EcoWatch

Photo by Becky Lettenberger/NPR

According to a detailed report on NPR yesterday by Scott Detrow, several families in Pennsylvania are finding that methane has gotten into their drinking water supply. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection is saying that this is happening due to a nearby Chesapeake Energy fracking operation. Water is leaking out of the frack wells and into the families’ water wells, resulting in “black as coal” liquid bubbling up out of their water supplies and flammable gas puddles all over their properties.

The gas drilling industry of course has long maintained that fracking has never been conclusively linked to water supply contamination. Technically this is true, in that it’s never been conclusively documented that when the fracking chemicals are shot deep into the ground to break up the shale rock they and the gas then seep back up into the water supply. However, the problem is much more simple. The pipes that are used to transport the gas from the well often have leaks which allow methane gas to escape.

According to NPR: “A shoddy cement job is usually what’s to blame. Gas wells are lined by a series of steel pipes surrounded by cement. And if the cement pour is rushed or poorly done, methane is going to get out of the well and into the ground.”

In 2009, Chesapeake Energy was fined $900,000 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for contaminating 16 families’ water supplies in the same northeast Pennsylvania county where the contaminated water is being found now. This was the largest environmental penalty in Pennsylvania history.

Supposedly since then Pennsylvania regulators have enacted tougher standards requiring higher quality cement and pipes. However, as the NPR story points out, “it only takes one small hole, or one faulty piece of equipment, or one weak chunk of cement, to create problems on the surface.”

The danger to the families whose drinking water supplies have been ruined by fracking goes beyond just that. In a letter to both families detailing test results and preliminary findings, state regulators wrote that “there is a physical danger of fire or explosion due to the migration of natural gas water wells.”

Chesapeake’s response is that they’ve installed ventilation systems at the familes’ wells, but the letter warns that “it is not possible to completely eliminate the hazards of having natural gas in your water supply by simply venting your well.”

By Wenonah Hauter

I have news for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF): the fracking activist community is shocked that you received $6 million from Bloomberg Philanthropies to advocate for fracking regulations. And we aren’t going to stand for it.

EDF says that they’ll be working for “responsible” regulation in 14 states. Of course, this is just double speak that means swooping into states where there is a strong grassroots movement against fracking and shilling for the oil and gas industry. They will claim to represent environmentalists while they promote regulation that is so weak even the gas industry can live with it.

Of course, everyone in the environmental movement knows that this is EDF’s modus operandi. In fact, for years, public interest advocates have rolled their eyes and complained to one another in private about how EDF undercuts their work time and time again. But, everyone is afraid to speak out because they might upset funders, who are turned off by disagreements among environmentalists.

Maybe it’s time to redefine exactly what protecting the environment means. People are ready to fight for what they really want. They don’t want to settle for some weak compromise that was negotiated without a strong fight.

And this time, EDF has met their match. Grassroots activists in communities facing fracking are not beholden to corporations or conservative foundations for funding. They’re tired of the same old game where national green groups undermine their work. Fractivists will never stand still and allow EDF or any other group to come into their state with weak “model legislation” that is simply an industry proposal in disguise.

This is about our children and grandchildren’s future. Fracked gas is no solution to climate change. Cornell University found that methane emissions from shale gas drilling are at least 30 percent higher than those from conventional gas, and may be just as severe as coal. There is absolutely no evidence that shale gas will improve the outlook for the ongoing crisis of global warming. A better strategy is to move away from fossil fuels altogether—not to lock us in to a future dependent on natural gas.

This is especially true since the oil and gas industry is misusing our water supplies at a time when we face increasing droughts that are also associated with climate change. I recently attended an industry conference—the first “summit” of the oil, gas and water industry. Some big numbers about the ongoing use of water resources were exposed at this corporate shindig. An official from Aquatech BV said that 2.4 trillion gallons of produced water (i.e. polluted water) are generated from oil and gas operations in the U.S. each day, and in the rest of the world, another 5.7 trillion gallons of produced water are generated each day—adding up to a total daily volume of 8.1 trillion gallons of polluted water. This is enough to cover the entire area of the United States 3 feet deep every year. The volume of produced water is increasing at a rate of 8 percent annually according to an official at GE Power.

Further, it seems like almost every week a new study comes out about the dangers of fracking. Stony Brook University published an article in the journal Risk Analysis this month that found substantial water pollution risks to rivers and other waterways from the disposal of fracking wastewater. A University of Texas seismologist tracked earthquakes in the Barnett Shale in Texas and found a correlation between the disposal of fracking wastewater in underground injection wells and small earthquake activity. The research will be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this month.

The truth is that fracking is no way to address climate change. Instead, the rapid expansion of the drilling process has brought rampant environmental and economic problems to rural communities. Accidents and leaks have polluted rivers, streams and drinking water supplies. Regions peppered with drilling rigs have high levels of smog as well as other airborne pollutants, including potential carcinogens. Rural communities face an onslaught of heavy truck traffic—often laden with dangerous chemicals used in drilling—and declining property values. The “bridge fuel” of fracking could well be a bridge to nowhere.

My advice to EDF is to return the money. They will be further discredited in the environmental movement if they pursue this strategy. And eventually, as more people catch on, they will be discredited among not only policymakers and the media, but their membership too.

EcoCentric Blog

By Kai Olson-Sawyer

With all eyes on New York State’s (NYS) rumored upcoming moves on shale-gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking), a recent Washington Post op-ed by New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and fracking pioneer, George Mitchell, weighed in on the possibility of limited fracking in the state’s Southern Tier. The message of Bloomberg’s op-ed is that “[w]e can frack safely if we frack sensibly,” and by sensibly he would seem to mean by implementing strong environmental regulations, a sentiment not widely shared by the oil and gas industry today.

That Bloomberg advocates for natural gas through “responsible” fracking is not surprising considering his $50 million patronage of the Sierra Club anti-coal campaign and the view that natural gas will replace dirty coal. In this more recent case of largesse, the mayor will give Environmental Defense Fund $6 million to carry out the “strategy of securing strong rules and developing industry best practices in the 14 states with 85 percent of the country’s unconventional gas reserves.”

It can’t be forgotten that New York City (not to mention Syracuse) long ago assured the safety of its water by way of a gas drilling and fracking ban in their enormous, protected watershed located mainly in the Catskill Mountains. (No state politician can afford to tangle with the New York City behemoth.) While New York City water users appear to be well protected from fracking in their watershed, as Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch says of Bloomberg, “He speaks for himself, not the upstate New Yorkers who would be most directly and most immediately affected by fracking.”

Practically speaking and regardless of possible coordination, Bloomberg’s endorsement of regulated fracking gives NYS Governor Cuomo–the ultimate “decider” of how and when it proceeds–another extremely influential backer on both political and policy grounds. Despite Cuomo‘s position as one of the most powerful and savvy governors in the country, his apparent pro-fracking leanings have alienated him from seemingly natural allies, even as the inflammatory politics of fracking have split environmentalists into those who seek an outright ban versus those who support tight regulation.

Exactly how Cuomo plans to address the knotty issue of NYS fracking remains unknown–all we have are rumors and innuendo stemming from a leak of the governor’s plan to the New York Times. The reported plan would presumably offer natural gas drilling permits to gas extraction companies in the “southwest New York region–primarily Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Steuben and Tioga Counties–drilling would be permitted only in towns that agree to it and would be banned in Catskill Park, aquifers and nationally designated historic districts.”

That fracking would only occur after it passed a vote in these municipalities is notable because it aligns with NYS Home Rule governance, which grants significant authority to local communities. Interestingly, Cuomo’s concept of governmental devolution on state shale-gas development presages on a smaller scale Republican presidential nominee Romney’s plan to hand over Federal lands to the states for fossil fuel development, which would upend at least 50 years of U.S. policy precedent.

If Cuomo decides to carry out his plan in the near-term, as expected, he would eschew his repeated claims to “[l]et the science dictate the conclusion,” since he’ll likely have to wait for more than a year for the most comprehensive studies on fracking, including the highly anticipated U.S. EPA study along with two U.S. Geological Survey reports (here and here).

Of course, scientific studies are not always conclusive and can be interpreted in many ways. There are also a host of unmet concerns with fracking, like what to do with toxic flowback wastewater, whether landowners bear all of the cost and liability of cleanup, and public health risks around gas wells and compressor stations, just to name a few. Cuomo’s decision on whether to allow fracking in NYS depends on what he envisions for the state’s future, and the question remains whether the call for fracking undercuts the continued support of both politicians’ support more sustainable, less water-intensive renewable energy.

With Bloomberg in his final term and the safety of New York City’s water seemingly in the bag, it’s easy for him to say we can frack safely–he won’t be the one to draw up or enforce the stiff regulations he calls for. Will his message influence Cuomo’s decision? Time will tell.

Related articles

• Environmental Defense Fund: Stop Your Sell-Out to the Gas Industry (ecowatch.org)
• Bloomberg Donates $6 Million to Develop Safe Fracking (theepochtimes.com)
• Methane Making An Appearance In Pa. Water Supplies (newdayunderwriting.wordpress.com)
• Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon Launch Artists Against Fracking (ecowatch.org)
• The Facts Behind the Frack (sciencenews.org)
• VIDEOS: Fracking opponents rally; NY gov’s decision nears (troyrecord.com)
• Methane Making An Appearance In Pa. Water Supplies (npr.org)
• Bubbly water (edcone.typepad.com)
• EPA study finds that water in Dimock, PA is safe to drink despite fracking (winteryknight.wordpress.com)