Dirty Energy can and has degraded and depleted streams, wells and other water sources in many different ways.

If we continue down our current Dirty Energy path, we will diminish the supply of one of our most important resources -- fresh, clean drinking water.

Coal

Acid mine drainage

Many coal deposits contain pyrite, which contains sulfur. When exposed to water and air, the sulfur forms sulfuric acid -- acid mine drainage.

Once acid mine drainage has started, it is difficult to stop until the exposed sulfur is exhausted. In the meantime, unless proactive, and often expensive, steps are taken, the acid too often pollutes rivers, streams and groundwater.

Acidic water harms or kills in two ways:

1. The acid -- frequently as toxic as battery acid -- directly harms or kills aquatic organisms;
2. The acid leaches toxic metals from the surrounding rock into surface and groundwater, where the metals harm aquatic life. Metals such as copper, aluminum, cadmium, arsenic, lead and mercury.

Acid mine drainage is particularly heavy in the western and, to a lesser extent northeastern, Pennsylvania, and northern and south central West Virginia. Runoff water polluted by acid, iron, sulfur and aluminum, has often drained away from the mines and into streams.

The U.S. Geological Survey reports that 200 years of coal mining has resulted in 2,390 stream miles in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basin (located within the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia) that have been affected by acid mine drainage to the point of not being able to support fish communities.

Mountaintop removal

A particularly devastating form of coal mining, mountaintop removal has affected water quality and quantity in the Appalachian region of the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that,

"Mining dries up an average of 100 wells a year and contaminates water in others. In many coalfield communities, the purity and availability of drinking water are keen concerns . . . Blasting and shearing mountains have added to the damage done to underground aquifers by deep mines."

Mercury deposition

Burning coal also contributes to water pollution. A 2007 study suggests that emissions from coal-fired power plants may be an important source of water pollution and fish contamination in parts of Pennsylvania. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh found high levels of mercury and selenium in catfish caught in a rural area downwind from a coal-fired power plant north of Pittsburgh. Both mercury and selenium are released when coal is burned for power generation. The concentrations of mercury found in fish were five times the Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable risk level for the general population.

Acid rain

Acidification of surface water, mainly lakes and reservoirs, is another major impact related to pollution from coal-fired power plants. In this case, the primary chemical culprit is sulfur dioxide emitted into the air from burning the coal.

Water consumption

Large quantities of water are frequently needed to remove impurities from coal after it is mined, or water is mixed with the coal in order to transport it. The water withdrawals that occur to support coal mining can deplete aquifers and surface waters. For example:

The Peabody Coal strip mine that straddles the Navajo and Hopi reservations pumps 1.3 billion gallons per year of groundwater out of the Navajo aquifer. The water is mixed with crushed coal to form a slurry, which is then pumped 273 miles to a coal-fired powerplant in Nevada. The tapped aquifer and its associated springs supply drinking water to 9,000 Hopi. In 2000, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that six groundwater monitoring wells in the aquifer have lost significant pressure, and discharge from five of nine monitored springs has declined by more than 50 percent. In 2006, NRDC found that the aquifer has been damaged by the continued water withdrawals, and that the quality of water in the aquifer has also declined.

Coal-fired power plants also use large quantities of water for producing steam and for cooling. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water per year from nearby water bodies to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people.

When water is drawn into a power plant, millions of fish eggs, fish larvae, and juvenile fish are pulled in as well. And as many as 1.5 million adult fish may be injured or killed by being trapped against the intake structures every year.

When coal-fired power plants remove water from a lake or river, fish and other aquatic life can be affected, as well as animals and people who depend on these aquatic resources. When the waste water is released into a river or lake, pollutants in the water can harm fish and plants. Typically, power plants also add chlorine or other toxic chemicals to their cooling water to decrease algae growth. These chemicals can have negative health effects on aquatic organisms. Aquatic life may also be harmed because the waste water is typically hotter (by up to 20-25° F) than the water that receives it. This thermal pollution can decrease fertility and increase heart rates in fish.

Combustion wastes

The waste from burning the coal is also a potential source of water pollution. Coal combustion wastes contain concentrated levels of metals like mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium and cadmium, as well as other contaminants. These wastes are often disposed of in abandoned mines, unlined surface impoundments, and landfills, and can contaminate groundwater. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, one study has found that one out of 100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes are at risk of developing cancer.

Coal-to-liquids

Waste water

Coal-to-liquid plants are likely to produce much more waste water than other processes that produce petroleum products from Dirty Energy sources.

The Northern Plains Resource Center has summarized data from the South African company Sasol, the only company with commercial scale coal-to-liquid plants in operation. According to the data:

• A 22,000 barrel per day coal-to-liquid operation produces 20 billion gallons of waste water per year , or almost 55 million gallons of waste water per day.
• The BP Whiting refinery -- a conventional oil refinery which produces 400,000 barrels per day -- produces less than half the waste water at 20 million gallons per day.

Water consumption

All that waste water production necessarily also consumes more water than other Dirty Energy fuels:

• Sasol uses five barrels of water per barrel of synthetic fuel created,
• Tar sands development requires between 2 and 5.3 barrels of water per barrel of synthetic crude created.

Oil and gas

Oil and gas drilling can contaminate water via a number of pathways:

• Wastes and chemicals stored in pits or tanks may spill, overflow, or leach into surface or groundwater,
• Oil, natural gas or chemicals injected underground may come in contact with drinking water aquifers,
• Pipelines carrying crude oil or natural gas may leak or rupture, allowing the contents to contaminate soil or watercourses.

Examples:

In the four-year period between June of 2002 and June of 2006, there were approximately 924 spills of oil and gas chemicals and wastes in Colorado. Spilled products included: crude oil, condensate, produced water, and "other" products. The other products included diesel fuel, glycol, amine, lubricating oil, hydraulic fracturing fluids, drilling muds, other chemicals, and natural gas leaks. Twenty percent of the spills contaminated water: 14% of the spills affected groundwater; and 6% of all spills affected surface water.

The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division has detected and documented more than 700 hundred incidents of groundwater contamination from oil and gas facilities across the state.

A leaky natural gas pipeline in West Texas polluted the ground water with benzene, xylene and toluene, all of which all linked to cancer in humans.

On October 30, 2005, a landowner in La Plata county, Colorado contacted the state oil and gas agency about potential contamination of his water well. Initially, the landowner was told by agency staff that his water probably tasted bad because of changes to his water caused by an earthquake or the drought. But the agency agreed to test the landowner’s water, and based on water samples taken over a five month period, the agency eventually concluded that "it appears that fluids from the unlined reserve pit infiltrated into the shallow groundwater, flowed downhill and impacted the . . . water well." There were at least 19 products used during the drilling of the well. Many of the products contained chemicals known to be harmful to human health.

Produced water

Produced water -- waste water removed from an oil or gas well during production -- is the largest volume waste produced by the oil and gas industry. It may contain high levels of hydrocarbons, including benzene, as well a high concentrations of salt, metals and radionuclides.

There are a number of ways that produced can find its way into waterways. These include tanker spills, leaks in pits or tanks, or leaking produced water disposal wells. A study in Oklahoma found that between 1993 and 2003 there were, on average, 790 releases of produced water a year. There were more than 900 incidents of these releases affecting surface water, and more than 100 incidents of groundwater being impacted.

Oil shale

Oil shale development has the potential to affect both surface and groundwater through runoff from mining and retorting operations. The mining operations create a great deal of surface disturbance, and runoff from these sites can carry with it chemicals and sediments that can contaminate streams and waterbodies.

In-situ operations pose greater risks to groundwater quality, as produced gases and sediments can potentially pollute groundwater supplies.

Tar sands

Tailings ponds

One of the greatest threats to water quality from tar sands extraction comes from the toxic water stored in earthen reservoirs known as tailings ponds. These giant waste sites cover an area close to 20 square miles. In 2003, the intergovernmental Mackenzie River Basin Board found that “an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands tailing ponds could have a catastrophic impact on the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River basin.”

Even without a catastrophic event, these tailings ponds pose a threat to aquatic ecosystems. According to Environmental Defense, contaminated water in these tailings ponds leaks into the river systems -- “Suncor admitted in 1997 that its Tar Island Pond leaks approximately 1,600 cubic metres of toxic fluid into the Athabasca River every day.”

Andrew Nikiforuk writes that, “The ponds, which contain a ketchup-consistency mix of water, oil and clay, give off a strong aroma of hydrocarbons and rarely freeze. Minnows dropped into the ponds die within 96 hours; unwary ducks get coated by surface oil and drown.”

Tailings ponds contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), napthenic acids, heavy metals, salts and bitumen. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are reported to be capable of being absorbed from the lungs, gastrointestinal tract and skin in animals. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports that of 25 PAHs studied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 14 are probable human carcinogens. The high concentrations of pollutants such as naphthenic acids in tar sands tailings ponds are acutely toxic to aquatic life.

Water consumption

Water use has been highlighted as one of the top challenges for tar sands mining operations. The Pembina Institute reports that water allocations for existing, approved, and planned tar sands mining operations are expected to quadruple over allocations for existing projects in 2004. Water withdrawals from surface waters affect fish populations, particularly when water withdrawals reduce winter habitat in the Athabasca River.

And water consumption in the tar sands is likely to increase, as the best tar sands deposits are mined out. According to one industry consultant, “We are presently mining the best ores. But as clay content increases, the volume of water needed in production will increase.”

Tar sands in-situ operations that rely on groundwater can also harm the area’s water supply. One concern is that groundwater withdrawals could draw down surface waters – and possibly cause a loss of wetlands. If wetlands are drained, high concentrations of mercury could be released into the surrounding water bodies.

Water polluted by tar sands heavy crude upgrading

The Pembina Institute reports that new tar sands upgraders in Alberta are likely to increase the discharge of a number of chemicals into North Saskatchewan River.

For example, discharge from upgraders is expected to increase the concentration of phenols in the river water which according to Pembina already occasionally exceed water quality guidelines. Other pollutants like sodium, chloride and sulphate may also increase, which taken together could create stress on the river’s ecosystem. Fish and other aquatic organisms may be directly affected by the contaminants or they may avoid areas where the waste water is discharged, which effectively causes a loss in habitat.

Water polluted by tar sands oil refining

Canadian rivers are not the only waters affected by tar sands development. Refineries in the U.S. that take tar sands bitumen release large volumes of waste water to the environment.

One of the U.S. refineries that takes tar sands crude and is planning to increase its use of bitumen, the BP Whiting refinery in Indiana, already discharges more than a dozen toxic compounds including benzene, toluene and suspended solids containing mercury, lead, nickel and vanadium, into Lake Michigan. According to a Chicago Tribune article, the refinery is the top industrial source of lead, nickel and ammonia, and one of only two industrial polluters that still dumps mercury directly into Lake Michigan.

Uranium

Mining

All forms of uranium mining and milling have impacted human health in areas near the operations. Tailings from operations and ponds, and untreated or poorly treated mine water discharged into local arroyos and streams, has contaminated water sources in uranium mining areas.

• According to MiningWatch Canada, in August 1993, two million litres of contaminated water spilled from a tailings site at Rio Algom's Stanleigh uranium mine in Elliot Lake, Ontario. The spill took place as a result of a power failure. The radiologically and chemically contaminated water spilled into McCabe Lake.
• The book Killing Our Own: Chronicling the Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation, 1945-1982, recounts a spill of uranium milling wastes that occurred in July of 1979 near Church Rock, NM. A tailings dam burst sending eleven hundred tons of radioactive mill wastes and ninety million gallons of contaminated liquid into the Rio Puerco river. The tailings contained uranium, thorium, radium, and polonium, as well as traces of metals such as cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, sodium, vanadium, zinc, iron, lead and high concentrations of sulfates. The Center for Disease Control warned local citizens that kidneys and livers of local livestock might concentrate high doses and should not be eaten, and that local residents should not to drink water from the river. A year after the spill a representative from the state's Environmental Improvement Division confirmed that the Rio Puerco was still too dangerous for human or animal consumption.
• There have been numerous other uranium tailings dam failures documented over the years. A number of these failures resulted in water and soil contamination.

In-situ leaching

In-situ leaching is the preferred "mining" method for new uranium mine proposals.

A lixivant (usually an acidic solution) is injected via a well in the area around the deposit. The lixivant dissolves the uranium, which is then extracted via another series of wells.

In-situ leaching risks groundwater pollution due to obvious, and as yet unresolved, problems:

• Not all mobilized uranium is extracted;
• Not all the lixivant is extracted;
• The lixivant can mobilize non-target toxic metals -- which aren't completely extracted.

In 2004 the Australian government studied the groundwater pollution potential of in-situ leach uranium mining. They concluded that pollution had in fact occurred -- but that the pollution didn't constitute a problem because "the groundwater has no apparent beneficial use other than by the mining industry."

In the over 30 years that companies have practiced in-situ leach mining, no operator has been able to restore groundwater to pre-mining conditions.

Tag it:

?