http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.
In observance of the Easter holiday, we presume, and in the throes of the current shale gas mania that seems to be sweeping through US Coal Country, just as the Dutch were once similarly intoxicated by tulips, and others, at other times and in other places have, as described in:
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia;
also been caught up in tsunamis of irrational enthusiasm, a story now appearing in the local Coal Country press:
Israel on Tap to Become Major Natural Gas Producer, but Geopolitical Tangle May Await - News, Sports, Jobs - The Intelligencer; "'Israel on Tap to Become Major Natural Gas Producer'; March 30, 2013; Associated Press , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register; Jerusalem (AP) - Recent discoveries of massive offshore natural gas deposits, set to begin flowing in the coming days, are turning into a mixed blessing for Israel. The deposits are expected to provide Israel enough natural gas for decades and transform the country, famously empty of natural resources, into an energy exporter";
seems intended to suggest that the Holy Land could become a friendly source of even more of the stuff upon which so much local Coal Country ink has been poured in the current Shale Gas public rapture.
A reality check seems in order.
Israel's new "offshore" gas field, named the "Tamar", as can be learned via an oil and gas industry journal:
Tamar Natural Gas Field, Israel - Offshore Technology; "The Tamar field is a natural gas discovery made by Noble Energy in January 2009 and is the company's largest find to date. ... According to estimates, the field has reserves of 8.4 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas";
will ultimately yield about eight and a half trillion cubic feet of natural gas. For the sake of comparison, as reported by the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, via:
How much natural gas is consumed (used) in the U.S.? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); "In 2011, the United States consumed approximately 24.38 Tcf (trillion cubic feet) of natural gas";
all, quite literally all, of the gas contained in Israel's "Major Natural Gas" find would supply the United States of America for, maybe, four months.
Trivia aside, Israel does have some news for us of genuinely rock-solid value:
She has been developing the art and science of using Coal Ash to restore Mediterranean Sea marine environments. As seen in excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:
"The Use of Coal Fly Ash in Concrete for Marine Artificial Reefs in the Southeastern Mediterranean
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2002
(ICES: International Council for Exploration of the Seas)
To examine the possible use of coal fly ash (CFA) in concrete for artificial reefs, blocks containing 0%, 40%, 60%, and 80% CFA as a substitute for sand were deployed in the Mediterranean at 18.5-m depth off the coast of Israel during a period of 33 months. Compressive strength clearly increased with time in all types to values well above the minimal strength considered necessary for stability of the blocks at sea. Trace metal levels ... were measured in the sessile biota (hydrozoa, polychaeta, and bivalvia). In most cases, no dependence was found between metal levels and time at sea or CFA content of the blocks. In the hydroid, metal concentration even decreased over time.
The growing interest in artificial reefs has expanded the quest for building materials that are stable and inert at sea. One suggested solution is to utilize waste products in an environmentally safe manner so as to increase material recycling and to decrease the need for waste disposal. Among the waste products that might be utilized are the combustion products of coal-fired electric power plants. Israel produced 8.6 million tonnes of Coal Fly Ash (CFA) between 1982 and 1998. About 72% was used by the cement industry as an additive, 14% was disposed of in the deep sea, and the remainder was used for other terrestrial applications.
(No, that ain't a lot of Fly Ash in the grand scheme of things, just like "8.4 trillion cubic feet" ain't really a lot of gas. But, as we've documented previously, we, in the US, if we put our minds to it, could easily consume "72%", actually we could use 100%, of the Coal Ash we generate in our "cement industry".)
Bulk disposal of excess CFA on land or at sea poses environmental problems, mainly because of leaching of elements, in particular heavy metals. In a consolidated form, CFA is more stable.
(We have yet to see valid statistics verifying that "heavy metals" leach out of Coal Ash in any appreciable way, in any application. Most analyses we've seen confirm that any metals which might be in it are forever bound in silicate compounds from which they could only be freed by the application of potent acids. Mother Nature doesn't really keep those in stock. The issue has been raised now, groundlessly, for so long by supposed "environmental" activists, who have forced an incredible amount of money to be wasted on the subject, that we must now hold the true motivations of those activists suspect.)
Compressive strength ... clearly increased in all (samples) during the first 9 months at sea, but remained essentially constant thereafter. The increase was more pronounced in the 40% and 60% blocks than in the 0% and 80% blocks: after 33 months at sea the former were ca. 1.5 times stronger than the latter.
CFA-containing blocks showed a four-fold increase in strength (final/initial strength), compared to a 1.5-fold increase in the control blocks. The final compressive strength of all block types was well above (that) considered the minimal strength necessary for the stability of the blocks at sea.
The concentrations of trace elements in sessile biota were measured starting from 9 months’ immersion.
(The "sessile biota" are just those living critters that decided to settle down and take up permanent residence on the Coal Ask blocks.)
Mercury was below the detection limit ... in all samples.
Changes in trace metal concentrations in (specified species) were not significant, neither as a function of block type nor of immersion time.
In the two mollusc species, there were almost no significant changes and those detected did not show a systematic trend or pattern.
(In fact, some metal) concentrations decreased with time, which is opposite to the trend expected if bioaccumulation has occurred.
Conclusion: Our results show that, at least in the short term of 2 to 3 years, there would be no environmental hazard to utilize Israeli CFA in the construction of block units for artificial reefs. Compressive strength increased with time at sea, no effects were detected on number of species and overall coverage, and only few changes in trace metal composition of both blocks and sessile biota were detected."
----------------------
In essence, the Israeli's determined that concrete blocks consisting of up to 80 percent Coal Ash, used as the building components of artificial reefs, didn't leach anything appreciable into the environment, but did provide structures that were readily colonized by marine critters looking for a home, thus establishing artificial reefs that contributed to sea floor stability and expanded living environments for both plants and animals.
Those sorts of issues might seem insignificant, or even meaningless, to those of us living far removed from the ocean in the heart of landlocked Coal Country; but, for our friends blessed with coastlines and ports, they are topics of concern. And, considerable effort, over literally thousands of years, has been devoted to the art and science of developing artificial reef systems, for the purposes of increasing fishery yields, improving navigation, providing defense, preventing erosion, and others. More can be learned via:
Artificial reef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; "An artificial reef is a human-made underwater structure, typically built to promote marine life in areas with a generally featureless bottom, control erosion, block ship passage, or improve surfing. Many reefs are built using objects that were built for other purposes, for example by sinking oil rigs (through the Rigs-to-Reefs program), scuttling ships, or by deploying rubble or construction debris. Other artificial reefs are purpose built ... from PVC or concrete. Shipwrecks may become artificial reefs when preserved on the sea floor. Regardless of construction method, artificial reefs generally provide hard surfaces where algae and invertebrates such as barnacles, corals, and oysters attach; the accumulation of attached marine life in turn provides intricate structure and food for assemblages of fish. The construction of artificial reefs is thousands of years old. Ancient Persians blocked the mouth of the Tigris River to thwart Indian pirates by building an artificial reef ... . Artificial reefs to increase fish yields or for algaculture have been used at least since 17th century Japan, when rubble and rocks were used to grow kelp. (The) the earliest recorded construction of artificial reef in the United States is from 1830s when logs (were) used off the coast of South Carolina to improve fishing. ... More recently, castaway junk, such as old refrigerators, shopping carts, ditched cars, out-of-service vending machines replaced the logs in ad hoc reefs. Officially sanctioned projects have incorported decommissioned subway cars, vintage battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and oil drilling rigs".
---------------------------
The above is absolutely true. One among our number here did a very brief stint with the University of Miami, in Florida, back in the 1970's, studying what is known as the - - even artificial - - geology of reef systems; that is, how sediments are built up, etc. And, be assured: If something will sink, it can be, and has been, used to build an artificial reef.
But, note, as reported above: "ditched cars" and "oil drilling rigs" can, seemingly without complaint, be used in the construction of artificial reefs. On the other hand, the proposed use of Coal Ash in such an application seems to draw howls of protest from supposedly altruist and pure-of-heart environmentalists.
Kind of makes you wonder where their "motivation" is coming from, doesn't it? As above, "oil drilling rigs" are pretty much okay for the purpose; but, if Coal Ash is suggested, certain pretentious referees start reaching for their red flags.
In any case, the value of artificial reefs in some US coastal areas is well-established, as seen in:
Value of Conservation in Florida : Artificial Reefs;
"Florida is the land and water of our sunny peninsula that abounds in wildlife and the flora that gave rise to the state's name. The land's native people and later colonists began the process of adapting it to their needs, but as our population has exploded to nearly 18 million people and technology allows us to increasingly alter the environment the need for conservation is becoming critical. Loss of wetlands and other native habitats to development, efforts to stabilize water levels, and the impacts of pollution, including introduction of non-native plants and animals, are all changing what Florida is. If we want to conserve the true value of what Florida is agencies, corporations, citizens and visitors need to work together as stewards of our living resources and the habitats that support them. From the links on these pages, you can learn more about the value of conservation and what you can do to help ensure a healthy future for Florida's living essence.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of Marine Fisheries Management administers a state artificial reef program legislatively created in 1982 ... . The program was transferred to the Commission from the Department of Environmental Protection on July 1, 1999. The primary program objectives are to provide financial and technical assistance to coastal local governments, nonprofit corporations and state universities to develop artificial reefs and to monitor and evaluate these reefs. Under the program, reefs have been constructed with one or more of the following intended objectives: Enhance private recreational and charter fishing and diving opportunities; Provide a socio-economic benefit to local coastal communities; Increase reef fish habitat; Reduce user conflicts; Facilitate reef related research; and, while accomplishing (those) objectives, do no harm to fishery resources, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) or human health.
Other reef building objectives undertaken in Florida, beyond the scope of the FWC artificial reef program include mitigation or restoration reefs replacing hard bottom habitat lost through such activities as beach re-nourishment, repair of reef system damage caused by vessel groundings, substrate for the regeneration of oyster reefs and protection of re-planted vegetated shorelines vulnerable to erosion from wave activity.
Thirty-four of Florida’s 35 coastal counties spread along 8,426 miles of tidal coastline (1,200 miles fronting the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean) are, or have been, involved in artificial reef development. Starting in the 1940s through August 2012, more than 2,700 planned public artificial reefs have been placed in state and federal waters off these counties. Most of the artificial reef development has taken place since the inception of the Florida Artificial Reef Program in 1982. Local coastal governments hold all of the more than 300 active artificial reef permits off both Florida coasts. About half of these sites are in federal waters. Fishing clubs, nonprofit corporations and interested private individuals work through their local governments as the liable permit holders to provide input into public reef building activities".
---------------------
And, state governments in the United States, as is Israel, have been assessing the value of Coal Ash as a material from which to make artificial reefs, as can be learned via:
http://bay.ifas.ufl.edu/pdfs/sea_grant/Guidelines_for_Marine_Artificial_Reef_Materials_January_1997.pdf; "'Guidelines For Marine Artificial Reef Materials'; Compiled by the Artificial Reef Subcommittee of the
Technical Coordinating Committee, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; (Page 93 and following:) There are several types of ash, which are produced from the coal combustion process called fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) emission material and fluidized bed combustion by-products (FBC). Some features of the ashes, which have been ruled 'exempt,' make them excellent material to construct artificial reefs. CCBs, such as fly ash have "pozzolanic" properties and may have "cementitious" properties which are advantageous for engineering, construction and waste remediation applications. The term "pozzolanic" refers to the chemical binding reaction that can be produced from coal ash because it contains silicon oxide and/or iron oxide. The term "cementitious" refers to the self-hardening property of coal ash because of its calcium content. The American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) in ASTM C-618 has created two classifications of useful and quality coal ash, which are categorized as Class F ash and Class C ash. Each class of coal ash has different pozzolanic and cementitious characteristics. Class F ash results from burning anthracite or bituminous coals (eastern coals). This type of ash has high pozzolanic material content and a low calcium content. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Department of Energy (1993) identified coal fly ash's most important feature is that 'it reduces permeability while increasing durability and long term strength of the material.'
Coal fly ash can be utilized in many manufacturing, mining, agricultural, engineering, construction and waste remediation applications. Organization such as ASTM and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have established over 60 standard specifications for utilization of coal ash.
In 1980, Congress enacted Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments to RCRA. Under these amendments, certain ash byproducts, including CCBs were temporarily excluded from Subtitle C regulation. This regulatory "exception" provided CCB's be regulated under subtitle D and subject to regulation under State laws as a solid waste. After extensive review of these materials, EPA issued its final regulatory decision on fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization emission control ash from coal combustion (EPA 1993). They stated that effective September 2, 1993, these materials will not be regulated as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C, and officially placed them under Subtitle D as solid wastes, and under the jurisdiction of individual States.
As electricity generating plants increasingly convert from burning oil to coal, large volumes of CCBs and FGD ash materials are produced. ... There has been increasing demand from both electric utility companies and the Federal government, to investigate more feasible recycling methods in order to conserve valuable natural resources. The Presidential Executive Order No. 12873 "Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention" was published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1993. The intent of this order is to establish the Federal Government at the forefront of efforts to conserve our nation's natural resources by maximizing waste prevention and recycling in the Government's operations, and increasing markets for recovered materials through greater Federal Government preference and demand for such
products.
Beginning in 1976, scientists at the Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, N.Y. investigated the feasibility of using stabilized solid blocks of coal combustion byproduct (CCB) as potential construction material for artificial reefs in seawater systems. Once additives such as cement were mixed with these wastes, any toxic substances were "bound" in a stable aggregate form and could be hardened in the shape of pellets or larger blocks. The stabilization reactions which take place during these hardening formations are similar to the pozzolanic reactions which occur in the curing of concrete. Early mixed designs ... varied between 1:1 to 1:5 ratios of fly-ash and bottom ash with up to 15
percent Portland cement additive.
(Test) results indicate (that) submerged CCB blocks become stronger over time and are stable, durable materials. Early studies at the Stony Brook Laboratory in New York examined the potential leaching of major chemical components such as dioxin and heavy metals from fly ash blocks in seawater ... . Using cultures of sensitive marine diatoms in bioassay tests of the seawater elutriates from the stabilized ash, they determined there were no toxic effects from the leachate of the ash. These long term studies showed that the experimental blocks contained the same amount of chemical components as initially found in the blocks and no significant leaching was found ... . They also determined the stabilized blocks increased in compressive strength over time in seawater and did not breakdown into less stabilized material with the potential for leaching the unbound chemical components of the ash.
(Other studies have shown) that no leachable substances were found in the tissues of benthic organisms attached to the substrate. The stabilized ash material was also found to have increased compressive strength over time.
(Other studies have shown that minerals are deposited from seawater in the surface pores of Coal Ash blocks, sealing the blocks against any possible leaching via a process that came to be called "pore refinement", and, this) 'pore refinement' process provides the necessary characteristic which makes stabilized coal ash an appropriate artificial reef substrate. In addition to the New York study, several other studies were initiated in other states. Delaware scientists ... evaluated stabilized ash material for oyster substrate in the laboratory and later in both Delaware and Maryland bays. The Delaware studies ... found that a higher proportion of bottom ash in the design mix provided a rougher textured surface and increased attachment of benthic organisms. They also found that the oblong shapes of the fly ash substrate caused increased interstitial space and flow, and higher settlement rates in oysters.
Several studies were done in Florida (Florida Power Corporation 1990 ... on a coal ash artificial reef demonstration project, where 28 stacks of 100 block sections were placed 9 miles offshore of Cedar Key, in 25-ft of water. This demonstration project included: laboratory testing of the leachate using standard EP Toxicity testing and modified seawater EP Toxicity testing; bioassay testing of the leachate; benthic and fish tissues analysis for metals; and biological evaluation of the habitat by core analysis, photo-transacts, scrapings, traps, and trawls.
The bioassay tests indicated no significant leaching was detected from the fly-ash ... .
Houston Lighting and Power Company, with Port of Houston and National Marine Fisheries Service and approval from Texas and Federal resource agencies summarized for EPA the results of extensive testing and monitoring on seven oyster reefs constructed of CCBP in the Galveston Bay estuary system.
This report documents that there were no significant levels of toxic substances in the leachate from the ash material in the bioassay tests and EP Toxicity tests. No organisms were affected in the bioassay test and no significant concentrations of metals were found in oyster tissues in the laboratory or the field samples. This report also documents the oyster reefs in the Galveston Bay estuary system have had significant recruitment and spat survival. Fish survey results using traps, nets and visual census techniques of the estuarine reefs show there has been significant biological recruitment of fish and invertebrates at these artificial estuarine reefs.The results of this time consuming documentation of the coal source and the low levels of toxicity present in the ash before construction begins has been an extremely important factor in the recruitment success at these reef sites and the promotion of future reef sites ... ."
------------------------
The report goes on, sadly but almost predictably, to urge cautions and preliminary testing and assessment, citing as justification for their prudence one study done in Minnesota, where relatively high values of metals leached from Coal Ash were reported, in what seems obviously to us to be a statistical excursion and therefore suspect.
The overwhelming evidence, and experience, is, that, Coal Ash - - perhaps blended with a relatively small, "up to 15 percent Portland cement additive", amount of cement, which can, as seen in:
West Virginia Coal Association | Pittsburgh Converts Coal Ash and Flue Gas into Cement | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 5,766,339 - Producing Cement from a Flue Gas Desulfurization Waste; 1998; Assignee: Dravo Lime Company, Pittsburgh; Abstract: Cement is produced by forming a moist mixture of a flue gas desulfurization process waste product containing 80-95 percent by weight calcium sulfite hemihydrate and 5-20 percent by weight calcium sulfate hemihydrate, aluminum, iron, silica and carbon, agglomerating the moist mixture while drying the same to form a feedstock, and calcining the dry agglomerated feedstock in a rotary kiln (and) wherein said source of aluminum and iron comprises fly ash";
itself be made from Coal Ash - - can serve well in an application, the making of Artificial Reefs, which application not only helps to "increase fish habitat", but can also protect "shorelines vulnerable to erosion from wave activity".
Coal Ash, in other words, can be used in such a way that leads to an increase in wildlife, and at the same time protects and defends a portion, one critical segment, of our natural environment.