Robert Kennedy Jr., environmentalists hear of gas woes in Dimock

by laura legere (staff writer)
thetimes-tribune.com
Published: June 4, 2010

DIMOCK TWP. - Residents' complaints about spills, leaks and drinking-water contamination from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling drew several high-profile environmentalists to Susquehanna County on Thursday.

They included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the nation's foremost environmental attorneys, who called the natural gas industry "just completely and utterly untrustworthy."

Mr. Kennedy was joined by attorneys and activists with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group for which he is senior attorney, Catskills Mountainkeeper and Riverkeeper, including actor Mark Ruffalo and former New York Rangers goalie Mike Richter.

The group gathered in the home of one resident among 14 in the township whose drinking water was found by state environmental regulators to have been contaminated with methane from natural gas drilling.

The group then took a tour of the concentrated area where more than 60 wells have been drilled.

The residents told stories about the persistence of methane contamination in their drinking water and inadequate solutions to remove or replace it. They also talked about spills on or around their properties and assurances they said the gas companies made and broke.

Mr. Kennedy, who believes natural gas is an important bridge fuel on the way to developing greener energy alternatives, said most of the problems caused by the industry are solvable, "but you need really tough oversight by the regulatory agencies" and for best practices to be required by law.

He referred to his work to restrict or clean up dirtier energy extraction processes, including a lawsuit he filed against BP for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He was driving back to New York after spending most of the day in Dimock in order to speak about the spill on CNN on Thursday night.

"I see the coal industry blowing up mountains, and I filed the first lawsuit in the Gulf," he said. "I'm saying, gas has got to be better than this."

Foremost among his concerns about the shale gas extraction process, he said, is the industrialization of landscapes where drilling occurs, like the hills and valleys of Dimock.

But there are models in other areas, including Arkansas, where well development is restricted to one pad per square mile in order to avoid unnecessary roads, pipelines and development, he said. Advances in horizontal drilling, where the drill bit turns and burrows laterally through the shale, have allowed companies to extract gas from up to seven miles underground from one well pad.

But he cautioned the Dimock residents that his experiences have taught him never to trust "any of these gas companies."

"They all seem to be pathological liars," he said. "You can make deals with them, and they're going to break the deals. You've seen that happen at the local level; I've seen it at the national level."

Victoria Switzer, the resident who hosted the meeting, said advances in the industry's technology and best practices are encouraging, but it will not change what she and her neighbors suffered because of laxer practices, some of which are still allowed by law.

"Why don't we stop them behaving this way?" she said.

LINK

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

EPA questions New York state plan to drill for shale gas

Jon Hurdle

Thu Dec 31, 2009

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has "serious reservations" about allowing shale gas drilling in New York City's watershed, warning of a threat to the drinking water for 9 million people.

An EPA report on the divisive issue is the latest potential roadblock for energy companies seeking to exploit the Marcellus Shale formation, which state officials say may contain enough natural gas to satisfy U.S. demand for more than a decade.

"We have concerns regarding potential impacts to human health and the environment that we believe warrant further scientific and regulatory analysis," wrote John Filippelli, chief of the agency's Strategic Planning and Programs Branch.

"EPA has serious reservations about whether gas drilling in the New York City watershed is consistent with the vision of high-quality unfiltered water supply," he wrote in the agency's report, dated Wednesday.

Last week, New York City asked the state to ban shale gas drilling in the city's watershed.

At issue is the controversial process of shale gas extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in which a combination of chemicals, sand and water are blasted through rock to free trapped gas. Fracking is exempted from regulation under the U.S. Clean Water Act.

The natural gas industry argues that drilling poses no risk to drinking water, saying the chemicals are injected through layers of steel and concrete thousands of feet below aquifers.

But opponents argue that toxic fracking chemicals are contaminating drinking water, citing numerous reports of private wells near gas installations having water that is discolored, foul tasting, or even flammable because of methane that has escaped from drilling operations.

Theo Colborn, a researcher with the Endocrine Disruption Exchange who has drawn links between fracturing chemicals and a range of illnesses including cancer, said the EPA report indicates the agency was taking a new look at fracturing in light of growing public concern and media coverage.

"The natural gas industry can't keep saying it's clean," she said.

TO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL

"We're pleased to see that the EPA recognizes what the state so far has not, that gas drilling is entirely inappropriate with in the drinking supply for 9 million people," said James Simpson, a staff attorney for Riverkeeper, a New York environmental group.

Eric Goldstein, a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the state's proposal "will require a dramatic rethinking and revamping if it is going to pass muster with federal guardians of water quality.

...

For complete article, CLICK HERE.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Ghostbusting Hydraulic Fracturing... State vs. Federal Regulation (Who You Gonna Call???)

A report, by John Laurent-Tronche, in today's Fort Worth Business Press, "States or Feds: Who gets to regulate hydraulic fracturing?" states:
A recent push by federal legislators to repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005 could mean companies that employ hydraulic fracturing, a means of stimulating and opening up a well, would have to answer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Act about the chemicals they use in the injection process.
...
Legislators and other concerned parties, including environmental groups, are worried the chemicals used – many of which are harmful to humans and other species – could seep into underground water tables and contaminate water supply. The industry argues there haven’t been any instances of contamination to date and federal oversight would impede natural gas and oil development by adding increased permitting requirements and economic burdens.

“We have a 60-year track record on our side,” said Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a Washington, D.C.-based industry lobbying group comprised of dozens of organizations, including the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “Why in 60 years that fracing has been used, why now? Why is everyone pissed off now?”

In today's Atomic Insights Blog post: "See No Evil, Hear No Evil Approach to Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing Shale Gas Extraction", Ron Adams counters:
...I also found out that claims of "never a problem with hydraulic fracturing" were carefully stated to ensure that the claim was applicable only to a portion of the full process and did not include the potential for human or mechanical errors during drilling through aquifers, or the potential for surface water contamination. The witnesses that claimed that there was no evidence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing admitted that some parts of the complete process of extracting gas from shale formation had historically caused some issues of contamination or property damage, but the "fracking" process itself had not yet been proven to be the cause of any incidents. (One witness dismissed the reports of previous problems by stating that they were "legacy" issues that have already been corrected through state legislation and/or regulatory changes.)

Though the natural gas industry is adamant that additional regulations will cause it undue financial burdens and limit its ability to supply the abundant, cheap fuel that it claims is a "game changer", it appears evident that the practice of drilling for unconventional gas requires consistently applied regulations set at the federal level, perhaps with some assistance from state agencies that have proven capabilities as the local enforcement arm. As described by the witness from the US Geological Survey, the formations being developed are spread over large areas that do not respect state lines. The potentially affected air and water resources also do not recognize the politically determined boundaries of existing states.

With that 60 year problem free track record in Texas, why is there suddenly such outcry?

The Fort Worth Business Press continues:
The answer, [industry spokesman Chris Tucker] said, is the Marcellus Shale. As soon as natural gas production went from an isolated area in North Texas to nationwide – in Louisiana, Wyoming, New York, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and elsewhere – people began to worry about how to address it.

“[Environmental activists] knew they couldn’t go into Texas and say that the Barnett Shale was a loser or that fracing was dangerous. They couldn’t do that in Oklahoma,” Tucker said. “But once the Marcellus Shale came out and it was clear this was huge, it all came to the forefront.”

Indeed, 34 states now have oil and gas production, said Amy Mall, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It definitely is a national issue,” Mall said. “It’s no longer a local issue. We think federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act makes sense, because it is a national issue.”

From Atomic Insights:
In many cases, notably the newly developing Marcellus shale formation, the continuous gas reservoirs are deep under the surface of states that have little existing regulatory infrastructure and little experience in deep underground drilling. It is disingenuous for the oil/gas industry and the states that have experience to dig in their heels on a states' rights basis when it is clear that the implications of developing this large and important resource in a responsible manner will require multi-state cooperation with legal enforcement of required practices and should not be dependent on voluntary compliance with vaguely defined ''best practices".

FW Business Press:
Many of the chemicals used in Texas frac jobs can cause irreparable harm to the eyes, skin, sensory organs, respiratory system, brain and nervous system, according to an April 2009 study by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a Colorado-based organization that studies chemicals’ effects on human health and the environment. A little more than a month ago, 19 cattle died after ingesting a fluid that originated at a Chesapeake Energy Corp. drill site in Louisiana, according to an April 29 article in the Shreveport Times. Schlumberger Ltd. reportedly was conducting a frac job at the time. The matter is under investigation by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
...
There have been at least 375 cases of groundwater contamination due to oil and gas operations reported to the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division, according to a list on the government agency’s Web site. Some of the companies responsible are big players in the Barnett Shale.

From TXSharon's blog, Bluedaze today, David Burnett, Director of the Global Petroleum Research Institute, is quoted, saying:
What is the fuss about drilling a Barnett Shale well? A Barnett well site with a drilling rig operating for three months has the same impact as a city of 4,000 people - Water use, solid waste generation, air emissions and traffic. The O&G industry has been slow to realize this—that it has too big an impact on the environment. ...

Bluedaze presents us with this revealing bird's eye view of "Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale..."

Thank you TXSharon, for all you do.

The Fort Worth Business Press concludes:
Earlier this year, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a report saying it found no significant impacts from hydraulic fracturing operations, according to news reports. Only later did the department admit it had not conducted a single test to back up that claim.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!