Impacts of Mining on Rivers by Paul Koberstein, Editor, Cascadia Times
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana Click Here to Return to Volume Title Page by Lawrence O
Chapter 1 Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana Click here to return to Volume Title Page By Lawrence O. Anna Chapter 1 of Total Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana By U.S. Geological Survey Powder River Basin Assessment Team U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–U U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 Revised: April 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Lawrence O. Anna, 2010, Geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Powder River Basin Province Wyoming and Montana, in Total Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana: U.S. -
Paani Foundation Is a Not-For-Profit Organization Which Has Been the Brainchild of Aamir Khan and Kiran Rao
ANNUAL REPORT PAANI FOUNDATION’S ACTIVITIES IN 2016 Background: Paani Foundation is a not-for-profit organization which has been the brainchild of Aamir Khan and Kiran Rao. The organization was registered in early 2016 in order to work towards creating a drought-free Maharashtra. The idea originated from the television show Satyameva Jayate which was being anchored by Aamir Khan , addressing various social issues . One of the crucial issues that strongly came up was the water scarcity in Maharashtra which was mainly due to the topographical pattern of large areas in existence which are drought prone and face serious lack of rain every year. India is classified globally as a water-adequate nation. It has neither abundance nor scarcity. It has enough for its needs. Yet, increasingly, more and more people do not have water to drink, more and more farmers face drought and starvation, and more and more industries shut down or cannot grow because of a shortage of water. The reason for the Water Crisis: The crisis is largely man-made and has four key causes: 1. Pollution: We have polluted our lakes and rivers. 2. Over-Exploitation: We have recklessly pumped out ground water without bothering to recharge the groundwater table resulting in a catastrophic fall in its level. 3. Irrational Water Management: Can be described well with the example of highly water-intensive sugarcane cultivation in drought-prone areas. 4. Climate Change: Rainfall is getting compressed in both space and time. The number of rain days is decreasing. Rainfall is concentrated in small areas with vast land masses subject to drought. -
Water Quality Conditions in the United States a Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress
United States Office of Water (4503F) EPA841-F-00-006 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 June 2000 Agency Water Quality Conditions in the United States A Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress States, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions report that, in 1998, about 40% of U.S. streams, lakes, and estuaries that were assessed were not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming. About 32% of U.S. waters were assessed for this national inventory of water quality. Leading pollutants in impaired waters include siltation, bacteria, nutrients, and metals. Runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas are the primary sources of these pollu- tants. Although the United States has made significant progress in cleaning up polluted waters over the past 30 years, much remains to be done to restore and protect the nation’s waters. Findings States also found that 96% of assessed Great Lakes shoreline miles are impaired, primarily due to pollut- Recent water quality data find that more than ants in fish tissue at levels that exceed standards to 291,000 miles of assessed rivers and streams do not protect human health. States assessed 90% of Great meet water quality standards. Across all types of water- Lakes shoreline miles. bodies, states, territories, tribes, and other jurisdictions report that poor water quality affects aquatic life, fish Wetlands are being lost in the contiguous United consumption, swimming, and drinking water. In their States at a rate of about 100,000 acres per year. Eleven 1998 reports, states assessed 840,000 miles of rivers states and tribes listed sources of recent wetland loss; and 17.4 million acres of lakes, including 150,000 conversion for agricultural uses, road construction, and more river miles and 600,000 more lake acres than residential development are leading reasons for loss. -
2021 Water Quality Report
2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT CITY OF NEWARK: SOUTH WELL FIELD TREATMENT PLANT AIR STRIPPER BUILDING Annual Water Quality Report The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Newark meets or exceeds the water quality requires public water suppliers to provide standards of the Delaware Division of Public consumer confidence reports (CCR) to their Health Office of Drinking Water and the customers . These reports are also known as Environmental Protection Agency. The tables on annual water quality reports. The below report pages 4-6 of this report list those substances summarizes information regarding the sources found in our finished water during calendar year used (i.e. rivers, reservoirs, or aquifers), any 2020. detected contaminants, compliance and educational efforts. How the Water is Treated The City’s 317 million gallon reservoir provides a Drinking water, including bottled water, may At the Curtis Water Treatment Plant (CWTP), reliable source of raw water which can be treated reasonably be expected to contain at least small water from the White Clay Creek is clarified with and ready for drinking in times of heavy rain or amounts of some substances. The presence of alum and polymer and then filtered to remove drought. In an effort to keep sediment these substances does not necessarily indicate impurities. Chlorine is added to kill harmful accumulation in our water mains to a minimum, that water poses a health risk. In order to ensure bacteria and viruses. Finally, fluoride is added to we flush the entire system yearly. that tap water is safe to drink, the EPA prescribes the water to protect your teeth. -
Summary of Produced Water Management Practices
Potential for Beneficial Use of Oil and Gas Produced Water David B. Burnett1 Abstract Technology advancements and the increasing need for fresh water resources have created the potential for desalination of oil field brine to be a cost-effective fresh water resource for the citizens of Texas. In our state and in other mature oil and gas production areas, the majority of wells produce brine water along with gas and oil. Many of these wells produce less than 10 barrels of oil a day (bbl/day) along with substantial amounts of water. Transporting water from these stripper wells is expensive, so much so that in many cases the produced water can be treated on site, including desalination, for less cost than hauling it away. One key that makes desalination affordable is that the contaminants removed from the brine can be injected back into the oil and gas producing formation without having to have an EPA Class I hazardous injection permit. The salts removed from the brine originally came from the formation into which it is being re-injected and environmental regulations permit a Class II well to contain the salt “concentrate”. This chapter discusses key issues driving this new technology. Primary are the costs (economic and environmental) of current produced water management and the potential for desalination in Texas. In addition the cost effectiveness of new water treatment technology and the changes in environmental and institutional conditions are encouraging innovative new technology to address potential future water shortages in Texas. Introduction Who in their right mind would ever try to purify and re-use oil field brine? The very nature of the material produced along with oil and gas would seem to make such practices uneconomical. -
I Subsurface Waste Disposal by Means of Wells a Selective Annotated Bibliography
I Subsurface Waste Disposal By Means of Wells A Selective Annotated Bibliography By DONALD R. RIMA, EDITH B. CHASE, and BEVERLY M. MYERS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2020 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS G. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 77-179486 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.50 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-1229 FOREWORD Subsurface waste disposal or injection is looked upon by many waste managers as an economically attractive alternative to providing the sometimes costly surface treatment that would otherwise be required by modern pollution-control law. The impetus for subsurface injection is the apparent success of the petroleum industry over the past several decades in the use of injection wells to dispose of large quantities of oil-field brines. This experience coupled with the oversimplification and glowing generalities with which the injection capabilities of the subsurface have been described in the technical and commercial literature have led to a growing acceptance of deep wells as a means of "getting rid of" the ever-increasing quantities of wastes. As the volume and diversity of wastes entering the subsurface continues to grow, the risk of serious damage to the environment is certain to increase. Admittedly, injecting liquid wastes deep beneath the land surface is a potential means for alleviating some forms of surface pollution. But in view of the wide range in the character and concentrations of wastes from our industrialized society and the equally diverse geologic and hydrologic con ditions to be found in the subsurface, injection cannot be accepted as a universal panacea to resolve all variants of the waste-disposal problem. -
Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2019
Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2020 Rank Mine Name / Operating Company Mine Type State Production (short tons) 1 North Antelope Rochelle Mine / Peabody Powder River Mining LLC Surface Wyoming 66,111,840 2 Black Thunder / Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Surface Wyoming 50,188,766 3 Antelope Coal Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 19,809,826 4 Freedom Mine / The Coteau Properties Company Surface North Dakota 12,592,297 5 Eagle Butte Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 12,303,698 6 Caballo Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 11,626,318 7 Belle Ayr Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 11,174,953 8 Kosse Strip / Luminant Mining Company LLC Surface Texas 10,104,901 9 Cordero Rojo Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 9,773,845 10 Buckskin Mine / Buckskin Mining Company Surface Wyoming 9,699,282 11 Spring Creek Coal Company / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Montana 9,513,255 12 Rawhide Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 9,494,090 13 River View Mine / River View Coal LLC Underground Kentucky 9,412,068 14 Marshall County Mine / Marshall County Coal Resources Underground West Virginia 8,854,604 15 Bailey Mine / Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company Underground Pennsylvania 8,668,477 16 Falkirk Mine / Falkirk Mining Company Surface North Dakota 7,261,161 17 Mc#1 Mine / M-Class Mining LLC Underground Illinois 7,196,444 18 Tunnel Ridge Mine / Tunnel Ridge, LLC Underground West Virginia 6,756,696 19 Lively Grove Mine / Prairie State Generating Company -
Stormwater Management: Water Pollution and Our Own Yards Kelly A
® ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Know how. Know now. G1848 Stormwater Management: Water Pollution and Our Own Yards Kelly A. Feehan, Extension Educator David P. Shelton, Extension Agricultural Engineer Steven R. Tonn, Extension Educator of non-stormwater discharges such as improper connections to This NebGuide describes practices to reduce water the drainage system or illegal dumping. pollution and conserve water resources by reducing While the amount of pollutants originating from a single the amount of pollutants and runoff water that leave a residential lot is small (Figure 1), these pollutants combine property. This is part of a series. with pollutants from other lots and from municipal and busi- ness properties. Streams, rivers, and lakes are interconnected. Protection of water quality is an environmental issue Once pollutants reach a waterway, the pollution from one town everyone faces. When it rains and as snow melts, water runs combines with pollution from other cities, towns, rural areas, across and off our property. This runoff water is referred to and so on. Everyone lives in a watershed, that area of land as stormwater. As stormwater flows across surfaces, it picks that drains to a specific body of water, and everyday actions up pollutants in its path and eventually deposits them into affect water quality in watersheds. streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, or other surface water. It is through stormwater that many pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, bacteria, heavy met- als, and others reach surface water. This is called nonpoint source pollution. It cannot be easily traced to one source or one property. -
Evaluating Residential Indoor Air Quality Concerns1
Designation: D7297 – 06 Standard Practice for Evaluating Residential Indoor Air Quality Concerns1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D7297; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. 1. Scope 2. Referenced Documents 1.1 This standard practice describes procedures for evaluat- 2.1 ASTM Standards:2 ing indoor air quality (IAQ) concerns in residential buildings. D1356 Terminology Relating to Sampling and Analysis of 1.2 The practice primarily addresses IAQ concerns encoun- Atmospheres tered in single-family detached and attached (for example, D1357 Practice for Planning the Sampling of the Ambient townhouse or duplex design) residential buildings. Limited Atmosphere guidance is also included for low- and high-rise multifamily D4861 Practice for Sampling and Selection of Analytical dwellings. Techniques for Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls 1.3 The IAQ evaluation procedures are comprised of inter- in Air views with the homeowner or resident(s) (including telephone D4947 Test Method for Chlordane and Heptachlor Residues interviews and face-to-face meetings) and on-site investiga- in Indoor Air tions (including walk-through, assessment, and measure- D5197 Test Method for Determination of Formaldehyde ments). For practicality in application, these procedures are and Other Carbonyl Compounds in Air (Active Sampler dividing into three separate phases. Methodology) 1.4 The procedures described in this standard practice are D5438 Practice for Collection of Floor Dust for Chemical aimed at identifying potential causes contributing to the IAQ Analysis concern. -
Pollution Brochure
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Water What Can You Do? AND PLANNING AGENCY Jamaica, as a small mountainous island, is particu- • Dispose of and store chemicals properly larly vulnerable to the effects of water pollution. Pol- • Learn more about the proper disposal of waste Pollution luted water adversely affects coastal and marine en- • Get involved in environmental action groups vironments. Some sources of water pollution include: • Reduce noise Is Our Concern • Report offensive odours and emissions from • Sewage effluent (treated and untreated) factories and commercial sites Surface run off from agricultural sources which • • Do not burn your garbage may carry solid waste and dissolved chemicals • Do not throw garbage into gullies, drains and such as pesticides rivers • Oil pollution from off shore oil spills, drilling, • Reduce, reuse and recycle tanker washing and industrial effluent Air Pollution Noise Frequent exposure to high levels of noise can cause Land pollution headaches, high level of stress and temporary or Managing & protecting Jamaica’s permanent deafness. Sleep as well as concentration land, wood & water can be affected by noise. Some sources of noise pollution include: For further information contact The Public Education and Corporate • Loud music and talking Communication Branch of National Environment and Planning Agency • Honking horns (NEPA) • Industrial activity (factory noise) 10 & 11 Caledonia Avenue, Kingston 5 Water pollution • Low flying aeroplanes and motor vehicles Tel: 754-7540, Fax: 754-7595/6 What is Environmental Pollution ? Toll free: 1-888-991-5005 Environmental pollution may be defined as; the contamination Email: [email protected] of the environment by man through substances or energy Website: www.nepa.gov.jm which may cause harm or discomfort to humans, other living organisms and ecological systems. -
Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions
Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions Policy HIGHLIGHTS Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions “OECD countries have struggled to adequately address diffuse water pollution. It is much easier to regulate large, point source industrial and municipal polluters than engage with a large number of farmers and other land-users where variable factors like climate, soil and politics come into play. But the cumulative effects of diffuse water pollution can be devastating for human well-being and ecosystem health. Ultimately, they can undermine sustainable economic growth. Many countries are trying innovative policy responses with some measure of success. However, these approaches need to be replicated, adapted and massively scaled-up if they are to have an effect.” Simon Upton – OECD Environment Director POLICY H I GH LI GHT S After decades of regulation and investment to reduce point source water pollution, OECD countries still face water quality challenges (e.g. eutrophication) from diffuse agricultural and urban sources of pollution, i.e. pollution from surface runoff, soil filtration and atmospheric deposition. The relative lack of progress reflects the complexities of controlling multiple pollutants from multiple sources, their high spatial and temporal variability, the associated transactions costs, and limited political acceptability of regulatory measures. The OECD report Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions (OECD, 2017) outlines the water quality challenges facing OECD countries today. It presents a range of policy instruments and innovative case studies of diffuse pollution control, and concludes with an integrated policy framework to tackle this challenge. An optimal approach will likely entail a mix of policy interventions reflecting the basic OECD principles of water quality management – pollution prevention, treatment at source, the polluter pays and the beneficiary pays principles, equity, and policy coherence. -
Table 3A. Real Average Annual Coal Transportation Costs
Table 3a. Real Average Annual Coal Transportation Costs from Coal Basin to State by Truck (2020 dollars per ton) Coal Supply Basin Destination State 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (preliminary) Northern Appalachia Maryland W W W W - - - - - W W W W Northern Appalachia Michigan W W W W W W W W W - - - - Northern Appalachia New Jersey - - - - - - - W - - - - - Northern Appalachia New York $14.81 $21.59 - W W - - - - - - W - Northern Appalachia Ohio $9.81 $6.74 $11.65 $12.73 $14.20 $5.11 $7.95 $6.53 W W W W W Northern Appalachia Pennsylvania $6.84 $4.21 $5.64 $5.60 $5.90 $6.58 $6.37 $7.26 $7.75 $8.79 $11.27 $8.34 7.37 Northern Appalachia West Virginia $8.77 $5.06 $4.76 $6.24 W $4.10 $3.45 $3.42 $4.32 W $6.21 W W Central Appalachia Alabama W - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Florida W W W - W - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Georgia W - W - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Illinois - - - - - W W - - - - - - Central Appalachia Kentucky W W - W - - W - W - W - W Central Appalachia Maryland - W - - - - - - - W - - - Central Appalachia Minnesota W W - - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Mississippi - W - - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia North Carolina W - $28.76 W - W - - - - - W - Central Appalachia Ohio W - W - - - W - - - - - - Central Appalachia Pennsylvania - - - - - - - W - - - - - Central Appalachia South Carolina - - $40.28 - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Tennessee - - - - - - - W - - - - - Central Appalachia Virginia W W - W W W W - - W - W - Central Appalachia West Virginia