|
"The worst disease of
the world now is probably the ideology of technological heroism,
according to which more and more people willingly cause
large-scale effects that they do not foresee and that they
cannot control. This is the ideology of the professional
class of the industrial nations--a class whose allegiance to
communities and places has been dissolved by their economic
motives and by their educations. These are people who will
go anywhere and jeopardize anything in order to assure the
success of their careers." --Wendell Berry, Home
Economics (1987) |
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.
I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
Allow me to conclude with a summary of the risks of
hydro-fracturing by someone who should know. In May
2006, Range Resources Corporation, the biggest
hydro-fracturing company in Pennsylvania, provided the SEC
with a prospectus. In a surprisingly forthright
moment, Range Resources explained to potential investors the
risks of hydro-fracturing: "Our business is subject to
operating hazards and environmental regulations that could
result in substantial losses or liabilities. Oil and
natural gas operations are subject to many risks, including
well blowouts, craterings, explosions, uncontrollable flows
of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, formations with
abnormal pressures, pipeline ruptures or spills, pollution,
releases of toxic natural gas and other environmental
hazards and risks. If any of these hazards occur, we could
sustain substantial losses as a result of:
- Injury or loss of life;
- Severe damage to our destruction of property,
natural resources and equipment;
- Pollution or other environmental damage;
- Clean-up responsibilities;
- Regulatory investigations and penalties; or
- Suspension of operations.
As we begin drilling to deeper horizons and in more
geologically complex areas, we could experience a greater
increase in operating and financial risks due to inherent
higher reservoir pressures and unknown downhole risk
exposures" (Range Resources "Prospectus"
p. S-13 [5/18/06]).
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:
- 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.
- 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]).
- 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
|