Coming Clean–Western Org. of Resource Councils 04_20_11

Coming_Clean–W e s t e r n  O r g a n i z a t i o n   o f  R e s o u r c e   C o u n c i l s   4/20/11

WORC’s principles for measuring the effectiveness of policies for disclosure
of fracking fluids and other chemicals used in oil and gas production. *Coming
Clean *discusses disclosure as an important first step but only a first step
to controlling pollution of our air, land and water and threats to public.

WORC   www.worc.org is a regional network of seven grassroots community organizations that include 10,000 members and 45 local chapters. WORC helps its member groups succeed by providing training and coordinating issue work.

Our Member Organizations are:

WORC’s mission is to advance the vision of a democratic, sustainable, and just society through community action. WORC is committed to building sustainable environmental and economic communities that balance economic growth with the health of people and stewardship of their land, water, and air resources.

110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Suite 306, Washington, DC 20002
(202) 547-7040 FAX (202) 543-0978 E-mail: dc@worc.org http://www.worc.org April 2011


Coming Clean What We Should Know About Oil and Gas Chemicals
Concerns about the effects of oil and gas exploration and production on public health, air, water
and land are increasing with the spread of new drilling technology and development in new areas around
the country. Expanded production and potential impacts have increased the need for full and effective
regulation of all aspects of exploration and production.
Full disclosure of chemicals used in oil and gas development is an important first step towards
protection of our water, air and land, and it has become a widespread demand of people and groups
affected by oil and gas development. Although it is not a substitute for the effective regulation of well
drilling, completions and other aspects of the production process, full public access to information about
the chemicals used during the exploration and development is a step forward over current secrecy. With
full public access to this information, air and water can be tested for contaminants, health conditions can
be diagnosed and treated, and the effects of the chemicals used can be better understood. It’s time for the
oil and gas industry to come clean.
Policies requiring disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and other stages of oil and
gas development can be a significant first step towards effective protection from oil and gas pollution if
they are comprehensive and carefully written. Coming Clean sets out nine criteria that people and groups
affected by oil and gas development can use to evaluate existing and proposed disclosure policies.
Many states require oil and gas operators to keep records or submit reports of some type, but most
of these requirements are focused on waste injection wells, and not exploration and production wells.
Just two states – Arkansas and Wyoming – have mandated reporting of hydraulic fracturing
constituents and disclose these reports to the public. Although these state requirements are an important
step forward, both contain significant loopholes that allow companies to continue to keep important
information secret. Similarly, voluntary disclosure programs, while laudable, are no substitute for
mandatory disclosure.
As local, state, regional and federal governments consider new disclosure policies, these
loopholes must be closed to provide the public – especially people who live in the oil and gas fields –
with the information they need to protect their property, and the health and well-being of their families
and communities.


1. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers must be reported to provide a unique identifier for each
chemical constituent used in a well, as well as the volume and chemical concentration.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require CAS numbers to be reported for chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing.


2. All chemical constituents used during the entire life cycle of oil and gas exploration and
development must
be disclosed — drilling chemicals as well as those used in hydraulic fracturing
and any other methods of well stimulation.
Disclosure of the constituents of hydraulic fracturing has been the subject of most public attention, for
good reasons, but all chemicals used in exploration, drilling and production are of as much concern as
those used in hydraulic fracturing. Several states require recordkeeping and/or reporting of drilling
chemicals, including Colorado, Maryland and Pennsylvania, although this information is not
disclosed to the public in these states.

3. Any protections for proprietary information must be carefully defined, with a clear decision
making process and standard of proof, and must provide for the release of the adverse health
effects of each chemical that is kept secret, release of proprietary information in the event of a
medical necessity, and regular review and appeal of proprietary designations.
Wyoming offers fairly broad protections for proprietary information that have allowed at least nine
companies to keep at least 107 hydraulic fracturing constituents secret from the public. The Arkansas
rules incorporate the trade secret protections in the federal Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, which meets the criteria listed above.
4. Information must be disclosed to the public.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming release reports of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing to the public,
although publication of these reports is not required by statute or rules. Public disclosure should be
required by statue or rule, so that it cannot be rescinded without a legislative change, or at least a
formal rulemaking process.
5. Local landowners must be directly notified of chemical use in advance, with sufficient time before
drilling or stimulation to conduct baseline tests.
Wyoming requires operators to file plans for well stimulation in advance of hydraulic fracturing, and
this information is made available to the public online. Although no state currently requires advance
notice to landowners of chemical use, many states and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management have
statutes or policies requiring notification of landowners before entry and/or surface disturbing
activities. This notification should be expanded to include notification of chemical constituents to be
used.
6. A timely final report must be made after drilling or stimulation, with chemical constituents actually
used, pressures, fracture lengths and heights, the type, source and quantity of fluid used, and the
quantity of fluid recovered.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require reports after hydraulic fracturing with chemical constituents
used. In Wyoming, pressures used and fluids recovered are required in the completion reports.
The quantity and source of fluids used in well completions is a concern in many areas, particularly
where water supplies are limited and there are multiple uses. Arkansas requires disclosure of the type
and volume of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Wyoming requires detailed information as to the base
stimulation fluid source. New York requires oil and gas operators to submit annual statements showing
the volumes of fluids injected and produced.
7. Reports must be filed on a well-by-well basis.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require most or all reports on a well-by-well basis.
8. In order to be effective and to earn the confidence of the public, a disclosure program must be
overseen by a regulatory agency with the expertise, resources and authority to monitor and enforce
disclosure requirements, recognize the public health consequences of the chemicals used, and take
action to protect public health and the environment.
Hydraulic fracturing disclosure programs in both Arkansas and Wyoming are overseen by Oil and
Gas Conservation Commissions, which have the primary task of ensuring efficient oil and gas
production. Although some oil and gas commissions are also tasked with protecting public health and
the environment but, as a general rule, expertise on the public health effects of chemicals is more
likely to reside within health departments. And, all of these agencies have limited manpower.
9. Penalties for failure to comply with disclosure requirements should be sufficient to encourage
compliance.

Bromide linked to oil/gas “brines”

Dr. Conrad Voltz, formerly of the Center for Environmental Health and Justice at U Pitt, testified in front of a Senate subcomittee today.   (4/11/11)

From a study he and his students did at a treatment plant that only handled “brine” from oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania, they found amongst 8 other effluents at levels that exceed standards:

Bromide, which forms mixed chloro-bromo byproducts in water treatment
facilities that have been linked to cancer and other health problems were found in
effluent at 10,688 times the levels generally found acceptable as a background in
surface water.

On March 7, 2011 Melody Kight at SUNY-ESF presented the initial
findings of her research on identifying flowback fluid contamination.

“It’s very difficult to distinguish” the source of elevated chlorides
in well or surface water, whether they’re from road salt, frack fluid,
or other sources of NaCl (salt).  Her studies indicate that the Na:Cl
ratio is at approximately 1:1 in all of them.  Therefore, a different
ratio must be used to “fingerprint” frack fluid contamination.

Parker in 1978 characterized Appalachian Basin formation brine.  He
found that as NaCl precipitates out of solution, bromide remains
dissolved in the brine.

Therefore, Ms. Kight rationalized, the Br:Cl ratio is the key.  Her
studies, using water samples from the PADEP and various calculating
and modeling software, showed that salty water from frack fluid and
from other sources have different Br:Cl ratios.

Bromide has a 0.01 mg/L detection limit.  Ms. Kight calculated that a
solution contaminated with as little as 0.0015% frack fluid could be
fingerprinted in this way.

http://sites.google.com/site/melodykight/home/research/abstracts

Ms. Kight is known to be a vocal supporter of natural gas drilling, but her research may prove useful.  Landowners should ensure their water, both pre- and post- drilling, has been checked for bromide.

Volunteer fishing enthusiasts look for unknown trout streams and test water quality

Volunteer fishing enthusiasts look for unknown trout streams and test water quality.

 

PGe
Article Tools
E-mail article
Print article
Digg this
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Reddit
Facebook
MySpace
About the Author
John Hayes

John
Hayes
412-263-1991Call 412-263-1991
Outdoors editor John Hayes grew up in Pittsburgh’s eastern suburbs in a culture steeped in hunting, fishing, camping and hiking. At his first job in journalism, he cofounded the locally published “Outdoor Odyssey” magazine. Since then, he has worked as editor of City Paper, RockFlash and The Saltsburg Press, and edited a regional monthly newsletter for Trout Unlimited. A staff member at the Post-Gazette since 2000, he’s written news articles, features, entertainment critiques and outdoors stories, and coordinated Web and print programs for teen writers. His work has won Golden Quill, Keystone and Sigma Delta Chi awards.
More »
Hunting/Fishing
Volunteer fishing enthusiasts look for unknown trout streams and test water quality
Sunday, April 10, 2011
By John Hayes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Bob Donaldson/Post-Gazette
Sean Brady of Observatory Hill, who says he’s “addicted to fly fishing,” tests the water of Pine Creek in Hampton.

In some Pennsylvania watersheds, the only thing separating Marcellus Shale drilling crews from a fortune underground could be brook trout.

Tomorrow in Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission will vote on the designation of 98 streams statewide as Naturally Reproducing Wild Trout Waters, following the recent discovery there of trout populations, some by volunteer anglers working in a program that trains them to do stream surveys.

The Wild Trout designation would trigger further state Department of Environmental Protection testing and possible issuance of land use restrictions in those watersheds that could limit development, including drilling.

Sixteen of the small streams and tributaries recommended for protection are located in Westmoreland, Fayette and Somerset counties. One more is in Cambria.

PG VIDEO: BASELINE READINGS ON STREAMS

As more than 800,000 Pennsylvania fishing license holders prepare for the opening of trout season on April 16 in most of the state, some angler volunteers are searching vulnerable waterways for unrecorded trout colonies, or charting baseline water conditions in Marcellus drilling zones that could be used for reference in potential pollution emergencies.

John Arway, executive director of the Fish and Boat Commission, said the water monitoring is not intended to thwart gas drilling — it’s a means of conducting “necessary research in tough economic times,” and couldn’t be done without help from citizen scientists.

“We don’t have enough eyes and ears out there. I don’t have enough biologists to monitor all of the water that we need to check to protect the resource,” he said.

Two separate volunteer water-monitoring projects with roughly the same goals are under way in Pennsylvania. One is run by Fish and Boat, the other by Washington, D.C.-based Trout Unlimited, a nonprofit cold-water conservation group with chapters in Pennsylvania. The nascent projects still lack focus and coordination in some areas, but the parallel projects are to intersect later this year and become a volunteer-based research tool of the Fish and Boat Commission.

Fish and Boat’s five-year Trout Management Plan, launched last year, calls on volunteers to provide data on 45,513 streams statewide that have never been visited by the agency’s biologists. Through the Unassessed Waters Program, volunteer students and interns at Lycoming and Kings’ colleges in central Pennsylvania take a day of training before heading out to headwaters and tributaries in specific watersheds in search of several things — most importantly, wild trout.


» A website for ongoing coverage, resources, comments and more.


If Fish and Boat commissioners designate a stream section as Wild Trout Waters, DEP staffers collect additional data on invertebrates and determine if the waters will be classified a High-Quality Cold-Water Fishery (which restricts development in the watershed) or Exceptional Value Fishery (which mandates more stringent restrictions).

“Originally the program was designed to look at waters where urban development growth was highest,” said Dave Miko, Fish and Boat chief of fisheries management, who wrote the state’s Trout Management Plan. “When the Marcellus Shale industry boomed, we re-prioritized those waters with [potential drilling] activity, as well as urban growth areas. … These are waters we certainly want to go look at because we feel those waters are most at risk of degradation.”

Trout need cold water. In particular, Pennsylvania’s official state fish and only stream trout native to its waters, the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), thrives in about 54 degrees. Since the sealing of many coal mines in the state, lots of small streams that 20 years ago ran red or white with toxins are now healthy enough to attract caddis, mayflies and brook or brown trout. The discovery of reproducing populations of wild trout presents a clear and unmistakable indicator of clean water, an invaluable resource.

Of prime concern to the Fish and Boat Commission are potentially high-value cold-water tributaries that flow into warm-water streams or rivers with lower water-quality ratings. The unassessed tributaries, which potentially hold trout, currently get the lower classifications and lesser protections of the waters they flow to.

The easiest way to prove fish are making babies is to identify the presence of two year-classes of a species. Under the assessment program, volunteers are trained in the use of electro-fishing devices.

“Find trout smaller than 6 inches long and 12 inches long in the same place and you know you have multiple year-classes,” said Mr. Miko. “That means they’re reproducing.”

As part of Fish and Boat’s Trout Management Plan, the Unassessed Waters Program is funded through existing resources including grants, angler licensing and permitting fees. Last year, the program’s volunteers sampled more than 65 waterways. Fifty-five percent contained reproducing populations of brown or brook trout, prime indicators that could trigger DEP involvement if the Fish and Boat commissioners change those streams’ designations tomorrow.

By next year, said Mr. Miko, the expanding program will work with nine training campuses statewide, including the University of Pittsburgh, Duquesne University and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy.

Trout Unlimited takes a different route to the same destination.

Essentially a Washington lobbying firm funded through dues paid by chapter members, TU has no official position on Marcellus Shale drilling. But with Pennsylvania’s 52 chapters — the largest state council in TU — the regional issue has piqued the interest of the group’s leadership, which recently hired Dave Sewak of Windber, near Johnston, to coordinate its volunteer-based water monitoring program, Coldwater Conservation Corps. In southwest Pennsylvania, TU’s Penn’s Woods West, Forbes Trail and Chestnut Ridge chapters participate.

Mr. Sewak, who worked on community conservation projects at the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, visits the chapters to explain the program and trains volunteers to use $300 monitoring kits provided by TU national. Each kit includes a GPS unit for precise marking of locations, pH strips for measuring acidity and alkalinity, items for measuring and recording data, and one LaMotte Tracer Pocket Tester, which measures temperature, conductivity and total dissolved solids. Volunteers also take water samples that are analyzed at Dickenson College in Carlisle, south of Harrisburg, for barium and strontium, signature elements of hydraulic fracturing fluids used in Marcellus Shale drilling. Volunteers are coached to bracket a drilling location with samples taken upstream and downstream of the site.

It’s not easy — volunteers are required to return to the same sites multiple times, log precision data and adhere to a rigorous data collection protocol.

“Development is moving very rapidly, and the state just doesn’t have the wherewithal to keep track of everything, especially in rural areas,” Mr. Sewak said. “Our guys are trained to know the whole [drilling] process. We put together a conservation success index based on solid science. They’ll be testing throughout the year and have a real good idea of what the stream should look like.”

It doesn’t always work that way. Some volunteers say they wish they were given more direction.

“There isn’t much action guidance on this program,” said Monty Murty of Laughlintown, president of Forbes Trail Trout Unlimited of Ligonier. He completed the Coldwater Conservation Corps training, and plans to begin testing as soon as Westmoreland County creeks drop to normal levels.

“They leave it up to the chapters to identify the most risky sites for Marcellus Shale impact,” he said. “At our next meeting, Step 1 will be to review maps in our area and prioritize sites to test baselines.” Nevertheless, he said, “It’s good work. Something that has to be done.”

Volunteer water monitor Sean Brady of Observatory Hill said he got involved because he’s “addicted to fly fishing.” With a biology degree and a background as assistant executive director at Venture Outdoors, he’s Riverlife Pittsburgh’s development director and a Penn’s Woods West Trout Unlimited member. Having completed training, he sees the Coldwater Conservation Corps as potentially useful, but says it remains “very focused on the details, but kind of unclear on where they want us to go and what to test.”

That could change later this year. Bob Weber, head of Fish and Boat’s Unassessed Waters Program, said he’s had discussions with Mr. Sewak on bringing the citizen science programs together. “I’m going to use [the TU program] to collect water samples in a lot of these streams, to help me to prioritize where to send sampling crews, and Dave [Sewak] will be the liaison between the Fish and Boat Commission and the TU chapters,” he said.

Steve Forde, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said he wasn’t aware of the details of the volunteer testing programs, but in general the industry would welcome it.

“I think we have shown over several years we embrace added transparency on a variety of levels,” he said. “We are a highly regulated, highly transparent and consequently highly sophisticated industry, particularly when it comes to water quality.”

Mr. Arway said he believes gas can be extracted from Marcellus Shale without polluting water resources.

“Most operators,” he said, “want to do this well and safely.”

Forbes Trail Trout Unlimited members will choose assessment sites at their next meeting, 7 p.m. April 20 at the Winnie Palmer Nature Reserve in Latrobe, 724-238-7860.

 

First published on April 10, 2011 at 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11100/1138295-358.stm#ixzz1J8SQ2XZf

Clear Waters Winter Issue devoted to Gas Drilling

The winter edition of Clear Waters Magazine (New York Water Environment Association’s quarterly publication) is fracking focused.  Check it out!

http://nywea.org/clearwaters/10-4-winter/

Hydrogeologist Reviews Marcellus Shale and Natural Gas Production in New York
by William M. Kappel  http://nywea.org/clearwaters/10-4-winter/7.pdf

New Nonprofit Offering Help With Tests That May Link Contaminated Water to Hydraulic Fracking | Shauna Stephenson | Energy | NewWest.Net

New Nonprofit Offering Help With Tests That May Link Contaminated Water to Hydraulic Fracking | Shauna Stephenson | Energy | NewWest.Net.

Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination | Amy Mall’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination | Amy Mall’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC.

Radon in Drinking Water | Radon | US EPA

Radon in Drinking Water | Radon | US EPA.

Public Health Standards for Radon in Drinking Water

EPA’s proposal for public health standards for radon in drinking water provided two options to States and community water systems for reducing radon health risks in both drinking water and indoor air quality, a unique multimedia framework authorized in the 1996 Amendments to the Safewater Drinking Water Act (SDWA).  Information about the proposed rule and information relating to the status of the rule can be found at http://water.epa.gov

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report on Radon in Drinking Water “Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water.”

A report released September 15, 1998, by the National Academy of Sciences is the most comprehensive accumulation of scientific data on the public health risks of radon in drinking water.  The report was required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).  The NAS report (BEIR VI) issued earlier this year confirmed that radon is a serious public health threat.  This report goes on to refine the risks of radon in drinking water and confirms that there are drinking water related cancer deaths, primarily due to lung cancer.  The report, in general, confirms earlier EPA scientific conclusions and analyses for drinking water, and presents no major changes to EPA’s 1994 risk assessment.

Safe Drinking Water Hotline

Call toll free and speak with an Information Specialist Monday through Friday, 10:00 am to 4:00 pm eastern time at 1-800-426-4791. Local calls or International calls at (703) 412-3330. The Hotline is closed on Federal holidays, except Veteran’s Day. The Hotline is open on Veteran’s Day but closed the day after Thanksgiving.

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline telecommunications system provides only recorded messages in English and Spanish 24-hours a day, seven days a week at 1-800-426-4791. Local calls at (703) 412-3330. International calls at (703) 412-3330. Bilingual service is available. An introductory telephone message tells Spanish callers to leave a detailed message. Bilingual Information Specialists will return these calls. Write to The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, 4606M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

About the Safewater Hotline and Services Available.

Gastem: Marcellus Shale Fracs in New York State Successful

The Industry Wins

Gastem: Marcellus Shale Fracs in New York State Successful.  Press Release 12/21/10

The Earth and Humans Lose:

Comment from Chip Northrup on Community Impact

—- Forwarded Message —-
From:mjsoll@localnet.com” <mjsoll@localnet.com>
To: sustainableotsego@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 6:25:33 AM
Subject: [sustainableotsego] Julie’s speech to the Otsego County Board of Representatives, July 21, 2010 and how close the gas well is to the NYC watershed and the Susquehanna River

For those who are interested, this is my prepared speech to the Otsego
County Board of Representatives, July 21, 2010. Due to the meetings
time constraints, it is not exactly word for word as I said it.

Julie Solloway, Maryland, NY. My house is about one mile from the Ross1
natural gas well.

We used to have GOLD on Crumhorn Mountain. We called it WATER. It
tasted great and was abundant.

Numerous times before the permit was given, and before drilling began,
we said there was no way they could drill on the Ross property on
Crumhorn Mountain, Maryland, NY, and not contaminate the water,
forever- especially our farm.

Water IS more valuable than gas.

I know of 8 water wells, including ours, that have been adversely
affected since the drilling of the Ross1 natural gas well began.  And,
there is concern about a ninth one.

This is the first natural gas well drilled with this technique, in New
York State. Water wells were showing adverse affects shortly after the
drilling began, which was about 2 ½ months BEFORE they fracked.

We can not drink our water anymore. People, pets and animals have been,
and are, sick since shortly after the drilling began. My family is only
using the water to flush the toilet and that is causing health
symptoms. Often times there is a chemical smell in the bathroom.

Having been forced to experience the new technique of natural gas
drilling first hand, I give you some of my experiences:

Within a month of the drilling starting, I was violently ill after
drinking our water. (Some of the symptoms were blurry vision, severe
stomach cramps and collapsing.) This is a water well that we had never
had a problem with, or been sick from, since it was drilled. After
this, I only used the water to wash my hands or shower. My clothes were
also washed in it.

Later, I also had a severe reaction after taking a shower. My nose and
the roof of my mouth burned so badly, that at first, I didn?t even
realize my tongue was swollen.

On the day of the shower incident, I waited three hours, before taking
a shower at another house to try to wash the contaminants off me.
During this time, the County Health Department contacted the State
Health Department and others, trying to find a doctor for me to go to
who could help me. They could not come up with any. Both the County and
State Health Departments told us no local doctor or emergency room
would know what to test me for, or treat me for, concerning chemical
exposure, in regard to a natural gas well.

Because of the severe reaction after taking a shower, the State Health
Department made the gas company test our water. My mother and I had
reactions after the gas company ran our tap water full blast 30-45
minutes before they took water to test. When questioned as to why they
ran the water like that, they admitted it didn?t have to be run at all
because it was a self-cleaning artesian well.- (Their words.) At that
time, we asked the gas company if they would be testing for all the
chemicals, substances, etc., they used and/or could encounter while
drilling the natural gas well. They said No!- they were only doing a
baseline.  Now they are claiming they have tested for all the chemicals
all along.

Some of the symptoms we, and others affected, have had, or continue to
have, are: headaches, sore throats, weird body aches and pains, rashes,
abnormal hair loss, blurry vision, collapsing, severe stomach pains,
bloody noses, intense ear pressure, varying degrees of dizziness,
burning in the nose and throat, and exhaustion from the 24 hour 7 day a
week activity that went on for months.

Noise was a huge problem.
A lot of people were scared by the violent, thunder-like noises.
There was a lot of noise from the tremendous truck and vehicle traffic.
The intense noise from the drilling site was so bad that you couldn?t
sleep, and if you did manage to fall asleep, you were awakened by the
noise and couldn?t get back to sleep.

Among the many noises, was a noise like a very low flying plane
hovering over-top of us. This was a different aggravating noise than
the almost constant droning noise that you also couldn?t get away from.

Explosions occurred anytime day or night. These ranged from muffled to
so loud we thought a huge jet was going to hit the house. They also
shook the house.

The air pollution, including the stink, was so bad at times it burned
noses and throats. The horses didn?t want to go out of the barn.
Sometimes you would go outside to do something, and the obnoxious
stench was so bad you had to go back in the house. Going back in the
house didn?t necessarily mean you got completely away from the awful
smells.

There were a lot of unidentified and unfamiliar offensive odors. Smells
that were, and/or are still being experienced, include a wide degree of
varying sulfur smells, along with smells something like: rotten egg,
swamp, matchhead, egg sandwich, nail polish, formaldehyde, and
hydrochloric acid, among others. There can be, has been, and for those
still doing laundry at home, continues to be, an awful smell while
doing laundry. People stink after taking a shower.

There was tremendous truck and vehicle traffic, day and night. They
often deviated from their agreed upon designated route for heavy
vehicles.  Local residents experienced tailgating, interrupted flow of
traffic, being forced off the road, and were often woken up by the
traffic.

Other negative impacts, noticed since the drilling began, include, but
aren?t limited to, dead animals, peculiar looking and odd growing
plants, shockwaves, and strange looking water, such as discolored,
and/or odd things throughout it from surface to bottom.

We were unable to do very much of our haying last year because of the
gas drilling. The little we did, we all had symptoms shortly afterwards.

Symptoms were also experienced after repairing, for an hour, the fence
that is only about 15 feet from Potato Creek.

The horses didn?t want to, and many times refused to, drink the water
from Potato Creek, even when it was brought to them in a bucket.

Since shortly after the drilling began, I have been dealing with sick
dogs, sick horses and sick people, including me.

I thought allowing the drilling of the Ross1 natural gas well would be
devastating. I didn?t realize how bad it would be, the magnitude of the
affects, or how quickly water contamination would occur.

I used to say, the more you learn about natural gas drilling, the worse
it gets. NOW I SAY, THE MORE YOU EXPERIENCE NATURAL GAS DRILLING, THE
WORSE IT GETS.

The State Health Department has given us, and others affected,
ridiculous excuses of causes of health symptoms such as: it must be
your shampoo, it must be the sink traps, it must be dust. At another
household, the State Health Department claimed they had used too much
water. This was last year when we had all that rain. The State Health
Department and the gas company both insist there isn?t any reason why
we can?t drink the water.

Several people, including a New York State Health Department worker,
said it is very likely that the chemical or substance I am reacting to,
will not show up in a water test; i.e. there is not enough of it to
show up in a water test, but there is enough of it to cause me to have
a reaction to it. I will never be able to use our water again.

Would you let your kids and grandchildren drink my water? I won?t.

I hope no one in this room has to go through what we are going through.

We don?t call our WATER gold anymore. We call it POISON.

Thank you.

This is relevant to a lot of New York State and beyond. It concerns
people besides those in Otsego County.
Note: The Ross1 natural gas well is approximately 11.5 miles from the
Catskill/Delaware (NYC) Watershed. The closest adversely affected water
well we KNOW about, is approximately 9.5 miles from this watershed. The
Ross1 is also about 1.8 miles from the Susquehanna River. On the other
side, it is about 1.4 miles to the Schenevus Creek, an A rated trout
stream that empties into the Susquehanna River. A small, unnamed creek
which originates at the pond/wetland bordering the Ross1 wellpad, and
Potato Creek flow into Schenevus Creek.
Also note, the proposed Ross2 site is at least 3 miles closer to this
NYC watershed, than the Ross1. It will probably be within 8.5 miles of
the watershed. The proposed Ross2 is very close to Schenevus Creek and
a propane pipeline. This pipeline blew up in the hamlet of North
Blenheim, March 13, 1990, killing two people and demolishing ten homes.
(1-6) On January 25, 2004, an explosion caused by a leak in a valve, in
this same pipeline, blew up a house and caused an evacuation in
Harpersfield, NY. (3, 4, 6, 7) On August 27, 2010, a leak in this same
pipeline caused an evacuation near Gilboa. NY. (5) In July 2010, the
gas company was taking baseline water tests in preparation for drilling
the Ross2. As far as we know no permit has been granted or applied for
to the DEC.

Work Cited Links

1.
http://thedailystar.com/columns/x1399741864/Propane-blast-changes-hamlet-forever

2.  http://old.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2003/05/08/expl.html

3.  http://old.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2004/01/26/fire.html

4.  http://old.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2004/01/29/fire.html

5.
http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x654500482/Propane-leak-displaces-five-families

6.  http://old.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2004/01/27/fire.html

http://old.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2005/02/09/family1.html

Baseline Water Well Testing Completed for Mora County: Las Vegas Basin Property Owners

Drilling Mora County: Baseline Water Well Testing Completed for Mora County: Las Vegas Basin Property Owners.

Tiny protozoa may hold key to world water safety

Tiny protozoa may hold key to world water safety.  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (2010, December 12). Tiny protozoa may hold key to world water safety. ScienceDaily. Retrieved

Commercial Application of SSB testing technology.  Petrel