Fracking is Climate Change and Plastics Pollution

Indiana University researchers say fracking fears likely to grow as opponents push for bans

From the Press Release, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, December 16, 2015

With voters and courts weighing the future of fracking, a practice used to extract oil and gas, Indiana University researchers say some Americans are apprehensive about the technology and may grow more so.

Opponents of unconventional gas development — also known as UGD and including but not limited to the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing or fracking — have pushed for statewide or local bans of the practice in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, New York, California and other states.

“There is ample reason to predict growing public concerns about risk as UGD expands in the United States,” said study author John Rupp, a senior research scientist at the Indiana Geological Survey and an adjunct faculty member at IU’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

Opposition is intensifying even though the researchers point out there hasn’t been a highly publicized accident similar in scope to the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil blowout and spill. They say such an unlikely event would trigger even stronger demands to prohibit the technique for use in extracting oil and gas from shale deposits.

One key, they say, will be establishing a culture of transparency by the industry and its regulators. “Concerns tend to escalate when information about potential hazards associated with the practice are not fully disclosed,” Rupp said.

A bright spot in the findings is that leaders of the energy industry, along with municipal and regional government officials who see unconventional gas development as an economic booster, have the opportunity to help shape the discussion.

“Despite the fact that, in little more than a decade, UGD has made the U.S. the No. 1 gas producer in the world, surveys indicate many Americans don’t know much about it,” Rupp said. “That means proponents of the technology still have time to shape public understanding of the details of the practice and its benefits.”

Rupp and co-authors John D. Graham and Olga Schenk analyzed risk-perception and risk-governance theories and recent public opinion surveys. Their article, “Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues,” was published in the journal Risk Analysis.

The researchers say studies indicate people base their sense of risk on several factors including:

• Familiarity — Traffic accidents, for example, are more acceptable because they’re more familiar than an unconventional gas development incident.
• Voluntariness — When a hazard is imposed on a community without citizen consent, people are more apprehensive.
• Catastrophic potential — Perceived risk rises when a large amount of damage can occur at one time or location, even if the probability is low.
• Natural versus human-induced hazards — A greater sense of guilt is associated when humans are to blame.
• Impact on children and future generations — Concern is heightened when victims include children, pregnant women and people not yet born.

“The potential risks associated with UGD, such as drinking water contamination, would seem to activate virtually all of the risk-perception factors,” Graham said, noting that opponents have effectively elevated fears by emphasizing the scenario of drinking water polluted by migrating fracking chemicals.

Another potential trigger for increased opposition comes in the form of seismic activity. Scientists are studying whether the drilling/fracturing process and deep-well injection of unconventional gas development wastes can cause earthquakes. A major tremor that causes widespread damage or injuries will likely intensify the perception that unconventional gas development is risky.

While water contamination and seismicity top the concerns of environmentalists, the IU research team points out that residents who live in unconventional gas development areas have other worries.

“The concerns of residents living in close proximity to UGD require consideration,” Rupp said. “They may be concerned about daily nuisances such as traffic, congestion, odor and unwanted changes to the character of their community.”

To counter the likelihood that the perception of risk connected to unconventional gas development will grow, Graham, Rupp and Schenk urge government officials and the scientific community to take several steps:

• State regulatory systems must quickly ramp up. “To accomplish a high degree of public trust, state regulators must demonstrate that they can be both proactive in preventing problems and responsive to unexpected concerns,” the Risk Analysis article noted.
• Industry associations must require use of best practices and consider voluntary certification and other steps that encourage companies to emphasize safety and sustainability.
• National political figures must avoid turning unconventional gas development into a polarizing issue along political lines. President Barack Obama has taken a strong pro-gas position, irritating organized environmental advocates. “No matter their stance on UGD, Obama’s successor should listen to the concerns of the industry, regulators, environmentalists and local citizens,” Graham said. “Taking appropriate actions will diminish the perception of risk and, more importantly, the actual risk.”

Graham is dean of IU’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Schenk was a visiting researcher at SPEA and is now a policy officer for Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

Current fracking practices are unsafe & unhealthy

Subject: Ban Fracking in West Virginia

Petition at Move-On.org: Created by Tina Del Prete, Doddridge County, WV

Background: I live in the middle of the fracking frenzy in Doddridge County, WV. We are the true sacrifice zone folks keep hearing about.

That’s why I created a petition to The West Virginia State House, The West Virginia State Senate, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, which says:

“New York has banned fracking and West Virginia should too.”

We already have over 2,000 signatures and I am seeking 3,000 or more. As Neil Young asks in his new song, “Who’s Gonna Stand Up?”  He is also concerned about the frack sand open-pit mining in Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as the tar sands open-pit mining in Alberta, Canada, both of which are destroying the land.

Regardless of where you live, will you sign this petition? Click petition here.

Thanks, Tina Del Prete, Doddridge County, WV

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

“Who’s Gonna Stand Up?” — Neil Young, 2014

Protect the wild, Tomorrow’s child, Protect the land, From the greed of man …

Take down the dams, Stand up to oil, Protect the plants, And renew the soil …
.

Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?

This all starts with you and me!

Damn the dams, Save the rivers, Starve the takers, And feed the givers

Build a dream, Save the world, We’re the people, Known as Earth

Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?

This all starts with you and me!

Ban fossil fuels, Draw the line, Before we build One more pipeline

Ban fracking now, Save the waters, And build a life, For our sons and daughters

Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?

This all starts with you and me!

Who’s gonna stand up, Who’s gonna stand up, Who’s gonna stand up, Who’s gonna stand up …

Who’s gonna stand up!

>>> See last week’s Tonight Show performance video here.

Marcellus shale drilling & fracking: boom & bust

The boom is becoming a bust; so how to handle this fracking bust?

From an Article by Lydia DePillis, Washington Post, January 15, 2015

PHOTO: Workers tap into Marcellus natural gas at an active hydraulic fracking operation outside of Wellsboro, Pa., operated by Shell. This rig is the only Shell crew operating in the area.

This is the introduction to a five part series about how communities can deal with a natural gas boom. Find the rest of the installments here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five.

WELLSBORO, Pa. — The sand trucks barely rumble along the quaint main street in Wellsboro anymore. Three years ago, it was difficult to have a conversation with someone walking next to you, the roar of traffic was so constant. Driving, it could take an hour to get from one end of town to another. But the trucks also came with business: Mining companies had started drilling wells all over the rolling hills surrounding this town in northern Pennsylvania, extracting the precious natural gas that lay beneath.

Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking” for short) brought a bonanza to this town the likes of which it hadn’t seen even in the heydays of lumber and coal. With 800 wells drilled over five years, royalties paid to landowners for their mineral rights flowed through the community, helping people buy new farm equipment and donate to local charities. New tax revenues poured into local government coffers that never had much to begin with.

But like all booms, it only lasted while the money was good. Natural gas prices hit a high of $13.42 per million BTU in October 2005, stayed high for three years, then started falling, fast, bottoming out at $1.95 in April 2012, and stood at $3.48 last month. Without enough profit to justify further investment, most of the activity vaporized. Shell Oil, which had bought up most of the leases in Tioga County, went from a dozen drilling rigs to one. Businesses that had been gearing up for years of sustained growth were left hanging.

PHOTO: Workers tap into Marcellus natural gas at an active hydraulic fracking operation outside of Wellsboro, Pa., operated by Shell.

“With really no warning at all, the bottom fell out of that,” says Jim Weaver, the Tioga County planner, who advises the county’s commissioners on land use decisions. “In hindsight, looking at boom and bust cycles that have gone on forever, we should’ve known that. But when the dollar’s dangling in front of you and you’re chasing the carrot, before you know it you’re out on a limb, and the limb gets sawed off.”

Already, some states have decided to avoid the chase: In November, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that he would not lift the state’s ban on fracking, out of concerns about the potential environmental and health impact. The 185-page report referenced studies conducted in Pennsylvania on outcomes like the birth weight of babies and the accident rate of truck traffic. While the evidence rarely showed conclusive adverse health impacts from fracking, it was enough to convince Cuomo that the benefits didn’t outweigh the risk.

For much of the rest of America with gas beneath it, however, there’s no going back. The discovery of “unconventional” oil and gas reserves in a handful of major subterranean shale formations known as “plays” — the Marcellus underneath Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Eagle Ford in Texas, the Bakken in North Dakota — have completely transformed American energy production, increasing income and tax revenues and driving unemployment down. The shale boom has been credited with reviving domestic manufacturing and bringing natural gas prices to levels many thought America would never see again, and even environmentally-minded politicians are reluctant to give up the economic stimulus the industry provides.

PHOTO: County planner Jim Weaver works in his office in the Tioga County Courthouse building. The natural gas boom has come and gone in Tioga County, Pa., and Weaver is in charge of making sure the community is developed in the way citizens would like.

“I want to have my cake and eat it too,” said Pennsylvania’s new Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, in response to New York’s decision. But with gas prices so low — and other forms of energy, especially oil, becoming much less expensive — the future of communities who bet their future on fracking is uncertain. They are at risk of falling into what researchers have called the “resource curse,” where local economies over invest in a cash cow, only to sacrifice industries that might provide more sustainable growth over the long term, like tourism or manufacturing.

“Ultimately, Tioga County is a cautionary tale,” the authors wrote. “The economic benefits associated with shale development are limited, come at a price, and may disappear as swiftly as they arrived.”

America, after all, is a nation of booms and busts, from the gold rush of the 1850s to the housing bubble of the 1990s. In this latest boom, worst-case scenarios make headlines all the time: A crime wave and crippling fires and explosions struck North Dakota, for example, where cozy relationships between lawmakers and gas companies led to lax enforcement. Towns in Wyoming suffer when mining booms just pass through, over and over, while profits leave the state and then the country. And then, further down the line, the oil industry blows huge holes in the budgets of drilling-dependent states when prices sink too low to keep the rigs around.

Pennsylvania is trying to avoid that cycle, with mixed success. When gas drilling started in the mid-2000s, Pennsylvania was almost entirely new to the industry. And it has yielded undeniable benefits: According to investment advisors Raymond James, 90 percent of Pennsylvania’s job gains between 2005 and 2012 came from oil and gas. When you’re in the middle of that kind of fossil-fueled expansion, it’s tempting to think it might never come to an end.

But it always does. Whether because some newer, cheaper source of gas gets discovered, or because some key distribution point gets cut off, or because some ballot measure stops drillers in their tracks.

So the question is: If you’re in the path of the oil (and gas) industry, how can you gain from its presence, without becoming so dependent that everything falls apart once it leaves? In other words, can the resource curse be broken?

Tioga County has some of the answers. But they learned them the hard way. In the spring, researchers from the Pennsylvania Budget and Police Center did a case study on the county, and found that the positives and negatives of drilling activity basically came out in the wash.

“Ultimately, Tioga County is a cautionary tale,” the authors wrote. “The economic benefits associated with shale development are limited, come at a price, and may disappear as swiftly as they arrived.”

This is the introduction to a five part series about how communities can deal with a natural gas boom. Find the rest of the installments here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five.

Pam Judy knows the truth!

Unprecedented Investigation Finds PA Prioritizes Fracking at Expense of Health, Environment & Law

From an Article by Nicole D’Alessandro, EcoWatch.com, August 7, 2014

Pennsylvania has been a hot spot for fracking — and many consequences of this from of gas drilling in the state have come to light, from social to health to environmental costs, as well as controversies, including contaminated drinking water in the town of Dimock, gag orders on doctors and victims, and the state health department’s enforced silence on the practice.

While that sounds ominous enough, a new report released by Earthworks, after a year in the making, proves that the rush to drill undermines the protection of Pennsylvanians and the enforcement of regulations.Blackout in the Gas Patch: How Pennsylvania Residents are Left in the Dark on Health and Enforcement for the first time definitively connects health and environmental impacts of fracking with a lack of state oversight on a site-by-site basis.

“Legitimate, well-funded oversight should be a prerequisite for deciding whether to permit fracking, not an afterthought,” said Nadia Steinzor, the report’s lead author. “Governor Corbett and [Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection] DEP Secretary Abruzzo often say that the state has an exemplary regulatory program—but refuse to acknowledge that it’s not being implemented properly and that air, water and health are being harmed as a result. DEP’s limited resources make it impossible to keep up with required paperwork, let alone enforce the law and hold operators accountable.”

Blackout in the Gas Patch looks at the permitting, operational and oversight records of 135 wells and facilities in seven counties and details 25 key findings of associated threats to residents’ health and the environment. It also includes seven case studies using detailed timelines and maps, including the experiences of the Judy family from Carmichaels in Greene County.

Pam Judy said of her family’s experience with fracking: “The Governor and PA-DEP claim that gas and oil operations are safe and that they have everything under control. I live with it every day, and know that’s not true—and this report confirms it.”

Based primarily on data and documents from the PA-DEP, Blackout in the Gas Patch has found that Pennsylvania prioritizes development over enforcement; neglects oversight; fails to consider known threats; undermines regulations; and prevents the public from getting information.

The report concludes that the oversight of Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry is occurring with three inherent contradictions at play, which are as follows:

1. PA-DEP is charged with protecting the environment and the public, but is under strong political pressure to advance an industry that harms water, air and health.
2. Steep budget cuts to PA-DEP during a shale gas boom means the agency has to do more with less—which in effect has meant insufficient oversight and enforcement.
3. As the number of people impacted by and concerned about the impacts of gas development grows, public access to information on the activities of both operators and DEP remains limited, inconsistent and restricted.

While the report, which offers many recommendations for the state, is a firm indictment of the current situation in Pennsylvania, as Bruce Baizel, director of Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project, points out: “There’s a national crisis in fracking oversight. This report focuses on Pennsylvania, but it easily could have been written about Ohio, or the federal Bureau of Land Management, or Denton, Texas.

Blackout illustrates why many residents across the United States have given up on the idea that regulators can manage the oil and gas boom, and are working so hard to stop fracking.”