It's hard to stop staring in utter baffled amazement. Is it some kind of … phallic cyborg?
The opening scene of a yet another sequel to Tremors? (Kevin Bacon! Nevada! Subterranean, worm-like, cross-dressing graboid!)
A sex toy from hell?
In fact, it’s all these things and more. Susan G. Komen, the largest breast cancer organization in America with more than 100,000 volunteers and partnerships in more than 50 countries, has teamed up with Baker Hughes, one of the world’s largest oilfield service companies with employees in more than 80 countries. Susan G. Komen hands out pink ribbons for breast cancer awareness, and Baker Hughes fracks. So, there you have it: a pink, fracking, drill head.
That’s Susan G. Komen pink, by the way. It’s special. Like John Deere green. And that signature color has been painted by hand on a thousand drill bits, which will soon be shipped by Baker Hughes to well pads all over the world, thus facilitating a thousand fossil fuel extraction projects just in time for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Which is this month. (But please don’t confuse Baker Hughes pink drill bits with Chesapeake Energy’s “even-rigs-can-rally-for-a-cure” pink drill rigs. That was so 2012).
As the story explains, when the pink drill bits are shipped in their boxes (and, yes, the boxes are pink, too), they come packed with information about “breast health facts, breast cancer risk factors and screening tips.”
And exactly whose breast cancer awareness quotient will be bolstered out there on the well pad? Inside the trailers and the trucks? Down on the drilling floor? Up on the derrick?
“The hope is that the roughneck who cracks open that container learns a little more about the disease that afflicts 200,000 women per year.”
Here’s what I’m wagering that roughneck does not learn from the literature shipped with his drill bit this October: I’m betting he does not read about the recent study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that found dangerous levels of benzene in the urine of workers in the unconventional (aka fracking) oil and gas industry. Benzene is a proven human carcinogen.
According to Bernard Goldstein, MD, toxicologist and former dean at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, “These workers are at higher risk for leukemia. The longer, the more frequently they do this, the more likely they are to get leukemia particularly if the levels are high.”
In addition to leukemia, benzene is also a suspected cause of, well, breast cancer. Benzene exposure is known to induce breast cancer in laboratory animals and is modestly associated with breast cancer among women. But the best evidence we have for the benzene-breast cancer link comes from studies of young male workers exposed on the job. Male breast cancer is clearly linked to occupational exposure to benzene.
So, maybe those pamphlets really will come in handy in the man camps.
read more here
This is just more propaganda drawing inappropriate conclusions from unrelated studies. There should be a debate about fracking but that is nigh on impossible when politicians and wannabe politicians continue to invent and propagate myths for the sole purpose of scaring people in the hope that they might be seen to be more popular. Benzene is not used for fracking, nor is it a product of fracking. It is a common hydrocarbon component that is present in petrol and many other common products. Having recently returned from working at an oil refinery, I fully expect that my urine would contain slightly higher than background traces of benzene. There is actually an inverse correlation between working in mainstream oil processing and cancer, which has been hypothesized to be down to better overall health even though there is a very small risk of higher than average exposure to some carcinogens.
ReplyDelete“Benzene is not used for fracking, nor is it a product of fracking.”
ReplyDeleteThe debate certainly cannot advance while there is a difference on the facts. I desisted from quoting the many environmentalist websites as perhaps being biased (as would be the industrys lobby websites) but these two seem to express safety concerns on benzine in fracking process. The first is a government report that explains the effects of benzine component of the BTEX in diesel fuel that is used for fracking and has a potential for polluting drinking water.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_ch04_hyd_frac_fluids.pdf
And the second is from another government agency, reported by LA Times
“Some workers at oil and gas sites where fracking occurs are routinely exposed to high levels of benzene, a colorless gas that can cause cancer, according to a study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health...The study examined exposure risks for oil and gas workers during a phase of oil and gas extraction known as flowback.”
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fracking-benzene-worker-health-20140910-story.html#page=1
First of all, the "gutter journalism" was reporting a government report on healthy and safety of those involved in the fracking process. As a person working in the oil/refinery industry i would have thought their concerns would be of sufficient importance to yourself. The actual report if you are reluctant to accept the LA Times summary is here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2014.933960
Thank you for reading my mind in declaring that i never read the EPA link but i admit not being an expert some of the technical/scientific details was indeed beyond my full comprehension but although dated the report i cited in its introduction explained “Most of the literature pertaining to fracturing fluids relates to the fluids’ operational efficiency rather than their potential environmental or human health impacts. There is very little documented research on the environmental impacts that result from the injection and migration of these fluids into subsurface formations, soils, and USDWs.”
It goes on to say:
‘Diesel fuel contains constituents of potential concern regulated under SDWA – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (i.e., BTEX compounds). The use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat to USDWs because BTEX compounds in diesel fuel exceed the MCL at the point-of-injection (i.e. the subsurface location where fracturing fluids are initially injected). ..BTEX that has moved beyond the production well’s capture zone is of the greatest concern...BTEX outside of the capture zone will likely be transported by groundwater flowing according to regional hydraulic gradients. ..Dilution can have a significant effect on the BTEX concentrations that could migrate to drinking water wells, especially if these wells are hundreds to thousands of feet from a hydraulically induced fracture.”
To update, the EPA conducted test drills in Pavilion, Wyoming “EPA’s analysis of samples taken from monitoring wells in Pavillion indicates high levels of petroleum compounds such as benzene, xylene, methylcyclo- hexane, naphthalene, and phenol. This shallow groundwater is hydrologically connected to the drinking water aquifer.”
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/PavillionWyomingFactSheet.pdf
Benzene is not a wide problem in the fracking process as you suggest. While the injection of BTEX chemical additives into the earth may sound alarming, it is not a direct source of contamination. FracFocus , shows 532 well sites currently using BTEX chemical additives1. This search also included petroleum raffinates and light petroleum distillates, which may or may not contain BTEX components. Even with this inclusion, these 532 cases make up only 1% of the 50,135 well sites whose chemical data is recorded on FracFocus1. Furthermore, these additives are found in only miniscule amounts in standard fracking fluid.
A more common entry point for BTEX into the fracking process is underground. Crude oil and natural gas are naturally occurring mixtures of various types of hydrocarbons—and BTEX compounds are often among these. When oil and natural gas are released from impermeable rock, so are BTEX organics. BTEX is more often a contaminant of produced water than an additive in fracking fluid. While release of BTEX is an inevitable byproduct of oil and natural gas extraction, it is important to focus on where these chemicals go next. It is clear that poor casing construction or casing failure is a key culprit in BTEX contamination. When casing integrity is compromised, volatile organics like BTEX are capable of migration.
In Colorado over the course of a year 368 BTEX containing spills were documented, 110 of these spills were determined to effect either nearby surface or groundwater.
http://frackwire.com/btex-and-fracking/
Thank you. At last we have some details and explanations and a basis to put the technical stuff into context. The paragraphs starting "Benzene is not a wide problem..." starts to get at the real fracking issues. In fact one of the real risks of fracking concern the uncertainties in the quantity and composition of gases that might be released from behind the closed door, which is why these activities need to be carefully managed by qualified engineers to minimise the risk.
ReplyDeleteIt might also be pertinent to add that the concentration of BTEX in diesel is measured in parts per million whereas the concentrations in everyday petrol are significant percentages. Also, diesel is used in less than 1% of fracking fluids and it is generally discouraged because water is safer.
As you might expect, I am very interested in health and safety aspects of the oil and gas industries. Aspects of my work are directly focussed on managing and quantifying risk. Reports are conducted all the time and even the smallest risks are noted. However, it is not ever sufficient to simply identify a source of risk - it must be assessed against other known risks so that the safest options can be taken. ALARP is another industry acronym - it stands for As Low As Reasonably Possible, and is used as an assessment of risk. It acknowledges that it is impossible to eliminate all sources of risk but stresses that the actions being taken have been considered and a sensible route has been taken.
In this case, the risk of getting cancer from BTEX exposes from fracking is less than the risk of getting cancer from working at a petrol station and miniscule in comparison to other sources of everyday risk such as crossing the road or travelling on buses.
IMHO, balanced journalism should seek to compare like for like rather than use extremist language that can easily be misleading. Which only leaves us the issue of the original motivation? I left off the possibility that your colleagues are genuinely concerned for my personal welfare. If that is the case, I'll politely say thanks but no thanks.
If I have enlightened you in any way about this important subject (fracking) then that's good. Hopefully, you'll be able to read other contributions on the subject more critically. If I have also encouraged your colleagues to be a little more diligent in their research and balanced in the way they present their ideas, then we have a double win.
I'll retract 'gutter press' but 'misleading' and 'emotive' remain, as do my questions about motivation. Will there be a note of clarification to follow in a future issue? I don't suppose so.
Fracking is just one of the issues that some socialists will disagree with others about. GM food and nuclear energy are two other obvious environmental problems where there may be a diverging of opinion and disagreement on the "facts." In a world of vested interests and paid for and bought off "neutral" science, acquiring information is a problem. With more socialists who are involved in these aspect of these industries, the more objectivity we will perhaps have in deciding attitudes and approaches to them. Some claim that socialism will be boring but it will be debates on the well being of people and the planet and the best means to achieve that will inspire research, discussion and argument.
ReplyDeleteI think the information is out there but some of it is quite complex and it can be hard to interpret. Its very easy for people to seize on certain phrases or findings and take them out of context. Of course, some scientists are paid to engage in particular projects but there is a code of conduct in practicing science that guards against the subjects being overly manipulated. Scientific papers must be published in a way that others can independently verify the results. A lot of this is done by academia, which is apolitical and has a history of providing a mouthpiece for all sorts of people. Again, as with anything, there will be different interpretations of 'facts' and different weightings applied to them so its important to cross-check and validate conclusions, and potentially discard flawed papers or findings.
ReplyDeleteI have come across a lot of environmentalists in my 25 years in the industry but I don't think I've ever come across a socialist. I wonder why? I have also found that virtually all my colleagues are interested in learning, understanding and doing things in the right way. We typically leave the money making to others but assume a responsibility to others (safety) and the planet (environment).