Fracking waste disposal in Guernsey County, OH. (These activities are known risks of creating earthquakes.)

Environmental Essay by Lisa C. Lieb, Revelator Voices, March 27, 2023

Let’s Protect This Place: A region historically plagued by industrial pollution is overwhelmed with unconventional oil and gas development. The Allegheny Plateau is a lower-lying portion of the Appalachian Mountain Range that extends from southern and central New York to northern and western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, northern and western West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky.

Why it matters: The plateau consists of areas of gently sloping hills in the north and west of the region as well as rugged valleys in the south and east. It overlies the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale, sedimentary rock formations. The region is rich in natural resources, including hardwoods, iron ore, silica, coal, oil and natural gas.

The abundance of these resources supported development in the region and were integral to the local steel, glass, rail and extraction industries.

Prior to widespread logging between 1890 and 1920, the area hosted old-growth forests containing red spruce, eastern white pine, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, black oak, white oak, yellow birch and American beech.

But the forest’s makeup is now different, favoring oaks, maples, hickories, American beech and yellow birch. Though fragmented and much less mature than the old-growth forests, today’s forests continue to play a vital role in ecosystems, serving as habitats for the federally endangered Indiana bat as well as locally endangered or at-risk species such as little brown bats, northern flying squirrels and blackpoll warblers.

The region hosts the Ohio River watershed and confluence, the Allegheny National Forest in New York and Pennsylvania, and the Wayne National Forest in Ohio.

The threat: Unconventional oil and gas development has boomed in the region over the past decade. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Marcellus and Utica shale plays contain approximately 214 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, making the Allegheny Plateau a lucrative location for hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”

Already more than 13,000 unconventional wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania. Fracking itself is a resource intense process, requiring between 2 and 20 million gallons of water per well. A 2014 study estimated that in Pennsylvania, 80% of the water used for fracking comes from streams, rivers, and lakes, thus potentially altering water temperature and levels of dissolved oxygen. This water is combined with sand and a mixture of hazardous chemicals, which may include methanol, ethylene glycol and propargyl alcohol.

Between 20-25% of the water that is injected into the well returns to the surface. This flowback water often has higher salinity and has been known to contain barium, arsenic, benzene and radium. While recycling of flowback is becoming more common, other methods of disposal include underground injection, application to road surfaces, treatment at public waste facilities, and discharging it onto rivers, streams and lakes.

Near fracking sites in West Virginia, elevated levels of barium and strontium were found in feathers of Louisiana waterthrushes, native songbirds who make their home in brooks and wooded swamps. In northwestern Pennsylvania, crayfish and brook trout living in fracked streams were found to have increased levels of mercury. Fish diversity is also reduced in streams that have been fracked.

Fracking consumes land, too. Each fracking well requires 3-7 acres. In Pennsylvania over 700,000 acres of state forest land are leased or available for gas production. Well pads, pipelines and other fracking infrastructure fragment forests, alter their ecology, and reduce biodiversity. Appalachian azure butterflies and federally threatened northern wild monkshood — purple-flowering herbaceous perennials found in New York and Ohio — are both sensitive to forest fragmentation.

In addition to the direct impacts of fracking, the availability of natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shale plays attracts petrochemical development to the region. Shell Polymers Monaca initiated operations in November 2022 at a newly constructed 386-acre petrochemical complex in southwestern Pennsylvania, along the Ohio River.

The plant manufactures virgin polyethylene pellets, which will be largely be used for production of single-use plastic products. In addition to releasing hazardous air pollutants, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, this ethane “cracker” plant will emit 2.2 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.

The plant’s existence will also fuel fracking in the region; it is anticipated that it will require between 100 and 200 new wells each year in order to supply natural gas for its productions. Other petrochemical companies, including Exxon, PTT Global and Odebrecht, have reportedly been considering building similar complexes in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.

My place in this place: I was born and raised in the area, and my family’s roots in southwestern Pennsylvania go back several generations. Some of my most cherished memories involve Pennsylvania’s forests, rivers and streams. As a child I loved my family’s summer pilgrimages to our cabin, a rustic building that had been converted from a one-room schoolhouse in the Pennsylvania Wilds. At “camp” we fished for yellow perch, smallmouth bass and walleye in the Sinnemahoning Creek and caught crayfish by hand. We sunned ourselves on the rocks along the river bank when the water was warm. In the evenings we walked on quiet, narrow roads in hopes of spotting an eastern elk in a grassy field.

I now live in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, one mile from the Shell cracker plant. I can observe the plant’s flaring from my kitchen window, which often creates an ominous orange glow in the night sky. To me the plant doesn’t symbolize job creation or a rebounding local economy, despite the assertions of local and state politicians. I see the plant as the perpetuation of a hopeless dependence on fossil fuels and corporate profit at the expense of ecological integrity. I worry that fracking and an associated petrochemical buildout will destroy already fragile ecosystems throughout my home in the Allegheny Plateau.

Who’s protecting it now: There are a variety of environmental groups located in the region. No Petro PA is an organization that resists fracking and pipeline development in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. More locally the Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community in western Pennsylvania opposes fracking and seeks to protect local community members from its harmful effects.

With the rise of the Shell cracker plant, the group also formed Eyes on Shell, a community organization that aims to hold Shell accountable for its activity and advocates for the surrounding communities’ health and safety. These are just three of the many grassroots organizations working to protect the air, soil, water, wildlife and communities in the region.

The national organization, FracTracker, also provides extensive data on oil and natural gas wells, pipelines, legislation and environmental health.

What this place needs: Ideally Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia will follow in the footsteps of New York and institute a ban on fracking in light of the environmental and health risks associated with unconventional gas and oil development. However, given their strong ties to the fossil fuel industry, it is unlikely that this will occur. Banning fracking on public land in the region, such as in state forests and county parks, in a practical first step in combatting forest fragmentation and pollution.

At a regional level, regulations should be put in place to protect the water quality of the Ohio River. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, a multistate organization working with the federal government, could ban fracking in the Ohio River Basin in order to protect the river and its watershed. The Delaware River Basin Commission has successfully prohibited fracking within the Delaware River Basin; the rules developed by the commission could be adapted for use by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.

Additional government oversight would help to protect water quality in the region. Presently fracking is exempt from the Safe Water Drinking Act and therefore isn’t regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ending this exemption could increase water quality and safety within the Allegheny Plateau.

Increased transparency from oil and gas companies is also required to protect the region’s water. As of July 2022, California is the only state in the country that requires full public disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking. Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio must implement policies that require full public disclosure of chemicals used in all phases of the fracking process.

Northwestern West Virginia is of primary interest for natural gas development

ATTN: Wade Stansberry, Environmental Resources Specialist, Office of Oil and Gas, WV. Department of Environmental Protection, 601 57th Street, SE, Charleston WV

Re: Permit Number: 061-01914, Well Number: Dolls Run 1H, County: Monongalia, Operator: Northeast Natural Energy

For many years, two separate households of friends who live in Cassville have told me how the noise coming from the Boggess and Lemley fracking well pads made it impossible for them to get a good night’s sleep or to function fully. I have often heard the noise from the Boggess well pad while walking along Sugar Grove Road, several miles away.

So it was with alarm that I saw the permit application for a fracking pad that will be 1.4 miles from our home, situated on a ridge top where the sound will travel directly down Dents Run, along Mel Brand Road and Gallus Road, where we live. We work from home so will be subject to the noise 24/7.

A study done by the WVU School of Public Health (May 28, 2013) for the WVDEP, as requested by the WV State Code: Chapter 22-6A-12(e) regarding the impacts of noise, light, dust and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated by the drilling of horizontal wells inconclusively said: Due to the transient nature and/or frequency of sound, the agency recognizes that noises may be perceived as a nuisance, even though measurements indicate no harm.

The noise tests were done between July and October, 2012, when leaves on the trees will dampen noise. Clearly the noise will be worse during the six months when leaves are not on the trees. The acoustics of our valley are such that we could hear our neighbor, whose house was about 200 yards away, when she was talking on her front porch.

An official chart may say that noise levels are within safe decibel levels, but our perception of it could be quite different, depending on many factors. How will this be addressed?

Given how many people live in the Cassville, Sugar Grove and New Hill area, a lot of people will have their health, sleep and ability to function adversely impacted by the constant noise. New Hill has a high density of housing. What noise abatement procedures will be put in place? I saw no mention of this in the permit application.

Further, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) and other toxic hydrocarbons, such as formaldehyde, released from oil and gas operations and equipment can lead to health impacts ranging from irritation of eyes, nose, mouth and throat to aggravated asthma and other respiratory conditions, blood disorders, harm to developing fetuses, immune system-related diseases, and cancer (e.g., leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and Ewing Sarcoma).

A study commissioned by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection found that, at many sites, a 625-feet distance from oil and gas activity—above the distances set by many states—still resulted in benzene concentrations above levels the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers “the minimum risk level for no health effects.” At least one of the BTEX compounds was found at all of the seven drilling sites examined. from: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, “Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results For Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations (ETD‐10 Project),” Charleston, WV.

Today, October 5, a community meeting in Canonsburg, PA is scheduled to update residents on PA Health & Environment Studies and to discuss health impacts of shale gas development. Residents are concerned that fracking may be to blame for the spike in rare childhood cancers and other health impacts in Southwestern Pennsylvania. According to the maps provided in the NNE permit application, we will be down wind of the well pad. While we are just beyond the one-mile radius, how can we know that a strong wind won’t carry VOCs over our house?

More importantly, it should be obvious that a warming climate is a threat to everyone on earth. How much money must we spend on the enormous damage done by hurricanes and wildfires, which have all gotten bigger and more frequent as a result of putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas may be cleaner to burn than coal but extracting it is much dirtier. Investment in clean energy is the only viable way forward.

In 2012-14, we got a front row seat to a strip mine directly across our fence line and were subjected to blasting, dust and back-up beeping noise. I documented at least 139 times that our house was shaken by blasts from the Bucy 1, 2 and 3 strip mines. Bucy 3 Mine, in front of our house, is still sitting there, abandoned. Why do we have to keep fighting theses battles? Why do so many people have to pay the price so that a handful of people can make money?

Why does this new well pad have to be placed on a ridge top where it will have maximum impact in all directions? I request that this permit be denied, based on how many people will be negatively impacted by the noise and pollution. I would also request written notice of the permit decision.

Sincerely, Betsy Lawson, Monongalia County, WV

#######+++++++#######+++++++#######

See Also: A Guide to Every Permitted Natural Gas Well in West Virginia by Al Shaw (ProPublica) and Kate Mishkin (Charleston Gazette-Mail), March 6, 2019

Southwestern Energy contributed to Cheat River restoration, but ...

From an Article by Chris Dickerson, West Virginia Record, April 6, 2022

WHEELING – An Ohio County couple have filed a lawsuit alleging an energy company and its contractors continuously trespass on their property adjacent to an oil and gas well pad.

David and Sara Dent filed their complaint April 6 in Ohio Circuit Court against SWN Energy Services Company, Burns Drilling & Excavating Company, Elite Gasfield Services, Halliburton Energy Services, Brownlee Lumber & Supply, Williams Energy Resources and RDR Utility Service Group.

“It is so constant that it has rendered the Dent’s property no longer their own,” attorney Teresa Toriseva said in a press release. “As many of the local residents know, Southwestern Energy is a Texas-based oil and gas corporation.

“In this situation, it is alleged SWN and its contractors have been trespassing on the Dent family’s land for years with no regard for the family’s rights. With no end to this in sight and no response from the oil and gas corporation that it will correct this, these landowners seek a remedy in the courts to regain control of their homestead.”

According to the complaint, the Dents selected their rural property just off GC&P Road near Triadelphia in 2008 for its beauty and tranquility. But in 2012, they say that was destroyed when Southwestern constructed the well pad across from their home.

The plaintiffs say commercial oil and gas trucks servicing the SWN pad trespass on their property to turn themselves around to drive up the access road. “The oil and gas traffic is unrelenting,” the complaint states. “These large trucks trespass on the Dent property every day. The large trucks don’t just turn around, the trucks often sit parked in the Dents’ driveway idling noisily at all hours of the day and night as though they have permission. They do not.

“The Dents, and all West Virginia landowners, have the right to control who is and who is not allowed on their property. This lawsuit seeks damages and to regain that legal control over their property.”

The plaintiffs’ home, according to the complaint, is located at the end of a paved driveway to access the home. The Plaintiffs must travel over a creek bed across a bridge that’s on their property. If this driveway is blocked or unable to be traveled, the plaintiffs are unable to access their home.

“To access the well pad vehicles must travel up a steep and winding hillside on an access roadway to access the well pad,” the complaint states. “As the plaintiffs’ property is across the road from the entrance to the access road, vehicles traveling to the well pad regularly pull into or back down the plaintiffs’ driveway to reposition their vehicle to negotiate the steep access road to the well pad.

“At no time has any of the defendants asked for or received permission from the plaintiffs to enter their property or use their driveway. These vehicles enter plaintiffs’ property without permission and do so at all hours of the night and day without warning or any discernable pattern.”

The Dents say the vehicles could easily travel to a nearby intersection and find a more suitable place to turn around. They say they and their two children under 10 have been awakened countless times by vehicles traveling to the well pad, pulling into their driveway and shining their headlights directly into the home.

As the vehicles often sit and idle in the driveway awaiting clearance to travel to the well pad, the Dents say they have arrived at their property unable to access their own driveway due to vehicles and other equipment either parked in their driveway or blocking their driveway.

“Plaintiffs’ driveway was meant to be an access road to the plaintiffs’ property only, it was not constructed, nor is it maintained to manage heavyweight vehicles,” the complaint states. “At all times relevant hereto the claims made herein the plaintiffs’ property is and has been posted with “No Trespassing” signs and placards.”

The Dents say employees of the defendants have even left their vehicles and trespassed on their property on foot for unknown reasons. In addition to the vehicles blocking and using their driveway, the Dents also say a Williams truck hit their fence, damaging the top rail on July 28, 2021. Another truck left black marks on their driveway as its tires slipped.

And, the Dents say run off from the access road also trespasses upon their property and that black salt used to treat the SWN access road ends up in their yard and the stream in front of their home. They say some large trees have been killed by the run off.

Also, they say when drainpipes are clogged with mud, silt, and other run off, the culvert leading from the access road discharges water violently onto their property and that heavy rains now cause their front yard to turn into a small pond.

To keep up with the damage and erosion, the Dents say they had to buy a tractor to clean the property. “But for the damage to their property associated with the trespass and run off, the plaintiffs would not have been required to spend over $20,000 on a tractor large enough to do the work they needed,” the complaint states.

The Dents say they have talked to SWN officials about the problem, but they say the company “completely disregarded” their concerns and complaints. They accuses the defendants of trespass and nuisance, and they accuse SWN of injury to trees and plants.

“Few concepts are more ‘American’ than the right of landowners to protect their land from unwanted intrusions,” the complaint states, also quoting an 1895 West Virginia ruling in a case styled Haigh v. Bell, which said, “In every case where one man has a right to exclude another from his land, the common law encircles it, if not enclosed already, with an imaginary fence. And to break such imaginary fence, and enter the close of another, is a trespass.”

The Dents seek to have the court enjoin the defendants from trespassing on their property. They request an evidentiary hearing within 10 days whether the emergency temporary restraining order is granted or not. They are being represented by Toriseva, Josh Miller and Michael Kuhn of Toriseva Law in Wheeling. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge David A. Sims.

(Ohio County WV Circuit Court case number 22-C-52)

Notice the surplus 42 inch diameter steel pipe (epoxy coated) at lower left in the Morgantown Industrial Park

From the Sierra Club, West Virginia Chapter, Box 4142​, Morgantown, WV 26504, ​​​​​1/4/22

Re: Draft Permit R13-3533 for Marion Energy Partners, LLC, “Science Center” (‘data center’) for Morgantown Industrial Park

>> Dear Mr. Edward Andrews @ WV-DEP:

Thank you for providing the opportunity for a public meeting on Tuesday, January 11th @ 6:00 PM, regarding the draft air permit for Marion Energy Partners, LLC (MEP). I am hopeful the format for the meeting will allow for an open discussion and information sharing. I am requesting a clarification as to the format, because although this was announced as a “public meeting”, the response to my meeting registration stated that this was to receive comments (“The purpose of the public review process is to accept public comments on air quality issues relevant to this determination.” per the e-mail from Stephanie Hammond).

WV rules at 45-CSR-13-9.1 specifies that “A public meeting(s) to provide information and receive comments on permit applications …”, and we clearly need information about this facility to provide meaningful comments.

Thank you also for extending the comment deadline to Jan. 13, however, we are concerned that this provides a very short turn-around to fully investigate the many questions we have. We hope you will consider a second extension to allow a reasonable time for further review and comments. It is my understanding that there is no immediate urgency for this permit, and a full evaluation of the issues is in the public interest and would not disadvantage the applicant.

As noted in the application and the Engineering Evaluation, this facility may be unique and have unique impacts because it would be independent of the electric grid for its energy supply. Before setting precedents on how such facilities are regulated, a public meeting to explore these issues is essential to inform the public and to allow meaningful community input.

Our review of the very limited information available has resulted in a number of questions, many of which may bear on the WV-DEP’s decision-making regarding this draft permit. In an effort to have the public information meeting be as productive as possible, we hope that the applicant will be willing to attend and that the following questions will be addressed by WV-DEP or the applicant:

1.) Has WV-DEP assessed noise impacts from the proposed MEP facility? In particular, what will be the noise impact on residential areas across the Mon River Valley, or at the nearby schools (Skyview Elementary and Westwood Middle Schools)?
2.) Has there been an estimate of “eWaste” volumes to be generated by this facility?
3.) Will the facility provide bonding or escrow funds to decommission the site at the end of its useful life? We note that legislation in 2021 required wind and solar energy facilities to post bonds sufficient to cover the full cost of site reclamation, do gas-fired electric generating facilities have similar requirements?
4.) Since gas is not “pipeline quality”, what other impurities are present and would be emitted after combustion (radon, VOCs, heavy metals, etc.)? We recommend weekly monitoring of raw gas; annual monitoring is not sufficient.
5.) Is this a Bitcoin Mining Operation or something similar?
6.) Who is buying and using these services, i.e., who are the customers? Who is benefiting/profiting from the facility? Is there an intent to generate block chain data to create cryptocurrency?
7.) What is the relationship of this proposed facility to WVU MSEEEL and the WVU Business School?
8.) If this “Science Center” is to study how electricity is generated from gas, how long is that project to last? Who are the scientists involved and providing analysis?
9.) How many jobs would be created by the proposed MEP facility?
10.) What taxes will they pay? Will gas severance taxes apply to the gas it sells to itself?
11.) Will there be water quality impacts?
12.) Were bids taken for solar energy sources? If not, why not?
13.) Has WV-DEP made any determination on whether emissions from this facility will be aggregated with those from the adjoining gas wells, pipelines and related facilities owned by the parent company? We note that the emissions from the four engines approaches the threshold for a major source for NOx, and that greenhouse gas emissions are subject to regulation if they exceed 75,000 TPY (45-CSR-14.2.80.d). What information is available on air emissions from these wells and related facilities?
14.) Are there unique functions of the Science Center that preclude it from being supplied by electricity from the electric grid? If so, what are these?

We recognize that some of these issues are only indirectly related to the draft air permit but hope that you or the applicant will be prepared to address those. Please let me know if I can provide additional information.

>> Sincerely, James Kotcon, Conservation Chair, West Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club

>>>>>>………………>>>>>>………………>>>>>>

TO LISTEN IN OR PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC MEETING, REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING LINK ~ https://forms.gle/vZvJirkUKayGee1W7

Families with children are caught up in these sacrifice zones

Article by Kristina Marusic, Reporter, Environmental Health News, March 1, 2021

This is part 4 of our 4-part series, “Fractured,” an investigation of fracking chemicals in the air, water, and people of western Pennsylvania.

WESTMORELAND COUNTY, Pa.—On a balmy evening in September of 2019, eight women gathered around a conference table in a small office about 25 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. A statewide network of fracking and conventional wells, pipelines, and petrochemical plants is closing in on their communities.

As a mother of four and the outreach coordinator for the nonprofit organization hosting this event, Ann LeCuyer was comfortable telling people what to do. She’d spent the last four years helping the group, Protect PT (short for Protect Penn-Trafford), work to keep fracking out of the small municipalities of Penn Township, Trafford, and surrounding neighborhoods.

In that time, Ann and her boss, Protect PT co-founder and executive director Gillian Graber, had compiled thousands of documents detailing the oil and gas industry’s plans in the region. They’d invited all of the group’s several dozen members to their office to learn how to access them—but only women showed up. “This is pretty typical for us, actually” said Gillian, a middle-aged mom of two with chocolate-brown hair and a no-nonsense demeanor.

“I think it’s because we’re moms, so we have more at stake when it comes to our children and grandchildren,” she told Environmental Health News (EHN), noting that every member in attendance had kids and half also had grandkids. “My husband is on the board and we do have some very passionate male members. But it tends to be the women who consistently show up.”

The group chattered and laughed through the presentation until Ann pulled up a map of the planned route for the Mariner East 2 Pipeline, sending a brief hush through the room. “It’s so close to my house!” someone exclaimed. “Look, I’m in the blast zone and I didn’t even know until now.”

Mariner East 2 is one of three pipelines (along with Mariner East 1 and Mariner East 2X) being constructed to carry highly flammable natural gas liquids—liquid components of natural gas that have been separated out—350 miles from the Utica and Marcellus Shale plays in eastern Ohio, the northern panhandle of West Virginia, and across Pennsylvania to processing facilities at Philadelphia ports. From there, the end products will be carried overseas by ship for use in plastics production. (Ethane, a byproduct of fracking, is used to manufacture plastics.)

The project is orchestrated by Sunoco’s parent company Energy Transfer LP, which also owns the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The Mariner East pipeline projects have been rife with accidents, spills, and controversy, in part because Pennsylvania doesn’t have a state agency that oversees the placement of such pipelines. The planned route runs across people’s yards and within a half mile of 23 public schools and 17 private schools, which worries residents due to the company’s safety record: Between 2002 and the end of 2017, Energy Transfer LP pipelines experienced a leak or an accident every 11 days on average.

Pipeline construction in Pennsylvania has already resulted in sinkholes, polluted waterways on public land, and an explosion in a town 35 miles west of Pittsburgh that destroyed a house. At least 25 other sites along the proposed pipeline route have been identified as being at risk for similar accidents. The Pennsylvania Utility Commission is fighting in court to keep its calculations on potential damage if such accidents occured secret, even though a recent investigation by Spotlight PA found many communities in the “blast zone”—the areas adjacent to the pipeline that could be engulfed in flames in the event of a pipeline explosion—lack adequate emergency response plans.

Gillian told the group that they planned to canvas in the blast zone nearby to inform residents they’d be at risk if the pipeline is completed. “Oh, we’re canvassing, ladies!” chirped the oldest of the group, a spry 81-year-old. “If we can stop the pipeline, we can stop the well pads. I’m getting my muckboots out!”

Gillian initially started Protect PT in 2015 because she wanted to stop a fracking well proposal about a quarter of a mile from her house in neighboring Penn Township. So far, her efforts have been successful—the well, which is owned by Apex Energy, received a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2018, but has yet to be drilled in part because of Protect PT lawsuits.

But that fracking well victory is overshadowed by a vast industrial infrastructure in the state and the region that goes well beyond unconventional drilling.

In the summer of 2019, EHN collected air, water, and urine samples from five households in southwestern Pennsylvania, including Ann and Gillian’s families, and had them analyzed for chemicals associated with fracking. EHN included Ann and Gillian’s families because they live further away from fracking wells than the families we looked at in Washington County. However, despite their relative distance from fracking wells, we found they also faced above average levels of exposure to numerous chemicals associated with pollution from the oil and gas industry.

While Project PT and similar groups target new pipelines, or plastics plants, or fracking wells in court — or just the court of public opinion — it has become a game of whack-a-mole in a state where oil and gas production, infrastructure, and transportation are so ubiquitous.

“It’s just alarming to think that with all the stuff that we’re doing to be careful, we’re still being exposed to all these chemicals,” Gillian told EHN.

>>>>>……….>>>>>……….>>>>>……….>>>>>

See also: Fractured: FAQs page, Douglas Fischer, February 25, 2021

“We found alarming exposures to likely fracking pollution. But that’s just the beginning of the story.”

Denver protests of O & G operations in Colorado

From an Article by Chase Woodruff, Westword News, July 31, 2019

Protests briefly shut down a meeting of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission today, July 31, as climate and environmental activists continued to pressure the agency to crack down on the fossil fuel industry.

The meeting was the third regularly scheduled monthly hearing of the COGCC since the passage of a landmark oil and gas reform bill earlier this year — and by far the most contentious. In response to past complaints about cramped hearing rooms at the COGCC’s Denver headquarters, it was held at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs, where commissioners heard from dozens of speakers during the three-hour public-comment period that began the hearing.

“We are suffering,” AnnMarie Cleary, a Broomfield resident who lives near a fracking site, told commissioners. “We’ve reported it. We’ve gone to doctors. We have health issues. This commission is a new commission, with a new vision, and the vision now is to first protect health and safety. We can no longer go on allowing everything until those rules are established.”

Tensions ran high throughout the comment period, as activists from a wide range of grassroots environmental groups held up protest signs, interrupted pro-industry speakers and repeatedly clashed with COGCC officials.

“The reason that we’re showing up and making more noise is that we’ve tried it your way,” said Suzanne Spiegel, an activist with anti-fracking group Colorado Rising. “We tried to be polite, and yet you haven’t denied a single permit.”

Demonstrators donned breathing masks, coughed over speakers who defended the oil and gas industry and displayed signs calling attention to the “F” rating given to the Denver metro area’s air quality by the American Lung Association. Oil and gas sites are known emitters of ozone-forming pollutants like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, and studies have shown that industry facilities along the Front Range are among the top contributors to the region’s elevated ozone levels, accounting for nearly half of the region’s local ozone production.

As protests began, Dan Gibbs, the director of the state’s Department of Natural Resources, which oversees the COGCC, called a recess that lasted about twenty minutes. A security guard was present as the hearing resumed, and two Denver police officers were stationed inside the meeting room shortly afterward.

Gibbs repeatedly asked demonstrators to quiet down and be respectful of all speakers, and at one point objected to what he called the “intimidation” of industry proponents. “I don’t think that’s the Colorado way,” he said.

Following the end of the public comment period, activists again disrupted the meeting, spreading out across the room to hold up banners and chant protest slogans. “No more fracking, no more oil, keep the carbon in the soil,” activists chanted as Gibbs called another recess and most commissioners filed out of the room.

As they have since the passage of Senate Bill 181 (the oil and gas reform legislation signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May), activists urged commissioners to impose a moratorium on new drilling permits until the law is fully implemented, and argued that continued fossil fuel development is incompatible with the state’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Deborah McNamara, an activist with 350 Colorado, pointed commissioners to the most recent report issued by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned that the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions nearly in half by 2030 to keep warming below catastrophic levels. “The most reasonable response to this information, for this commission, would be to do exactly what is recommended: rapidly phase out CO2 emissions,” McNamara said.

Over 90 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are the result of the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and natural gas, the production of both of which has soared in Colorado over the past two decades. State officials, like their counterparts in many other governments around the world, have enacted a slate of so-called demand-side energy policies that seek to reduce the need for fossil fuels by incentivizing new renewable electricity generation and the electrification of transportation, heating and other sectors. But many activists with groups like 350 Colorado believe that these demand-side policies should be accompanied by tougher restrictions on the supply of fossil fuels, enacted by bodies like the COGCC.

“This should be front and center on all decision-making processes,” McNamara said. “You should ensure that you have an immediate short-term as well as a long-term plan to rapidly transition away from oil and gas in our state, and toward a renewable energy infrastructure.”

Activists departed Wednesday’s hearing after their brief demonstration, leaving commissioners to work through an agenda full of other agency business, including the finalization of the “500 Series” rulemaking that represents the first major regulatory change of the post-SB 181 era. But the next scheduled hearing is just three weeks away, and Wednesday is unlikely to be the last time the commission hears from Coloradans opposed to oil and gas drilling.

“Many of the people in this room today have been coming to meetings for ten years,” says Spiegel. “And what we’ve seen is that nothing changes. So we have to try something different, because our communities are on the line, our air is on the line, and we know that the future of our planet is on the line. We’ve tried being polite, and now we’re committed to getting their attention.”

Natural gas flares from Marcellus shale wells in Tioga County, Penna.

From an Article by Sarah Boden, WESA Public Radio, Pittsburgh, August 2, 2019

A new study finds that pregnant women living near hydraulic fracking activity in Pennsylvania are more likely to develop depression and anxiety.

“These are vulnerable women who are growing another human being inside of them,” said Joan A. Casey, the study’s lead author and an environmental health scientist at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Casey and her colleagues conducted the study with 7,715 research volunteers; all were expectant mothers within the Geisinger Health System, which serves much of central Pennsylvania.

“Basically … if we took 100 women and we expose them to the higher levels of fracking activity during pregnancy, four of them would develop anxiety or depression that otherwise would not have developed it,” she said.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America said in an e-mail that it takes issue with the fact the study didn’t look at environmental data.

“While these epidemiological studies claim to find possible connections based on limited data sets and assumptions, the reality here in Pennsylvania is that study after study of actual air and water sampling near these sites continue to show that shale development is being done in a way that’s protective of public health,” wrote spokesperson Nicole Jacobs.

Casey pointed out that increased traffic connected to fracking can degrade local air quality, while increasing sound pollution and other commotion in a community.

Part of the reason these mothers experienced adverse mental health issues, she said, could be due to concerns around environmental impacts, paired with a lack of control surrounding the changes.

“Mothers have reported feeling like they can’t keep their children safe,” she said. “We can’t say we’re 100 percent sure that these women are developing anxiety or depression during pregnancy as a result of living near unconventional natural gas development in the Marcellus shale, but I don’t have another explanation for what we’re observing here.”

Casey said her team controlled for a variety of factors including age, race, whether a volunteer smoked and socioeconomic status. Even after taking these factors into account, women that were living closer to a greater number of fracking wells appeared to be at an elevated risk for developing anxiety and depression.

While the study found that a woman’s depression or anxiety issues did not lead her to giving birth prematurely or having a baby with low birth weight, Casey said a mother’s mental health still affects her child.

“There is quite a bit of evidence that women who have anxiety or depression during pregnancy are at an elevated risk of postpartum depression,” she said. “We’ve all seen the literature on how postpartum depression is can be very serious and can affect both the mother the husband or father of the child as well as the child’s development.”

The Department of Health and Human Services says pediatric developmental issues related to maternal post-partum can include speech delays, behavioral and social problems, problems with mother-child bonding, shorter height, risk of obesity, and a child feeling agitated or crying more.

The study was published in the journal “Environmental Research.”

MVP pipeline construction in Summers County

From Neal Laferriere, Summers County Resident, May 13, 2019

I want to share an experience with you. We are in the northern end of Summers County, WV. Our property and the surrounding properties are currently experiencing the extensive disturbance that comes with the Mountain Valley Pipeline construction.

One of the things we have been aware of from watching the construction in other counties is that WVDEP is severely understaffed to be able to monitor this project.
They have one field agent for the entire lower half of the state. He is not only responsible for the MVP project, but also the Mountaineer Express Pipeline and several other projects.

Jason Liddle the WVDEP field agent for the southern region is extremely dedicated to his job and I commend him for his efforts and willingness to work with landowners.

That said here is what MVP is doing. On Tuesday of last week, I went to look at an extremely steep slope on the property across from my farm. MVP had come down the slope and cut erosion trenches in but had not put erosion control in place at the end of the trenches to prevent erosion and runoff from going directly into the springs and ephemeral stream that drain this property into Patterson Creek( part of the Meadow River drainage). I did not file a complaint with WVDEP that day, understanding that it might be a day or two to complete that section. I returned on Saturday, May 11th to check the trenches and hillside for erosion control measures. None were installed!

We had rain on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday this was forecasted all week. So erosion and sediment was allowed to flow off the construction site all weekend

I filed a complaint with WVDEP Saturday evening (pictures are attached).

I called Jason Liddle to follow up with him this morning. We discussed it and he called me back to let me know that he had called MVP to request a site visit. After Jasons call I went up to the front of our property to see MVP trucks pulling up and taking erosion control methods up to the steep slope. I hiked over and documented the workers putting erosion controls in. (Pictures attached) Jason showed up sometime later.

This is a very big problem. It shows that MVP is violating the regulations for the construction of their pipeline. It shows that they are playing with our environment and the WVDEP. They only came out to fix it to try and avoid a violation notice. They only came out to fix it because they knew the inspector was on his way.

MVP does not respect the WVDEP, MVP does not respect our clean water. They are playing a game of hide and go seek. They wait until someone says something about their sloppy work and then rush to hide it to avoid getting caught by the WVDEP inspector.

Something needs to be done to fix the broken system that allows companies to play games with our environment. That fail to respect WV regulations and the enforcement agencies.

The leadership in WV needs to take action that protects us as citizens, our land and our water from companies that think they can ignore the rules. They need to take a much more serious review of infrastructure and other projects that are impacting our lives and environment.

Please help us, it should not come down to citizens having to monitor these projects that our government and agencies approve. If these projects are going to be done, we need to ensure we can enforce the project. We need to ensure that the project can be done with out harming citizens or the environment. These things should far outweigh the potential revenue these projects might bring to the capitals coffers.

Perhaps the time is now for following suit with VA and file charges against them for the violations. I am certainly not a politician or an attorney, but I do know that until we make a stand and show that we won’t be pushed over MVP and companies like it will continue to run over us.

Please feel free to share this with colleagues or constituents. If you want more information please feel free to reach out to me.

Respectfully, Neal Laferriere

Marcellus shale drilling is vertical then horizontal for thousands of feet

From Staff Report, Parkersburg News & Sentinel, January 16, 2019

PARKERSBURG — The West Virginia Supreme Court Tuesday heard arguments in an appeal of a lower court decision by residents who claimed Marcellus shale drilling has denied them the enjoyment of their property.

Deborah G. Andrews, Rodney and Katherine Ashcraft, Gregg D. McWilliams, Mary Mikowski and Robert and Loretta Siders filed a complaint in October 2013 alleging nuisances such as noise and odors against Antero Resources Corp. and Hall Drilling.

The claim was transferred from Ohio County Circuit Court to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel in November 2014, which eventually ruled in favor of the defendants in October 2016.

At issue is horizontal well drilling and hydro-fracturing in the Marcellus Shale, which has caused the industrialization of rural West Virginia and noise, truck traffic, odors, dust contamination, light pollution and vibrations, among other things, the petitioners brief to the Supreme Court said.

Antero and Hall said the Mass Litigation Panel did not abuse its discretion by holding that petitioners failed to show they are entitled to relief and that the panel applied the correct legal standards concerning mineral owners’ and surface owners’ rights under West Virginia law.

“From what began as a toxic contamination case, petitioners now only claim annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience caused by noise, traffic on public roads, odors, dust, lights, and vibrations (collectively, ‘conditions’) allegedly resulting from horizontal drilling activities located in the vicinity of petitioners’ surface estates,” the Antero brief said.

Two friends of the court briefs were filed in support of Antero and Hall from the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association and from the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, and the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, the West Virginia Business and Industry Council, the West Virginia Coal Association, the Contractors Association of West Virginia, West Virginia Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, the West Virginia Manufacturers Association and the West Virginia Poultry Association.

“The issues petitioners seek to appeal would significantly impact the well-settled theories of property law and the sustainability of the Marcellus shale industry in West Virginia,” the chamber brief said. “Because such issues necessarily implicate West Virginia’s economic viability overall, including direct and indirect impacts on other industries … all have significant interests in the issues raised by the petitioners in this appeal.”

———————————————————————————

Supreme Court to rule on natural gas drilling nuisance question

From an Article by Jeff Jenkins, WV Metro News, January 16, 2019

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The state Supreme Court will make a much-anticipated decision in the coming months on the issue of natural gas drilling and whether the process is a public nuisance.

The Court heard an hour of oral arguments Tuesday on an appeal by a group of Harrison County property owners that claim horizontal drilling by Antero Resources is a nuisance. The plaintiffs lost in the lower court. The state’s Mass Litigation Panel found summary judgment in favor of Antero.

Plaintiff’s attorney Anthony Majestro argued Tuesday normal life has been disrupted. “These trucks are going by 100-a-day, 24-hours-a day. They are parked in front of my clients’ houses. Their engines are running, the big 18 wheelers, the hisses and noises, fumes coming off. That’s one of the primary causes of the nuisance,” Majestro said.

Monongalia County Circuit Judge Russell Clawges, appointed as a temporary justice for the case, asked Antero attorney W. Henry Lawrence if the panel’s ruling basically gives the drilling company a green light no matter what.

“Does not the panel’s order basically give your clients carte blanche to do whatever they want to, whenever they want to, however they want to, no matter what affect it may have on these plaintiffs?

“No,” Lawrence said. “The panel looked at the evidence presented to them and said the plaintiffs have not offered expert testimony that indicates that these activities are unreasonable or unnecessary in development of these minerals.”

Majestro said because it’s horizontal drilling, there’s no guarantee property owners are being properly compensated for what they have to endure. “Most of this drilling that’s being done and this nuisance that’s being created is being conducted to get gas that is not under my client’s property,” Majestro said.

The plaintiffs want their nuisance claims to go before a jury.

Lawrence said the panel looked through hundreds of pages of discovery in the case before making its decision. He said there were initial claims of contamination, physical damage and personal injury. He said the plaintiffs eventually withdraw their negligence claim. There were originally 22 plaintiffs and now there are seven. “None of these plaintiffs had well pads on their properties. There were several plaintiffs in the initial case (that did),” Lawrence said.

Majestro said the case should go before a jury and let it decide if drilling activities can cause a nuisance. He said there’s no doubt his clients have been negatively impacted. “There’s testimony the clients can’t sleep. There’s testimony they can’t sit on their front porch and talk. In addition, we have odors, fumes from these trucks that are burning diesel while they are parked around my client’s house and driving by,” Majestro said.

Lawrence said the wells in question are about 10 years old and represent some of Antero’s first wells in Harrison County. The lawsuits were originally filed in late 2013.

Two members of the Supreme Court, Justice Tim Armstead and Justice John Hutchison disqualified themselves from hearing the case. They were replaced by Clawges and Cabell County Circuit Judge Greg Howard.

Compressor station protestors were removed by the police

By Denise Lavoie, Roanoke Times (Associated Press), January 9, 2019

RICHMOND — A state board approved a contentious plan Tuesday to build a natural gas pipeline station in a historic African-American community, prompting angry shouts of “shame” from more than 200 opponents.

The Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board voted 4-0 in favor of a key permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would run 600 miles and carry fracked natural gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.

Some opponents of the project hissed, coughed and shouted during the meeting. Fifteen people were removed by state police, and one woman was charged with trespassing after she laid down on the floor and refused to comply with police verbal commands to leave.

The proposed site for the compressor station is in Union Hill, an unincorporated community founded by freed slaves. The community is in rural Buckingham County, about an hour’s drive west of Richmond.

Opponents are concerned that exhaust from the 54,000-horsepower compressor station would hurt low-income and elderly residents living nearby. Supporters say it will boost development.

The station would be built on 15 acres of a 70-acre site with the rest of the property left undisturbed, according to Dominion Energy, the pipeline’s lead developer. Compressor stations are used to power interstate natural gas pipelines, moving gas through the system.

Paul Wilson, pastor of two Baptist churches near the proposed site, said opponents will keep fighting. He didn’t elaborate on whether they would take legal action. “We’re looking at all of our avenues,” he said after the vote. “It’s a long way from over. I think Dominion wants to wear people down. But that’s not going to happen.”

Dominion spokesman Karl Neddenien acknowledged in a statement after the vote that it will “have to continue building trust in the community.” He said the project’s backers are making investments in a new community center and rescue squad “but it will not end there.”

Neddenien said most air emissions at the station will be 50 to 80 percent lower than at any other compressor station in Virginia. The air pollution permit has become a flashpoint in the yearslong fight over the pipeline.

Supporters say it’s needed to help boost the supply of natural gas. Opponents say it is an unnecessary fossil fuel infrastructure project that tramples on land rights and hurts the environment.

With a current pricetag of $6.5 billion to $7 billion, the pipeline has recently suffered significant legal setbacks, including a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last month throwing out a permit for the pipeline to cross two national forests, including parts of the Appalachian Trail. Dominion has suspended all project construction and said it plans to appeal the ruling.

John Laury, who lives less than a mile from where the compressor station would be built, said he doesn’t believe assurances from Dominion or state regulators that emissions from the station would not hurt residents’ health or the environment. “I challenge them to come live in the community with us, to breathe this air, drink this water,” said Laury, 74.

Mike Dowd, the state Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Director, said the department reviewed compressor station permits from around the country and scrutinized pollution control technology. He said the station will “set a new national standard that all future compressor stations will have to meet across the country.”

Gov. Ralph Northam angered environmentalists and minority groups when he replaced two members of the pollution control board after it delayed a scheduled vote in November. Northam, a Democrat, said the move was unrelated to the compressor station vote and that members were replaced because their terms had expired. Two new members didn’t vote Tuesday, nor did a third member who cited a conflict of interest.

Board member William Ferguson said at the hearing that there’s a real need for the pipeline, particularly in Virginia’s Hampton Roads region. “The region needs the energy; the state needs the energy,” he said. His comments prompted a woman to shout: “How much is Dominion paying you?”

Some opponents held pieces of paper with a blown-up photo of the governor’s face and the words “foul” or “shut it down.” Northam has said he’s agnostic on how the board votes. “As far as the pipeline … there’s not a lot of middle road on that issue,” Northam said in a recent radio interview. “I’ve tried to be as fair as I can.”

After the board approved the permit, some of the opponents overturned their chairs. Charles Strickler, a retired dentist, predicted that opponents will not give up their fight. “I think there are going to be people in front of bulldozers for the pipeline, getting arrested,” he said.