Fracking’s untold health threat: How toxic contamination is destroying lives

America's natural gas boom has real consequences for children and animals,
researchers tell Salon
Lindsay Abrams

If we’re going to talk about fracking, we can’t just talk about energy independence, or the economy, or the potential for natural gas to act as a “bridge fuel” to help solve the global warming crisis. We also need to talk about the effect that hydraulic fracturing is having on the communities where it’s taking place, and to ask whether that cost — to people’s health and property — is too high.

The main barrier to that conversation, of course, is that it’s one the industry definitely doesn’t want to be having, aside from insisting that fracking is safe. Michelle Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell, believe differently, and they have the research to back up their claims. The two have documented cases of contaminated water and air, of sick pets and dying livestock and of similar symptoms experienced by the animals’ owners, all with few apparent explanations. And that, the researchers, argue, is the real scandal: It’s up to the people being affected, and not the industry causing the damage, to prove that something’s wrong.

In “The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Boom is Threatening Our Families, Pets and Food,” Bamberger and Oswald share the stories of people whose lives have been affected — and in some cases, destroyed — by fracking, in a way that aims to open up the conversation to what’s at stake. “Simply put,” they write, “we are not certain of the public health implications of large-scale industrial oil and gas drilling.” The effects we are seeing, they add, are being seen most prominently in animals, children and oil and gas workers: the ones who, because they are so sensitive to hazards from gas operations, end up serving as the canaries in the coal mine.

Bamberger and Oswald spoke with Salon about the challenges of studying the health risks of fracking, and about why they believe the evidence they’ve found is enough to make us seriously question whether they’re risks worth taking. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

What got you started investigating this aspect of fracking?
MB: We heard about this issue about five years ago when we read in our local paper about a community group that was going through all the leases and just plotting out where surface and mineral rights were leased in the county. It made it really easy to know where you were and who your neighbors were that were leased — the land that was leased around you. We’re out in the country, about 15 minutes from Ithaca, and we saw that we were surrounded by farmers who owned 100 acres or more of land and had leased. The way compulsory integration works in New York is that if you are in a land unit, which is usually one square mile, that is 60 percent or more leased, then your land could be drilled under.

So that got us really interested in the issue, because we’re not leased, but we would be drilled under. So we thought, we’d better start paying attention to this. So we started attending meetings and learning more about it. And in the process, I started hearing about cases in Pennsylvania where animals were becoming ill, and no one was trying to figure out why, or owners didn’t know why, or their vets didn’t know why. That’s what pulled me into it; and for Robert’s part, I think I can speak for him, he started getting involved with it from looking at the documentation I was starting to collect.

Was it hard to find people who were willing to speak about the experiences they’re having?
MB: I started to get emails from people who knew I was a veterinarian who were local farmer-type people up here in New York who had connections with people in other states through the farming groups. So they started putting me in contact with people, and I started to become known as a vet who was interested in looking into these cases and starting to document them, and that’s how I got pulled into this.

 

What are some of the more shocking things you turned up?
MB: I can think of one particular occasion — this was in Louisiana in April 2009 — and that was the one where the cattle were exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluid and they died within an hour. What was shocking about that was that these are animals, which are over 1,000 pounds, and it takes something pretty powerful to knock them out, that they’re exposed to it and then dead in just an hour. That really grabbed me by the neck, because what I’ve been reading about was usually cattle exposures, where even if it’s pretty toxic, it’s one to three days. One to three days is pretty fast, actually, but within an hour is pretty amazing. So I think that was the most amazing thing that I heard of with these cases. Robert is shaking his head in agreement.

RO: I think that was the most dramatic case we had. We had a lot of cases that were interesting but that was a dramatic one.

MB: Robert, the other answer you give for this is the case where we were sitting at the kitchen…

RO: That wasn’t dramatic but it had a big effect on me, let’s put it that way. We went to visit some people and they had actually had some documented contamination on their land and their cows were quarantined. And we’re just sitting in their dining room, which is off their kitchen, and you can look through their kitchen window and all you can see out their kitchen window is a well pad. We look outside the dining room window and about 10 feet away from it is a driveway, and that’s the access road to the pad. So I realized for these people, all this drilling and fracking and everything, it was right on top of their house. These people had several hundred acres and they didn’t want them to put the pad there, but the company insisted on putting the pad right by their house. That was a thing that was really early on and it really struck me as something that I just didn’t understand — how people could live with that, and how the companies could actually do that.

Would you say that all adds up to these people’s lives being dominated, or ruined, by drilling operations? Or is it just that we’re not hearing enough about any of these things that are happening?
MB: I think their lives are in many cases being dominated, and I think that’s true especially in the cases when people lose their water — we all know what it’s like when our electricity goes out or our power goes out and we can’t run our spigot. To have that be all the time, how do you compensate for that? What do you with water that’s not good, and you can’t drink it and maybe you can’t even bathe in it? You’re getting rashes, you’re getting ill — it really does turn your life upside down and it does dominate it. We have one woman we described in our book who said, “I go to sleep thinking of water. I wake up thinking of water. Every minute is thinking of water.” It just made me realize that we take so much for granted. But this is huge: When you have to think of every drop, counting exactly how much water you’re going to need and how much you’re going to use and think of your community and think of your neighbors, it’s really overwhelming. It’s hard to really understand. We got a little bit of a taste of it when we went and visited these people and spent some time with them, but I think no one could ever understand it unless you go through it.

RO: You know, Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, during the BP oil spill, he said he wanted his life back. That had such a hollow ring to it. These are people who really need their lives back, and they’re not going to get it back.

There’s one point in the book where you compare some of these people to victims of rape, which seems like a pretty extreme comparison.
MB: The thing I was trying to get at there as an analogy was lack of control. They’re powerless. And again, you can get that feeling through all the chapters that we’ve written in describing the cases. Especially in that last chapter, on environmental justice, where they’re at the complete mercy of these companies that are working around them and then at the companies’ mercy as to whether they’re provided with a water buffalo [a large container of replacement water], to whether it’s decided that the results of their testing show they need it. What do they have to prove in order to be able to have good water again? I think that’s the sort of thing I was trying to build and get there with that analogy: powerlessness and lack of control.

Going back to your research, how many of these case studies that you feature are backed up by conclusive evidence that says “Yes, fracking is definitely causing these problems?”
MB: So on those cases, a few are, most are not. We feel strongly that it’s because of the current testing methods that are used and the fact that for a lot of these chemicals, we don’t know what they are actually using — especially the proprietary mixes, we don’t know what all the components are. But also we don’t know what the maximum contaminate levels (MCLs) are. So, in other words, what is the level below which there are no health effects and above which definitely there are? And what are the effective screening levels for air? If we don’t really know them, then we believe these people have no recourse because there’s no MCL. And that came out really strongly for me. We have several cases in the book that are part of the EPA study, where I was shocked when I saw the water results that a large majority of those chemicals the EPA was testing didn’t have MCLs. And if you don’t have an MCL, you can’t go into litigation, you can’t go to court and say “we have conclusive evidence.” It doesn’t matter how sick they are and that they can’t use their water or that when they stop using their water they get better and when they use it again they get worse. None of that counts as conclusive evidence. Having said that, we do have several cases you can read about in the book where it is conclusive evidence. But it’s the rarity really because of the many reasons we discussed in the book.

RO: You should also sort of realize that it took about 30 years to determine conclusively that cigarettes caused cancer, and part of the reason is that there’s always some sort of plausible deniability. It really depends on what we accept as a level of truth and what’s more important. Is it more important to absolutely prove there’s contamination here, or is it more important to prove that there’s not contamination here? And where do we find the balance? The balance, unfortunately, is very much in favor of companies and not in favor of the people who are living with this.

So you mentioned more testing. Are there simple things that could be put in place to help make the link more clear, or to help protect people?
MB: That’s a really good question. We are now, getting back to the testing thing, thinking of looking at it in a different light, to make it simpler for people to know right away: “Is this water I shouldn’t be drinking? And if it needs much further testing that maybe I can’t afford, at least I shouldn’t be drinking it.”

As far as simple things that could be done that might lessen the effects right now, I think the best discussion of that is in our first paper, where we talk about what could be done: just getting further away from these operations, for the drilling companies to operate further away, there’s also been a lot, lately, about cement casing failures. I think the big thing is that we were shocked about the number of inspectors. There are so few inspectors that they cannot get out and really make sure things are running correctly, even as they stand now. So there’s something that’s really simple and really basic, and the state regulators would probably say we don’t have the money for that, we can’t afford it. But then it comes down to this question that we’re hearing all over the country now: “What’s more important, to get the energy out of the ground or people’s health?” That’s a real basic question; that’s what it comes down to now and we strongly believe people’s health and children and animals and food and all of that should come way before going after an energy source that’s not really viable, especially in light of the climate change we have — but that’s another issue.

I can’t imagine that the industry has had a positive response to your work.
MB: Energy In Depth is one of the energy industry sites and they pretty much attack anybody who doesn’t say that this is great stuff they’re doing. So we are not the only ones who have been attacked. But we look at it like we don’t really care what they have to say. We’re just going to do the best science in the most objective way possible and that’s what we’re still trying to do. The reason to write the book, in addition to the articles, is to reach an audience that might not read an article, even though our article was pretty easy to read. A lot of people hearing it from a scientific journal just would not read it. So the book is an effort to reach those people who would read a book. So we’re hoping to get more people aware of the situation, and if more people are aware maybe things will change eventually.

Would you say nondisclosure agreements are making it harder to get those stories out there?  
MB: That is true and I think that’s happening more and more. And it’s been hard; we’ve had a few cases shut down and people say “I can’t provide you with any more information,” or right up front we were not able to follow up on a really good case because they’d already signed. So for us as researchers that really cuts out a lot of information where we’re trying to find out what’s happening, especially as health researchers for the public health — it’s hard to protect the public health if you can’t ask what’s happening.

Leaving aside the climate change aspect, and just so far as the direct effects on people who live near fracking operations, do you see the point where the industry could make significant enough improvements that fracking will be safe — or at least safe enough — to be justifiable, from an energy standpoint?
RO: Well I think they can do better, that’s true. And maybe they are doing better. I don’t know. I don’t think there will ever be a case where it will always be safe. There will always be problems; mistakes happen. And when they wipe out a community’s water by making a mistake, that’s the major issue. When you get right down to it, what’s more important: Do we find alternative ways of getting energy? I think there are alternatives, but I think what we’re doing is sending all our money to subsidize the oil and gas industry and sending very little money subsidizing alternative energy. It’s that balance for change for alternative energy, which has become much more affordable for people. I think it would not be worth taking the risk of contaminating water and air and ruining some people’s lives.

New Fracking Rules Come Up Short Leaving Communities, Earth Unprotected

Friday, May 4, 2012 by Common Dreams
'Seriously inadequate' proposal disappoints

Today, the Obama administration proposed new rules on the fracking industry's procedures and oversight on public lands. Outdated fracking regulations have been replaced with out of touch fracking regulations, falling short of protecting communities from toxic pollution, according to environmental groups.

The new proposal would require that companies get approval before fracking, and would require companies to reveal chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing; however, the companies will only be required to reveal their chemicals after they complete the process.

Also, the rules only apply to public lands and would not affect drilling on private land, where the bulk of fracking occurs.

Democratic Congresswoman Diana DeGette, a vocal proponent of expanding fracking regulation, called the measure "seriously inadequate," according to Reuters.

Jessica Ennis from Earthjustice stated:

"In light of the near-constant reports of fracking-related air and water pollution, an update to federal rules is long overdue. Unfortunately, these proposed rules from the Department of the Interior fall far short of what’s needed to protect public health. The President promised in his State of the Union that this country’s gas drilling boom would not come at the expense of public health. This proposed rule fails to meet that promise.”

Earthjustice: Interior Department Proposes Updated Fracking Rules, Comes Up Short

The U.S. Department of the Interior unveiled a set of rules governing hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” on public lands today. The controversial oil and gas development technique—in which drillers blast millions of gallons of chemically treated water into the earth to force gas from underground deposits—has been linked to air and water pollution and public health problems.

The proposed rule does not require fracking companies to disclose chemicals before they are pumped into the ground—a critical measure that would give nearby communities time to test and monitor water supplies for any fracking-related water pollution. [...]

“The oil and gas industry has gotten used to operating in the shadows for too long—hiding chemical information, fighting against right-to-know laws, silencing families who speak out. It’s unacceptable and needs to end now."

Natural Resources Defense Council: BLM Proposal to Reduce Risks to Ground Water from Oil and Gas Fracking

“We need BLM to be a leader when it comes protecting our lands, water and ultimately our health from fracking pollution, yet several states already have stronger protections in place than what the agency proposed today. This is a critical first step, but so much more needs to be done.

“Oil and gas operations are expanding rapidly with new technologies and into new areas, including closer and closer to where families live and children go to school, but federal safeguards have not caught up. And industry does not inspire confidence when it balks at the notion of sharing chemical ingredients upfront. Communities shouldn’t have to wait for that information until after the deed is done.”

“We hope the agency will strengthen this proposal before it becomes final.”

Reuters: US proposes new rules for fracking on federal lands

Environmentalists and some lawmakers said the rules didn't go far enough.
Interior's proposal on disclosure differs from a draft of the rules that leaked to the media earlier this year, by mandating disclosure after fracking is completed.
"Requiring the information before the fracking occurred would have caused in our view delays that were not necessary," Salazar said on a conference call.

Democratic Congresswoman Diana DeGette, a vocal proponent of expanding fracking regulation, called the measure "seriously inadequate."

"We're all seeking common-sense solutions to ensure the safety of natural gas production, but with all due respect, requiring disclosure after fracking has already occurred seems less common-sense and more 'closing the door after the horse has left the barn,'" DeGette said in statement.

Some environmentalists said communities need to know what chemicals may be pumped into the ground before drilling happens, so water supplies can be monitored in real time, however.

ALEC and ExxonMobil Push Loopholes in Fracking Chemical Disclosure Rules

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 by ProPublicaby Cora Currier, ProPublica


One of the key controversies about fracking is the chemical makeup of the fluid that is pumped deep into the ground to break apart rock and release natural gas. Some companies have been reluctant to disclose what's in their fracking fluid. Scientists and environmental advocates argue that, without knowing its precise composition, they can't thoroughly investigate complaints of contamination.

Disclosure requirements vary considerably from state to state, as ProPublica recently charted. In many cases, the rules have been limited by a "trade secrets" provision under which companies can claim that a proprietary chemical doesn't have to be disclosed to regulators or the public.

One apparent proponent of the trade secrets caveat? The American Legislative Exchange Council, better known as ALEC, a nonprofit group that brings together politicians and corporations to draft and promote conservative, business-friendly legislation. ALEC has been in the spotlight recently because of its support of controversial laws like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" provision.

This weekend, as part of a story on ALEC's political activity, The New York Times noted that the group recently adopted "model legislation" on fracking chemical disclosure, based on a bill passed in Texas last year. According to The Times, the model bill was "sponsored within ALEC" by ExxonMobil, which runs a major oil and gas operation through its subsidiary, XTO Energy. The advocacy group Common Cause, which provided the documents on ALEC's lobbying efforts to The Times, describes model legislation, in many cases identifying by namethe company that proposed it to ALEC's task forces.

ALEC has recently removed its list of model bills from its main website, and did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for XTO Energy confirmed that the company is a member of ALEC, but he did not provide details on the company's involvement with the disclosure bill.

The spokesman said ExxonMobil supports "full disclosure of the ingredients and additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids," but added that when vendors request it, ExxonMobil has "respected the trade secret status of their products." Last year, the company beganvoluntarily uploading chemical disclosures to FracFocus, a clearinghouse website run by the Groundwater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

In a recent blog post, ALEC claimed that legislators in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, New York and Ohio have introduced versions of its model bill, but many of those states vary in the level of disclosure required and how they handle the trade secrets provision. Laws in 11 states require at least partial disclosure, and the Bureau of Land Management recentlydrafted disclosure guidelines for drilling on federal land.

These laws have been relatively well-received by environmental advocates, though the trade secrets issue remains a concern for some. In Ohio, for example, proprietary chemicals don't have to be disclosed to regulators or the public. In Pennsylvania, they are disclosed to regulators, and the public can request information on them from the state Department of Environmental Protection on a case-by-case basis.

The Texas law, which ALEC cites in the post as its template, codifies the trade secrets exemption, and who can challenge it:

Otherwise, Texas' law requires that companies post disclosure forms for each completed well on the FracFocus site. They must disclose all chemicals but only report the concentrations of those that are hazardous. The law also requires that the companies give the total volume of water used in fracking.

The Environmental Protection Agency cannot regulate fracking in order to protect groundwater, because in 2005 Congress exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which controls how industries inject substances underground.

According to ALEC's blog, the model disclosure legislation is designed to promote "responsible resource production" and "aims to preempt the promulgation of duplicative, burdensome federal regulations" from the EPA, in particular. ALEC has consistently opposed any federal control over fracking. In 2009, the group adopted a "Resolution to Retain State Authority Over Hydraulic Fracturing."

EPA's rules on fracking still leave public health, communities at risk

Thursday, April 19, 2012 by Common Dreams
Environmental Groups: New Fracking Rules Fall Short

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its first regulations on air pollution from hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, on Wednesday, but environmental groups say the rules fall short. The groups say the regulations fail to protect public health by ignoring the many environmental hazards associated with fracking, and say the administration caved to industry demands by allowing fracking companies to continue releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, until 2015.

"These rules do not resolve chronic water, public health, and other problems associated with fracking and natural gas," said attorney Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center.

“These first-ever EPA limits on dangerous air pollution from natural gas fracking wells are a critical step toward protecting our kids, our communities, and our planet,” said Meleah Geertsma, an attorney in Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. “But to fulfill President Obama’s State of the Union pledge to develop these resources ‘without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk,’ the EPA needs to do more to protect people living near oil and gas production facilities.”

Miriam Rotkin-Ellman’s wrote on NRDC's Switchboard blog that while the rules are an improvement, the "EPA backpedaled on protections from cancer causing benzene emissions and will continue to allow a loophole that puts communities at risk."

* * *

Akron Beacon Journal: U.S. EPA adopts first air rules on fracking, but drillers have until 2015 to comply

The new safeguards, when fully implemented, will cut emissions of volatile organic compounds from drilling by nearly 25 percent and cut VOC emissions from new and modified fracked wells by almost 95 percent, the EPA said. 

The agency said the new limits would reduce VOC emissions from drilling by 190,000 to 290,000 tons a year, and cancer-causing benzene levels would be cut by 12,000 to 20,000 tons a year. 

It also will reduce escaped methane, the key component of natural gas and a potent global warming gas, by 1 million to 1.7 million tons a year, the agency said. 

Such chemicals — seen as a growing problem — produce unhealthy smog, put health-threatening toxics, including hexane and formaldehyde, into the air and contribute to global warming. 

The new rules are a first effort by the federal EPA to regulate fracking. 

But the Obama administration, which has strongly backed natural gas drilling, made significant concessions to the oil and gas industry. That includes a delay in requiring that gases be captured at the well until Jan. 1, 2015. 

The original federal plan called for compliance in 60 days. 

* * *

Lena Groeger, ProPublica: The EPA’s First Fracking Rules—Limited and Delayed

"It sets a floor for what the industry needs to do," said attorney Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center. "The reality is we can do far better."

Over the past few years, more information has come out about fracking's potential harms to the environment and human health, particularly relating to the risk of groundwater contamination. In addition to the many potentially toxic components of the highly pressurized fluid injected into the ground during the natural gas drilling process, fracking can also release cancer-causing chemicals like benzene and greenhouse gases like methane into the air. The federal government has made moves to tighten regulations, and we've chronicled the history of those regulations.

The EPA's new rules don't cover most of those issues. Instead, they address just a single problem with natural gas, namely, air pollution.

"These rules do not resolve chronic water, public health, and other problems associated with fracking and natural gas," Schlenker-Goodrich said.

The agency is actually barred from regulating the impact of fracking on groundwater. That is because in 2005 Congress exempted fracking from the Safe Water Drinking Act. Congressional proposals to give the EPA more oversight have so far failed.

* * *

USA Today video: EPA issues air pollution rules for fracking wells

* * *

Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, Switchboard: Still Fuming: New EPA Natural Gas Rules Leave Communities at Risk


[H]ere’s a summary of major flaws in the standards that endanger children and families across the country.

• There is a 2.5 year delay before requirements kick in to use the most effective technology to control pollution from gas wells. This is really disappointing because these controls are urgently needed. A recent
study in Colorado showed that health risks increase the closer you get to the well and in many states these wells are located in people’s backyards and next to schoolyards. 

• EPA is leaving in place a loophole that allows existing facilities the ability to release thousands of pounds (up to 1 ton per year) of cancer causing benzene from one type of equipment (large glycol dehydrators) despite analysis showing that this could result in dangerous cancer risk for neighboring communities.. 

• Under the new rules, existing facilities will not be required to upgrade their equipment to reduce emissions and protect public health. This means that families already struggling with the air pollution caused by these facilities won’t get the relief they need. 

• Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is supposed to evaluate the health threats from industrial sources, like fracking facilities, and set standards to protect the most vulnerable populations. But, with this National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule, EPA missed the opportunity to provide critical relief from toxic air pollutants that are linked to respiratory and neurological problems and cancer. 

• The NESHAP rule relied on a heavily flawed analysis of health risks which omitted dangerous pollutants, ignored major sources of pollution, and failed to protect the most vulnerable populations. On the technology side, the rule failed to consider existing best practices already being deployed by many facilities to control pollution and prevent health impacts to surrounding communities. These technologies such as, improved efficiency, leak prevention systems, and emission controls are currently available, feasible, and can even save the industry money.

Collateral Damage in the Marcellus Shale

Fracking is destruction. I've posted many articles and read countless more, and the only time I find positive stories about fracking are when they are written by right wing oriented, pro-corporate  organizations or are propaganda pieces by PR firms hired by the energy companies. There is nothing good about fracking. It is an environmental disaster, a fresh water destroyer, cancer and earthquake causer, climate change accelerator, and the biggest lie? That natural gas is the "clean burning fuel." Since fracking became widespread, greenhouse gasses have increased at a higher rate than before fracking became widespread. We have reached the crisis moment of climate change. In all probability, we are doomed and can't come back from it because there are no plans to deal with the issue; meanwhile, fracking operations keep increasing with little to no regulation, contaminating more and more underground water sources, and killing families, their pets and livestock. Oh, and causing earthquakes. End it. If we allow fracking to continue, we are good and truly fucking extinct.--jef

+++

Fracking Low-Income Residents
by WALTER M. BRASCH

There’s nothing to suggest that in his 51 years Kevin June should be a leader.

Not from his high school where he dropped out after his freshman year.

Not from his job, where he worked as an auto body technician for more than 35 years.

Both of his marriages ended in divorce, but did produce two children, a 31-year-old son and a 28-year-old daughter.

June readily admits that for most of his life, beginning about 14 when he began drinking heavily, he was a drunk. Always beer. Almost always to excess. But, he will quickly tell you how many weeks he has been sober. It’s now 56, he says proudly.

In October 2008 he was in an auto accident, when he swerved to miss a deer and hit an oak tree head on. That’s when he learned MRIs showed he had been suffering from degenerative arthritis. Between the accident and the arthritis, he was off work for three months. Then, in May 2009, he was laid off when the company moved.

The pain is now so severe that after about 10 minutes, he has to sit.

Unable to work, surviving on disability income that brings him $1,300 a month, just $392.50 above the poverty line, he lives in the 12-acre Riverdale Mobile Home Village, along the Susquehanna River near Jersey Shore north-central Pennsylvania. The village has a large green area where families can picnic, relax, or play games, sharing the space with geese and all kinds of animals.

For most of the six years June lived in the village, he kept to himself—chatting with neighbors now and then, but nothing that would ever suggest he’d be a leader. The last time he led anything was almost two decades earlier when he was president of a 4-wheel club.

On Feb. 18, the residents found out their landlord had sold the park, only after reading a story in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette. The landlord, who the residents say did what he could to make their village safe and attractive, later came to each of the 37 families. He told the families he sold the park and they would have two months to leave. It was abrupt. Business-like. “We knew he was planning to sell,” says June, “but we all thought it would be to someone who would allow us to stay.”

Four days after the residents were ordered to move, certified letters made it official. The owner sold the park to Aqua PVR, a division of Aqua America, headquartered in Bryn Mawr. Sale price was $550,000. It may have been a bargain—land and industrial parks that have been vacant for years are going for premium sales prices as the natural gas boom in the Marcellus Shale consumes a large part of Pennsylvania and four surrounding states.

Aqua had received permission from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) to withdraw three million gallons of water a day from the Susquehanna; the 37 families of the mobile home village would just be in the way. The company intends to build a pump station and create a pipe system to provide water to natural gas companies that use hydraulic fracturing, the preferred method to extract natural gas from as deep as 10,000 feet beneath the earth. The process, known as fracking, requires a mixture of sand, chemicals, many of them toxins, and anywhere from one to nine million gallons of water per well, injected into the earth at high pressure. Jersey Shore sits in a northeastern part of the Marcellus Shale, which is believed to hold about 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Aqua isn’t the only company planning to take water in the area. Anadarko E & P Co. and Range Resources-Appalachia have each applied to withdraw up to three million gallons a day from the Susquehanna. While the Delaware River Basic Commission, and the states of New York and Maryland, have imposed moratoriums upon the use of fracking until full health and environmental impacts can be assessed, Pennsylvania and the SRBC have been handing out permits by the gross.

Most residents had only a vague knowledge of fracking and what it is doing to the earth. “They have a lot more knowledge now,” says June, as politically aware as any environmentalist.

Aqua had originally ordered the residents to leave by May 1, but then extended it to the end of the month. It dangled a $2,500 relocation allowance in its eviction.

However, the cost to move a trailer to another park is $6,000–$11,000, plus extra for skirting, sheds, and any handicap-accessible external ramps. But, most trailers can’t be moved. “These are older trailers,” says June. His is a 12-by-70, built in 1974, with a tin roof and tin siding (“tin-on-tin”); like others, it isn’t sturdy enough to survive a move. But even if it did, there would be no place to put it. The parks want the newer trailers, but most parks are full.

So, the residents began looking in the classified ads for rentals. Because the natural gas companies are bringing in thousands of employees to frack the land, there is a shortage of apartments, most with inflated prices to take advantage of the well-paid roustabouts, drivers, and technicians who moved into the area, and spend their money on local businesses eager to improve their own profits. During the past two years, rents have doubled and tripled. “None of us can pay a thousand or more a month,” says June. The current mobile home owners paid $200 a month for their lot.

Not long after he was served his own eviction notice, June had a dream. Some might call it a nightmare; some might see it as he did, a religious experience. “It was Jesus coming to me, telling me I had to do something,” he says.

June is constantly on the move, going from trailer to trailer to help the families who were abruptly evicted. Whatever their needs, Kevin June tries to provide it, constantly on the phone, running up phone bills he knows he can’t afford but does so anyhow because the lives of his neighbors matter.

There’s Betty and William Whyne. Betty, 82, began working as a waitress at the age of 13 and now, in retirement, makes artificial Christmas trees. She has a cancerous tumor in the same place where a breast was removed in 1991. William, 72, who was an electrician, carpenter, and plumber before he retired after a heart attack, goes to a dialysis center three times a week, four hours each time. They brought their 12-wide 1965 Fleetwoood trailer to the village shortly after the 1972 flood. Like the other residents, they can’t afford to move; they can’t find adequate housing. “We’ve looked at everything in about a 30 mile radius,” they say. They earn $1,478 a month from retirement, only $252.17 above the federal poverty line. One son is in New Jersey; one is in Texas, and the Whynes don’t want to leave the area; they shouldn’t have to.

There’s April and Eric Daniels. She’s a stay-at-home mom for their two children; he’s a truck driver whose hours have been reduced. Their 14-by-70 trailer is valued at $13,200; she and her husband were in the process of remodeling it, had already paid $5,000 for improvements, and were about to start building a second bathroom. April Daniels had grown up living in a series of foster houses, “so I know what it’s like to move around, but this was my first home, and it’s harder for me to leave.” Their trailer provides a good home, but can’t be moved. “We’re pretty much on the verge of just tearing down the trailer and living in a camper,” she says. They don’t know what will happen. They do know that because of what they see as Aqua’s insensitivity, they will lose a lot of money no matter what they do.

Doris Fravel, 82, a widow on a fixed income of $1,326 a month, has lived in the village 38 years. She’s proud of her 1974 12-wide trailer with the tin roof. “I painted it every year,” she says. In June, she paid $3,580 for a new air conditioner; she recently paid $3,000 for new insulated skirting. The trailer has new carpeting. Unlike most of the residents, she found housing—a $450 a month efficiency. But it’s far smaller than her current home. So she’s sold or given away most of what she owns. She may have a buyer for the trailer, and will take $2,500 for it, considerably less than it’s worth. “I can’t do anything else,” she says. “I just can’t move my furnishings into the new apartment,” she says. Like the other residents, she has family who are helping, but there’s only so much help any family can provide. “I never knew I would ever have to leave,” she says, but she does want to “see one of those gas men come to my door—and I’d like to punch him in the shoulder.”

Not only are there few lots available and apartments are too expensive, but most residents don’t qualify for a house mortgage; and there are waiting lists for senior citizen and low-income housing. The stories are the same.

No one from Aqua has been in touch with any resident. But, the company did hire a local real estate agency. The agency claims it has made extraordinary efforts to help the residents find other housing. The residents disagree. April Daniels says “some of the Realtors have gotten real nasty with the people in the park—they just don’t understand that we are all in a hardship, so we get mad and frustrated and take it out on them.” But there really isn’t much anyone can do. The natural gas boom has made affordable housing as obsolete as the anthracite coal that once drove the region’s energy economy.

The residents, with limited incomes, have lived good lives; they are good people. They paid their rents and fees on time; they kept up the appearances of their trailers and the land around it. They worked their jobs; they survived. Until they were evicted

And now it’s up to the residents to try to survive. They have become closer; they listen to each other; they hug each other; and, the tough men aren’t afraid to let others see them cry. “The pain in this park is almost too much at times,” says June.

If something goes wrong, the residents have to fix it; Kevin June is the one they call. If he can’t fix a problem, he finds someone who can. In this trailer park, as in most communities, there is a lot of talent—“we help each other,” says June. His job is to make sure the residents survive until they can move. I’ve had the Holy Spirit running through my veins a long time, but it’s running real deep right now,” he says.

A half-dozen families have already moved, but most say they will stay and fight what they see as a politically-based corporate takeover.

During the week Aqua PVR issued eviction notices, its parent company issued a news release, boasting that its revenue for 2011 was $712 million, a 4.2 percent increase from the year before; its net income was $143.1 million, up 15.4 percent from the previous year. But, for some reason, the company just couldn’t find enough money to give the residents a fair moving settlement. “They just expect us to throw our homes into the street and live in tents,” says June.

“I went to see a state representative to ask what he could do to help,” he says, “but his secretary just coldly told me there was nothing that could be done because whoever owns a property can do with it what he wants to do.” He never saw the state representative.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—armed with an industry-favorable law recently rammed through by the Republican-controlled legislature and eagerly signed by a first-term Republican governor who received more than $1,6 million in campaign contributions from the energy industry—has decided that fracking the earth, threatening health and the environment, is far better for business than taking care of the people.

Kevin June and 36 families are just collateral damage.

The Perils of Fracking

Environmental and Health Risks Greater Than Claimed by Gas Industry

by WALTER BRASCH

The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been “a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,” dating back to 1949. What he doesn’t say is that until recently energy companies had used low-pressure methods to extract natural gas from fields closer to the surface than the current high-pressure technology that extracts more gas, but uses significantly more water, chemicals, and elements.

The industry claims well drilling in the Marcellus Shale will bring several hundred thousand jobs, and has minimal health and environmental risk. President Barack Obama in his January 2012 State of the Union, said he believes the development of natural gas as an energy source to replace fossil fuels could generate 600,000 jobs.

However, research studies by economists Dr. Jannette M. Barth, Dr. Deborah Rogers, and others debunk the idea of significant job creation.

Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, says “no evidence directly connects injection of fracking fluid into shale with aquifer contamination.” Fracking “has never been found to contaminate a water well,” says Christine Cronkright, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

Research studies and numerous incidents of water contamination prove otherwise.
In late 2010, equipment failure may have led to toxic levels of chemicals in the well water of at least a dozen families in Conoquenessing Twp. in Bradford County. Township officials and Rex Energy, although acknowledging that two of the drilling wells had problems with the casings, claimed there were pollutants in the drinking water before Rex moved into the area. John Fair disagrees. “Everybody had good water a year ago,” Fair told environmental writer and activist Iris Marie Bloom in February 2012. Bloom says residents told her the color of water changed (to red, orange, and gray) after Rex began drilling. Among chemicals detected in the well water, in addition to methane gas, were ammonia, arsenic, chloromethane, iron, manganese, t-butyl alcohol, and toluene. While not acknowledging that its actions could have caused the pollution, Rex did providefresh water to the residents, but then stopped doing so on Feb. 29, 2012, after the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) said the well water was safe. The residents vigorously disagreed and staged protests against Rex; environmental activists and other residents trucked in portable water jugs to help the affected families. The Marcellus Outreach Butler blog (MOB) declared that residents’ “lives have been severely disrupted and their health has been severely impacted. To unceremoniously ‘close the book’ on investigations into their troubles when so many indicators point to the culpability of the gas industry for the disruption of their lives is unconscionable.”

In April 2011, near Towanda, Pa., seven families were evacuated after about 10,000 gallons of wastewater contaminated an agricultural field and a stream that flows into the Susquehanna River, the result of an equipment failure, according to the Bradford County Emergency Management Agency.

The following month, DEP fined Chesapeake Energy $900,000, the largest amount in the state’s history, for allowing methane gas to pollute the drinking water of 16 families in Bradford County during the previous year. The DEP noted there may have been toxic methane emissions from as many as six wells in five towns. The DEP also fined Chesapeake $188,000 for a fire at a well in Washington County that injured three workers.

In January 2012, an equipment failure at a drill site in Susquehanna County led to a spill of several thousand gallons of fluid for almost a half-hour, causing “potential pollution,” according to the DEP. In its citation to Carizzo Oil and Gas, the DEP “strongly” recommended that the company cease drilling at all 67 wells “until the cause of this problem and a solution are identified.”

In December 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that fracking operations could be responsible for groundwater pollution.

“Today’s methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire,” says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. What’s causing the fire is the methane from the drilling operations. A ProPublica investigation in 2009 revealed methane contamination was widespread in drinking water in areas around fracking operations in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. The presence of methane in drinking water in Dimock, Pa., had become the focal point for Josh Fox’s investigative documentary, Gasland, which received an Academy Award nomination in 2011 for Outstanding Documentary; Fox also received an Emmy for non-fiction directing. Fox’s interest in fracking intensified when a natural gas company offered $100,000 for mineral rights on property his family owned in Milanville, in the extreme northeast part of Pennsylvania, about 60 miles east of Dimock.

Research by a team of scientists from Duke University revealed “methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems [that is] associated with shale-gas extraction.” The data and conclusions, published in the May 2011 issue of the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, noted that not only did most drinking wells near drilling sites have methane, but those closest to the drilling wells, about a half-mile, had an average of 17 times the methane of those of other wells.

“Some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing—or liberated by it—are carcinogens,” Dr. Sandra Steingraber told members of the Environmental Conservation and Health committee of the New York State Assembly. Dr. Steingraber, a biologist and distinguished scholar in residence at Ithaca College, pointed out that some of the chemicals “are neurological poisons with suspected links to learning deficits in children,” while others “are asthma triggers. Some, especially the radioactive ones, are known to bioaccumulate in milk. Others are reproductive toxicants that can contribute to pregnancy loss.”

An investigation by New York Times reporter Ian Urbina, based upon thousands of unreported EPA documents and a confidential study by the natural gas industry, concluded, “Radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.” Urbina learned that wastewater from fracking operations was about 100 times more toxic than federal drinking water standards; 15 wells had readings about 1,000 times higher than standards.

Research by Dr. Ronald Bishop, a biochemist at SUNY/Oneonta, suggests that fracking to extract methane gas “is highly likely to degrade air, surface water and ground-water quality, to harm humans, and to negatively impact aquatic and forest ecosystems.” He notes that “potential exposure effects for humans will include poisoning of susceptible tissues, endocrine disruption syndromes, and elevated risk for certain cancers.” Every well, says Dr. Bishop, “will generate a sediment discharge of approximately eight tons per year into local waterways, further threatening federally endangered mollusks and other aquatic organisms.” In addition to the environmental pollution by the fracking process, Dr. Bishop believes “intensive use of diesel-fuel equipment will degrade air quality [that could affect] humans, livestock, and crops.”

Equally important are questions about the impact of as many as 200 diesel-fueled trucks each day bringing water to the site and then removing the waste water. In addition to the normal diesel emissions of trucks, there are also problems of leaks of the contaminated water.

“We need to know how diesel fuel got into our water supply,” says Diane Siegmund, a clinical psychologist from Towanda, Pa. “It wasn’t there before the companies drilled wells; it’s here now,” she says. Siegmund is also concerned about contaminated dust and mud. “There is no oversight on these,” she says, “but those trucks are muddy when they leave the well sites, and dust may have impact miles from the well sites.”

Research “strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife,” according to Dr. Michelle Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Dr. Robert E. Oswald,a biochemist and professor of molecular medicine at Cornell University. Their study, published in New Solutions, an academic journal in environmental health, documents evidence of milk contamination, breeding problems, and cow mortality in areas near fracking operations as higher than in areas where no fracking occurred. Drs. Bamberger and Oswald noted that some of the symptoms present in humans from what may be polluted water from fracking operations include rashes, headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and severe irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. For animals, the symptoms often led to reproductive problems and death.

Significant impact upon wildlife is also noted in a 900-page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) conducted by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, and filed in September 2011. According to the EIS, “In addition to loss of habitat, other potential direct impacts on wildlife from drilling in the Marcellus Shale include increased mortality . . . altered microclimates, and increased traffic, noise, lighting, and well flares.” The impact, according to the report, “may include a loss of genetic diversity, species isolation, population declines . . . increased predation, and an increase of invasive species.” The report concludes that because of fracking, there is “little to no place in the study areas where wildlife would not be impacted, [leading to] serious cascading ecological consequences.” The impact, of course, affects the quality of milk and meat production as animals drink and graze near areas that have been taken over by the natural gas industry.

Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health, calls for more research studies that “include all the ways people can be exposed [to health hazards], such as through air, water, soil, plants and animals.”

The response by the industry and its political allies to the scientific studies of the health and environmental effects of fracking “has approached the issue in a manner similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer,” say Drs. Bamberger and Oswald. Not only do they call for “full disclosure and testing of air, water, soil, animals, and humans,” but point out that with lax oversight, “the gas drilling boom . . . will remain an uncontrolled health experiment on an enormous scale.”

Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician in Coraopolis, Pa., says she doesn’t want her patients “to be guinea pigs who provide the next generation the statistical proof of health problems as in what happened with those exposed to asbestos or to cigarette smoke.”

Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians

by: Walter Brasch, Dissident Voice 

Sunday 18 March 2012

This is Part One of a Three-Part Series.

A new Pennsylvania law endangers public health by forbidding health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. The procedure is commonly known as fracking.

Fracking is the controversial method of forcing water, gases, and chemicals at tremendouspressure of up to 15,000 pounds per square inch into a rock formation as much as 10,000 feet below the earth’s surface to open channels and force out natural gas and fossil fuels.

Advocates of fracking argue not only is natural gas “greener” than coal and oil energy, with significantly fewer carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur emissions, the mining of natural gas generates significant jobs in a depressed economy, and will help the U.S. reduce its oil dependence upon foreign nations. Geologists estimate there may be as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout the United States. If all of it is successfully mined, it could not only replace coal and oil but serve as a transition to wind, solar, and water as primary energy sources, releasing the United States from dependency upon fossil fuel energy and allowing it to be more self-sufficient.

The Marcellus Shale—which extends beneath the Allegheny Plateau, through southern New York, much of Pennsylvania, east Ohio, West Virginia, and parts of Maryland and Virginia—is one of the nation’s largest sources for natural gas mining, containing as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Each of Pennsylvania’s 5,255 wells, as of the beginning of March 2012, with dozens being added each week, takes up about nine acres, including all access roads and pipe.

Over the expected life time of each well, companies may use as many as nine million gallons of water and 100,000 gallons of chemicals and radioactive isotopes within a four to six week period. The additives “are used to prevent pipe corrosion, kill bacteria, and assist in forcing the water and sand down-hole to fracture the targeted formation,” explains Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. However, about 650 of the 750 chemicals used in fracking operations are known carcinogens, according to a report filed with the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2011. Fluids used in fracking include those that are “potentially hazardous,” including volatile organic compounds, according to Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health, a part of the federal Centers for Disease Control. In an email to the Associated Press in January 2012, Portier noted that waste water, in addition to bring up several elements, may be radioactive. Fracking is also believed to have been the cause of hundreds of small earthquakes in Ohio and other states.

The law, an amendment to Title 52 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking. Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company doesn’t have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information, nor does it have to reveal how the chemicals and gases used in fracking interact with natural compounds. If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician believes may have led to their health problems. A strict interpretation of the law would also forbid general practitioners and family practice physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreement and learn the contents of the “trade secrets” from notifying a specialist about the chemicals or compounds, thus delaying medical treatment.

The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.

“I have never seen anything like this in my 37 years of practice,” says Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician from Coraopolis, Pa. She says it’s common for physicians, epidemiologists, and others in the health care field to discuss and consult with each other about the possible problems that can affect various populations. Her first priority, she says, “is to diagnose and treat, and to be proactive in preventing harm to others.” The new law, she says, not only “hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.”

Psychologists are also concerned about the effects of fracking and the law’s gag order. “We won’t know the extent of patients becoming anxious or depressed because of a lack of information about the fracking process and the chemicals used,” says Kathryn Vennie of Hawley, Pa., a clinical psychologist for 30 years. She says she is already seeing patients “who are seeking support because of the disruption to their environment.” Anxiety in the absence of information, she says, “can produce both mental and physical problems.”

The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Dr. Paulson, also professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, calls the law “detrimental to the delivery of personal health care and contradictory to the ethical principles of medicine and public health.” Physicians, he says, “have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the public, and this law precludes us from doing all we can to protect the public.” He has called for a moratorium on all drilling until the health effects can be analyzed.

Pennsylvania requires physicians to report to the state instances of 73 specific diseases, most of which are infectious diseases. However, the list also includes cancer, which may have origins not only from chemicals used to create the fissures that yield natural gas, but also in the blow-back of elements, including arsenic, present within the fissures. Thus, physicians are faced by conflicting legal and professional considerations.

“The confidentiality agreements are worrisome,” says Peter Scheer, a journalist/lawyer who is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. Physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreements and then disclose the possible risks to protect the community can be sued for breech of contract, and the companies can seek both injunctions and damages, says Scheer.

In pre-trial discovery motions, a company might be required to reveal to the court what it claims are trade secrets and proprietary information, with the court determining if the chemical and gas combinations really are trade secrets or not. The court could also rule that the contract is unenforceable because it is contrary to public policy, which places the health of the public over the rights of an individual company to protect its trade secrets, says Scheer. However, the legal and financial resources of the natural gas corporations are far greater than those of individuals, and they can stall and outspend most legal challenges.

Although Pennsylvania is determined to protect the natural gas industry, not everyone in the industry agrees with the need for secrecy. Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association, says he supports disclosing the contents included in fracturing fluids. In an opinion column published in the Denver Post, McCurdy further argued, “We need to do more as an industry to engage in a transparent and fact-based public dialogue on shale gas development.”

The Natural Gas committee of the U.S. Department of Energy agrees. “Our most important recommendations were for more transparency and dissemination of information about shale gas operations, including full disclosure of chemicals and additives that are being used,” said Dr. Mark Zoback, professor of geophysics at Stanford University and a Board member.

Both McCurdy’s statement and the Department of Energy’s strong recommendation about full disclosure were known to the Pennsylvania General Assembly when it created the law that restricted health care professionals from disseminating certain information that could help reduce significant health and environmental problems from fracking operations.

Frack Job

Gang of Seven Meets Behind Closed Doors to Draft State Fracking Regulations
by RUSSELL MOKHIBER


To regulate or to prohibit.

That is the question.

Ask people on the ground who are being adversely affected by hydraulic fracturing, and overwhelming they say – prohibit.

They don’t believe that you can frack without harm.

The major environmental groups know this.

That’s why, when major environmental groups join with industry to draft regulations, most of them don’t admit to it – and the drafting of the regulations takes place behind closed doors.

Over the last couple of years, a group of three fracking companies and four major environmental groups have been meeting in secret to draft model laws to regulate the industry at the state level.

Only one company – Southwestern Energy – and one environmental group – the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) – have admitted to participating in this effort.

Lisa Wright is a grassroots activist working on shale issues in upstate New York.

“I would like to know who all the groups are and why the secrecy?” Wright asked.

So, we asked EDF’s Scott Anderson – who are all the groups and why all the secrecy?

Anderson said he wouldn’t tell us who the groups are – that’s up to each group to make their involvement public – or not.

“EDF is happy to have our name associated with this,” Anderson told Corporate Crime Reporter last week. “I would observe that the politics surrounding natural gas development are polarized to say the least. This is an effort of people to attempt to work on a consensus basis, to develop well construction rules that are as reasonable as possible. There are no guarantees that the wheels won’t come off. The other groups would just assume not announce their participation until the project is successful.”

Anderson did say that the other three environmental groups are major players with recognizable names.

So, we rang up a couple of the usual suspects – and asked if they were involved.

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Jenny Powers responded by saying that “NRDC is not part of a covert effort to draft shale regulations with the gas industry.”

“Several years ago, we were asked if we wanted to be a partner in an effort led by EDF and one gas company, Southwestern Energy, to develop model state regulations that would significantly strengthen oversight of this activity in states in which it is already being undertaken subject to unacceptably weak standards,” Powers said. “We opted not to partner in this effort. We made that choice because the primary focus of our national efforts has been advocating for uniform federal standards, which we view as critical to protecting Americans and their communities from the dangers of fracking.”

“Instead, we said we would provide feedback to the effort because we recognize that oil and gas drilling is currently taking place in over 30 states and, as noted, existing regulations are wholly inadequate to protect public health and the environment.”

Next, we asked Sierra Club – are you part of this covert effort?

“We were invited to the table and have sat in on some conference calls to evaluate the project, but we believe our resources are better used working directly on natural gas regulation at the federal and state levels,” said Sierra Club’s Maggie Kao.

A group of eight – four companies and four environmental groups – originally began meeting in early 2010, Anderson said. One of the companies dropped out last year.

The group of seven now meets regularly – sometimes by phone and sometimes in person. The next meeting will be next month at an undisclosed location.

The group has drafted a model state law – elements of which have been adopted by Arkansas and Montana last year.

An edited copy of one draft, dated January 12, 2012, gives some insight into how the negotiations are working.

One provision of the draft – titled Audit and Enforcement – would have given the state regulator the authority to visit a well site to inspect the facility, cite the operator for violations, and issue a fine. That provision was redlined out of the draft.

Nonetheless, Anderson portrays the covert effort as an attempt to bring violators under control.

“There are far too many instances where oil and gas operations have caused unacceptable problems,” Anderson said.

“We are dedicated to try to find out what the causes have been and to come up with improved regulations and practices to prevent these problems. Road damage from overweight vehicles is one of many problems that oil and gas development poses. Also spills of chemicals – frequently the trucks are hauling wastewater. Sometimes there is intentional midnight dumping. Spills at the surface are the single biggest cause of documented causes of drinking water pollution. That happened a lot in New Mexico. Improper well construction is the second biggest cause of drinking water problems. It is essential that people drill their wells correctly, outfit the wells with the right quality of pipe, have that pipe set at the proper depths, make sure there is an adequate cement job.”

Anderson said the group has agreed to some common principles – we want to work on a collaborative basis.

“We agree that the rules shall be as protective of the environment as reasonably possible.”

Anderson says that just because there have been no proven cases of drinking water being contaminated by the actual fracking process doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Fracking Could Cause a New Global Water Crisis

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 by Common Dreams
Report: “Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”

As the oil and gas industry heads more towards hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to access resources, a new report out today from Food & Water Watch states that the process may become a global environmental and public health threat. Numerous communities in the U.S. where fracking has occurred have suffered long-term damage to their public water, as gas and oil companies leave a legacy of carcinogens and climate damage in their wake. The group says that the worldwide community must heed the warnings out of stricken communities in the U.S. and ban the practice.




Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, states:

“Fracking is a dangerous American export that should be viewed critically by countries just starting to engage in the practice. Modern drilling and fracking have caused widespread environmental and public health problems, as well as posed serious, long-term risks to vital water resources.”

“While the oil and gas industry is profiting off of this technology, it has been a disaster for Americans exposed to its pollution. They have dealt with everything from mysterious ailments likely caused by hazardous air pollution to well water contamination that has left rural communities unable to use their water for washing, brushing their teeth or cooking—much less drinking,” adds Hauter. “Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”

Numerous communities where fracking has occurred in the U.S. have had their public water resources contaminated as a result of fracking. One community the report highlights is Dimock, Pennsylvania:

In 2009, Pennsylvania regulators ordered the Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation to cease all fracking in Susquehanna County after three spills at one well within a week polluted a wetland and caused a fishkill in a local creek. The spills leaked 8,420 gallons of fracking fluid containing a Halliburton-manufactured lubricant that is a potential carcinogen. Fracking had so polluted water wells that some families could no longer drink from their taps. Pennsylvania fined Cabot more than $240,000, but it cost more than $10 million to transport safe water to the affected homeowners. In December 2010, Cabot paid $4.1 million to 19 families that contended that Cabot’s fracking had contaminated their groundwater with methane. In 2012, the U.S. EPA began providing clean drinking water to these families after Cabot had been released of its obligation to do so by the state of Pennsylvania.

Fracking pollution hasn't been limited to water; it has also caused air pollution near fracking sites, the report states:

Hazardous air pollutants found near fracking sites include methanol, formaldehyde and carbon disulfide. Volatile organic compounds, including nitrogen oxides, benzene and toluene, are also discharged during fracking. These compounds mix with emissions from heavy-duty truck traffic, large generators and compressors at well sites to form ground-level ozone that can, in turn, combine with particulate matter to form smog. [...]

In Wyoming, drilling and fracking have caused ground-level ozone pollution to exceed amounts recorded in Los Angeles, affecting the quality of life for Wyoming residents.

Methane, a key greenhouse gas, is also implicated in fracking, showing that heading towards fracking means heading toward more climate change:

Recent scientific studies have demonstrated that, due to the amount of fugitive methane released during modern shale gas development as compared to during conventional gas development, any increased use of shale gas instead of coal may actually accelerate climate change in the coming decades, not reduce climate change impacts.

Food & Water Watch shows that the natural gas and oil industry have had their eyes worldwide to expand fracking, with some countries showing tremendous resistance to it:

[C]ountries around the world are grappling with how to address the push to drill and frack. In Europe, while France and Bulgaria have banned fracking in the face of strong public opposition, Poland has welcomed the industry. In China and Argentina, shale gas extraction is being developed with government support. In South Africa, pending an environmental review, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell may be granted permission to extract shale gas.

These countries would be wise,  Food & Water Watch  believes, to learn the lessons of communities in the U.S. that have had their water and environment damaged by fracking.
The report concludes:

Taken together, spills of toxic fracking fluid and fracking wastewater, water well contamination from the underground migration of methane and toxic fracking fluid, local and regional air pollution problems from shale development, explosions at the sites of shale wells, and substantial emissions of the global warming pollutant methane during drilling and fracking make the dangers of shale development clear. 

Countries not yet exposed to the risks and costs of drilling and fracking have an opportunity to choose a different path, one that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Enacting a national ban on fracking and investing in the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies will set a sustainable course.

Rolling Stone Responds to Chesapeake Energy on 'The Fracking Bubble'

Rolling Stone Magazine : MARCH 6, 2012 By JEFF GOODELL

Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, has a reputation for being a tough street-fighter, so his company’s response to my article in Rolling Stone is no surprise. (You can view the entire response here.) What is surprising is how weak it is. The company entirely dodges the article’s central point: that Chesapeake is highly-leveraged firm operated by a corporate gambler who engaged in complex scheme to profit off the illusion that America has a virtually unlimited supply of cheap natural gas.

Michael Kehs, the vice president of strategic affairs and public relations at Chesapeake, says that after looking at my work, the company decided that they would never get a fair shake. In fact, after some initial hesitation, McClendon expressed nothing but excitement at the prospect of being featured in Rolling Stone. He brought an issue of the magazine with him to our interview in Oklahoma City and asked me to autograph it. He also brought a copy of my book, Big Coal, which he also asked me to sign. When it came out, he said, he had bought 25 copies and sent them to his friends. He told me the book had "radicalized" him on his views about the coal industry.

Kehs also boasts that Chesapeake offered me "full transparency." The company did allow me to visit a drilling rig in Pennsylvania, showed me around their campus in Oklahoma City, and provided me with quick briefings from top executives. But when it came time to answer more substantial questions, all traces of transparency vanished. A quick example: I asked Chesapeake three times to provide me with a statistic for the total volume of dirty flowback water the company handled in the Marcellus Shale region last year. I got no answer.

Even more disturbing, when I asked McClendon directly if he or his company had contributed any money to presidential candidates or their PACs during the current campaign, he said flatly that they had not. This was curious to me, because McClendon has a long history of making campaign donations, and often encourages others in the industry to give to PACs as a way to make sure their voices are heard. So I asked him again in email a few days later: The answer was still "no." A week later, a researcher at Rolling Stone discovered that Chesapeake had indeed contributed $250,000 to Rick Perry's campaign last fall. When I asked Kehs about this, he admitted it was true. Apparently McClendon operates in a world where a quarter million dollar campaign contribution can just slip one’s mind.

As to Chesapeake’s specific points:

The "reality" of 100 years of shale gas. This claim is a great example of the kind of misleading rhetoric that Chesapeake – and the natural gas industry as a whole – specializes in. The assertion deliberately confuses what geologists refer to as the “resource” and the “reserves.” The resource is basically all the natural gas that geologists believe exists; the proved reserve is what they believe is currently recoverable at today’s prices, with today’s technology. The resource is indeed close to 100 years; but according to most calculations (including the Potential Gas Committee, a respected source that is cited by Chesapeake), the reserve is more like 11 years. The actual amount of gas we’ll be able to get out of the ground in the future depends on factors like price and demand and whether new technologies can be developed to get at hard-to-extract gas, and whether or not you care that it requires blasting and drilling our way through suburbs and national parks. Chris Nelder over at Slate has a good primer on this. The debate over reserve size is important, because it raises a lot of interesting questions about future energy investments. If McClendon wants to invest hundreds of millions of his dollars to convert vehicles to natural gas, that’s up to him – but why invest big public dollars in a fuel that might not last much more than a decade?

The credibility of Arthur Berman. As is often the case with Chesapeake, those who disagree with or criticize their work are dismissed as inconsequential. But Berman is a widely respected geologist and energy consultant; I highly recommend viewing a PowerPoint presentation he gave at Duke earlier this year.

Chesapeake’s convoluted off-book accounting practices. This is hardly a controversial statement; virtually every financial analyst I talked to mentioned it. In addition, it is discussed at length in this recent Forbes story, and is a big reason why people like Phil Weiss, an analyst at Argus Research Group, said point-blank to me about Chesapeake: “I don’t trust them.”

The economic benefits of cheap natural gas. Nobody disputes that cheap natural gas would be a good thing for the economy. The question is, is this a sustainable new development that can be counted on for decades to come, or simply a “bubble” brought on by a land grab and drilling frenzy? And what are the other costs – in environmental destruction, in diverting funding from renewable energy – related to this boom in cheap gas?

The credibility of Gasland. The natural gas industry has worked long and hard to smear Josh Fox, the director of Gasland, and has failed. Here’s Fox’s own defense of the criticisms in Gasland.

Fugitive methane emissions. With the possible exception of Josh Fox, no one gets McClendon and other Chesapeake executives cranked up like Robert Howarth, the Cornell University professor who was one of the first to question the amount of natural gas that is escaping from wells, pipelines and compressor stations. This is a hugely important issue, because the industry has long argued that one of the big advantages natural gas has over coal is that it can help reduce global-warming pollution. It’s true that burning natural gas releases about half as much CO2 as an equivalent amount of coal. But the problem is that when it comes to trapping heat, natural gas – aka methane – is about 21 times as potent as CO2 (although it stays in the atmosphere a much shorter time). And as it turns out, there are a lot of leaks in the production of natural gas. Exactly how much is hotly debated (here is a good backgrounder on the debate and here is a summary of the latest peer-reviewed research). Some studies have shown that natural gas could, in fact, be worse for the climate than coal. But even if you don’t factor in leakage rates, shifting to natural gas is not going to begin to stop global warming. As a new study by climate scientist Ken Caldeira and tech billionaire Nathan Myhrvold argues, shifting to natural gas “cannot substantially reduce the climate risk in the next 100 years.”

The credibility of Deborah Rogers. The natural gas industry has been trying to discredit Rogers ever since she began speaking out about the economics of shale gas. She can stand up for herself.

Bias in the Duke study. There is some poetry in the fact that scientists at McClendon’s alma mater were the first to conduct a rigorous, peer-reviewed study showing methane migration into drinking water wells near drilling sites. The study was published in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in America. The notion that it is “biased” and written by scientists bent on putting Chesapeake out of business is downright delusional. As for the criticisms of Michael Krancer of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the authors of the study address that here.

Methane levels in the Vargson well. Arguing that the methane was, in effect, already there, is a classic defense of the gas industry whenever there is a problem with methane contamination in a well. It’s the industry equivalent of the schoolyard taunt, "You can’t prove it!" In fact, the Vargson well is one of the best studied in Bradford County. Tom Darrah, a respected geologist at Duke, has studied the historical data at the Vargson well and says explicitly that the high levels of methane are “well above natural levels." As I point out in the story, the well was also one of 17 cited in a record $1 million fine against Chesapeake levied by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Consequences of Chesapeake’s well blow-out in Bradford County. While I was visiting Chesapeake, one executive described the environmental damage from the blowout like this: "We killed a couple of frogs." It is certainly true that, given the scale of the blowout, Chesapeake did a good job of minimizing the impact. But the full scope of the damage is unclear. A study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which is a branch of the federal Centers for Disease Control, found a 10-fold increase in methane and various salts in one nearby well. It’s also worth pointing out that the investigation of the blow-out cited by Chesapeake was hardly independent. Louis Simpson, a board memberof SAIC, the company that wrote the report, is also a board member of Chesapeake Energy. As Jim Gipson, Chesapeake’s director of media relations, put it in an email dated last October 17: "The report was never characterized as independent."

Fracking fluid disclosure. It’s important to underscore that the chemicals disclosed onFracfocus.org, the website the industry recently set up to address the concerns about the chemicals being injected during fracking operations, are disclosed voluntarily. Which means that drillers do not have to disclose anything on this website that they don’t want to. As for the Pennsylvania DEP requirements cited by Chesapeake in their response, access to those records require digging through paperwork in regional office of the DEP or filing a Right to Know request. And even then, says a spokesman for the DEP, "Drillers may denote on these reports specific portions of the stimulation record as trade secret or confidential proprietary information." In other words, if they claim it is proprietary, they don’t have to disclose it publically (although in some situations, they can be compelled by the state).

Finally, there is one assertion made by Kehs in the company’s response that is completely true: Like all writers who make use of a wealth of research and interviews, I "omitted" certain things from my article. I didn’t tell you – shame on me! – that Chesapeake has essentially operated at a loss since October 2003, its capital spending exceeding cash from operations in every single quarter. Or that it faces a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for violations of the Clean Water Act in West Virginia. Or about how it hid behind shell companies to grab land in Michigan – then tried to swindle hundreds of owners out of money and contracts.

I regret these errors of omission, and hope other reporters will follow up on them.