Fracking in the Foodshed Martha Goodsell, Christine Applegate
May 31, 2011
https://acrobat.com/#d=RF- gWpS33h7fE1A5ic0iwg.
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
May 31, 2011
https://acrobat.com/#d=RF- gWpS33h7fE1A5ic0iwg.
May 31, 2011
BBC News – Blackpool Shale Gas drilling suspended after quake.
Shale gas drilling is controversialShale gas test drilling in Lancashire has been suspended following an earthquake on the Fylde coast.
A spokeswoman for Cuadrilla, the company carrying out the tests, said drilling was suspended as a precaution after Friday’s 1.5 magnitude quake.
“No fracking will be resumed until the data has been interpreted by ourselves in consultations with the British Geological Survey (BGS),” she added.
On 1 April a 2.2 magnitude tremor also centred on Poulton-le-Fylde.
Shale gas drilling, known as “fracking”, involves shattering hard shale rocks underground to release gas using either hydraulic pressure or tiny explosions.
It has proved a controversial process in the US with environmentalists alleging that shale gas leaking into their drinking supply causes tap water to ignite.
But earlier this month the Commons energy select committee called on ministers to support the process in the UK arguing that environmental problems associated with it in the US could be overcome by tight regulation and good industry practice.
‘Quake risk’The BGS said it was also monitoring fracking as a precaution. There have been two small earthquakes in Lancashire since fracking began in the county in March.
In an analysis of the April quake published on its website the BGS said: “Any process that injects pressurised water into rocks at depth will cause the rock to fracture and possibly produce earthquakes.
“It is well known that injection of water or other fluids during the oil extraction and geothermal engineering, such as Shale gas, processes can result in earthquake activity.”
The BGS said the April tremor took place 1.2 miles (2km) away from the drilling site but said its monitoring instruments were 50 miles (80km) away.
“Instrumentation much closer to the site, as well as a detailed record of dates and times of injection are required to identify any relationship between the injection process and any seismic activity in future,” the BGS said.
May 27, 2011
The Potential Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
Testimony before the New York State Assembly Standing Committees
on Environmental Conservation and Health
May 26, 2011
Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.
Distinguished Scholar in Residence
Department of Environmental Studies
Ithaca College
Ithaca, New York 14850
Chairman Sweeney, Chairman Gottfried, and distinguished members of the committees:
Thank you for convening this hearing on a topic that is of urgent concern to all New Yorkers. Hydraulic fracturing relies on pressure, water, and high volumes of inherently toxic chemicals to shatter the bedrock beneath our feet and beneath our drinking water aquifers. Once shattered, the bedrock releases more than just bubbles of natural gas. The rock itself releases inherently toxic materials that have been bound together with the shale for 400 million of years. As we, in New York, consider whether to permit or prohibit this form of energy extraction, it is essential that we understand the possible consequences to public health as a prerequisite for making that decision. Once shale is shattered, it cannot be unshattered, nor groundwater unpoisoned.
Some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing—or liberated by it—are carcinogens. Some are neurological poisons with suspected links to learning deficits in children. Some are asthma triggers. Some, especially the radioactive ones, are known to bioaccumulate in milk. Others are reproductive toxicants that can contribute to pregnancy loss. Cancer, miscarriage, learning disabilities, and asthma are not only devastating disorders, they are expensive. They add rocks to the pockets of our health care system and cripple productivity.[1] A recent analysis published in our nation’s preeminent public health journal, Health Affairs, estimates that we now spend $76.6 billion each year on health care for children exposed to toxic chemicals and air pollution.[2]
So it is right that we ask if hydraulic fracturing brings with it involuntary environmental exposures that may increase our disease burden here in New York. I applaud you for initiating this conversation. It feels like an historic moment.
My name is Sandra Steingraber. I’m a distinguished scholar in residence at Ithaca College, and my Ph.D. is in biology from the University of Michigan. More specifically, my training is in systems ecology, which means I’m interested in understanding how a dynamic web of direct and indirect interactions—from pollination to groundwater flow—helps shape the natural world.
Early on in my career as a biologist, I had a profound personal experience that led me to the work I do now, which is focused on understanding how the cumulative impacts of multiple environmental exposures to toxic chemicals create risks for human health.
At the age of 20, I was diagnosed with bladder cancer, a quintessential environmental cancer with well-established links to particular classes of chemicals. Questions about my possible chemical exposures posed to me by my own diagnosing physician led me, years later, to return to my hometown in Illinois and investigate an alleged cancer cluster there. Among other things, I discovered the presence of dry-cleaning fluid in the drinking water wells. That was a surprise because the underlying geology of the area should not have allowed toxic contamination to happen. But there it was. I came to appreciate how little we really know about the unmapped, subterranean landscape below our feet, which has intimate, unseen connections to the world above ground. It’s not just an inert lump of rock down there.
My investigation of the environmental links to cancer became the topic of my book Living Downstream, which was released last year as a documentary film. I’ve also published two books on pediatric environmental health, the most recent of which is Raising Elijah: Protecting Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis. The book’s final chapter addresses the potential health threats of hydraulic fracturing, and I’m pleased to share the results of my research with you.
I’ll begin by saying that a comprehensive study of the long-term, cumulative, public health impacts of fracking has not been done. However, we do know quite a lot about the risks to human health posed by some of the chemicals used in the process or released by it.
Health Effects from Air Pollution
Because breathing is our most ecological act—we inhale a pint of atmosphere with every breath—I’ll begin with air.
Air pollution is an inevitable consequence of horizontal hydrofracturing. It is not the outcome of a catastrophic accident. It is not a hypothetical risk. Compromised air quality is a certainty. Because four to nine million gallons of fresh water are required to frack a single well and because wells must cover the landscape for Marcellus shale development to be profitable, fracking is a shock and awe operation. 77,000 wells are envisioned for upstate New York alone.[3] Each well requires 1,000 truck trips. 77,000 times 1,000 equals a number with six zeroes after it. This represents a prodigious amount of diesel exhaust. And, of course, in addition to endless fleets of 18-wheelers, gas production requires generators, pumps, drill rigs, condensers and compressors, which also run on diesel. At the same time, the wellheads themselves vent volatile organic chemicals—such as benzene and toluene—that are themselves highly toxic and can combine with combustion byproducts to create smog.[4]
This kind of air pollution is lethal. It contains large amounts of ultrafine particles, soot, ozone, and the carcinogen benzo-a-pyrene. In adults, these pollutants are variously linked to bladder, lung, and breast cancer, stroke, diabetes, and premature death. In children, they are linked to premature birth, asthma, cognitive deficits, and stunted lung development.[5]
Again, this harm comes with economic costs. Premature birth, which is the leading cause of disability in the United States, carries $26 billion a year price tag. The direct and indirect costs of childhood asthma are $18 billion a year.[6]
What’s more, the airborne contaminants from gas drilling travel long distances, up to 200 miles.[7] That is to say, the health costs of drilling will be borne by children living in areas where no one is benefiting financially from land leases. Albany will be affected. So will New York City.
In the gas-producing areas of Utah and Wyoming, formerly pristine air now contains more ozone than downtown Los Angeles.[8] As the mother of a child with a history of asthma, this concerns me deeply. New York is not Wyoming. Our starting point here is not pristine, and our population density is much greater. The cumulative impact of the air pollution that would be generated by hydraulic fracturing and the air pollution already here in our state is a question that, I submit, requires investigation before any permits are issued.
Health Effects from Water Pollution
We are each of us in this room 65 percent water by weight. As such, we enjoy an exquisite communion not only with the atmosphere but with the water cycle, too.
Fracking turns millions of gallons of fresh water into poisonous flowback fluid that requires permanent disposal. The technology does not exist to turn this waste into drinkable water nor remove the radioactive isotopes. You cannot filter radioactivity. This much we know with certainty. The unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan illustrates the point.
We also know that there are many documented cases of surface and ground water contamination with compounds associated with gas extraction, including the carcinogen benzene.[9] However, because hydraulic fracturing has been granted the environmental equivalent of diplomatic immunity—and enjoys special exemptions from both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act—it is difficult for those of us in the research community to quantify the public health consequences. Researchers lack knowledge about the behavior of groundwater, and, because of trade secrets, they also don’t know what chemicals to test for.[10]
We do know, from a study released earlier this month, that drinking water wells near gas extraction sites in Pennsylvania and New York have, on average, 17 times higher methane levels than wells located farther away.[11]
Other than possible explosions, what are the health consequences of drinking and inhaling methane? For pregnant women? For children? For anybody? We don’t know. Those studies have never been done. The federal government does not regulate methane in drinking water.
We do know that disinfection byproducts are created when water containing carbon-based contaminants is chlorinated. These include trihalomethanes, such as chloroform, which are, in fact, linked to both bladder and colon and cancers.[12] Can methane serve as a raw material for the creation of carcinogenic compounds during the disinfection of public drinking water? To my knowledge, we in the scientific community don’t have an answer to that question.
I have brought with me a jar of water from my kitchen tap in the village of Trumansburg, which comes from a municipal well sunk into a groundwater aquifer next to Cayuga Lake, where fracking fluid from Pennsylvania has been dumped. Every day, I pour this water into glasses and hand them to my children. Every day, this water becomes their blood plasma. It becomes their tears. It becomes their cerebral spinal fluid. According to the most recent annual Drinking Water Quality Report for my village, this water contains 29.2 parts per billion trihalomethanes. That’s not in violation of regulatory limits, but it’s worrisome as there is no documented safe threshold level of exposure. This water also contains nitrates, probably as the result of agricultural run-off. Their presence in this jar is, all by itself, not a call for alarm. But it is a sign that our municipal water, which draws from an unconfined aquifer, is vulnerable to chemical contamination. It shows that there exist hidden connections between the surface of the earth and the watery vaults of groundwater deep beneath our feet.
What would happen to this water if the fields that surround my village—many of which are already leased to gas industry—become a staging ground for fossil fuel extraction?
This is not a hydrological experiment that I am interested in running.
Impact on Food
I have also brought with me a loaf of bread and a bag of flour. Both are made from organic heirloom wheat and rye that is grown in my home county and milled right in my village. You can find similar loaves of artisanal bread—made from this same flour—in Brooklyn bakeries. This particular loaf was created by Stefan Senders of the Wide Awake Bakery in Mecklenburg, New York. Baker Senders asked me to submit this loaf as his personal testimony to the Assembly today. And it comes with a message:
“Please tell the committees that bread is mostly water. The flour and the yeast are just a matrix to make water stand up. I can’t bake bread without a source of clean water.”
He also told me that the farmers who grew the organic wheat to make his flour are surrounded by leased land. He believes whole farm-to-table enterprise is threatened by fracking.
Baker Stefan and his suppliers have reason to feel concern. Organic farmers who raise food near fracking operations are facing potential boycotts and will lose their certification if their crops and animals are chemically contaminated.
Upstate New York was recently identified by the New York Times as a national hotspot for organic agriculture, which itself is the most rapidly expanding sector of the food production system that has continued to grow even during the economic downturn.[13] Cows, wheat fields, vineyards, maple syrup, and apple orchards: they are all part of a healthy human food chain. They all require clean water, and they are all affected badly by exposure to air pollution.
Of course, public health is also served by employment opportunities in the form of non-toxic jobs. The above-mentioned mill and bakery are currently hiring. They both have plans to grow their businesses as demand for locally produced, organic bread is rising. The grain farmers, too, are seeking additional land. However, as baker Stefan Senders informs me, concern about the area gas leases and the possible end of the current state moratorium on horizontal drilling have negatively affected plans for locally expanding organic wheat agriculture and artisanal bread baking. This raises a question: is the human health of New York best served by jobs that involve organic bread production or fossil fuel extraction?
Conclusions
I fervently hope that these hearings are the beginning, not the end, of an essential conversation. In its current incarnation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement—on which the future of hydraulic fracturing hangs—considers neither human health consequences nor the cumulative impacts of the numerous hazards that gas drilling has brought to our doors.
The human health impacts of fracking cannot be understood by looking at one chemical exposure by itself, one river at a time, one well pad in isolation. We all know that it is not just the last straw that breaks the backs of camels. I urge the Assembly to look at the all straws, employing the new tools of cumulative impacts assessment to do so.[14] Until that work is complete, benefit of the doubt goes to New York’s children, water, cows, and wheat fields, not to things that threaten them.
[1] President’s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, 2008-2009 Annual Report (National Cancer Institute, May 2010)
[2] L. Trasande and Y. Lui, “Reducing the Staggering Costs of Environmental Disease in Children, Estimated at $76.6 Billion in 2008,” Health Affairs 30 (5): 863-70, 5 May 2011.
[3] This estimate is based on assumptions about how much of the shale will be tapped over what period of time. 77,000 wells assumes that 17 New York State counties are drilled and that the shale is 70 percent developed over 50 years at a density of eight wells per square mile. T. Engelder, “Marcellus 2008 Report Card on the Breakout Year for Gas Production in the Appalachian Basin,” Forth Worth Basin Oil and Gas Magazine, Aug. 2009, pp. 18-22, and Anthony Ingraffea, Ph.D., personal communication.
[4] C.D. Volz et al., “Potential Shale Gas Extraction Air Pollution Impacts,” FracTracker—Marcellus Shale Data Tracking, Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, 24 Aug. 2010.
[5] American Lung Association, “Health Effects of Ozone and Particle Pollution,” State of the Air, 2011; President’s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, 2008-2009 Annual Report (National Cancer Institute, May 2010).
[6] American Lung Association, Asthma and Children Fact Sheet, Feb. 2010; J.M. Perrin et al., “The Increase of Childhood Chronic Conditions in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association 297 (2007); U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2006 and “Premature Birth,” 2010.
[7] S. Kemball-Cook et al., “Ozone Impacts of Natural Gas Development in the Haynseville Shale,” Environmental Science and Technology 15 (2010): 9357-63.
[8] M. Bernard, “Air Pollution Becoming a Basin Concern,” Vernal Express, 5 Oct. 2010; D.M. Kargbo et al., “Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities,” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (2010): 5679-84.
[9] A. Lustgarten and ProPublica, “Drill for Gas, Pollute the Water,” Scientific American, 17 Nov. 2008.
[10] For example, U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry, Evaluation of Contaminants in Private Residential Well Water, Pavillion, Wyoming, Fremont County, August 2010.
[11] S.G. Osborne et al., “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 2011, epub before print.
[12] R.D. Morris et al., “Chlorination, Chlorination By-products and Cancer: A Meta-analysis,” American Journal of Public Health 82 (1992); H.W. Weinberg et al., “Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study (Athens, GA: EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, 2002).
[13] H. Fairfield, “The Hot Spots for Organic Food,” New York Times, 3 May 2009.
[14] “Cumulative impacts” refers to the combined effect of numerous adverse impacts on public health or ecosystems from environmental hazards. The Science and Environmental Health Network has launched a new website that describes the latest science on cumulative impacts assessment: www.cumulativeimpacts.org.
May 19, 2011
How gas drilling contaminates your food – Sustainable food – Salon.com.
There’s a stunning moment in the Academy Award-nominated documentary “Gasland,” where a man touches a match to his running faucet — to have it explode in a ball of fire. This is what hydraulic fracturing, a process of drilling for natural gas known as “fracking,” is doing to many drinking water supplies across the country. But the other side of fracking — what it might do to the food eaten by people living hundreds of miles from the nearest gas well — has received little attention.
Unlike many in agriculture, cattle farmer Ken Jaffe has had a good decade. But lately he’s been nervous, worried fracking will destroy his business. Jaffe’s been good to his soil, and the land has been good to him. By rotating his herd of cattle to different pastures on his Catskills farm every day, he has restored the once-eroded land and built a successful business with his grass-fed and -finished beef. His Slope Farms sells meat to food coops, specialty meat markets, and high-end restaurants in New York City, about 160 miles to the southeast. “If you feed your micro-herd — the bacteria and fungi in the soil — then your big herd will do well, too,” he said when I visited him recently on a cool, sunny afternoon.
But a seam of black rock lies nearly a mile beneath the topsoil he has so scrupulously nurtured, and the deposit contains enormous quantities of natural gas. Profit-hungry energy companies — and the politicians that their campaign donations support — are determined to exploit that resource, even though it could destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small farmers like Jaffe who have sprung up in New York City’s vibrant, alternative food shed.
Energy companies liberate the gas, which is trapped in tiny bubble-like pockets in the rock, by forcefully injecting chemicals diluted with millions of gallons of water into the rock. This fracking ruptures the earth, creating fissures through which the gas passes — along with a witch’s brew of carcinogens, acutely poisonous heavy metals, and radioactive elements.
“For sustainable agriculture, fracking is a disaster,” says Jaffe. The gas rush started in the South and West, but has spread to the East and now affects 34 states. Under much of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York lies a 400-million-year-old geographic formation called the Marcellus Shale. Although estimates vary, the shale may hold 50 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, enough to meet New York State’s needs for 50 years. To see what fracking can do to food production, Jaffe has only to look at what has happened to some of his colleagues in nearby Pennsylvania, where the first fracked well came into production in 2005, and where there are now more than 1,500.
Last year, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture quarantined 28 cattle belonging to Don and Carol Johnson, who farm about 175 miles southwest of Jaffe. The animals had come into wastewater that leaked from a nearby well that showed concentrations of chlorine, barium, magnesium, potassium, and radioactive strontium. In Louisiana, 16 cows that drank fluid from a fracked well began bellowing, foaming and bleeding at the mouth, then dropped dead. Homeowners near fracked sites complain about a host of frightening consequences, from poisoned wells to sickened pets to debilitating illnesses.
The Marcellus Shale itself contains ethane, propane, and butane, arsenic, cobalt, lead, chromium — toxins all. Uranium, radium, and radon make the shale so radioactive that companies sometimes drop Geiger counters into wells to determine whether they have reached the gas-rich deposits. But those compounds are almost benign compared to the fracking fluids that drillers inject into the wells. At least 596 chemicals are used in fracking, but the companies are not required by law to divulge the ingredients, which are considered trade secrets. According to a report prepared for the Ground Water Protection Council, a national association of state agencies charged with protecting the water supply, a typical recipe might include hydrochloric acid (which can damage respiratory organs, eyes, skin, and intestines), glutaraldehyde (normally used to sterilize medical equipment and linked to asthma, breathing difficulties, respiratory irritation, and skin rashes), N,N-dimethylformamide (a solvent that can cause birth defects and cancer), ethylene glycol (a lethal toxin), and benzene (a potent carcinogen). Some of these chemicals stay in the ground. Others are vented into the air. Many enter the water table or leach into ponds, streams, and rivers.
For the most part, state and federal governments have turned a blind eye to the problems brought about by fracking. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that it has no jurisdiction to investigate matters related to food production, a contention disputed by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., who wrote a report urging the EPA to study all issues associated with fracking. A concerned farmer who prefers not to be identified forwarded me an email written to him by Jim Riviere, the director of the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank, a group of animal science professors that tracks incidents of chemical contamination in livestock. Riviere wrote that his group receives up to 10 requests per day from veterinarians dealing with exposures to contaminants, including the byproducts of fracking. Nonetheless, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has slashed funding to his group. “We are told by the newly reorganized USDA that chemical contamination is not their priority,” Riviere wrote.
“The dangers of fracking to the food supply are not something that’s been investigated very much,” said Emily Wurgh of Food and Water Watch, an environmental group based in Washington, D.C. “We have been trying to get members of Congress to request studies into effects of fracking on agriculture, but we haven’t gotten much traction.”
Fracking is not a new technology. It was first put into commercial use in 1949 by Halliburton, and that company has made billions from employing the extraction method. But it really wasn’t until 2004 that fracking really took off, the year that the EPA declared that fracking “posed little or no threat” to drinking water. Weston Wilson, a scientist and 30-year veteran of the agency, who sought whistle-blower protection, emphatically disagreed, saying that the agency’s official conclusions were “unsupportable” and that five of seven members of the review panel that made the decision had conflicts of interest. (Wilson has continued to work at the EPA, and continues to be publicly critical of fracking.)
A year later, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act with a “Halliburton loophole,” a clause inserted at the request of Dick Cheney, who had been Halliburton’s CEO before becoming vice president. The loophole specifically exempts fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the CLEAR Act, and from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency, and it unleashed the largest and most extensive drilling program in history, according to Josh Fox, the creator of the film “Gasland.”
In 2010 New York State imposed a moratorium on gas drilling, but if that were to be lifted, fracking would deal a triple whammy to Ken Jaffe’s farm, and thousands more like it. (Compare a map of the Marcellus Shale with one of small organic farms.)
Back on his pasture, Jaffe gestured to a pond in a bowl-like valley surrounded by sloping pastures and hillsides of maples, white pines, and blossoming wild cherries and apple trees, that, along with wells on the property, provides water for his animals. Given the geography of the land, any chemical contamination seeping from the rock would go directly into Jaffe’s water supply, poisoning his cattle.
And it’s not just his herd that’s vulnerable; all the plant life on his property would also be in danger. According to Jaffe, ozone is more lethal to crops than all other airborne pollutants combined, and of all crops, few are more susceptible to it than clover, a nutrient-rich feed that is critical to his method of sustainable cattle raising. While ozone is normally associated with automobile exhaust, fracking generates so much of it that Sublette Country, Wyo., has ozone levels as high as those in Los Angeles. This, despite the fact that it has fewer than 9,000 residents spread out over an area the size of Connecticut. What it does have is gas wells.
Even if his cows and his land would somehow remain unaffected by nearby wells, Jaffe’s business would still likely suffer. Joe Holtz is manager of Brooklyn’s Park Slope Food Coop, which buys a cow a week from Jaffe (and upward of $3 million products from other New York area farms). He says that his environmentally conscious organization would be forced to seek alternatives to New York meat and produce if fracking becomes commonplace. “If the air is fouled and the animals are drinking water that contains poisonous fracking chemicals, then products from those animals are going to have poisons,” he told me. Given the progress that small, local farms have made in the region, he says, the decision to stop dealing with long-term suppliers would be hard. But he adds, “We would have to stop buying from them. There is no doubt in my mind.”
May 19, 2011
Gas Drilling Turning Quiet Tourist Destination into Industrial Town | SolveClimate News.
Gas drilling rig/Credit: Ari MooreEditor’s Note: SolveClimate News reporter Elizabeth McGowan traveled to Northeastern Pennsylvania in late March to find out how the gas drilling boom is affecting the landscape and the people who call it home. This is the sixth in a multi-part series. (Read parts one , two, three, four and five).
MONTROSE, Pa.—Lynn Senick’s cozy clapboard house is just steps away from state Highway 29, which basically serves as Montrose’s Main Street.
Founded as a center for abolitionists in 1824 — its lore claims it harbored escaping slaves on the Underground Railroad — the county seat has a New England-quaint feel with a prominent town green bookended by a handsome county courthouse and a welcoming library.
Even though Montrose is nowhere near the beaten track, diligent and dedicated organizers put the town on the local map by drawing flocks of visitors to popular annual events such as the Fourth of July parade and festivals celebrating the apple and blueberry harvests, as well as the production of wine and chocolate.
Senick, who educates the public about hydraulic fracturing via an online forum she launched three years ago, is also affiliated with a local group called the Montrose Restoration Committee.
Committee volunteers have played off the success of Montrose’s signature happenings by focusing on attracting and retaining an organic restaurant, book shop, health food store and farmers market. Several years prior, members of the organization had noticed their county’s natural resources, hard by the New York State border, were attracting a different type of resident.
Vibrant young people intent on making their living off the land had started to migrate to this area with the nickname “Endless Mountains” that reflects its continuous up and down geography.
North-South Interstate 81, which roughly bisects the county, is the sole major highway, and the recent arrivals recognized their land and freshwater needs could be easily met in a county with a mere 43,000 people rattling around in 800 square miles. The largest population centers are Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, to the south, and Binghamton, N.Y., to the north.
Recognizing this influx, Susan Griffis McNamara started stocking organic seeds and other affiliated paraphernalia for these small-scale growers at the hardware store side of her business that has been in the family for four generations. Other merchants followed suit.
Now, however, Senick, McNamara and other committee members fear narrow rural roadways clogged with the never-ending grind of drilling-related trucks, and landscapes marred with gas wells, will be a turnoff to tourists and artisan farmers.
“I don’t think this is going to be the quiet little tourist destination we thought it could be,” says Senick, who works at the local food bank. “This is going to become an industrial town.”
While she knows that some property owners will no doubt make money from their oil leases, she wonders how the have-nots she encounters daily will hang on as landlords realize they can raise their rent prices and offer accommodations to well-paid, out-of-town specialists employed by the gas exploration and drilling companies.
“Not everybody always got along here, but this was a stable community,” Senick says. “But this has fractured our community. It has really tossed everybody’s future into the air.”
May 15, 2011 1 Comment
The Maddow Blog – Fracking: the music video.
“Fracking” sounds like a dirty word, which means it’s really fun to talk about. Or as fun as anything can be when the byproducts include “highly corrosive salts, carcinogens such as benzene and radioactive elements such as radium.”
Pro-Publica and NYU’s Studio 20 have teamed up to make a totally smart and catchy music video about fracking that is what fans of conflations (i.e. moi) might call “edutainment.”
May 11, 2011
French Lean Toward Ban of a Controversial Gas Extraction Technique – NYTimes.com.
PARIS — French lawmakers opened debate on Tuesday on proposals to ban a method for extracting oil and gas deposits from shale because of environmental concerns, throwing up the first serious stumbling block to firms that want to use the practice.
Looking with alarm at the experience in the United States, where shale gas is booming, even members of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s governing conservative party have come out against the practice, known as hydraulic fracturing, in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped deep underground under high pressure to free scattered pockets of oil and gas from dense rock formations.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, “is not something we want to use in France,” Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the environment minister, said on RMC Radio.
“Shale gas is the same as any other gas,” said Ms. Kosciusko-Morizet, who in February announced a halt in all exploration, pending the results of a study. “What poses a problem is the technology used. Today there aren’t 30 technologies, there’s only one for extracting shale gas — hydraulic fracturing.”
Even without the final study, which is expected in June, deputies in the National Assembly are expected to pass a ban on Wednesday. The legislation will then be sent to the Senate.
Proponents of so-called unconventional gas and oil argue that exploiting European shale deposits would reduce the Continent’s dependence on imports. Shale-based fuels have only begun to appear on the regional energy agenda but may become increasingly visible in the second half of 2011, when Poland assumes the rotating presidency of the European Union. The Poles, leery of their reliance on Russia for their gas, have embraced the search for shale gas.
Fracking has been employed in the United States since the 1990s to tap beds of shale that energy producers had previously considered almost useless. Production from those wells now contributes nearly a quarter of the United States gas supply, driving down prices for consumers. But criticism of the practice has been growing even as it spreads.
A critical documentary on the practice, “Gasland,” was nominated this year for an Oscar, and a spill in Pennsylvania by Chesapeake Energy that polluted a waterway with fracking chemicals seemed to confirm some people’s worst fears.
A ban would affect companies, including Hess Oil France, which has teamed up with the French unit of Toreador Resources to explore in the Paris area; Vermilion Energy, a Canadian company; Schuepbach Energy, a Texas company that is allied with Gaz de France; and Total, the largest French oil company.
Europe is at least a decade behind the United States in exploring its shale resources, and no one is even certain how much oil and gas there is, much less how much can be recovered profitably.
“Our position hasn’t changed,” Total said in a statement. “We think it would be wrong for the country to close the dossier on shale gas without even knowing if there is any.”
Hess Oil France, which has a license for exploring for oil in the Paris basin, had been only about two days from beginning test-drilling in February when the government announced the halt, Mark R. Katrosh, the chief executive, said in an interview.
Mr. Katrosh, who noted that low levels of oil production had been taking place for decades in the Paris region, cited estimates that France held as many as 100 billion barrels of shale oil, of which perhaps 10 billion were recoverable.
Regarding the potential size of the resource, Mr. Katrosh said, “we’re all talking hypothetically right now. The country needs to debate and decide whether they see value in understanding what the potential resource is, and if they do, we’re one of the companies that’s willing to make the investment to better understand this and demonstrate that we can operate safely and respectfully of the environment.”
Industry officials remain optimistic that with public education and political will, economic logic will eventually carry the day. They acknowledge that Europe needs to modernize its regulatory system to adapt to the technology, and they say they expect to have to adapt to much stricter regulation than is the norm in the United States.
For the several hundred fracking opponents outside the National Assembly on Tuesday morning, no compromise is possible.
“For now, we oppose all drilling,” said Liliane Devillers, president of Collectif Carmen, an organization that she said was an umbrella group representing 16 “mostly apolitical” environmental associations from the Picardie region northeast of Paris.
“No one has shown us that it can be done safely, and all the information we have suggests there is a big risk for the groundwater from toxic chemicals.”
May 9, 2011