problem, and that this is entirely our own doing. When our “knee jerk” reaction to any new regulation is “no” (even if its goals seem good!), we come across as having something to hide. Clearly, this is incompatible with what should be one of the industry’s top priorities: building trust with the public.

I can already anticipate two related objections to my argument. The first is that many operators do in fact strive not only to meet but also exceed local standards of operation. Actually, it’s even been documented that safety records can improve when large operators move into a play, or acquire smaller players. The second objection could be that people will say that overall the bigger companies operate well, and it’s the very small independents operating at a very local level (who may not hold themselves to equally high standards) that are giving the industry as a whole a bad name.

Even if you believe those objections to be true, the problem is that given much of the public’s view of the oil & gas business, ANY incident caused by ANY company will tarnish the whole industry. Furthermore, if I, as someone deeply involved in, passionate about, and fairly knowledgeable about the industry get the impression that we automatically resist any proposed rule changes, how is someone removed from oil & gas supposed to think any differently? Again, how is resisting every proposed change justifiable, even when that change seeks to achieve something objectively positive (more transparency, stricter environmental standards, etcŠ)?

Look, I believe strongly in Capitalism (I wouldn’t be a very good MBA if I didn’t!), and I understand that accepting this system means trusting that resources are allocated most effectively by a free market, and this market should have more freedom than not. However, I think that there is a “spectrum” of Capitalism: you don’t have to have “the Market” deciding everything for this system to be in place, and to the extent that it would be a terrible idea to let companies just do as they please, some intervention is necessary to keep things working smoothly. In oil & gas, we rely way more than other businesses on a “social contract” with the public, and if it takes rules to keep EVERYONE honest, then so be it. This is why I emphatically think that fair, reasonable regulation of the oil & gas industry is a very good thing.

Sports provide a great analogy with which to make that point. In sports, there are rules and referees. The rules are established by a governing body, usually in tandem with players’ representatives. The idea is not to dictate anything outright, but to come to some compromise on a rule (regulation) that brings about hopefully positive change to the game.
Take football (the American kind, for international readers).

I love football, but the game has gotten so violent that I worry every weekend that I’m going to see a player die. There is currently a dialogue going on between the National Football League, players, and to some extent the fans to determine what the best course of action is to make the game safer: stiffer penalties for illegal hits? Mandating new equipment specifications? Altering kickoff procedures?

If changes are implemented, they likely won’t satisfy everyone, but they’ll probably be made taking into account multiple points of view, and if player safety increases, how can anyone label these changes “bad”? Ultimately, the goal of keeping players safe must be given priority over other considerations such as fans’ enjoyment of how the game “should be”.

Now let’s consider the referees.

If you accept that everyone is self-interested, and doesn’t always have incentives to take the honest course of action, there needs to be some enforcement mechanism. Referees are supposed to be neutral third parties whose role is to enforce the rules, NOT deliberately determine the outcomes. Granted, referees’ decisions will always disappoint someone, but the idea is that spectators should be able to trust that referees will use all means available (instant replay, conferences with other referees) and their best judgment to make the best, “in good faith” call.

How is this any different from the fields in which we operate and the role of regulators?
Though I believe in regulation, it’s important to notice that I’m staying away from the questions of “how much regulation should there be?”, “what kinds of regulations should be implemented?”, and “how much involvement should come from the federal vs. state levels?” If I knew the answers to these questions I’d be much better paid than I am now!

In all seriousness, I’m not interested in getting “down in the weeds” of policy debates. Rather, I’m advocating for a fundamental shift in attitude of the oil & gas industry with regards to regulations and the governing bodies that propose them. While we shouldn’t be prepared to accept anything and everything that comes our way, our initial reaction should be “ok, let’s talk about this” rather than “no, this will be bad for business”. Might there be some cost to this shift in attitudes? Maybe, but what if the return on that investment is greater public trust, and more leeway to undertake the projects to which there is currently resistance?

One industry I’ve always been impressed with due to its “healthy” relationship with government is air transportation. It seems that there is a good spirit of collaboration between the public and private groups, and a culture among pilots of reporting any incident no matter how small so that more severe accidents can be avoided later.

Think back to Boeing and the Dreamliner: I’m sure Boeing wanted to avoid grounding its new plane and incurring the associated costs and loss of reputation, but safety took top priority, the government grounded the airplanes, Boeing went along with it, and after a thorough investigation the planes are now flying again. Certainly, air travel is one area I’m grateful for regulation. Can you imagine how things would be if we allowed airlines to operate completely independently and just let “the Market” decide which one to use based on the resulting safety (or lack thereof) records? That would be nuts!

Ultimately, in oil & gas we should aim to have the same relationship the airlines have with the government: collaborative rather than combative, and presenting transparency to the public rather than secrecy. The hard truth is that oil & gas operators don’t have sovereignty over the areas they work in. These companies work in these areas because they are granted permission to do so, both by government and residents. If we attempt to run roughshod over a region in ways that benefit us solely and say “well, we know better, please keep away and let us do our work”, then eventually that social license to operate WILL be revoked and WE will be the ones told to keep away.

Specialthanks to Richard Charter