Colorado study assesses potential health risks of toxic gases associated with oil and gas drilling

Pollution from oil drilling has potential health impacts.

Data leaves little doubt about ill-effects of toxic gases

By Summit Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY β€” Just a few weeks after NOAA researchers revealed findings that oil and gas development leads to elevated levels of air pollution along the Front Range, a Colorado School of Public Health study shows that air pollution caused by fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites.

“Our data show that it is important to include air pollution in the national dialogue on natural gas development that has focused largely on water exposures to hydraulic fracturing,” said Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, lead author of the study and research associate at the Colorado School of Public Health.

The report is based on three years of air quality monitoring. It found a number of potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a known carcinogen. Other chemicals included heptane, octane and diethylbenzene but information on their toxicity is limited.

“Our results show that the non-cancer health impacts from air emissions due to natural gas development is greater for residents living closer to wells,” the report said. “The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well-completion period.”

That’s due to exposure to trimethylbenzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects, the study said. Those effects could include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing.

“We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away],” the report said. “Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios.”

The study looked at potential health impacts to people living about a half-mile from the wells.

Typically, wells are developed in stages that include drilling followed by hydraulic fracturing , the high powered injection of water and chemicals into the drilled area to release the gas. After that, there is flowback or the return of fracking and geologic fluids, hydrocarbons and natural gas to the surface. The gas is then collected and sold.

Garfield County asked the Colorado School of Public Health to assess the potential health impacts of these wells on the community of Battlement Mesa with a population of about 5,000.

McKenzie analyzed ambient air sample data collected from monitoring stations by the Garfield County Department of Public Health and Olsson Associates Inc. She used standard EPA methodology to estimate non-cancer health impacts and excess lifetime cancer risks for hydrocarbon exposure.

McKenzie noted that EPA standards are designed to be public health proactive and may overestimate risks.

“However, there wasn’t data available on all the chemicals emitted during the well development process,” she said. “If there had been, then it is entirely possible the risks would have been underestimated.”

The report concludes that health risks are greater for people living closest to wells and urges a reduction in those air emissions.

McKenzie said future studies are warranted and should include collection of area, residential and personal exposure data where wells are operating. Additional studies, she said, should also examine the toxicity of other hydrocarbons associated with natural gas development.


4 thoughts on “Colorado study assesses potential health risks of toxic gases associated with oil and gas drilling

  1. An idiotic and falsely conducted study…and a misleading headline. How about a study that measured and compiled statistics regarding cancer rates among people who work right on the drilling site and in the industry who are constantly surrounded by much stronger concentrations of these hydrocarbons? Then you’d have something.

    How do the level of HCs in the areas studied compare to the levels in Denver? How do the cancer rates of the people living in similar conditions compare to the general population?

    All this study showed is that there are traces of HCs (benzene, etc.) in the air around a well (well duh), then drew some conclusions. No actual health rate statistics were quoted or examined it seems.

  2. Interesting comment, though starting out with “idiotic and falsely conducted study”, casts the same spotlight mentioned upon the “misleading headline” stated! I presume the commenter has thorough knowledge and understanding of what he speaks?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s