Ark. considers ban on injection wells (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)
June 22, 2011
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
June 22, 2011
June 20, 2011
Critics Find Gaps in State Laws to Disclose Hydrofracking Chemicals – ProPublica.

In this April 23, 2010 photo, a Chesapeake Energy natural gas well site is seen near Burlington, Pa. (AP Photo/Ralph Wilson)
Over the past year, five states have begun requiring energy companies to disclose some of the chemicals they pump into the ground to extract oil and gas using the process of hydraulic fracturing.
While state regulators and the drilling industry say the rules should help resolve concerns about the safety of drilling, critics and some toxicologists say the requirements fall short of what’s needed to fully understand the risks to public health and the environment.
The regulations allow companies to keep proprietary chemicals secret from the public and, in some states, from regulators. Though most of the states require companies to report the volume and concentration of different drilling products, no state asks for the amounts of all the ingredients, a gap that some say is disturbing.
“It’s a shell game,” said Theo Colborn, a toxicologist who has testified before Congress about the dangers of drilling chemicals. Colborn and her organization, TEDX, examine the long-term health risks of chemicals and have opposed the expansion of drilling in Colorado and elsewhere. “They’re not telling you everything that there is to know.”
Others say the regulations, despite some flaws, are moving in the right direction. “It’s just a step in the process,” said the Sierra Club’s Cyrus Reed, who worked on a bill signed into law in Texas on Friday.
Most drillers have supported the measures. Some say more complete disclosure isn’t necessary because the information that remains secret involves only nonhazardous chemicals or trade secrets that are a small fraction of products they inject. Energy companies recently have begun voluntarily disclosing some of the chemicals they use on FracFocus, a web site run by two groups representing state regulators.
“While we support disclosing our ingredients, it is critical to our business that we protect our recipe,” Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil and gas service companies, told ProPublica in an email.
Gas drilling has surged across the country over the past few years due to technological advances that include hydraulic fracturing, in which drillers pump millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground to free up trapped deposits of natural gas. Energy companies are increasingly using the technique, dubbed “fracking,” in oil recovery, particularly in Texas and North Dakota.
ProPublica first began reporting on health and environmental concerns surrounding fracking three years ago. Gas companies are exempt from federal laws protecting water supplies, leaving it up to states to decide what sort of regulations are needed to protect ground and surface water.
Wyoming’s rules are the strongest in place, although it’s unclear how thoroughly they are being enforced. The rules require public disclosure of all the chemicals except for trade secrets, which drillers must submit for regulators’ eyes only. The only thing the rule lacks, critics say, is a requirement to report the concentration of the individual chemicals.
Three reports that were selected at random and reviewed by ProPublica appeared to leave out some of the chemicals used. Tom Doll, the state’s oil and gas supervisor, said his agency has two staff members reviewing each of the reports.
“They’ve obviously missed some of these,” he said.
In Arkansas, manufacturers are not required to disclose proprietary fracking chemicals to regulators. Rules in Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania have similar exemptions. (See a summary of the state rules.)
Some environmentalists and toxicologists say the state rules give energy companies too much discretion.
Companies can get trade secret protection, for instance, simply by asserting that disclosure would hurt their business and showing that details about a chemical are not otherwise public. More than 100 such exemptions have been granted in Wyoming, though most of the exempt products haven’t been used, Doll said.
Advocates of disclosure say that, at a minimum, proprietary information should be on file with state regulators, as in Wyoming, so it can be accessed quickly in an emergency.
Federal law already requires chemical manufacturers to share trade secrets with health care providers in emergency situations, but getting the information into the public domain can be a slow process, said Daniel Teitelbaum, an adjunct professor of toxicology at the Colorado School of Mines.
“If you call someone on Saturday … it may be Tuesday before you can find someone who has the actual formula,” said Teitelbaum, who has worked for environmental groups on disclosure and chemical safety. “It is not a straightforward process by any means.”
On April 19, fracking fluids spilled during a blowout at a Chesapeake Energy well in Pennsylvania. While no one was directly injured, Brian Grove, a company spokesman, said a full ingredient list was provided to state regulators the following day and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a week after the spill. Chesapeake voluntarily posted the list to FracFocus on May 13.
The mixture of fluids used to fracture a well generally contains several different products, which themselves can contain multiple chemical ingredients. While the industry has used hundreds of chemicals to frack wells across the country, the mixture regularly includes ingredients such as hydrochloric acid, methanol, a disinfectant called glutaraldehyde and petroleum distillates.
These chemicals usually comprise a tiny fraction of the overall mix, but since wells are injected with millions of gallons of fluid, the mix can include thousands of gallons of a chemical that can be toxic at low doses.
Colborn and other toxicologists say one area of concern involves how “nonhazardous” chemicals are treated. Pennsylvania, Michigan and the FracFocus web site only disclose hazardous substances as determined by a product’s Material Safety Data Sheet.
Chemical manufacturers are required to list health hazards and ingredients that contribute to those hazards on these sheets, which are filed with the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration.
The sheets don’t have to list ingredients that are not considered hazardous, however, or chemicals that may damage the environment but haven’t been shown to harm humans. In determining what to report, manufacturers are not required to do their own testing and may rely on existing research that many toxicologists consider inadequate.
“We have just extraordinarily poor information on the whole portfolio of health effects that are possible from industrial chemicals,” said Michael Wilson, director of the Labor Occupational Health Program at the University of California, Berkeley. “In the great majority of cases, that information is not going to appear on a [Material Safety Data Sheet], in most cases because it’s not known.”
OSHA acknowledged as much in a 2004 report on chemical hazard communication. “Even the best available evidence may not provide sufficient information about the hazardous effects or the way to protect someone from experiencing them,” the report said. The report noted in particular a lack of research on chronic health effects.
Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, a drilling industry group, said chemical suppliers evaluate every product, so if an ingredient doesn’t make it onto an safety data sheet, it doesn’t pose a threat to human health. ”That’s why it’s nonhazardous,” he said.
There are more than 80,000 chemicals registered for commercial use with the EPA, and Wilson said there is enough research to identify potential hazards for less than 2 percent of them.
Researchers with TEDX, Colborn’s organization, have reviewed Material Safety Data Sheets for 980 products used in natural gas production and found that for more than 400 of them, manufacturers listed less than 1 percent of the product’s total composition.
“What’s there is what the product manufacturer wants you to know,” Colborn said. Without knowing all the ingredients, she said, it’s impossible to anticipate the chemical reactions that can occur as the products mix and react not only with each other but with whatever is present underground.
Colborn and others say that knowing the concentration or volume of the individual components is also important to measure toxicity, and because various concentrations may behave differently as chemicals break down and react with others underground.
Texas, Arkansas and Wyoming, while requiring disclosure of all chemicals used, do not require companies to provide the concentrations.
The federal government regulates oil and gas drilling only on federal lands, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in November that he was considering requiring disclosure of fracking fluids for wells under federal jurisdiction. No action has been taken so far.
Some environmental groups and members of Congress have pushed for a nationwide database. Currently, drillers are not required to report fracking chemicals to the federal government unless they contain diesel, but the proposed FRAC Act would require disclosure across the country.
So far, more than 40 oil and gas companies are voluntarily disclosing some of their chemicals on the FracFocus website. Using the site, anyone can identify individual wells and find out the hazardous chemicals that were injected into them, including the maximum concentration at which they were used.
Mike Paque, executive director of the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of state regulators that is overseeing the site, said the organization is discussing whether to expand the disclosures to include nonhazardous chemicals. The site does not list proprietary chemicals, although it notes when they are used. (See our annotated fracking disclosure form for a closer look.)
Five states have passed laws or administrative rules requiring drilling companies to reveal some of the chemicals they use when injecting fluids to free natural gas and oil from underground rock formations.
| State | What’s reported | Volume or concentration used |
Proprietary chemicals |
Posted online |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wyoming* | All chemicals used in fracking. | Volume and concentration of the products are disclosed, but not of individual ingredients in chemical mixtures. | Disclosed to regulators; secret to the public. | Yes, via state website. |
| Arkansas | All chemicals used in fracking. | No. | Exempt. | Yes, via state website. |
| Pennsylvania | All hazardous chemicals used at an individual well after fracking is complete. | For hazardous chemicals only. | Unclear.** | No; available by request. |
| Michigan | Must submit Material Safety Data Sheets for hazardous chemicals. | For hazardous chemicals only. | Exempt. | Yes, via state website. |
| Texas*** | All chemicals used in fracking. | For hazardous chemicals only. | To be determined. | Yes, via state website and FracFocus, an industry website. |
* Wyoming was the first state to require disclosure of fracking fluids.
** Pennsylvania officials did not return calls or e-mails seeking clarification.
*** The Texas legislature passed the law in May 2011, but state regulators have until 2013 to complete the actual rules.
Source: Reporting by Nicholas Kusnetz/ProPublica
June 16, 2011
‘Fracking’ for Natural Gas Continues to Raise Health Concerns | PBS NewsHour | June 15, 2011 | PBS.
Another “he said/she said” report. Check out the comments
June 16, 2011
COLUMN-Shale revolution hits snag along the Delaware: Kimmerle | Energy & Oil | Reuters.
— Chris Kimmerle is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own —
By Chris Kimmerle
NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) – Shale gas and hydraulic fracturing have transformed the U.S. gas market in less than five years and are now central to the administration’s strategy for reducing emissions, boosting energy security and improving the balance of payments by cutting reliance on imported oil.
But the transformative potential of these technologies is threatened by rapidly escalating political opposition to the environmental impact of drilling and potential chemical contamination from fracking fluids.
The flash point centers on the giant Marcellus Shale in the Northeastern United States, which covers portions of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and New York. (here)
Development is pitting the gas industry and communities anxious to benefit from jobs and the income from royalties and leases against environmental groups and residents concerned about increased traffic and the risks to the environment from the disposal of a cocktail of chemicals injected into gas wells as part of the fracking process.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
While the relatively poor state of West Virginia has welcomed shale development as a way to supplement income and jobs from its troubled coal industry, opposition has mounted in other states.
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection called for a prohibition on drilling within the watershed of the city’s reservoir system in December 2009, and the governor of Pennsylvania banned new wells on state forest lands in 2010.
Last month, the speaker of the New York State Assembly announced the Environmental Conservation Committee had reported out legislation to suspend the issuance of new drilling permits for hydraulic fracturing in the state until June 2012.
But one of the most serious public challenges to drilling in the Marcellus has come from grass roots opposition to regulations being proposed by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC).
The commission regulates water use and quality along the Delaware River under a 1961 compact among the states of Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania and the Federal Government. Its commissioners are the governors of the four riparian states as well as division engineer for the North East Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (here)
In May 2009, the commission notified the natural gas industry that new Marcellus wells cannot be drilled within the river’s drainage area without first applying for and obtaining its approval. At the same time the commission released a set of proposed development rules as part of its water quality regulations.
The regulations are intended to protect the river’s water resources and apply to all gas-development activities including withdrawing water from the river system and the disposal of wastewater (including fracking fluids) from fracking projects.
The public comment period on the proposed regulations, which closed on April 15, drew a heavy response with approximately 58,000 public submissions received, of which more than 36,000 were hostile to the further expansion of Marcellus drilling.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
The combination of shale gas discoveries and the hydraulic fracturing process, which makes it possible to exploit them, has probably been the most important new development in the oil and gas industry in last decade.
The revolution began with exploitation of the Barnett Shale under the Texas city of Fort Worth in the late 1990s. It has since spread to the Greater Green River Basin in Wyoming, the Uinta-Picenance Basin in Colorado and Utah, the Haynesville Shale stretching across the Texas-Louisiana border, the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma, and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas. (here)
Production from unconventional shale reservoirs has leapt from 0.39 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to 1.3 trillion in 2007, 3.1 trillion in 2009 and 4.87 trillion in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration. It now accounts for 23 percent of all gas production in the United States.
Burgeoning shale production has transformed the outlook for the U.S. gas market. In 2005, the Hirsch Report for the U.S. Department of Energy forecast “Gas production in the United States now appears to be in permanent decline” and a period of rising gas prices.
Gas companies built a raft of regasification terminals to import LNG to alleviate predicted shortfalls in domestic production. Now surging output has caused prices to fall sharply and the gas companies are applying for permits to reverse the LNG terminals and use them to export domestic production.
Shale technology is now being deployed around the world and has effectively doubled the global resource base for natural gas. As a result, the International Energy Agency expects gas will play a much greater role in the global energy mix in future, according to a recent report in which it asked “Are we entering a golden age of gas?”
But that technological revolution has now run into an unexpected problem: mounting concerns about the content and disposal of fluids used.
CHEMICAL COCKTAIL
Key to winning natural gas from low permeable shale is hydraulic fracturing, a process that involves the injection of typically 1-4 million gallons of water at high pressure into a well in order to break the rock and allow gas to follow.
The water is combined with sand, chemicals, and gels to lubricate the process and help keep the rock open after it is broken. During the fracking process the fluid is returned to the surface for recirculation and ultimate disposal.
Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas industry introduced 780 million gallons of fracking fluid into U.S. wells, according to a staff report issued by the Democratic minority on the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives.
According to the report, the fracking fluids used contained a total 750 chemicals and other components. The most widely used chemical, as measured by frequency of use, was methanol – designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a hazardous air pollutant and candidate for inclusion on the list of regulated substances under the U.S. Safe Water Drinking Act.
Other widely used chemicals included benzene, lead, isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol (also used as a paint solvent and in cleaning products) and ethylene glycol (also used in automotive antifreeze).
The report identified 29 chemicals used in fracking that are known or possible carcinogens and regulated under the Safe Water Drinking Act or listed as hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
It also identified 94 million gallons of fracking fluid that contained at least one chemical or component that its manufacturer deemed proprietary or a trade secret and is not available for public scrutiny.
POLITICAL CONTEXT
The unconventional gas revolution was born in the belt of midcontinental and western states stretching up to Wyoming where there was a favorable political, business and regulatory environment for energy producers. Shale production was welcomed as creating jobs and generating state and local tax revenues.
The political context in the Northeast is very different. The region has a broader economic base so it is less dependent on the energy sector for jobs and tax revenue. It also has poisonous legacy of 250 years of heavy industrial development along some of its rivers, including abandoned oil wells, acid drainage from abandoned coal mines, underground fires in the anthracite field and industrial pollution.
In New York state, the upper Hudson River is contaminated with PCBs (a known carcinogen) and the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia remains scarred by the legacy of steelmaking and bituminous coal extraction industries.
Unsurprisingly, these states are more divided about shale development. The Delaware is part of the country’s Wild and Scenic Rivers System and provides drinking water for over 15 million people including the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan regions.
Coming from the more benign climate in the south, southwest, and west the industry appears to have been blindsided by the extent of local opposition. In a belated attempt to reverse industry groups have saturated local television and radio with advertisements extolling the virtues of oil and gas.
Even if the commission gives its approval, the lack of an environmental impact assessment is likely to form the basis for a court challenge. Litigation may delay implementation for 2-3 years, and open up fracking practices to greater scrutiny. (Editing by John Kemp and Marguerita Choy)
© Thomson Reuters 2011 All rights reserved
June 13, 2011
Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.
![]()
On May 5, 2011, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu charged the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee to make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations. Secretary Chu extended the Subcommittee membership beyond SEAB members to include the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts. The Subcommittee is supported by the Departments of Energy and Interior, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
President Obama directed Secretary Chu to form the Natural Gas Subcommittee as part of the President’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” – a comprehensive plan to reduce America’s oil dependence, save consumers money, and make our country the leader in clean energy industries.
The Subcommittee will conduct a review, and will work to identify any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing. They will also develop advice for the agencies on shale extraction practices that ensure protection of public health and the environment.
Notice of Public Meeting
The SEAB Natural Gas Subcommittee will hold a public meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011, at Washington Jefferson College in Washington, Pennsylvania.
View the event live via webcast beginning at 7PM EDT.
| For Immediate Release
June 15, 2010 |
Mike Morosi (Hinchey) – (202) 225-6335 Matt Dennis (Lowey) – (202) 225-6506 |
Appropriations Committee Republicans Block Lowey-Hinchey Amendment
to Prevent Increased Financial Conflicts of Interest on
U.S. Department Of Energy-Sponsored Fracking Panel
On a Party Line Vote, Committee Rejects Lowey-Hinchey
Amendment to Make Shale Gas Panel Unbiased and Impartial
Washington, DC – House Appropriations Committee Republicans today rejected an amendment offered by Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would have prevented natural gas industry executives from serving on what is supposed to be a neutral federal advisory panel on shale gas drilling. The Lowey-Hinchey amendment would have eliminated report language authored by House Republicans that would force the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to have at least one-third of the members on the newly-created Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board be shale gas industry representatives.
The Lowey-Hinchey amendment was offered during a markup of the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill and was rejected by the Republican majority on the Appropriations Committee in a party line vote. Currently, the DOE has filled six of the seven panel slots, including the chairman position, with individuals who have financial ties to companies involved with hydraulic fracturing operations. The Republican measure, which Lowey and Hinchey were unable to overcome, would require the DOE to replace or add panel members with individuals who are employed by the very shale gas industry the panel is supposed to independently assess.
“It is outrageous that the Republican majority opposed our common-sense effort to ensure members of federal advisory boards are unbiased and without conflicts of interest,” said Lowey. “Allowing the shale gas industry to put a thumb on the scale of this board makes it more likely that the decisions it makes will focus more on profits and less on the safety of our water sources, Americans’ health, and environmental preservation.”
“Federal advisory boards are supposed to be unbiased, impartial bodies that advise our agencies, but almost everyone who currently serves on the shale gas advisory panel has direct financial ties to the oil and shale gas industry,” said Hinchey. “Now the Republican majority is calling for an even greater bias by requiring that one-third of the panel work directly on behalf of the shale gas industries. This isn’t an honest effort to give industry a seat at the table. Instead, it’s a blatant attempt to rig the decisions of the panel in favor of industry and against the safety and security of our environment, drinking water and public health.”
A number of recent reports and incidents are raising serious concerns about hydraulic fracturing. A study by researchers at Duke University found a statistically significant correlation between methane contamination of drinking water wells and their proximity to shale gas drilling sites. On April 20th of this year thousands of gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid spilled into the Susquehanna River watershed, following a major fracking well blowout in Leroy Township, PA.
The text of the amendment, which was rejected on a party line vote follows:
Pages 99 and 100, strike ‘‘The Committee is concerned that the selected panel members will not adequately represent industry perspectives, and therefore will not foster a spirit of partnership among industry, environmental, and governmental parties. In order to strengthen these partnerships and industry support for any subsequent recommendations, no less than one-third of panel members should be industry representatives who actively work in the shale gas industry. Further, the’’ and insert ‘‘The’’.
June 9, 2011
What will we say when our grandchildren ask us the names of the departed? Or, by then, will the loss of favorite animals be the least of our worries?
To Despair or Not to Despair, That Is the Question
What do you think? Is confronting climate change the moral issue of our time?
• Or should we make like a polar bear and adapt? After all, the planet may warm and seas may rise and crops may fail, but surely some humans–at least the fittest (and richest)–will survive.
• Or is such grim optimism too complacent–and complicit?
We invite you to share your thoughts. E-mail despairnot@inthesetimes.com. Please include your phone number and address. The In These Times Board of Editors will compile your contributions, which will be published in an upcoming issue of In These Times or at http://www.InTheseTimes.com.
In Alton, Ill., downstream from Peoria, the Illinois River town where I grew up, the abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy was pumped full of bullets on a dark November night by a mob intent on silencing the man once and for all. On this evening, they succeeded.
By dawn, Elijah was dead, and his printing press—the means by which he distributed his radical ideas—lay at the bottom of the Mississippi River. The year was 1837. The Rev. Lovejoy, a Presbyterian minister who attended Princeton Theological Seminary, was buried on this 35th birthday.
But the story doesn’t end there.
Almost immediately, membership in antislavery societies across the nation swelled. Vowing to carry on the work of his fallen friend, Edward Beecher, president of Illinois College in Jacksonville, threw himself into abolitionist efforts and, in so doing, inspired his sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe, who went on to write the most famous abolitionist treatise of all: Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Meanwhile, Elijah’s brother, Owen Lovejoy, turned his own house into a station along the Underground Railroad. Owen went on to win a seat in Congress and, along the way, befriended a young Illinois politician by the name of Abraham Lincoln.
These facts impressed me as a child.
When I read Reverend Lovejoy’s biography as a grown-up and mother, I found other things impressive. Such as the fact that, at the time of his assassination, Elijah had a young family. And yet, in the weeks before his death—when it became clear that the mob pursuing him was growing bolder by the hour—he did not desist from speaking out against slavery. So Elijah declared in one of his final speeches:
While all around me is violence and tumult, all is peace within…. I sleep sweetly and undisturbed, except when awakened by the brickbats of the mob.
Truly? With a pregnant wife in the bed next to him and a 1-year-old son in the next room? He wasn’t worried?
A letter to his mother in Maine tells a more nuanced story:
Still I cannot but feel that it is harder to “fight valiantly for the truth” when I risk not only my own comfort, ease, and reputation, and even life, but also that of another beloved one.
And then there’s this poignant aside:
I have a family who are dependent on me… And this is it that adds the bitterest ingredient to the cup of sorrow I am called to drink.
Here’s something else that I’ve noticed while reading his words. To the slave owners and murderous thugs, Elijah spoke calmly. He reserved his fierce language for the members of the community who gladly lived in the free state of Illinois but wished to remain above the fray: the ones who added their signatures to a resolution asking him to cease publication of his newspaper and leave town, but would not sign a resolution that urged protection of law against mob rule; the ones who agreed that slavery was a homicidal abomination but who feared that emancipation without recompense to slave owners for loss of property would be socially destabilizing; the ones who believed themselves upstandingly moral but who chose to remain silent about the great moral crisis of the day.
In the spirit of Elijah Lovejoy—the man who is the namesake of my 9-year-old son—the time has come for outspoken, full-throated heroism in the face of the great moral issue of our own day: the environmental crisis—an unfolding calamity whose main victims are our own children and grandchildren.
In fact, the environmental crisis is actually two crises, although they share a common cause. You could view it as a tree with two main branches: One branch represents what is happening to our planet through the atmospheric accumulation of heat-trapping gases (most notably, carbon dioxide and methane). The second branch represents what is happening to us through the accumulation of inherently toxic chemical pollutants in our bodies.
Follow the first branch and you find droughts, floods, acidifying oceans, dissolving coral reefs and faltering plankton stocks (the oceans’ plankton provides half of our atmospheric oxygen supply). Follow the second branch and you find pesticides in children’s urine, lungs stunted by air pollutants, abbreviated pregnancies, altered hormone levels and lower scores on cognitive tests.
The trunk of this tree is an economic dependency on fossil fuels, primarily coal (plant fossils) and petroleum and natural gas (animal fossils). When we light them on fire, we threaten the global ecosystem. When we use them as feedstocks for making stuff, we create substances—pesticides, solvents, plastics—that can tinker with our subcellular machinery and various signaling pathways that make it run.
Biologist Rachel Carson first called our attention to these manifold dangers in her 1962 book, Silent Spring. She wrote, “Future generations are unlikely to condone our lack of prudent concern for the integrity of the natural world that supports all life.” Since then, the scientific evidence for the disintegration of our world has become irrefutable, and members of the future generations to whom she was referring are now occupying our homes.
They are our kids.
I mean this in the most basic ways. When my son Elijah, at age 4, asked to be a polar bear for Halloween, I sewed a polar bear costume—and I did so with the full knowledge that his costume might outlast the species. No other generation of mothers before mine has ever borne such knowledge—nor wondered if we should share this terrible news with our children. Or not. It’s a novel situation. Indeed, according to the most recent assessment, one in every four mammal species (and one in every three marine animals) is now threatened with extinction, including that icon of Halloween itself: the little brown bat. Thus, animal costumes whose real-life correspondents have been wiped from Earth may well become commonplace.
This leads me to wonder: What will we say when our grandchildren ask us the names of the departed? When bats, bees, butterflies, whales, polar bears and elephants disappear, will children still read books about them? Will they want to dress up as vanished species? Or, by then, will the loss of favorite animals be the least of their worries?
Chronic childhood diseases linked to toxic chemical exposures are rising in prevalence. Here are a few of the current trends:
• 1 in 8 U.S. children is born prematurely. Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in the first months of life and the leading cause of disability. Its price tag is $26 billion per year in medical costs, special services and lost productivity. Preterm birth has demonstrable links to air pollution, especially maternal exposure to fine particles and combustion byproducts of the type released from coal-burning power plants.
• 1 in 11 U.S. children has asthma, the most common chronic childhood disease and a leading cause of school absenteeism. Asthma symptoms have been linked to certain ingredients in plastic (phthalates) as well as outdoor air pollution, including traffic exhaust. The annual cost of childhood asthma is estimated at $18 billion. Its incidence has doubled since 1980.
• 1 in 10 U.S. children has a learning disability, and nearly 1 in 10 has attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. All together, special education services now consume 22 percent of U.S. school spending—about $77.3 billion per year at last count. Neurodevelopmental disorders have significant associations with exposures to air pollution, organophosphate pesticides like diazinon, and the heavy metals lead, mercury, and arsenic, among others.
• 1 in 110 children has autism or is on the autism spectrum. Annual costs are $35 billion. Causes are unknown, but exposure to chemical agents in early pregnancy is one of several suspected contributors.
• 1 in 10 U.S. white girls and 1 in 5 U.S. black girls begin breast development before the age of eight. On average, breast development begins nearly two years earlier (age 9) than it did in the early 1960s (age 11). A risk factor for breast cancer in adulthood, early puberty in girls is associated with increasing body fat as well as exposure to some hormonally active chemical agents known as “estrogen mimickers.” We have no cost estimates for the shortened childhoods of girls.
All together, asthma, behavioral problems, intellectual impairments and preterm birth are among the “new morbidities of childhood.” So concludes a 2006 federally funded investigation of pediatric environmental health. Ironically, by becoming so familiar a presence among children, these disorders now appear almost normal or inevitable. And yet, with an entirely different chemical regulatory system, farm bill and energy policy, their prevalence might be much reduced.
The fact that we do not identify and abolish hormone-disrupting, brain-damaging chemicals to which children are routinely exposed raises profound ethical questions. The authors of the pediatric health investigation, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, put it this way:
In the absence of toxicity testing, we are inadvertently employing pregnant women and children as uninformed subjects to warn us of new environmental toxicants. … Paradoxically, because industry is not obligated to supply the data on developmental neurotoxicity, the costs of human disease, research, and prevention are socialized whereas the profits are privatized.
In the absence of federal policies that protect child development and the ecology of the planet on which our children’s lives depend, we parents have to serve as our own regulatory agencies and departments of interior.
Already manically busy, we are encouraged by popular media reports to read labels, consult websites, vet the contents of birthday party goody bags, shrink our carbon footprints, mix our own nontoxic cleaning products, challenge our school districts to embrace pesticide-free soccer fields and limit the number of ounces of mercury-laced tuna fish consumed by each child per week.
June 9, 2011
July 21-July 22, 2011 Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY
2011 Finger Lakes Environment and Development Conference:
Proactive Approaches to Managing Impacts of Marcellus Shale Development
Hosted by Hobart and William Smith CollegesAbout the Conference
This 2-day conference will provide education, information resources, and practical knowledge regarding potential costs and benefits of shale gas development in NY, for the purpose of facilitating informed decision-making by individuals, non-profit organizations, municipalities, health professionals, planners and their counsel. Registration Fee includes meals, on campus parking and printed conference materials.
Keynote Speaker: John H. Quigley
Principal of John H. Quigley LLC, Strategic Advisor to Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture), and former Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural ResourcesAdditional Speakers:
James Dunne Ph.D., Director of Property Tax Research, NYS Department of Taxation and Finance
Rachel Treichler, J.D.
Christopher Denton, J.D.
Richard Lippes, J.D. – Legal Advisor, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter
Meghan Thoreau – Planner, Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board
Erica Levine Powers, Esq. (J.D., LL.M. Taxation); Adjunct Faculty, Planning Law and Environmental Law at University at Albany
Stuart Gruskin, J.D., former Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental ConservationAgenda Items:
Thursday, July 21
Introduction to Hydraulic Fracturing and Regulatory Background in NY State
-Implications of state and local tax structure for maximizing benefits of Marcellus Shale developmentEconomic Impacts of Unconventional Shale Gas Development
-Implications of state and local tax structure for maximizing benefits of Marcellus Shale developmentHealth Impacts of Hydrofracking
Shale Gas Development and Municipal/Regional Planning
-Protecting roads and Watersheds using home rule
-Municipal planning and preventing negative impacts of shale gas developmentA Best Practices Approach to Managing Shale Gas Development
Friday, July 22
Proactive steps for landowners and their counselPrimer on the revised Draft Supplementary Generic EIS/or what the EIS doesn’t regulate
Avoiding common pitfalls of the oil and gas lease
Local approaches to protecting watersheds, parks, and municipal interests
Discussion about response to DGEIS
-Protection of water sources (surface and ground)
-Protection of air quality
-Accident/spill reporting, response, and liabilityProfessional Credits
Conference coordinators are in the process of applying for approval for CLE credits for attorneys and CM credits for planners. Contact Sarah Meyer at smeyer@hws.edu to indicate interest and to obtain the status of credit availability and cost.Overnight Accommodations
Limited campus housing is available to participants and can be added ($30 per person) to your registration fee at check out. Alternative overnight accommodations in Geneva, NY include the Hampton Inn, Ramada Inn, Belhurst Castle, Geneva On The Lake, Microtel Inn and Suites, Days Inn, and others.Event Sponsors
Finger Lakes Institute
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance
June 5, 2011
Hunting club contends with spring water contaminations from gas drilling.

Spring water, cold as winter and clear as a windowpane, gushes out of mossy ground in a clearing sprinkled with blooms of forget-me-not next to Stone Camp, the home of the Sykesville Hunting Club in the Moshannon State Forest.
The bubbling flow has attracted generations of folks from Clearfield County and beyond, but staked into the ground now is a homemade sign bearing the warning: “Contaminated Water.”
The sign seems out of place. Larry Righi certainly thinks so, even though he had a hand in putting it up months after a torn liner under one or more EOG Resources Marcellus Shale drill cuttings pits allowed leakage that contaminated groundwater feeding the spring almost two years ago.
Mr. Righi, a longtime member of the local landmark Sykesville Hunting Club like his father before him, hopes new water test results will soon give a clean bill of health to the spring, which is the club’s only water source.
“We just want to be made whole, to get assurances that the contamination is gone and won’t be back and the water is good to drink again,” said Mr. Righi, whose hunting club has held a “permanent camp” lease since 1920 on a fraction of an acre in the 300-square-mile state forest.
“And we want to get the word out because there’s lots of camps up here in the woods. … because these drilling rigs are going to be in your backyard sooner or later.”
Local watering hole
It’s known as Reeds Spring on maps detailing the green expanses of the Moshannon State Forest, and it boils out of the ground into a large pothole of a pool before sloshing down a 1-foot-wide, 50-yard-long channel to a small creek, Alex Branch. The Alex Branch is a tributary of Trout Run, one of the area’s better fishing creeks, which flows into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.
“The spring was a major stopping point. Surrounding hunting camps came here to fill their water jugs, and it was a way to meet guys from other camps,” said Tony Zaffuto, a Sykesville Hunting Club member who is originally from that Jefferson County town and now lives in DuBois, Clearfield County. “It was not unusual for people to be lined up for the water with their plastic jugs.”
The spring’s contamination brings into focus the concerns of many hunting camp owners, rural residents and environmentalists about the potential for groundwater contamination from development of the gassy Marcellus Shale.
That thick layer of black, 400-million-year-old sedimentary rock underlies about two-thirds of Pennsylvania and holds the potential to provide heretofore untapped energy, job growth and economic benefits. But its development also comes with significant risks to the state’s water resources. Hundreds of spills, leaks, seeps, overflows and blowouts at Marcellus Shale well drilling sites and wastewater reservoirs over the last five years have contaminated groundwater and streams with chemicals and gases.
Sometimes those risks are hard to ignore. In June 2010, a “blowout” at a Marcellus gas well operated by EOG Resources (formerly Enron Oil and Gas), less than a mile from Stone Camp on forested land owned by the Punxsutawney Hunting Camp and in the same well field where the drill cutting pit leaked, spewed at least 35,000 gallons of brine and toxic fluids from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, into the air for 16 hours. The DEP shut down the company’s drilling operations for 40 days statewide, and six weeks later, fined EOG and a drilling contractor a total of $400,000.
But often the leaks, overflows and spills are much less obvious, though still locally devastating.
In August 2009, Nancy Potts’ brother, Sam, a stonemason, was hired by the Sykesville Hunting Club to re-point the 90-year-old, two-story flagstone cabin built by the grandfathers and fathers of many of the current club members on the permanent camp lease in the state forest.
“After working at the camp, Sam called me up and said the water tasted funny,” said Ms. Potts, who has tested water affected by acid mine drainage in Clearfield County for 10 years as part of the Senior Environmental Corps and now is on the lookout for new threats to the water in the woodlands she calls the “Marcellus State Forest,” in reference to Moshannon.
“They found out about the spring’s contamination by accident,” she said, “No one — from the driller or the state Department of Environmental Protection — came to tell them.”
Shortly after the stonemason’s alert, Mr. Righi also noticed something different in the water at Stone Camp. “I was washing dishes and discovered an oily substance,” he said. “I couldn’t get them clean.”
Mr. Righi called the DEP and on Aug. 25, 2009, the agency performed the first of eight water quality tests it would do at the spring over the next 16 months. The tests found higher than healthy levels of manganese, aluminum, barium, sodium, strontium, chloride and total dissolved solids. The test results show those chemical pollutants spiked to as much as 200 times safe drinking water standards in the fall of 2009 before starting to gradually decline.
But the DEP still didn’t know what caused the contamination.
In September, Mr. Zaffuto said he was talking to an EOG driller who told him the rocky ground on the Punxsutawney Hunting Camp property had caused pit liners to tear under three of five ponds that held drilling waste.
“They knew, but EOG didn’t notify the camp members or the DEP,” said Mr. Zaffuto, who notes that he continues to support Marcellus Shale development if it’s done right.
Investigations by the DEP and the state Fish and Boat Commission subsequently determined that several accidental discharges of contaminated water and fluids at EOG’s Marcellus operations — including leakage from the pit over a two-month period from August through October 2009 — had caused the contamination of Reeds Spring.
A small hole in a drilling wastewater hose that, according to the Fish and Boat Commission settlement report, allowed gas and flowback water to leak and percolate onto the ground and into Little Laurel Run from June 3 through Aug. 16 also may have contributed to the contamination at the spring and in the creek. EOG reported another accident on Oct. 12, 2009, when almost 8,000 gallons of water and fracking fluids leaked from a tank and into the Alex Branch and Trout Run.
In a DEP consent agreement of Aug. 31, 2010, settling the pollution charges from all three accidental discharges, EOG paid a penalty of $30,000. Just five weeks ago, EOG agreed to pay the Fish and Boat Commission a $208,625 settlement in lieu of civil damages for its pollution of Alex Run, Little Laurel Run, both designated “High Quality” trout waters, and Reeds Spring. EOG paid $99,125 of that for damaging the spring.
K Leonard, an EOG spokeswoman, declined to provide information on the company’s Marcellus drilling operations in Clearfield county, but issued a statement that says the company is “committed to conducting its operations in a safe and environmental responsible manner,” and “if issues arise, the company proactively works with the regulatory agencies to address the issue in ways that are appropriate and reasonable.”
Since the problems in Clearfield County, EOG has changed the way it stores drilling cuttings and contaminated flowback water. EOG dug up the contaminated soil around the leaking waste pit and filled in others. It has stopped using in-ground pits to store drilling cuttings and employs a “closed loop” drilling process that stores cuttings in metal containers that are trucked to state-approved landfills, and collects drilling mud and fluids in above-ground metal containers then reuses it at other wells.
EOG operates approximately 265 active wells in Pennsylvania, 117 of which are in the Marcellus Shale formation.
Inside the Stone Camp, where mounted deer heads, grainy group portraits of club members and topographic maps are the preferred wall art, the framed, original lease for the camp is displayed in a place of honor on the mantle above the big stone fireplace. The lease bears the signature of Gifford Pinchot, then the state’s forest commissioner, who had been the first supervisor of the U.S. Forest Service from 1905 through 1910 under President Theodore Roosevelt and later served two terms as governor of Pennsylvania.
But the report detailing the latest DEP water sampling results at Reeds Spring in February is at least as valuable. It found sodium, calcium, manganese and aluminum in much reduced concentrations, though still slightly above drinking water standards in the spring.
Outside, in the clearing rimmed by white pine and hemlock, the spring appears to be well on its way to washing through the contaminated slug of groundwater, but Mr. Zaffuto said other springs could be at risk.
“A $100,000 penalty is nothing to drilling firms,” he said. “Drillers spill and it’s ignored or goes undiscovered. What are the assurances this isn’t happening elsewhere?”
Mr. Righi said he recommended at a recent meeting of the Four Mile Road Camp Owners Association that camp owners get their water tested before drilling begins.
“They should be testing for everything so they have a baseline in case something happens to their wells or springs,” he said.
As he walked around the spring, a pickup truck stopped on the forest road nearby. Fred Fletcher, who belongs to three hunting camps in the forest nearby and closer to where new well drilling is about to start, ambled over to the spring, and noticed the sign.
“We’re a little concerned, too,” said Mr. Fletcher, 73, adding that an EOG well is planned for 250 yards from the camp that bears his family’s name.
“The drilling is happening all over the place and people are concerned about the water.”
June 4, 2011
BP, Colorado wildlife officials reach agreement | The Associated Press | News | Washington Examiner.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife and BP America Production Co. have reached an agreement on lessening the impacts of natural-gas drilling on wildlife.
Under the agreement announced Thursday, BP will purchase private holdings suitable as wildlife habitat in exchange for drilling rights elsewhere.
Division of Wildlife spokesman Joe Lewandowski tells The Durango Herald that only willing sellers will be sought. He says the agreement applies largely to La Plata and Archuleta counties in southwest Colorado.
The agreement streamlines the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission permitting process by allowing energy companies to sign agreements with the wildlife division to address many drilling sites at one time instead of piecemeal.
BP will contribute $475,000 over the next six years for studies evaluating the effects of natural gas development on wildlife.
___
Information from: Durango Herald, http://www.durangoherald.com