EPA to Hold Public Meeting on Hydraulic Fracturing

EPA to Hold Public Meeting on Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study In
Canonsburg July 22*

(*PHILADELPHIA** *- July 8, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
is hosting an informational public meeting
in Canonsburg, Washington County, Pa. about its proposed study of the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and potential impacts on drinking
water.

The meeting will be held from 6-10 p.m., July 22, at the Hilton Garden Inn
in Canonsburg to provide information about the scope and design of the
proposed study, and give the public an opportunity provide input and comment
on the draft study plan.

 Hydraulic fracturing is a process used for extracting natural gas or oil
from shale and other geological formations. By pumping fracturing fluids
(water and chemical additives) and sand or other similar materials into rock
formations, fractures are created that allow natural gas or oil to flow from
the rock – through the fractures – to a production well for extraction.

In March 2010, EPA announced that it will study the potential adverse impact
that hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water.  In developing the
study, EPA is holding a series of meetings to receive public input about
specific drinking water, human health or environmental concerns that need to
be factored into the study.

To support the planning and development of the study, the agency sought
suggestions and comments from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), an
independent, external federal advisory committee. The agency will use this
advice, as well as extensive public input in designing the study.

EPA requests that citizens who are interested in attending to *pre-register
by Monday, July 19.* EPA will also hold meetings about the study on, July 8
in Fort Worth, Texas; July 13 in Denver, Colo.; and, August 12
in Binghamton, N.Y.

Call 1-866-477-3635 toll free to register.  Or register on-line at:
http://hfmeeting.cadmusweb.com.

Those wishing to contribute comments to EPA regarding the proposed hydraulic
fracturing research study may also submit electronic comments to EPA at
hydraulic.fractur@epa.gov ; or send written comments to:

Jill Dean

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail code 4606M,

Washington, DC  20460.

Gas Drilling Problems and Dangers

Good info and thoughts from Splashdown

by laura legere (staff writer)
thetimes-tribune.com
Published: June 21, 2010

Photo: N/A, License: N/A

Fear about environmental damage from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling is often trained on what could happen deep underground, but some of the gravest hazards posed by the process are driven in trucks, stored in tanks, carried through hoses and left in pits on the surface of natural gas well sites.

Concentrated chemicals, as well as wastewater containing toxic levels of salts and metals, are stored, produced or transported in large quantities at each well site, creating the potential for tainting drinking water or seeping into local ponds and streams.

While recent incidents at Marcellus Shale wells involving explosions, blowouts and methane-contaminated drinking water have drawn attention to the dangerous potential of the activity, information about the industry wide frequency and impact of spills and leaks has not been reported publicly.

Department of Environmental Protection files made available to The Times-Tribune through a Right-to-Know request reveal hundreds of examples of spills at natural gas drilling sites in the state during the last five years, recorded by at least 92 different drilling companies.

The documents show that many of the largest operators in the Marcellus Shale have been issued violations for spills that reached waterways, leaking pits that harmed drinking water, or failed pipes that drained into farmers’ fields, killing shrubs and trees.

The frequency of violations has kept the state’s gas inspectors on the run.

After a Marcellus Shale hearing last week, DEP produced a list for state legislators of 421 violations found by inspectors at Marcellus Shale wells this year through June 4.

At least 50 of the violations – recorded by 15 different Marcellus operators – involved a spill to soil or water. Generic descriptions used by the department to characterize the violations make it impossible to determine the exact number of spills.

“It goes from an accident to negligence,” DEP Secretary John Hanger said at the hearing, and attributed the problems to “poor management” and “not proper oversight” by the companies.

“This industry’s got to look in the mirror,” he said.

Kathryn Klaber, the director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a Pennsylvania industry group, said shale drilling is an industrial activity, like many others.

“Any spill is a problem,” she said. “For PR (public relations) reasons, for fines, for reputation, stock price – there’s no good reason to have one.”

(Notice she doesn’t even mention environmental harm… just PR, fines, reputation and stock price!)

But, she added, “I think if we were looking across multiple industries … the question I’d like to pose is, is it worse or better than others?”

(THE INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE OF THIS KIND OF THINKING NEEDS TO BE REDRESSED! …Comparison to greater destruction is no excuse, it’s just inexcusable! -Splashdown)

The following list highlights examples of spills, seeps and accidents as described in DEP documents that have been committed by an array of Marcellus Shale operators.

It illustrates that none of the companies currently pulling gas from the shale has been able to avoid potentially harmful accidents and errors.

 

Spills and leaks near a state forest

An accident at a Marcellus Shale well in early June caused a geyser of gas and wastewater to erupt for 16 hours on property owned by a private hunting club in the middle of a state forest frequented by campers and anglers.

The well is one of 44 permitted or pending Marcellus Shale wells operated by Houston-based EOG Resources on the hunting club land in Clearfield County, and the nearly catastrophic rupture was a dramatic demonstration of the hazards of natural gas drilling.

But months before that incident, a seemingly invisible plume of contamination affected water sources around the same EOG lease, prompting months of investigation by DEP.

Beginning in late August 2009, inspectors found evidence that Marcellus Shale waste fluids had impacted Alex Branch, a wild trout stream and high-quality fishery, and damaged the drinking water at a nearby hunting camp, where water tests found barium that was four times above the state and federal drinking water limits – an amount that can cause vomiting, diarrhea and muscle weakness after drinking it for even a short period of time.

DEP inspectors had not noticed any evidence of a spill from the nearest EOG well site and could see nothing wrong with the earthen pit where the company stored the well’s waste, but it was determined that undetected seeps from one pit, and maybe several, most likely caused the wastewater to contaminate the stream.

An accident in early August may also have contributed to the damage when a small hole in a hose carrying wastewater from the well sprayed a fine mist for several days that landed on nearby plants and a small wetland. A heavy rain swamped the pad, likely washing the fluids downhill to the hunting camp and stream.

In response to the leaks, EOG excavated the suspected faulty pit and another nearby pit, backfilled other unused pits on the lease and transitioned to a system in which drilling fluids and waste drawn from a well are piped to closed tanks rather than pits, which helps to minimize the risk of seeps and overflows. In an e-mail to DEP, the EOG environmental safety administrator said the company would transition to the safer systems, which are not required by Pennsylvania law, because “we don’t want to risk anything.”

In a separate incident, on Oct. 12, 2009, a leak in a tank used to store a fluid mixture of water and hydraulic fracturing chemicals spilled about 7,980 gallons, most of which was absorbed into the ground.

It caused a nearby tributary to Alex Branch to turn cloudy and suds when agitated.

An EOG spokeswoman said the company “regrets these incidents occurred and took immediate steps to address the issues,” including adopting new operating procedures and hiring outside contractors to perform water sampling after both events.

Acid leaks and unlabeled tanks

Twice in two months, hydrochloric acid spilled at two wells sites operated by Chesapeake Appalachia in Bradford County – including once when the company used a tank that was not meant to store the acid.

Alarmed notes from an inspector’s telephone conversation with the tank’s manufacturer at the time of the first spill, at the Chancellor well site in Asylum Twp. in February 2009, showed the tank was not designed or lined to hold 36 percent hydrochloric acid, and that even less concentrated acid should only have been held for a day and a half.

“Somebody messed up big time to put 14,000 gall. 36% HCL in a frac tank for 30 days!!” the note stated.

DEP records also show the same inspector pursuing concerns about the proper labeling of the tank, which was one among between 25 and 50 identical 500-barrel, corrugated wall storage tanks on site without placards to differentiate it.

“It’s bad enough dealing with unlabeled 55 gallon drums in our line of work,” he wrote in an internal e-mail, “but having to contend with unlabeled 21,000 gallon acid ‘frac’ tanks in the boondocks, on properties that have unrestricted access, is a bit much.”

The second acid spill, at the Vannoy well site in Granville Twp., may have contributed to the contamination of a private pond and a 30-foot swath of dead or stressed vegetation, including several evergreen trees.

The 420-gallon acid spill was one of several accidents at the site DEP thought might have caused the damage, including a spill of several thousand gallons of water on March 3, 2009, that was never tested for metals and salts, the hallmark constituents of Marcellus Shale wastewater.

The acid spill, on March 20, also flowed into the pond. Chesapeake neutralized the acid and removed the contaminated soil, but a cleanup plan commissioned by the company in December said some of the acid likely percolated through the pad and may have remained perched on the shallow bedrock causing additional contamination.

In July, DEP inspectors found stained areas at the base of a waste pit where the company left rock cuttings and drilling fluids in direct contact with the ground, and said the stain was a sign that drilling fluid “either has or is seeping from the pit.”

DEP fined Chesapeake $27,271.93 and its hydraulic fracturing contractor BJ Services $8,598.46 for the second hydrochloric acid spill in February 2010, a fine the agency never announced publicly.

Brian Grove, Chesapeake’s director of corporate development, said the company “responded proactively to both situations” and “learned very valuable lessons from the incidents.” It turned those lessons into new operating practices, including requiring secondary containment for all materials brought to a pad, he said.

Hydrochloric acid on public roads

A worker for Fortuna Energy (now called Talisman Energy USA) drove a tanker leaking hydrochloric acid about 2½ miles over public roads between two of the company’s well sites in Troy Twp., Bradford County, on June 30, 2009.

At the second site, the driver, wearing an acid-resistant suit and a respirator, tried to put a catch pan under the leak, passed out from inhaling the fumes and was taken by helicopter to Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre. The tanker lost between 100 and 200 gallons of acid and contaminated soil was later removed from both sites.

Talisman did not report the spill to DEP until late the next day, a delay DEP officials called “unacceptable.”

A February 2010 press release from DEP announced a $3,500 fine for some incidents at one of the pads involved with the acid spill, but it did not address that spill. It also did not address three drilling wastewater spills in July and August 2009 on the same two well pads.

Efforts to reach a Talisman spokesman were unsuccessful. In the company’s written response to DEP after the acid spill, the operations manager said it “takes the issue very seriously” and he visited each well site to emphasize to workers “the importance of our zero spill approach.”

Mud eruption in a wetland

Crews for Chief Gathering – the pipeline subsidiary of driller Chief Oil and Gas – were boring a path for a pipeline 13 feet under a stream, wetland and road in Penn Twp., Lycoming County, on December 12, 2009, when the muds used to drill the hole erupted to the surface, spilling between 3,000 and 6,000 gallons into the wetland.

Initial reports from the company estimated the spill to be only about 100 gallons and to have stopped at least 10 feet away from the stream, but the DEP inspector who was called two days later found sandbags and a silt sock right at the water’s edge and the barrier did not prevent some of the mud from reaching the stream.

Efforts to clean up the spill were slowed, first because the muds clogged the suction hoses the company used to try to remove it from the wetland, and later because the fluids froze solid.

While he was on site, the inspector also saw evidence of muds in a roadside ditch and was told that there had been another, unreported spill on December 10 of about 110 gallons.

The inspector noted that chemical safety sheets provided by the company for the mud, “Hydraul-EZ,” listed the ingredients bentonite, a kind of clay, and a “bentonite extender,” but the manufacturer “claims that any further details about these substances is proprietary” making it “difficult” to determine the potential of the mud to cause pollution.

Kristi Gittins, a Chief spokeswoman, said that the spilled mud is “not hazardous. It’s dirt.”

“There were no chemicals, and the DEP knows that,” she said.

The remedy for such a spill is to “let it settle,” she said, which is what the company was told to do.

Overflowing waste pit 1

More than 30,000 gallons of diluted wastewater overflowed a waste pit, rushed over a barrier and soaked a pasture on June 3, 2009, when workers transferring the fluid to the site owned by East Resources in Tioga County accidentally dumped too much into the pit.

The spill was first noticed by DEP inspectors, who happened to stop by the well pad.

The fluid was diluted enough, and cleaned up quickly enough, not to kill or stress vegetation, and the fluid did not appear to reach a stream.

The pit was among four at East Resources well sites in Tioga and Potter counties that discharged the wastewater they were holding. The three other pits all leaked and at least one was concentrated enough to kill or stress nearby vegetation.

East is finalizing a consent order with DEP that covers those and about 30 other violations at its sites, according to a violation notice posted on a DEP database that indicates the company will pay a $29,000 fine.

Stephen Rhoads, East’s director of external affairs, said the spill was an “unfortunate accident” with no long-term impact.

“Working with DEP, we took care of it immediately,” he said.

Overflowing waste pit 2

A 750,000-gallon pit holding a mixture of fresh water and wastewater overflowed off a well pad run by Atlas Resources in Washington County, through a drain and into a small tributary in a high quality watershed on December 5 and 6, 2009.

The spill was reported to DEP by the property owner, who noticed the spill before Atlas saw or reported it. It apparently was caused by a pump that turned on automatically but had no mechanism for turning off automatically when the pit was full.

The spill, for which the company has not been fined, is one of several violations the company has recorded in southwestern Pennsylvania. In January, DEP fined Atlas $85,000 for violations at 13 well sites between December 2008 and July 2009, including improper erosion controls and site remediation, and spills of diesel fuel and wastewater.

In late March, on the same Hopewell Twp. farm as the pit overflow, liquid hydrocarbons called condensate on the surface of a 400,000-gallon wastewater pit caught fire, engulfing the pit and burning its plastic liner, causing a plume of black smoke that was visible for miles.

Atlas, a Pennsylvania company, also drills non-Marcellus Shale natural gas wells, including one near Kushequa, McKean County which DEP found to have caused explosive levels of methane and ethane to seep into residential water supplies and triggered a small explosion in the village’s public well in late 2007.

Efforts to reach an Atlas spokesman were unsuccessful.

Hydraulic oil leak

An oil leak from a hydraulic line in March 2008 spilled onto a field and into natural springs surrounding a Range Resources – Appalachia well in Washington County. The oil mixed with water and flowed 100 yards downhill, contaminating soil and killing vegetation.

Range excavated the contaminated soil and paid a $21,200 fine in June 2009 for the spills at that site and for 16 other violations, an enforcement action that was never publicized by DEP.

DEP also investigated whether a Marcellus Shale well drilled by Range on the same property affected an old abandoned well, causing gas to contaminate private water supplies and bubble up through the soil.

Matt Pitzarella, a Range spokesman, said the gas migration was a preexisting issue that was only discovered once Range’s activities started on the site. The company capped and remediated the old well, he said.

The oil leak he called a mechanical error, and said the other violations included many that were administrative.

“Fortunately it was an incident that had minimal if any environmental impact, but you have to take care of every little detail,” he said.

“Since that time we’ve increased efforts to keep spills on location.”

Two months, two diesel spills

Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. had two 800-gallon diesel spills in five weeks in 2008 at some of its earliest Marcellus Shale sites in Dimock Twp.

On June 3, off-road diesel spilled from a break in a fuel line to a drilling rig, ran down a hill and into a roadside swale and pooled in a flooded wetland near Meshoppen Creek.

On July 11, a dump truck driver working to build an access road to a well backed into a 1,000-gallon tank of off-road diesel, panicked and dragged the tank about 30 feet before it tipped over and spilled onto the ground. Crews dug pits and vacuumed up about 170 gallons of the visible diesel, then removed contaminated soil and stone from the site. When two of nine soil tests showed continued contamination, contractors dug a foot deeper and excavated more soil. A total of 272 tons of contaminated soil was taken from the site.

The company was fined $4,915.30 for the first spill after the site was cleaned up.

According to DEP records, Cabot was never fined for the second spill.

Cabot spokesman George Stark said the company “works hard to ensure that we have a plan in place to control and maintain any accidental release.”

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!


Posted By SPLASHDOWN to SPLASHDOWN! at 6/21/2010 11:46:00 AM Fear about environmental damage from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling is often trained on what could happen deep underground, but some of the gravest hazards posed by the process are driven in trucks, stored in tanks, carried through hoses and left in pits on the surface of natural gas well sites.

Concentrated chemicals, as well as wastewater containing toxic levels of salts and metals, are stored, produced or transported in large quantities at each well site, creating the potential for tainting drinking water or seeping into local ponds and streams.

While recent incidents at Marcellus Shale wells involving explosions, blowouts and methane-contaminated drinking water have drawn attention to the dangerous potential of the activity, information about the industry wide frequency and impact of spills and leaks has not been reported publicly.

Department of Environmental Protection files made available to The Times-Tribune through a Right-to-Know request reveal hundreds of examples of spills at natural gas drilling sites in the state during the last five years, recorded by at least 92 different drilling companies.

The documents show that many of the largest operators in the Marcellus Shale have been issued violations for spills that reached waterways, leaking pits that harmed drinking water, or failed pipes that drained into farmers’ fields, killing shrubs and trees.

The frequency of violations has kept the state’s gas inspectors on the run.

After a Marcellus Shale hearing last week, DEP produced a list for state legislators of 421 violations found by inspectors at Marcellus Shale wells this year through June 4.

At least 50 of the violations – recorded by 15 different Marcellus operators – involved a spill to soil or water. Generic descriptions used by the department to characterize the violations make it impossible to determine the exact number of spills.

“It goes from an accident to negligence,” DEP Secretary John Hanger said at the hearing, and attributed the problems to “poor management” and “not proper oversight” by the companies.

“This industry’s got to look in the mirror,” he said.

Kathryn Klaber, the director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a Pennsylvania industry group, said shale drilling is an industrial activity, like many others.

“Any spill is a problem,” she said. “For PR (public relations) reasons, for fines, for reputation, stock price – there’s no good reason to have one.”

(Notice she doesn’t even mention environmental harm… just PR, fines, reputation and stock price!)

But, she added, “I think if we were looking across multiple industries … the question I’d like to pose is, is it worse or better than others?”

(THE INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE OF THIS KIND OF THINKING NEEDS TO BE REDRESSED! …Comparison to greater destruction is no excuse, it’s just inexcusable! -Splashdown)

 

The following list highlights examples of spills, seeps and accidents as described in DEP documents that have been committed by an array of Marcellus Shale operators.

It illustrates that none of the companies currently pulling gas from the shale has been able to avoid potentially harmful accidents and errors.

 

Spills and leaks near a state forest

An accident at a Marcellus Shale well in early June caused a geyser of gas and wastewater to erupt for 16 hours on property owned by a private hunting club in the middle of a state forest frequented by campers and anglers.

The well is one of 44 permitted or pending Marcellus Shale wells operated by Houston-based EOG Resources on the hunting club land in Clearfield County, and the nearly catastrophic rupture was a dramatic demonstration of the hazards of natural gas drilling.

But months before that incident, a seemingly invisible plume of contamination affected water sources around the same EOG lease, prompting months of investigation by DEP.

Beginning in late August 2009, inspectors found evidence that Marcellus Shale waste fluids had impacted Alex Branch, a wild trout stream and high-quality fishery, and damaged the drinking water at a nearby hunting camp, where water tests found barium that was four times above the state and federal drinking water limits – an amount that can cause vomiting, diarrhea and muscle weakness after drinking it for even a short period of time.

DEP inspectors had not noticed any evidence of a spill from the nearest EOG well site and could see nothing wrong with the earthen pit where the company stored the well’s waste, but it was determined that undetected seeps from one pit, and maybe several, most likely caused the wastewater to contaminate the stream.

An accident in early August may also have contributed to the damage when a small hole in a hose carrying wastewater from the well sprayed a fine mist for several days that landed on nearby plants and a small wetland. A heavy rain swamped the pad, likely washing the fluids downhill to the hunting camp and stream.

In response to the leaks, EOG excavated the suspected faulty pit and another nearby pit, backfilled other unused pits on the lease and transitioned to a system in which drilling fluids and waste drawn from a well are piped to closed tanks rather than pits, which helps to minimize the risk of seeps and overflows. In an e-mail to DEP, the EOG environmental safety administrator said the company would transition to the safer systems, which are not required by Pennsylvania law, because “we don’t want to risk anything.”

In a separate incident, on Oct. 12, 2009, a leak in a tank used to store a fluid mixture of water and hydraulic fracturing chemicals spilled about 7,980 gallons, most of which was absorbed into the ground.

It caused a nearby tributary to Alex Branch to turn cloudy and suds when agitated.

An EOG spokeswoman said the company “regrets these incidents occurred and took immediate steps to address the issues,” including adopting new operating procedures and hiring outside contractors to perform water sampling after both events.

Acid leaks and unlabeled tanks

Twice in two months, hydrochloric acid spilled at two wells sites operated by Chesapeake Appalachia in Bradford County – including once when the company used a tank that was not meant to store the acid.

Alarmed notes from an inspector’s telephone conversation with the tank’s manufacturer at the time of the first spill, at the Chancellor well site in Asylum Twp. in February 2009, showed the tank was not designed or lined to hold 36 percent hydrochloric acid, and that even less concentrated acid should only have been held for a day and a half.

“Somebody messed up big time to put 14,000 gall. 36% HCL in a frac tank for 30 days!!” the note stated.

DEP records also show the same inspector pursuing concerns about the proper labeling of the tank, which was one among between 25 and 50 identical 500-barrel, corrugated wall storage tanks on site without placards to differentiate it.

“It’s bad enough dealing with unlabeled 55 gallon drums in our line of work,” he wrote in an internal e-mail, “but having to contend with unlabeled 21,000 gallon acid ‘frac’ tanks in the boondocks, on properties that have unrestricted access, is a bit much.”

The second acid spill, at the Vannoy well site in Granville Twp., may have contributed to the contamination of a private pond and a 30-foot swath of dead or stressed vegetation, including several evergreen trees.

The 420-gallon acid spill was one of several accidents at the site DEP thought might have caused the damage, including a spill of several thousand gallons of water on March 3, 2009, that was never tested for metals and salts, the hallmark constituents of Marcellus Shale wastewater.

The acid spill, on March 20, also flowed into the pond. Chesapeake neutralized the acid and removed the contaminated soil, but a cleanup plan commissioned by the company in December said some of the acid likely percolated through the pad and may have remained perched on the shallow bedrock causing additional contamination.

In July, DEP inspectors found stained areas at the base of a waste pit where the company left rock cuttings and drilling fluids in direct contact with the ground, and said the stain was a sign that drilling fluid “either has or is seeping from the pit.”

DEP fined Chesapeake $27,271.93 and its hydraulic fracturing contractor BJ Services $8,598.46 for the second hydrochloric acid spill in February 2010, a fine the agency never announced publicly.

Brian Grove, Chesapeake’s director of corporate development, said the company “responded proactively to both situations” and “learned very valuable lessons from the incidents.” It turned those lessons into new operating practices, including requiring secondary containment for all materials brought to a pad, he said.

Hydrochloric acid on public roads

A worker for Fortuna Energy (now called Talisman Energy USA) drove a tanker leaking hydrochloric acid about 2½ miles over public roads between two of the company’s well sites in Troy Twp., Bradford County, on June 30, 2009.

At the second site, the driver, wearing an acid-resistant suit and a respirator, tried to put a catch pan under the leak, passed out from inhaling the fumes and was taken by helicopter to Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre. The tanker lost between 100 and 200 gallons of acid and contaminated soil was later removed from both sites.

Talisman did not report the spill to DEP until late the next day, a delay DEP officials called “unacceptable.”

A February 2010 press release from DEP announced a $3,500 fine for some incidents at one of the pads involved with the acid spill, but it did not address that spill. It also did not address three drilling wastewater spills in July and August 2009 on the same two well pads.

Efforts to reach a Talisman spokesman were unsuccessful. In the company’s written response to DEP after the acid spill, the operations manager said it “takes the issue very seriously” and he visited each well site to emphasize to workers “the importance of our zero spill approach.”

Mud eruption in a wetland

Crews for Chief Gathering – the pipeline subsidiary of driller Chief Oil and Gas – were boring a path for a pipeline 13 feet under a stream, wetland and road in Penn Twp., Lycoming County, on December 12, 2009, when the muds used to drill the hole erupted to the surface, spilling between 3,000 and 6,000 gallons into the wetland.

Initial reports from the company estimated the spill to be only about 100 gallons and to have stopped at least 10 feet away from the stream, but the DEP inspector who was called two days later found sandbags and a silt sock right at the water’s edge and the barrier did not prevent some of the mud from reaching the stream.

Efforts to clean up the spill were slowed, first because the muds clogged the suction hoses the company used to try to remove it from the wetland, and later because the fluids froze solid.

While he was on site, the inspector also saw evidence of muds in a roadside ditch and was told that there had been another, unreported spill on December 10 of about 110 gallons.

The inspector noted that chemical safety sheets provided by the company for the mud, “Hydraul-EZ,” listed the ingredients bentonite, a kind of clay, and a “bentonite extender,” but the manufacturer “claims that any further details about these substances is proprietary” making it “difficult” to determine the potential of the mud to cause pollution.

Kristi Gittins, a Chief spokeswoman, said that the spilled mud is “not hazardous. It’s dirt.”

“There were no chemicals, and the DEP knows that,” she said.

The remedy for such a spill is to “let it settle,” she said, which is what the company was told to do.

Overflowing waste pit 1

More than 30,000 gallons of diluted wastewater overflowed a waste pit, rushed over a barrier and soaked a pasture on June 3, 2009, when workers transferring the fluid to the site owned by East Resources in Tioga County accidentally dumped too much into the pit.

The spill was first noticed by DEP inspectors, who happened to stop by the well pad.

The fluid was diluted enough, and cleaned up quickly enough, not to kill or stress vegetation, and the fluid did not appear to reach a stream.

The pit was among four at East Resources well sites in Tioga and Potter counties that discharged the wastewater they were holding. The three other pits all leaked and at least one was concentrated enough to kill or stress nearby vegetation.

East is finalizing a consent order with DEP that covers those and about 30 other violations at its sites, according to a violation notice posted on a DEP database that indicates the company will pay a $29,000 fine.

Stephen Rhoads, East’s director of external affairs, said the spill was an “unfortunate accident” with no long-term impact.

“Working with DEP, we took care of it immediately,” he said.

Overflowing waste pit 2

A 750,000-gallon pit holding a mixture of fresh water and wastewater overflowed off a well pad run by Atlas Resources in Washington County, through a drain and into a small tributary in a high quality watershed on December 5 and 6, 2009.

The spill was reported to DEP by the property owner, who noticed the spill before Atlas saw or reported it. It apparently was caused by a pump that turned on automatically but had no mechanism for turning off automatically when the pit was full.

The spill, for which the company has not been fined, is one of several violations the company has recorded in southwestern Pennsylvania. In January, DEP fined Atlas $85,000 for violations at 13 well sites between December 2008 and July 2009, including improper erosion controls and site remediation, and spills of diesel fuel and wastewater.

In late March, on the same Hopewell Twp. farm as the pit overflow, liquid hydrocarbons called condensate on the surface of a 400,000-gallon wastewater pit caught fire, engulfing the pit and burning its plastic liner, causing a plume of black smoke that was visible for miles.

Atlas, a Pennsylvania company, also drills non-Marcellus Shale natural gas wells, including one near Kushequa, McKean County which DEP found to have caused explosive levels of methane and ethane to seep into residential water supplies and triggered a small explosion in the village’s public well in late 2007.

Efforts to reach an Atlas spokesman were unsuccessful.

Hydraulic oil leak

An oil leak from a hydraulic line in March 2008 spilled onto a field and into natural springs surrounding a Range Resources – Appalachia well in Washington County. The oil mixed with water and flowed 100 yards downhill, contaminating soil and killing vegetation.

Range excavated the contaminated soil and paid a $21,200 fine in June 2009 for the spills at that site and for 16 other violations, an enforcement action that was never publicized by DEP.

DEP also investigated whether a Marcellus Shale well drilled by Range on the same property affected an old abandoned well, causing gas to contaminate private water supplies and bubble up through the soil.

Matt Pitzarella, a Range spokesman, said the gas migration was a preexisting issue that was only discovered once Range’s activities started on the site. The company capped and remediated the old well, he said.

The oil leak he called a mechanical error, and said the other violations included many that were administrative.

“Fortunately it was an incident that had minimal if any environmental impact, but you have to take care of every little detail,” he said.

“Since that time we’ve increased efforts to keep spills on location.”

Two months, two diesel spills

Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. had two 800-gallon diesel spills in five weeks in 2008 at some of its earliest Marcellus Shale sites in Dimock Twp.

On June 3, off-road diesel spilled from a break in a fuel line to a drilling rig, ran down a hill and into a roadside swale and pooled in a flooded wetland near Meshoppen Creek.

On July 11, a dump truck driver working to build an access road to a well backed into a 1,000-gallon tank of off-road diesel, panicked and dragged the tank about 30 feet before it tipped over and spilled onto the ground. Crews dug pits and vacuumed up about 170 gallons of the visible diesel, then removed contaminated soil and stone from the site. When two of nine soil tests showed continued contamination, contractors dug a foot deeper and excavated more soil. A total of 272 tons of contaminated soil was taken from the site.

The company was fined $4,915.30 for the first spill after the site was cleaned up.

According to DEP records, Cabot was never fined for the second spill.

Cabot spokesman George Stark said the company “works hard to ensure that we have a plan in place to control and maintain any accidental release.”

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!


Posted By SPLASHDOWN to SPLASHDOWN! at 6/21/2010 11:46:00 AM

Basic Waterdog Training in June

This training is for anyone interested in knowing what to look for in the way of problems caused by the natural gas industry’s activities. Waterdog training also teaches you how to discriminate real problems from non-problems, how and where to report these, and how to do it all safely and legally.

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to let everyone know that the next basic training is on June 21st Monday at Penn College (outside of Wellsboro) at 7:00 pm.  Please pass this on to anyone you think maybe interested.  Please have them preregister with me.
Thanks
Erica Tomlinson
Watershed Specialist
Tioga County Conservation District
570-724-1801 ext 118

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

If you live in PA and are not aware of it…most of Eastern PA all the way up to New York is part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary______________________________________________
For Immediate Release             May 12, 2009

EXECUTIVE ORDER- – - – - – -

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in furtherance of the purposes of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other laws, and to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the Nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART 1 – PREAMBLE
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure constituting the largest estuary in the United States and one of the largest and most biologically productive estuaries in the world. The Federal Government has nationally significant assets in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in the form of public lands, facilities, military installations, parks, forests, wildlife refuges, monuments, and museums.
Despite significant efforts by Federal, State, and local governments and other interested parties, water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay prevents the attainment of existing State water quality standards and the “fishable and swimmable” goals of the Clean Water Act. At the current level and scope of pollution control within the Chesapeake Bay’s watershed, restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is not expected for many years. The pollutants that are largely responsible for pollution of the Chesapeake Bay are nutrients, in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus, and sediment. These pollutants come from many sources, including sewage treatment plants, city streets, development sites, agricultural operations, and deposition from the air onto the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the lands of the watershed.Restoration of the health of the Chesapeake Bay will require a renewed commitment to controlling pollution from all sources as well as protecting and restoring habitat and living resources, conserving lands, and improving management of natural resources, all of which contribute to improved water quality and ecosystem health. The Federal Government should lead this effort. Executive departments and agencies (agencies), working in collaboration, can use their expertise and resources to contribute significantly to improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay also

will depend on the support of State and local governments, the enterprise of the private sector, and the stewardship provided to the Chesapeake Bay by all the people who make this region their home.
PART 2 – SHARED FEDERAL LEADERSHIP, PLANNING, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 201. Federal Leadership Committee. In order to begin a new era of shared Federal leadership with respect to the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, a Federal Leadership Committee (Committee) for the Chesapeake Bay is established to oversee the development and coordination of programs and activities, including data management and reporting, of agencies participating in protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee shall manage the development of strategies and program plans for the watershed and ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and oversee their implementation. The Committee shall be chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Administrator’s designee, and include senior representatives of the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior (DOI), Transportation (DOT), and such other agencies as determined by the Committee. Representatives serving on the Committee shall be officers of the United States.
Sec. 202. Reports on Key Challenges to Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Within 120 days from the date of this order, the agencies identified in this section as the lead agencies shall prepare and submit draft reports to the Committee making recommendations for accomplishing the following steps to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay:
(a) define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and describe the changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions;
(b) target resources to better protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters, including resources under the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, the Clean Water Act, and other laws;
(c) strengthen storm water management practices at Federal facilities and on Federal lands within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and develop storm water best practices guidance;
(d) assess the impacts of a changing climate on the Chesapeake Bay and develop a strategy for adapting natural resource programs and public infrastructure to the impacts of a changing climate on water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(e) expand public access to waters and open spaces of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from Federal lands and conserve landscapes and ecosystems of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(f) strengthen scientific support for decisionmaking to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, including expanded environmental research and monitoring and observing systems; and
(g) develop focused and coordinated habitat and research activities that protect and restore living resources and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
The EPA shall be the lead agency for subsection (a) of this section and the development of the storm water best practices guide under subsection (c). The USDA shall be the lead agency for subsection (b). The DOD shall lead on storm water management practices at Federal facilities and on Federal lands under subsection (c). The DOI and the DOC shall share the lead on subsections (d), (f), and (g), and the DOI shall be lead on subsection (e). The lead agencies shall provide final reports to the Committee within 180 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 203. Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee shall prepare and publish a strategy for coordinated implementation of existing programs and projects to guide efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy shall, to the extent permitted by law:
(a) define environmental goals for the Chesapeake Bay and describe milestones for making progress toward attainment of these goals;
(b) identify key measureable indicators of environmental condition and changes that are critical to effective Federal leadership;
(c) describe the specific programs and strategies to be implemented, including the programs and strategies described in draft reports developed under section 202 of this order;
(d) identify the mechanisms that will assure that governmental and other activities, including data collection and distribution, are coordinated and effective, relying on existing mechanisms where appropriate; and
(e) describe a process for the implementation of adaptive management principles, including a periodic evaluation of protection and restoration activities.
The Committee shall review the draft reports submitted by lead agencies under section 202 of this order and, in consultation with relevant State agencies, suggest appropriate revisions to the agency that provided the draft report. It shall then integrate these reports into a coordinated strategy for restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay consistent with the requirements of this order. Together with the final reports prepared by the lead agencies, the draft strategy shall be published for public review and comment within 180 days of the date of this order and a final strategy shall be published within 1 year. To the extent practicable and authorized under their existing authorities, agencies may begin implementing core elements of restoration and protection programs and strategies,
in consultation with the Committee, as soon as possible and prior to release of a final strategy.
Sec. 204. Collaboration with State Partners. In preparing the reports under section 202 and the strategy under section 203, the lead agencies and the Committee shall consult extensively with the States of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Delaware and the District of Columbia. The goal of this consultation is to ensure that Federal actions to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with actions by State and local agencies in the watershed and that the resources, authorities, and expertise of Federal, State, and local agencies are used as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and ecosystem and habitat health and viability.
Sec. 205. Annual Action Plan and Progress Report. Beginning in 2010, the Committee shall publish an annual Chesapeake Bay Action Plan (Action Plan) describing how Federal funding proposed in the President’s Budget will be used to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming fiscal year. This plan will be accompanied by an Annual Progress Report reviewing indicators of environmental conditions in the Chesapeake Bay, assessing implementation of the Action Plan during the preceding fiscal year, and recommending steps to improve progress in restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee shall consult with stakeholders (including relevant State agencies) and members of the public in developing the Action Plan and Annual Progress Report.
Sec. 206. Strengthen Accountability. The Committee, in collaboration with State agencies, shall ensure that an independent evaluator periodically reports to the Committee on progress toward meeting the goals of this order. The Committee shall ensure that all program evaluation reports, including data on practice or system implementation and maintenance funded through agency programs, as appropriate, are made available to the public by posting on a website maintained by the Chair of the Committee.
PART 3 – RESTORE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY
Sec. 301. Water Pollution Control Strategies. In preparing the report required by subsection 202(a) of this order, the Administrator of the EPA (Administrator) shall, after consulting with appropriate State agencies, examine how to make full use of its authorities under the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters and, as appropriate, shall consider revising any guidance and regulations. The Administrator shall identify pollution control strategies and actions authorized by the EPA’s existing authorities to restore the Chesapeake Bay that:
(a) establish a clear path to meeting, as expeditiously as practicable, water quality and environmental restoration goals for the Chesapeake Bay;
(b) are based on sound science and reflect adaptive management principles;
(c) are performance oriented and publicly accountable;
(d) apply innovative and cost-effective pollution control measures;
(e) can be replicated in efforts to protect other bodies of water, where appropriate; and
(f) build on the strengths and expertise of Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, and citizen organizations.
Sec. 302. Elements of EPA Reports. The strategies and actions identified by the Administrator of the EPA in preparing the report under subsection 202(a) shall include, to the extent permitted by law:
(a) using Clean Water Act tools, including strengthening existing permit programs and extending coverage where appropriate;
(b) establishing new, minimum standards of performance where appropriate, including:
(i) establishing a schedule for the implementation of key actions in cooperation with States, local governments, and others;
(ii) constructing watershed-based frameworks that assign pollution reduction responsibilities to pollution sources and maximize the reliability and cost-effectiveness of pollution reduction programs; and
(iii) implementing a compliance and enforcement strategy.
PART 4 – AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO PROTECT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Sec. 401. In developing recommendations for focusing resources to protect the Chesapeake Bay in the report required by subsection 202(b) of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, as appropriate, concentrate the USDA’s working lands and land retirement programs within priority watersheds in counties in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These programs should apply priority conservation practices that most efficiently reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay, as identified by USDA and EPA data and scientific analysis. The Secretary of Agriculture shall work with State agriculture and conservation agencies in developing the report.
PART 5 – REDUCE WATER POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL LANDS AND FACILITIES
Sec. 501. Agencies with land, facilities, or installation management responsibilities affecting ten or more acres within the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay shall, as expeditiously as practicable and to the extent permitted by law, implement land management practices to protect the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributary waters consistent with the report required by section 202 of this order and as described in guidance published by the EPA under section 502.
Sec. 502. The Administrator of the EPA shall, within 1 year of the date of this order and after consulting with the Committee and providing for public review and comment, publish guidance for Federal land management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed describing proven, cost-effective tools and practices that reduce water pollution, including practices that are available for use by Federal agencies.
PART 6 – PROTECT CHESAPEAKE BAY AS THE CLIMATE CHANGES
Sec. 601. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall, to the extent permitted by law, organize and conduct research and scientific assessments to support development of the strategy to adapt to climate change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay watershed as required in section 202 of this order and to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay in future years. Such research should include assessment of:
(a) the impact of sea level rise on the aquatic ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, including nutrient and sediment load contributions from stream banks and shorelines;
(b) the impacts of increasing temperature, acidity, and salinity levels of waters in the Chesapeake Bay;
(c) the impacts of changing rainfall levels and changes in rainfall intensity on water quality and aquatic life;
(d) potential impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed; and
(e) potential impacts of more severe storms on Chesapeake Bay resources.
PART 7 – EXPAND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND CONSERVE LANDSCAPES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Sec. 701. (a) Agencies participating in the Committee shall assist the Secretary of the Interior in development of the report addressing expanded public access to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and conservation of landscapes and ecosystems required in subsection 202(e) of this order by providing to the Secretary:
(i) a list and description of existing sites on agency lands and facilities where public access to the Chesapeake Bay or its tributary waters is offered;
(ii) a description of options for expanding public access at these agency sites;
(iii) a description of agency sites where new opportunities for public access might be provided;
(iv) a description of safety and national security issues related to expanded public access to Department of Defense installations;
(v) a description of landscapes and ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that merit recognition for their historical, cultural, ecological, or scientific values; and
(vi) options for conserving these landscapes and ecosystems.
(b) In developing the report addressing expanded public access on agency lands to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and options for conserving landscapes and ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay, as required in subsection 202(e) of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall coordinate any recommendations with State and local agencies in the watershed and programs such as the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail.
PART 8 – MONITORING AND DECISION SUPPORT FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Sec. 801. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall, to the extent permitted by law, organize and conduct their monitoring, research, and scientific assessments to support decisionmaking for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and to develop the report addressing strengthening environmental monitoring of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed required in section 202 of this order. This report will assess existing monitoring programs and gaps in data collection, and shall also include the following topics:
(a) the health of fish and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
(b) factors affecting changes in water quality and habitat conditions; and
(c) using adaptive management to plan, monitor, evaluate, and adjust environmental management actions.
PART 9 – LIVING RESOURCES PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
Sec. 901. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify and prioritize critical living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, conduct collaborative research and habitat protection activities that address expected outcomes for these species, and develop a report addressing these topics as required in section 202 of this order. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall coordinate agency activities related to living resources in estuarine waters to ensure maximum benefit to the Chesapeake Bay resources.
PART 10 – EXCEPTIONS
Sec. 1001. The heads of agencies may authorize exceptions to this order, in the following circumstances:
(a) during time of war or national emergency;
(b) when necessary for reasons of national security;
(c) during emergencies posing an unacceptable threat to human health or safety or to the marine environment and admitting of no other feasible solution; or
(d) in any case that constitutes a danger to human life or a real threat to vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea, such as cases of force majeure caused by stress of weather or other act of God.
PART 11 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1101. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 12, 2009.

Stunned at Shuster’s Words

Here are a few letters to the editor from a paper out of Bedford, PA area. This was sent to me by a farmer who lives in that are whose livestock and water has been polluted. She does not have a lease with any gas company but lives near a large compressor station and gas storage field. They have a had multiple events that have caused contamination of their water sources and agriculture in the area. The DEP continues to claim that there is nothing wrong with the water or air quality.

“Gasland”

GASLAND
An INTERNATIONAL WOW COMPANY PRODUCTION
SELECTED FOR SUNDANCE

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/GASLANDPRESSRELEASE.pdf

Upcoming Events-Calvin Tillman and Josh Fox

APRIL 30TH

CALVIN TILLMAN
MAYOR OF DISH, TEXAS WILL BE IN WILLIAMSPORT
7:30 IN THE GENETTI BALLROOM
WHAT GAS EXPLORATION HAS MEANT TO HIS TOWN
AND WHY THAT IS IMPORTANT TO US
MAY 11TH
GASLAND
JOSH FOX WILL BE HERE TO PRESENT
HIS AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY FILM
7:30 AT THE COMMUNITY ARTS CENTER, WILLIAMSPORT

JOSH FOX’S CROSS COUNTRY ODYSSEY TO DISCOVER

HOW LEASING HIS PENNSYLVANIA LAND WOULD AFFECT ITS FUTURE
Both events are free and open to the public and are brought to you by the
Responsible Drilling Alliance
Calvin Tillman’s appearance co-sponsored by Freshlife

Seeing Gas Drilling’s Ugly Side Firsthand

The following is a blog – a personal perspective –  on visiting Dimock, PA and seeing for the first time gas drilling’s impact on that area. After taking the last couple of weekends to travel around PA to see this sort of thing for myself I know how scary and powerful it can be. This blog is well done and I wanted to share it with all of you. Thanks for the link Anne!

Visiting Dimock, Seeing Gas Drilling’s Ugly Side Firsthand

Kate Sinding
Senior Attorney, New York City
Posted April 15, 2010 in Curbing Pollution

Like so many who have been following controversial gas drilling issues in the Northeast’s Marcellus Shale region (the geological formation that stretches from West Virginia to upstate New York), I have been hearing and reading about, and seeing images of, Dimock, PA for the past roughly year-and-a-half.  For those not in the know, Dimock has become the unfortunate poster child for all that can go wrong when industrial gas drilling in the Marcellus isn’t adequately regulated and companies make mistakes.  Residents have experienced the wide array of adverse effects associated with shale gas production – many of them, it should be noted, inherent in the activity even under the best of circumstances. These impacts include: exploding water wells, contaminated water supplies necessitating daily fresh water deliveries (complete with home invasion in order to accept the regular deliveries), rural landscapes utterly transformed into industrial zones, constant diesel fumes, 24-hour-a-day traffic and noise that literally shakes the walls of homes.

I finally had the opportunity to visit Dimock in person earlier this week.  This is the first of a series of posts that I’ll file giving some of my impressions.  I’m doing this not because I have something new or unique to offer, but because the experience so affected me.  And the people who invited me into their homes deserve to have their stories told. I have been working on the Marcellus Shale gas drilling issue for about two-and-a-half years, but as much as I have read, listened to stories, seen photos and video footage and talked about the potential adverse impacts, nothing can compare to seeing, hearing and smelling them live….

Only when you’re standing in the front yard of someone’s dream home – which was once surrounded only by their residential neighbors and farms – and see, hear, smell and feel the vibrations of the incessant truck traffic that passes at all hours of the day and night can you truly understand how transformative it is when gas production arrives in a community.  Only when you hear the constant industrial noise from every direction as new well pads are cleared, well bores drilled and then fracked – noise that likewise exists around the clock – can you comprehend how those whose lives have already been turned upside down by drilling gone wrong can never escape the constant auditory reminders.  And only when you stand in the backyard of a family who moved to the beautiful Dimock countryside after their last home burned to the ground and see the well pads to both their immediate left and right does it become clear that – even if everything had gone “right” – this family now lives in an industrial zone….

Visiting  Dimock, Seeing Gas Drilling’s Ugly Side Firsthand

To read the full blog, see photos and read others’ reactions to the blog, click here:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ksinding/visiting_dimock_seeing_gas_dri.html

Information for an Informed Citizenry

Here is a link to a three part series on the Marcellus Shale Gas Play. The fellow speaking is Tony Ingraffea. He has a PhD in rock -fracture mechanics and is from Cornell University.

http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/search?q=ingraffea

Health Effects of Water Contamination from Fracking

World-Renowned Scientist Dr. Theo Colborn on the Health Effects of Water Contamination from Fracking

Coburn

The Environmental Protection Agency has begun a review of how the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” can affect drinking water quality. We speak to Dr. Theo Colborn, the president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange and one of the foremost experts on the health and environmental effects of the toxic chemicals used in fracking.

To listen to the webcast or read the transcript of the program, click here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/14/world_renowned_scientist_dr_theo_colborn#

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers