Two California seaports are testing a technology that uses seawater to scrub emissions from the exhaust of ships, an innovation researchers say could reduce a vessel’s sulfur emissions by 99.9 percent and particulate matter by as much as 85 percent.

Proponents say the advanced emission control technology — supplied by Bluefield Holdings Inc. and Krystallon, Ltd. — will be able to filter contaminants from a ship’s auxiliary engines and boiler before they reach the vessel’s exhaust stack. The seawater used in the process would then be treated before being dumped, while the solid contaminants would be stored for later disposal.

The $3.4 million project, co-sponsored by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, will be tested over the next year on a container ship owned by the global shipping company APL.

Related posts:

• British Clean Energy Company Finances the New Wave in Ocean Power
• New Battery Uses Seawater and Freshwater to Produce Electricity
• EPA to Curb Ship Air Emissions
• Flipping Over Offshore Wind Turbines
• NASA Scientist Sees Growing Heat Storage in Ocean

For more than two years, the natural gas drilling debate has focused primarily on the use of hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells. But expert testimony submitted for a government hearing next month challenges long-held assumptions about the safety of deep vertical drilling and exploratory wells, which operate in many states with limited regulatory oversight.

The administrative hearing will be held by the Delaware River Basin Commission, a federal agency that regulates a variety of water and land activities in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware. At issue is the commission’s June 2010 determination that companies that drill exploratory wells—wells that are drilled to test theories about where gas might be found—must obtain the agency’s approval before drilling within its jurisdiction, and whether or not 11 exploratory wells in Pennsylvania that have already been approved should be exempt from the regulation.

The commission rarely holds hearings, and the progress of this one is being followed closely by industry and environmental advocates because of its implications for the drilling boom in the gas-rich Marcellus Shale rock formation, which underlies much of the basin.

The commission’s decision to regulate exploratory wells is being challenged by the Northern Wayne County Property Owner’s Alliance, with drilling companies Hess Corp. and Newfield Exploration Co. joining as interested parties. Challenging the exemption of the 11 approved wells are two environmental organizations, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability Inc. and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, along with Nockamixon (Pa.) township, where one of the wells is located.

The Commission refused to supply any of the testimony that has been submitted for the hearing without a Freedom of Information Act Request. ProPublica filed that request, but in the meantime the environmental organizations provided the reports they submitted, as well as the reports the commission submitted on its own behalf.

None of the other parties involved in the hearing responded to requests to comment or to provide ProPublica their expert reports or other relevant documents.

The commission’s reports assert that:

• Wells drilled 7,000 to 8,000 feet to reach the Marcellus formation create pathways through which naturally-occurring contaminants can potentially migrate into ground and surface water

• Natural gas exploratory wells have the potential to harm endangered species in the river basin

The reports submitted by the two environmental organizations assert that:

• Although they receive less regulatory review, exploration wells can be more dangerous than production wells because the drilling hazards in an exploration area are by definition unknown

• Hazardous chemicals are used in the exploratory well construction process, and the risk of those chemicals moving into groundwater in the Delaware River Basin is exacerbated because of natural seismic activity in the area

• The 11 wells in question do not meet the criteria for exploratory wells. Documentation indicates that some of these wells will be used not just for gathering data but for gas production, which circumvents part of the regulatory process required for production wells

• Pennsylvania’s erosion, sedimentation, and storm water regulations for gas and oil companies require far less oversight than any other industrial activity in the state

• The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s permit process, construction guidelines and emergency preparedness plans are insufficient to mitigate the risk factors posed by exploratory wells

• Any drilling activities, vertical or horizontal, that take place in shale rock formations pose significant risks to human health and the environment

The commission’s reports were written by fish and wildlife biologist Robert M. Anderson, ecologist Danielle A. Kreeger, petroleum engineer Patrick M. O’Dell, biologist Erik Silldorf, ecologist John K. Jackson, ecologist Bernard W. Sweeney and public health researcher Conrad Daniel Volz.

The environmental organizations’ reports were written by engineer Michele E Adams, chemist Ronald E. Bishop, civil engineer Peter M. Demicco, petroleum engineer Susan L. Harvey, environmental scientist Glenn C. Miller, engineer Emmett M. Owens, geologist Paul A. Rubin, and medical toxicologist Daniel T. Teitelbaum.

Edward N. Cahn, a former federal judge, has been appointed by the Delaware River Basin Commission to preside over the January hearing. Cahn will submit his recommendations to the commission, which will vote on them at a future public meeting.

Article by Marie C. Baca, appearing courtesy Propublica.

Related posts:

• Drilling Chemicals Found In Drinking Water Near Natural Gas Sites
• U.S. to Suspend Arctic Drilling: Alaska Senator
• Controversial Drilling Method Gaining Foothold Across Europe
• U.S. Company Halts “Fracking” While It Investigates Causes of Blowout
• How Do Relief Wells Work?

For the first time, scientists have discovered chemicals used in a controversial natural gas drilling technique in water wells near the gas sites.

Scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), testing wells near a major gas drilling area in Wyoming, have found traces of drilling chemicals in three wells, and other contaminants — including oil, gas, and heavy metals — in 11 of 39 wells recently tested, according to the Web site Pro Publica.

The chemicals are used in a process called hydraulic fracturing, in which drilling fluids and sand are injected under high pressure to break up rock and release gas.

Using the fracturing technique, abundant gas reserves are being developed in 31 states, although officials in New York have imposed a moratorium on the process — which uses large amounts of water — until its environmental impact can be assessed.

Congress is also considering a bill to regulate the process, but the gas industry has said regulation is unnecessary because it is impossible for fracturing fluids to contaminate underground water supplies. The recent tests, which may refute the industry’s claim, are continuing.

Appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360.

[photo credit: Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica]

Related posts:

• Obama Proposal Would Allow Expanded Offshore Drilling
• Contaminated Tap Water Calls for Urgent Improvement of Water Systems
• U.S. Company Halts “Fracking” While It Investigates Causes of Blowout
• Controversial Drilling Method Gaining Foothold Across Europe
• EPA Launches National Study of Hydraulic Fracturing

“No doubts remain. Climate change is real and the build-up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasingly at an alarming rate.” With these words, Rafael Quiroga, General Manager of Accion RSE, initiated the seminar “Corporate Strategic Management of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.” This is not another “green business” seminar from a European or North American city, it took place here — in Santiago, Chile.

The event brought together speakers from the Chilean private sector that gave concrete examples of their companies’ climate change and GHG management initiatives. First, it showed how Essbio, a water purification company, has been dealing with the ever-prescient and escalating challenges of decreasing water reserves due to climate change.  Second, it illustrated the emissions and energy reductions Xstrata Copper, a mining company, has committed to and the steps it has taken to minimize the release of contaminants in its industrial processes. Third, it explained what Natura cosmetics has done since 2007 to become a “carbon neutral” business by calculating all GHG emissions in the company’s supply chain, transportation, and production of its various cosmetics products, and purchasing the equivalent amount of CO2 tonnage in carbon credits on the international carbon markets.

Although Chile is officially considered an Annex B, “developing” country under the dual classification of the Kyoto Protocol, the smaller country of 16 million inhabitants has been no stranger to addressing the climate change issue in recent years. In addition to private companies’ activities noted above, Chile has also completed some 40 projects via the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM market since 2004. These 40 projects have ranged from landfill methane gas capture, to a nationwide energy efficiency CFL lightbulbs installation project, to agricultural methane capture, and to a wind energy project – yielding a total of US$300 million in traded carbon credits for Chilean enterprises.

Moreover, in early December 2008, President Bachelet, alongside her Environment Minister, unveiled Chile’s official “National Climate Change Action Plan” for 2008-2012. The plan includes activities for

1) studying impacts and vulnerabilities,
2) funding adaptation measures, and
3) strong support for mitigation endeavors, including the creation of a Center for Renewable Energy, establishing an increase of funds for a national energy efficiency program, further studies into harvesting biofuels, and increasing bicycle lanes for transport.

Although, historically, Chile has not contributed much to the total build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – actually 0.2% of total global GHG emissions for the last year tallied, 2004 – the country would like to see itself as a Latin American forerunner on confronting the issue.  President Bachelet’s new Action Plan not only concretely addresses the country’s increasing climate change concerns, but also demonstrates to the international community that Chile, too, is progressive and environmentally conscientious.

However, even with the formidable growth in the renewable energy sector, and a bit less so in CSR and ‘green business strategy,’ in Chile over the past 3-4 years, there is still an internal conflict and complexity as to how the “green” the country is truly progressing. As Mr. Quiroga pointed out at the seminar, Chile’s growth rate of GHG emissions in the past 10 years has been among the highest on the planet, alongside that of China and India. The main culprits for this have been

1) the booming energy intensive mining sector,
2) an increase in automobile use with economic growth, and,
3) an increased reliance on coal in recent years with disruptions in imported gas supplies from Argentina.

One recent study from the University of Chile actually found that Chile’s national GHG footprint is projected to jump 4.2 times its current amount by 2030.  This conclusion assumes the country continues on its current pace and manner of economic development, and with the increased reliance on new coal plants that are currently in different stages of construction.

So, yes, not only are the effects of climate change real in Chile but so too is a growing movement and public consciousness to reduce people’s and companies’ carbon footprints. In addition to Essbio, Xstrata, and Natura, there are other enterprises in Chile making efforts to reduce GHG emissions in their industrial processes or take action in other local environmental issues.  Yet, it is safe to say that such “climate change conscious” companies are still a small minority here in Chile.  And, even though President Bachelet and the Minister of Energy are making genuine, good-faith efforts to bring the latest solar and geothermal energy technology to Chile such as with partnerships with California and the US Department of Energy, the situation of increasing national GHG emissions reveals a deeper complexity we all need to address:

How can a middle-income economy, such as Chile, afford the latest in clean and renewable energy technology to reduce its climate change footprint, while at the same time, continuing to address more pressing needs of economic and social development?

In other words, a country such as Chile still needs to put its food on the table by mining the copper, whether imported gas or a cheaper “clean” energy solution is currently available; and, if they are not available, a bunch of coal will certainly do.

[photo credit: Cheo!]

Related posts:

• Looking for Climate Change Leadership? Try Mexico City
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• Chile Launches Initiative to Measure Water Footprint of Companies
• Chile: the Windy El Dorado, EWEC, Part IV
• Chilean Hydroelectric Dam Project to be Appealed to Supreme Court