Fracking opponents push for protection

Auburn residents Linda Zmek and Traci Fee said it's time to institute protective measures against gas- and oil-well drilling in the township.

They said they are particularly concerned with drilling into deep shale deposits, where hydraulic fracturing, with water under pressure, is used to create fractures in the rock to release oil and gas deposits.

More companies are drilling down and then horizontally to reach shale deposits, they said, and there are concerns that ground water will be contaminated in the process.

Mrs. Zmek and Ms. Fee are members of the Network for Oil and Gas Accountability and Protection.

Last week, they asked Auburn Trustees to consider a resolution not to allow hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in Auburn.

Mrs. Zmek said they hope Auburn will write a resolution opposing fracturing in drilling. "It would be on our books," she said.

Burton Village has written a moratorium on fracking, she said.

"When you inject in the ground, it has to come up," Mrs. Zmek said.

"The gas and oil companies are not keeping the gas locally," she added. They are shipping it overseas. So why should we allow it?

"Foreign-owned companies are taking our minerals and leaving the earth barren in Ohio with ugly wells, with the good possibility of destroying our aquifer," she said.

Livestock in the West has been damaged, and water coming from taps has caught fire, Mrs. Zmek said. "It's not something we're making up or over-reacting to."

Drillers are pumping millions of gallons of water and chemicals into the ground which is deadly to everyone's health, Mrs. Zmek said. "The water has to come up somewhere, and when it does, it runs into the streams and lakes and water reservoirs like La Due. And it goes into Lake Erie, which is a source of water for Cleveland," she said.

"They go through deep Marcellus and Utica shale and bore horizontally," Ms. Zmek said. "They could end up two miles away under someone else's property, and million of gallons of water are injected with chemicals. It's a danger to do that. It's not safe. I don't care what they say. They are endangering all of us by even wanting to drill."

The drilling companies force people into agreeing to mandatory pooling, when property owners join to provide the required acreage for a well, Mrs. Zmek said. "They promise you are going to get rich." Then they take whatever gas they can once the lease is signed, she said.

"What would it hurt to place a moratorium on drilling by the township?" Mrs. Zmek said. "If residents know of the pros and cons, no prudent person would want this. I want water to be drinkable for my great-grandchildren," she said.

"We're all doing this on our own money. We don't have money, but the oil and gas companies do," she said.

Mrs. Fee said, "This is horizontal, large-scale drilling, which is new to us. It's the large-scale fracking that we're concerned with. It's a mix of water and chemicals. There's a lot of concern for the air, water and property values."

Protective measures are needed, she said. "We're willing to work with Township Trustees to do something that protects our properties. We're offering to help on this," she said.

"Fracking is a threat to the water aquifer. We're on well water, and, if our water is affected, our homes are worthless," Ms. Fee said.

She also noted that property owners who sign leases for drilling could be in violation of their mortgage agreements.

The bigger concerns involve health, water, air and property values, Ms. Fee said.

"It is a complex issue," she said. "We want to continue to bring awareness to people," Ms. Fee said. "People should understand the magnitude of the risk. People really have to ask questions about the kind of wells being put in."

http://www.chagrinvalleytimes.com/NC/0/4099.html

Gas drilling raises concern over water supply

Drillers hoping to retrieve gas through Utica shale wells in eastern Ohio are drawing water for their operations from ponds and streams or purchasing it from public reservoirs, worrying environmentalists who say it might endanger water supplies for the public and wildlife if there’s not enough water for everyone.

The drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, injects millions of gallons of chemical-laced water into the earth at high pressure to free gas. The geology of eastern Ohio makes it rich in resources such as propane, butane and ethane but short on groundwater for that drilling, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

So drilling operations are finding water where they can. Chesapeake Energy signed an agreement with the city of Steubenville last month to take up to 700,000 gallons of water a day from a city reservoir of water from the Ohio River, at a cost of $5 for every 1,000 gallons.

That brought in about $30,000 for the city after the company took about 6 million gallons during a two-week period in late February and early March.

“It’s a great deal,” city Law Director Gary Repella said. “We’re not spending any money to treat the water, and it’s not going to disrupt our system. We can draw as much as we want.”

The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District is considering requests from a dozen companies seeking to draw water from six eastern Ohio reservoirs it controls.

Some environmentalists, fearful of the repercussions of the growing water demand, aren’t sure the conservancy district should allow that.

“There isn’t enough water to go around,” said Lea Harper, a member of the Southeast Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water.

The Muskingum Watershed’s conservation chief said the district would ask the U.S. Geological Survey to help determine how much extra water is in the area but might approve requests for reservoir water in the meantime if there’s no clear threat to wildlife.

Energy companies say they try to make sure they don’t take too much water, and state officials say they believe Ohio has enough water for everyone.

Businesses aren’t required to register with the state if they draw less than 100,000 gallons from water sources, but officials plan to change rules to better track drillers’ water sources, said Bethany McCorkle, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

http://www.cantonrep.com/fracking/x586824940/Gas-drilling-raises-concern-over-water-supply

OU must protect its most valuable resources from fracking effects

By Professor Jim Montgomery

I am a faculty member in the College of Health Sciences and Professions at Ohio University. I am compelled to write to remind the leadership of OU, including the Board of Trustees, of one of the primary missions of the university as it prepares its response to the state regarding fracking on lands owned by the university.

OU, along with the College of Health Sciences and Professions (CHSP) and the Heritage College of Medicine (HCOM), have the express obligation to serve the underrepresented and underserved not just in Athens County but all of southeast Ohio. While Athens County has the highest poverty rate in the state (32.8 percent) much of southeast Ohio is impoverished. And with poverty comes many problems, among them poor health and lack of access and opportunity to resources necessary to develop and sustain healthy living.

Long-term exposure to fracking pollutants has the potential of worsening these individuals’ health problems. Others are also very susceptible to environmental toxins, regardless of poverty status – pregnant women, young children and adolescents.

Ohio University has the responsibility to do all it can to protect the most vulnerable among us. First, to the extent possible, the university must oppose fracking until tighter federal regulations are put in place. To do so would be consistent with the university’s commitment to serve all southeast Ohioans. Second, it must demand that the oil industry implement all of the precautions recommended in the Resolution on Hydraulic Fracturing at Ohio University developed by the Environmental Studies Advisory Board and passed by the Faculty Senate (March 12, 2012). These recommendations would require the industry to implement various measures to minimize the negative effects of fracking on the environment and human health within the university community.

The overwhelming majority of the local opposition to fracking has centered on its potential ill effects on the environment (i.e. contamination of water, air, soil) and local economy. This is for good reason. The emerging science and experiences of numerous communities around the country attest to these negative effects.

By contrast, little has been detailed about the risks to human health. There is good reason for this, too. Few studies have been conducted on the short- and long-term effects of fracking on human health. Big oil has taken full advantage of this circumstance when they claim there are no established links between fracking and human health problems. However, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There are emerging data showing that fracking is indeed associated with numerous human health problems, including dermatological, endocrine, respiratory, kidney, liver, gastrointestinal, vascular, and neurological (Bamberger & Oswald, 2012; Colburn et al., 2011).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will publish findings later this year and in 2014 detailing both the health and environmental effects of fracking.

Meantime, the epidemiological literature (i.e. the study of disease patterns and the conditions that give rise to disease) provides us ample evidence of the sorts of long-term ill effects on human health we might expect from fracking, especially in children and adolescents who are particularly susceptible to environmental toxins. The science is clear. Well-established links exist between low-level but chronic exposure to environmental toxins and a wide range of childhood physical, neurological, cognitive and behavioral problems.

The National Academy of Sciences (2002) estimated that one in every 200 children suffers from physical, neurological, developmental, learning and/or behavioral disorders caused by exposure to known environmental toxins. A recent study (Trasande & Liu, 2011) reported that environmental childhood diseases cost $76.6 billion or 3.5 percent of U.S. health-care costs in 2008. The authors stated that “the environment has become a major part of childhood disease.”

The developing science focusing on the effects of fracking on human health and the epidemiological literature must not be ignored by OU and the Board of Trustees as they prepare their position statement on fracking. These literatures tell us what to expect in the wake of chronic exposure to toxins from an unregulated hydraulic fracturing technology: an increase in childhood physical, neurological, developmental, learning and/or behavioral disorders.

Also expect staggering financial stress on the health care, social service and educational systems across southeast Ohio as more families seek resources and support systems that already are in short supply. OU, the CHSP and HCOM have an institutional and social responsibility to protect the health of southeast Ohioans, particularly the most vulnerable: those living in poverty, pregnant women, young children and adolescents.

Jim Montgomery is a professor in the College of Health Sciences and Professions at Ohio University

http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-36470-ou-must-protect-its-most-valuable-resources-from-fracking-effects.html

Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians

The law, known as Act 13 of 2012, an amendment to Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking. Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company doesn’t have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information, nor does it have to reveal how the chemicals and gases used in fracking interact with natural compounds. If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician believes may have led to their health problems. A strict interpretation of the law would also forbid general practitioners and family practice physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreement and learn the contents of the “trade secrets” from notifying a specialist about the chemicals or compounds, thus delaying medical treatment.

The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov.Tom Corbett.

“I have never seen anything like this in my 37 years of practice,” says Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician from Coraopolis, Pa. She says it’s common for physicians, epidemiologists, and others in the health care field to discuss and consult with each other about the possible problems that can affect various populations. Her first priority, she says, “is to diagnose and treat, and to be proactive in preventing harm to others.” The new law, she says, not only “hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.”

Psychologists are also concerned about the effects of fracking and the law’s gag order. “We won’t know the extent of patients becoming anxious or depressed because of a lack of information about the fracking process and the chemicals used,” says Kathryn Vennie of Hawley, Pa., a clinical psychologist for 30 years. She says she is already seeing patients “who are seeking support because of the disruption to their environment.” Anxiety in the absence of information, she says, “can produce both mental and physical problems.”

The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Dr. Paulson, also professor of pediatrics atGeorge Washington University, calls the law “detrimental to the delivery of personal health care and contradictory to the ethical principles of medicine and public health.” Physicians, he says, “have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the public, and this law precludes us from doing all we can to protect the public.” He has called for a moratorium on all drilling until the health effects can be analyzed.

Click to read more ...

Natural Gas Industry Gets Water Permits for Fracking While Science and Public Get Ignored

As the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducts its quarterly business meeting today, a coalition of organizations strongly criticized the agency for prohibiting public comment at the event and continuing to issue water permits for the natural gas industry without taking measures to prevent negative impacts across the Basin.

In a March 9 letter to SRBC, the groups said that full public participation at all meetings is necessary for the Commission to receive valuable public and expert input, have current information to consider in its permit reviews, and, as a public agency, to maintain transparent decision-making. (The full text of the letter is available by clicking here.)

The Commissioners represent Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as the federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But at a recent hearing on 40 water withdrawal permits to support the natural gas industry, only the Commission chair (from Pennsylvania) was present and comment was taken by a hearing officer.

This highlighted growing concern that SRBC is violating its mandate to operate on the basis of equal, joint involvement by all member states. SRBC continues to approve permits and will soon put in place weak regulations to promote shale gas development in Pennsylvania—even though the other two members, Maryland and New York, haven’t decided whether to even allow it to occur. And by not conducting any studies to determine the effects of the industry across the Basin over time, SRBC is ignoring its legal requirement for long-term planning. (These points are detailed in a document available here.)

“As drilling explodes across the Basin, communities and the environment are being harmed. It’s no wonder that residents are speaking out, taking a closer look at the work of the SRBC, and turning out for meetings like never before,” says Nadia Steinzor, Marcellus regional organizer for Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project. “SRBC should face this new reality and do what it takes to support productive public participation and protect the water resources with which they’re entrusted.”

“The Commissioners should take the time to consider and respond to citizen comments. The public has invested time and expense in coming before the Commission to speak and the public should be heard,” said Thomas Au, conservation chair of Pennsylvania Sierra Club.

“The SRBC needs to stop the premature authorization of growth-inducing actions like the shale gas-related water withdrawals on March 15th’s docket,” said Guy Alsentzer, staff attorney for Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper. “The Commission must first take the initiative to study shale gas development’s impacts on water resources and water resources management on a Basin-wide scale and incorporate those findings into its decision-making. Only by doing so can it fulfill its Compact and regulatory duties to preserve water quantity and quality for present and future generations.”

“SRBC should stop rushing to judgment on these huge water withdrawal permit applications. These proposed withdrawals are not happening in isolation,” said Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania State director for Clean Water Action. “SRBC needs to stop approving individual permits and conduct a study on the cumulative impact of full scale gas extraction on the entire Susquehanna watershed. These decisions affect residents in three states and should not be made without conducting real, science-based study.”

“The routine approval of water withdrawals for drilling and fracking in the Susquehanna River Watershed by the SRBC is resulting in water and air pollution and community degradation, and yet the SRBC is not addressing the outcomes from their decisions. They cannot bury their heads in the sand while the air and water of the Basin are polluted and people are getting sick,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper. “The SRBC should not approve the proposed water withdrawals and instead enact a moratorium while they address the damaging fallout from gas extraction and put in place a plan to protect and restore the Susquehanna River Watershed. The degradation from gas in the Susquehanna affects us all and it’s time to stop it.”

http://ecowatch.org/2012/natural-gas-industry-gets-water-permits-while-science-and-public-get-ignored/

Fracking Democracy: Why Pennsylvania's Act 13 May Be the Nation's Worst Corporate Giveaway

Pennsylvania, where the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were signed and where the U.S. coal, oil and nuclear industries began, has adopted what may be the most anti-democratic, anti-environmental law in the country, giving gas companies the right to drill anywhere, overturn local zoning laws, seize private property and muzzle physicians from disclosing specific health impacts from drilling fluids on patients. 

The draconian new law, known as Act 13, revises the state’s oil and gas statutes, to allow oil companies to drill for natural gas using the controversial process known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, where large volumes of water and toxic chemicals are pumped into vertical wells with lateral bores to shatter the rock and release the hydrocarbons. The law strips rights from communities and individuals while imposing new statewide drilling rules.

 

“It’s absolutely crushing of local self-government,” said Ben Price, project director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has helped a handful of local communities—including the city of Pittsburgh—adopt community rights ordinances that elevate the rights of nature and people to block the drilling. “The state has surrendered over 2,000 municipalities to the industry. It’s a complete capitulation of the rights of the people and their right to self-government. They are handing it over to the industry to let them govern us. It is the corporate state. That is how we look at it.”

 

“Now I know what it feels like to live in Nigeria,” said recently retired Pittsburgh City Council President Doug Shields. “You’re basically a resource colony for multi-national corporations to take your natural resources, take them back to wherever they are at, add value to them, and then sell them back to you.”

Click to read more ...

Colo. cities profit by selling water for fracking

FORT COLLINS | Some northern Colorado cities are earning thousands of dollars selling municipal water for use in hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan reported Sunday (http://noconow.co/yTJ5VR ) that the town of Windsor sold more than 8.4 million gallons to the oil and gas industry for nearly $17,000 between Nov. 1 and March 1.

The town sold no water to energy companies the previous two years. The volume has grown so quickly that town officials haven't had time to consider the implications.

"It's really kind of is a phenomenon." Town Manager Kelly Arnold said. "There's been no policy discussion on this. I would define it as an emerging issue."

In 2011, Greeley sold more than 491 million gallons, mostly to the oil and gas industry, for $1.6 million.

Fort Lupton sold about 154 million gallons of municipal water to the oil and gas industry in 2011 for more than $677,000. The city is using the money to pay down its $20 million debt on a water treatment plant.

"It's been a benefit to us, a great benefit," said City Administrator Claud Hanes.

Fracking uses pressurized water, sand and chemicals to crack open fissures within wells and improve the flow of oil and gas.

Colorado regulators project that about 5.2 billion gallons of water will be used this year for fracking statewide, compared with 4.5 trillion gallons used by agriculture each year.

Some conservationists argue increasing use of fracking could consume more water than the state can spare, especially if elected officials and the energy industry's calculations are wrong.

"They don't understand what the cumulative impact is going to be if we put in another 100,000 wells," said Phillip Doe of Littleton, a former environmental compliance officer for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

If all the wells that exist today were fracked multiple times, "it's not hard to come up with calculations that come up with Denver's annual water use," he said. "This stuff goes underground and never comes back."

Thom Kerr, acting director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said much of the water does come back over time.

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/email_push/news/article_c3ab1158-6c41-11e1-b4a2-0019bb2963f4.html