Over the past year, I have watched the hydro-fracturing industry rapidly expand into central Pennsylvania, and I have been disgusted by the consequences.  The state forests, where generations of Pennsylvanians have hunted, fished, and hiked, have been defaced by a growing network of well pads.  But even more disturbing are the effects that we can't see.  Unknown chemicals are being pumped thousands of feet underground.  The extreme pressures involved in the hydro-fracturing process are forcing methane gas into people's homes and into their water supplies.  It's clear to me that hydro-fracturing is the single biggest environmental threat to Pennsylvania that this generation faces.  I should say up front that I am not a scientist, nor am I an expert on this issue.  What I've done here is try to sort through conflicting claims in order to present objectively the facts on the effects of hydro-fracturing.  I welcome any corrections or comments on this page (email me at rmyers3@lhup.edu)

Just Water and Sand
The natural gas industry would like us to believe that the fluid used in hydro-fracturing is harmless.  Energy in Depth (a public relations organ of the oil and natural gas industry) has prepared "A Fluid Situation" that shows a "typical solution" used in fracking.  According to this document, fracking solution is 95.51% water and sand, with only a few harmless chemicals thrown in (for example, citric acid and table salt).  I've been at industry presentations where representatives passed around a vial of sand to show how benign the process was.

However, the list of chemicals in "A Fluid Situation" is far from complete.  Pennsylvania is one of the few states that requires drilling companies to list the chemicals that they will be using in hydro-fracturing operations (PA DEP, "Summary of Hydraulic Fracture Solutions-Marcellus Shale").  But even this list is not comprehensive.  Some of the hazardous components are listed as "proprietary," and, as the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) points out, the companies' Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) rarely list 100% of the composition of their products--in some cases only 10% of the composition is listed.  But even the chemicals they do include are alarming.  A few worth mentioning are ammonium bisulfite, ethylene glycol, isopropanol, formaldehyde, and methyl-4-isolthiazolin.  According to TEDX (which thoroughly documents its claims with scientific studies), many of the chemicals on Pennsylvania's list have been linked to cancer or other health problems (respiratory, reproductive, brain and nervous system, kidneys, immune system, gastrointestinal and liver, endocrine, developmental, cardiovascular, and blood) (TEDX, "Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracturing Operations: Pennsylvania."  A spreadsheet of the data is also available).

A Nurse's Story
The potential dangers of fracking fluid can be seen in the story of Cathy Behr, an Emergency Room nurse in Durango, Colorado.  In April 2008 Ms. Behr was exposed to hydro-fracturing fluid that was on the clothing of a natural gas industry worker who had come to the hospital after a spill.  She subsequently spent 30 hours in intensive care after her liver, heart, and lungs began to shut down (Durango Herald, "Nurse Sick After Aiding Gas Worker" [7/17/08]).  The drilling company, Weatherford, did not verbally refuse to disclose the composition of ZetaFlow, the drilling fluid, (as was originally reported), but, as of August 2008, Behr and her doctor were still seeking information about the exact chemicals that were in the fluid ("Nurse Says Company Didn't Refuse to Help").  The natural gas industry's response to this incident alleges that "it is not clear whether Ms. Behr was ever exposed to frac fluids."  This claim is based on the word of the worker, who insisted that he removed his protective clothing before he went to the hospital (Energy in Depth "Frac versus Fiction").  I suspect that most health-care and emergency personnel in Pennsylvania will not be comforted by the industry's defense.

Contaminated Water and Exploding Houses
The natural gas industry would insist that none of this is relevant because the fracking fluid is thousands of feet underground, safely barricaded from aquifers by cement casings.  Energy in Depth's "Frac versus Fiction" claims that opponents of hydro-fracturing have been trying to establish "a credible (and growing) track record of danger.  Unfortunately for them, in hydraulic fracturing they're running up against a technology that in 60 years of service has yet to be credibly tied to the contamination of drinking water."

Unfortunately, this just isn't true.  There have been many incidents of water contamination and even buildings exploding because of natural gas hydro-fracturing operations.  The most common problem is methane migration.  According to the Pittsburgh Geological Society's article "Natural Gas Migration Problems in Western Pennsylvania" methane migration occurs when natural gas escapes "from the reservoir rock, coal seam, pipeline, gas well, or landfill.  If the gas migrates through the bedrock and soil, it can result in an explosion capable of damaging property and causing loss of life." 

• In April 2004 the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) fined Encana Oil and Gas a record $371,200 for contaminating water supplies in West Divide Creek, Colorado.  COGCC found methane, benzene, toluene, and m,p xylenes in wells, and  blamed Encana  for "inadequate cementing of the well," which "resulted in a loss of well control" (COGGC, "West Divide Creek Gas Seep" (4/14/04), COGCC, "Notice of Hearing" [8/04]).

• In December 2007 the basement of a home in Bainbridge Township, Ohio exploded.  Fortunately, the owners, Richard and Thelma Payne, who were asleep upstairs, were not injured.  Subsequently, 19 area homes were evacuated because of natural gas.  The Report by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (9/1/08) concluded that the explosion and contamination was caused by "inadequate cementing of the production casing" by the drilling company, Ohio Valley Energy Systems, which led to migration of natural gas into natural fractures in the bedrock below the drilling casing.

• In February 2009, the Pennsylvania DEP charged Cabot Oil & Gas with several violations for activities that resulted in methane contamination of nine water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania.  Methane built up in the well of Norma Fiorentio and when the pump switched on, it blew up the concrete foundation of the well house  (ProPublica "Officials in 3 States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling" [4/26/09];  PA DEP "Notice of Violation" [2/27/09]).  On March 27th, DEP released a statement saying that their investigation has ruled out "gas drilling and hydro fracturing" as the cause ("DEP Continues to Analyze Dimock Water Supplies").  However, the DEP has not exonerated Cabot; the explosion might have been caused by faulty casing and cementing of gas wells (vs. drilling).  In either case, it seems clear that the activities of Cabot are responsible for the contamination.  Even Energy in Depth's "Frac versus Fiction" notes that "It remains entirely possible the DEP will eventually conclude the operator in question had something to do with the methane infiltration in Dimock Twp." 

• The Pennsylvania DEP is currently investigating complaints of water contamination in Roaring Branch, Lycoming County.  Four homes are being provided with drinking water, 18 are being tested, and one home has been evacuated after residents complained that two nearby creeks were bubbling with methane gas.  Officials suspect a failed well casing on a natural gas well drilled by East Resources (Wayne Independent, "Methane Contamination Linked to Drill Site" [7/30/09];  ProPublica, "More Gas Contamination Affects Pennsylvania Residents" [8/04/09]).

But methane migration isn't the only threat to our water supply.  There have also been documented cases of unauthorized withdrawal of water from streams, and surface spills that have resulted in contamination:

• In February 2009 Cabot spilled 100 gallons of diesel fuel at Dimock, PA (WGNB News, "100 Gallons of Diesel Fuel Spilled" [2/6/09]).

• In May 2009, the Pennsylvania DEP ordered Range Resources and Chief Oil & Gas to suspend operations at two sites in Lycoming County for violating PA's Clean Stream Law.  The companies were withdrawing water from Hoagland Run and First Fork Larry’s Creek without having obtained the required permits (PA DEP "DEP Orders Partial Shutdown" [5/30/09]).

• In June 2009 a leaking waste water pipe from a Range Resources gas well polluted a tributary of Cross Creek Lake in Washington Country, PA.  The spill killed fish, salamanders, crayfish, and aquatic insects (Pittsburgh Post Gazette "Waste from Marcellus" [6/05/09]).

• On September 16, 2009 Cabot Oil & Gas spilled up to 8,400 gallons of fracking lubricant into Stevens Creek and a nearby wetland near Dimock, PA.  Cabot representatives were unable to identify the chemical composition of the liquid.  This is Cabot's third chemical spill in the Dimock area since the spring of 2008. (Ithaca Journal "State Probes Spill" [9/17/09]).

Despite these incidents, industry representatives continue to insist that hydro-fracturing has never been linked to water contamination or exploding buildings.  Energy in Depth's "Frac versus Fiction" concludes about the Bainbridge incident, "Allegations suggesting the Bainbridge incident was caused by hydraulic fracturing are simply not supported by either the facts on the ground or DMRM's report.  Instead, this incident was the direct result of several poor decisions made by the operator."  But, as the record above indicates, operator failure in hydro-fracturing operations is an increasingly common occurrence.  And if the end result is polluted water or exploded houses, it raises questions about the safety record of hydro-fracturing.

Studying the Studies
The natural gas industry often cites studies that affirm that hydro-fracturing is safe (Energy in Depth "Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids").  However, closer analysis reveals that these studies have been tainted by the industry. 

The Environmental Protection Agency's 2004 report concluded that hydro-fracturing "poses little or no threat to drinking water" ("Conclusions" p. 7-5).  However, the report did recognize that "natural fractures, and poorly constructed, sealed, or cemented wells used for various purposes, may provide conduits for methane to move into shallow geologic strata and water wells, or even to surface water" ("Conclusions" p. 7-2).  Even more troubling are allegations that the report was heavily influenced by the natural gas industry (Earthworks, "Inadequate Regulation").  Weston Wilson, an environmental engineer who worked for EPA, has claimed that "EPA's conclusions are unsupportable. EPA has conducted limited research reaching the unsupported conclusion that this industry practice needs no further study at this time. EPA decisions were supported by a Peer Review Panel; however five of the seven members of this panel appear to have conflicts-of-interest and may benefit from EPA's decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions" (Earthworks "Letter from EPA Fracking Study Whistleblower" [10/08/04]).

Even more compromised is the April 2009 report of the Groundwater Protection Council.  Their report concludes, "Hydraulic fracturing has been a key technology in making shale gas an affordable addition to the Nation's energy supply, and the technology has proven to be a safe and effective stimulation technique" (GPC, "Modern Shale Gas" p. 76).  However, they are far from objective.  The organization's original purpose was "to develop a strong public outreach/education program to inform the public about the safety of the national [Underground Injection Control] program and to develop information that could be used by the states to enhance this effort" ("Organizational Description").  In other words, they are organized to promote hydro-fracturing.  As a nonprofit 501, the GPC has also been busy with lobbying efforts, spending between $10-60 thousand per year since 1998 (Open Secrets, "GPC").

You might recall the studies financed by the tobacco industry that claimed that cigarette smoking was not harmful.

What Can You Do?
If you are convinced that the drilling in the Marcellus Shale is indeed a major threat to the environment of central Pennsylvania, please contact your elected officials and express your support for increased protection of our state's resources.  I think that hunting and fishing groups would be an especially powerful voice in this debate.  Actions that lawmakers might take include the following:

1. Ban any additional hydro-fracturing on state forest land.  In 2008 the Pennsylvania Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources opened up 75,000 acres of the state forest to natural gas drilling (DCNR "DCNR Issues Balance Approach" [4/01/08]), and from my perspective, the results have been devastating.  In July, Pennsylvania House Republicans revealed their "Energize PA" plan that calls for an additional 390,00 acres to be leased (PA House Republican Caucus "Energize PA").  The DCNR has objected that  "Rampant, unplanned leasing of forest lands would severely jeopardize DCNR’s ability to retain its third-party certification and, perhaps more importantly, maintain ecologically sound forest management, jeopardizing the future health of our forests" (DCNR "Numbers in House Republican Proposal" [7/10/09]).  Unfortunately, the Republican proposal has been incorporated into the latest budget compromise, which calls for 200,000 additional acres leased to the gas companies; no severance tax; and the elimination of the Oil & Gas Fund, which directed money from leasing to DCNR.  Thus, it is especially critical to contact your state legislators immediately.  If you hunt or fish, mention that--many of the supporters of this plan depend upon votes from sportsmen and sportswomen.
2. Eliminate the hydro-fracturing exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act.  A bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and House that would do this: the FRAC-ACT.  Even though the industry insists that there is nothing harmless in fracking fluid, they have bitterly opposed this bill (ProPublica "FRAC Act" [6/9/09]).
3. Impose a severance tax on natural-gas extraction.  I am less excited by this measure because it implies that as long as we can profit from hydro-fracturing, it's acceptable for it to continue.  Nevertheless, it would provide some funds to repair the damage to the infrastructure caused by the natural gas industry (PA Budget & Policy Center "Severance Tax" [5/27/09]), and it represents an alternative to a massive increase in state forest leases.  Not surprisingly, the Pennsylvania natural gas industry opposes the severance tax (Marcellus Shale Committee "Statement" [02/05/09]).

To contact your elected officials, use the links below (if you are uncertain who your state legislators are, go to the Find Your Legislator Page):

• Governor Edward G. Rendell's Email: Gov. Rendell has allowed natural gas drilling in the State Forests; he attempted to transfer $174 million of the lease money generated by that drilling from the DCNR to the general budget (Scranton Times 12/10/09);  and he has called for a severance tax on natural-gas extraction (Philadelphia Inquirer "Rendell Plan" [5/09/09]).
• U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.'s Contact Page: Sen. Casey is a co-sponsor of the FRAC-ACT.
• U.S. Senator Arlen Specter's Contact Page
• U.S. Congressman Glenn Thompson's Contact Page: Rep. Thompson has emerged as a spokesperson for the industry, and he opposes the FRAC-ACT (see editorial in Lock Haven Express 8/16/09).  According to www.opensecrets.org, during his 2008 campaign, Rep. Thompson received $4800 from Kriebel Minerals, a company that acquires natural gas reserves and operates natural gas wells, and $5000 from  Honeywell International, who recently acquired the German company RMG, a specialist in natural gas equipment.
• State Representative (#76th) Mike Hanna's Contact Page: Rep. Hanna has said that "we firmly believe that we should move forward with extraction of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, but that we move cautiously."  He supports the severance tax ("Working to Protect Pennsylvanians" [7/16/09]), and recently he joined the House lawmakers who are concerned about the environmental implications of the budget compromise (LH Express "More State Land" [9/26/09]).
• State Representative (#84th) Garth Everett's Email: Representative Everett recently defended his support of additional drilling in the state forest: "I think some people get confused between (the words) 'state forest land' and 'state park.'  There is just miles and miles and miles of state forest land that nobody sees.  You can't get to it right now.  There is a humongous amount of state land in Pennsylvania that can be developed responsibly and I think it should be" (LH Express "Groups Disapprove" [9/14/09]).  In 2008, Rep. Everett received $500 from Anadarko Petroleum (Follow the Money).
• State Senator (#23rd) Eugene Yaw's Contact Page: Senator Yaw recently defended his support of additional drilling in the state forest: "Once drilling is completed, those sites are reclaimed.  The ones I've seen are grass" (LH Express "Groups Disapprove" [9/14/09]).  In 2008, Sen. Yaw received $1000 from Anadarko Petroleum (Follow the Money).
• State Senator (21st) Mary Jo White's Contact Page:  A former oil industry employee, Sen. White has emerged as one of the leading spokespersons for the natural gas industry.  She has objected to DEP over-regulation ("State Seen"), and in February she called for additional leasing in the state forest (PA Rep News).  In 2008 she received $2500 from the oil and gas industry (Followthemoney).
• State Senator (#35th) John N. Wozniak's Email:
• Clinton County Commissioner Adam Coleman's Email: Commissioner Coleman, a member of the County Commissioners Association of PA task force on natural gas drilling, has been a strong opponent of regulation.  He indicated that he would be lobbying to have state agencies loosen restrictions on natural gas drilling, arguing, "We need (DEP) to get out of the way."  He pointed out that he favors saving the environment, but asked, "Is it worth keeping a stream 100 percent pristine to block $100 million worth of injection into the local economy?"  (LH Express 11/21/08).
• Clinton County Commissioner Tom Bossert's Email: Commissioner Bossert is another opponent of the minimal regulation that currently exists.  In November 2008 he argued, "DEP needs to recognize they are holding central Pennsylvania and Clinton County residents in a choke-hold.  We understand their purpose, but... they don't have to slow everything down to a snail's pace... We can do it with environmental concerns met." (LH Express 11/21/08).
• Clinton County Commissioner Joel Long's Email
• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Email: The acting secretary of the DEP has recently said, "You can't do a large amount of drilling and have zero impact.   There's going to be a lot of good that comes from drilling in Pennsylvania, but there are also going to be some problems."  When asked about fracking fluid, he responded, "Some of these chemicals are things you couldn't drink. There's no doubt about that.  We have processes that go on in our lives all the time that involve these chemicals, and we run a certain amount of risk because of the benefits" (Reuters "PA Says Natgas Risks Inevitable" [03/20/09]).  On August 26th, I emailed the DEP a series of questions about the chemicals in fracking fluid.  They have yet to respond, but (coincidentally no doubt), three hours later I received an email from a public relations representative of Anadarko, a company that I specifically mentioned in my request.
• Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Contact Page

For More Information on Hydro-fracturing:

• EARTHWORKS--Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells: EARTHWORKS is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral development, in the U.S. and worldwide.  This site offers much useful information about the threats to water quality and the inadequate regulation of hydraulic fracturing.  Especially useful is their free publication, Oil & Gas at Your Door?  A Landowner's Guide to Oil and Gas Development.
• Damascus Citizens for Sustainability: A grassroots organization that has been in the forefront of recognizing and protesting against the hazards of oil/gas drilling in the upper Delaware River valley. According to the site, "Overwhelming evidence and much science now exists that the type of gas drilling proposed for this region - made possible by total federal deregulation--is a danger to the public health, causes contaminated drinking water, carcinogens in the farmland and food chain, torn-up roads, air pollution, plummeting home values, and noise pollution."
• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection--Marcellus Shale: A collection of links to FAQs, maps, industry resources, and agency contacts.  DEP "is responsible for reviewing and issuing drilling permits, inspecting drilling operations and responding to complaints about water quality problems. DEP inspectors conduct routine and unannounced inspections of drilling sites and wells statewide."
• The Susquehanna River Basin Commission--Marcellus Projects: In addition to information on regulations, and presentations by the SRBC on Marcellus drilling, this site includes a list of approved requests by the gas companies for consumptive water use (in millions of gallons/day).
• The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources--Marcellus FAQs: A few FAQs on the Marcellus.  See also DCNR--Oil & Gas on State Forest Lands, which contains their position statements on why they have allowed drilling on state forest lands.
• The Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club: The SC's position on natural gas is as follows: "When compared to oil, natural gas may be cleaner and more accessible, but the extraction of natural gas causes many of the same problems as the extraction of any other fossil fuel.  The Sierra Club supports natural gas that is extracted in an environmentally acceptable fashion, but in Pennsylvania, the extraction and delivery of natural gas produces a number of environmentally unacceptable side effects, many of which affect public lands and may simply prolong our expensive and destructive dependence on fossil fuels."
• Trout Unlimited:  TU's mission is "to conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds."  The Winter 2009 issue of Trout features the article "Fractured Landscape," by Morgan Lyle, which notes that "Trout Unlimited is working at the state and national level to help assure that valuable trout resources in the Northeast are protected from the Marcellus Shale Development."
• Penn State Cooperative Extension--Natural Gas Impacts: An excellent site with much useful information for landowners, local government, businesses, and the general public.
• Green Party of Pennsylvania Position Paper on the Marcellus Shale: The Green Party of Pennsylvania "believes that despite the apparent short-term economic benefits, Marcellus Shale gas drilling will have a net negative economic and environmental impact for Pennsylvania."
• Energy Justice Network--Natural Gas Health and Environmental Hazards: "Natural gas is a fossil fuel that is often promoted as "cleaner" than coal, but which has its own serious environmental hazards."

Last updated by Robert Myers on 09/28/2009