Active Marcellus Drilling & Fracking Site

EPA Science Advisory Board sharpens criticism of fracking report

From an Article by Jon Hurdle, NPR StateImpact PA, August 11, 2016

EPA science panel calls on the agency to produce more evidence for its assertion that fracking by gas rigs like this one does not have a widespread effect on drinking water.

A scientific advisory panel on Thursday stepped up its criticism of the Environmental Protection Agency’s controversial report on fracking, calling on the agency to provide evidence for its landmark conclusion that fracking for oil and gas has had “no widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water.

In a finalized assessment of the study, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board said the federal agency should quantify its analysis, which was widely criticized by opponents of the natural gas industry when it was released in June 2015.

The call for data to support the report’s conclusion represented an addition to the SAB’s three previous drafts, which expressed concern about the EPA’s headline conclusion that it had found no evidence of widespread impacts on drinking water but did not call for a quantified analysis.

The 30-member SAB faulted the EPA report for not backing up its main conclusion.

“The SAB finds that the EPA did not support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of ‘systemic’ and ‘widespread,’” the report said.

For the first time, the SAB also raised the possibility that the EPA might want to rethink its headline conclusion.

“The SAB concludes that if the EPA retains this conclusion, the EPA should provide quantitative analysis that supports its conclusion that hydraulic fracturing has not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources,” the new report said.

It said that 26 SAB members found that the EPA’s statement requires clarification and additional explanation while the remaining four said it was “clear, concise and accurate.”

Critics of the oil and gas industry say there have been many instances of private water sources being contaminated by chemicals used in fracking, damaging the health of people living near drilling rigs.

Dr. David Dzombak, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor who chaired the panel that produced the drafts, and who sits on the full SAB, confirmed that the report had not previously called for more data in support of the EPA’s conclusions.

Dzombak also said that the latest report added language raising the possibility that the EPA could scrap its language saying that there was no evidence of widespread impacts to water supplies.

“One option for the agency would be to drop that conclusion,” he told StateImpact. “The SAB is asking here for clarification of an ambiguous statement.”

Some members of the hydraulic fracturing advisory panel that produced the earlier drafts had called on the EPA to drop the controversial language, Dzombak said, and the full SAB is now backing that call.

“Some members had expressed that, and in the review by the chartered SAB, the discussion there brought more emphasis to that, and so it appears in the final report,” Dzombak said.

The EPA said in a statement that it will take the SAB’s report into account when it finalizes the draft in coming months.

“EPA will use the SAB’s final comments and suggestions, along with relevant literature published since the release of the draft assessment, and public comments received by the agency, to revise and finalize the assessment,” the statement said.

Hugh MacMillan, a senior researcher with the environmental group Food & Water Watch, said the new report represents stronger criticism of the EPA’s report than appeared in previous drafts.

“It makes clear that EPA could scrap the language altogether and avoid this issue of having to quantify widespread systemic impacts,” MacMillan said.

He called the new report a “rebuke” of the EPA which he said has “some explaining to do.”

With the new analysis from SAB, the EPA should now explain how it included the “unsupported” assertion about “no widespread impacts” in its draft; who inserted the language, and how late in the game was that decision made, MacMillan said.

“We feel like the agency papered over where the science ended and the policy considerations began,” he said. “It circumvented debate about whether we should really be equating fracking with energy security.”

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Despair & Hope: Can our Planet be Saved?

The State of Things: Climate Change and Conservation – The Atlantic Magazine

From an Article by Rebecca J. Rosen, et al, The Atlantic Monthly, December 2015

>>> Experts on ecology, conservation, and climate change offer their reasons for optimism and pessimism going into 2016 <<<

The two words “climate” and “change” are so routinely strung together that just saying them as a pair—“climate change”—seems to somehow obscure the full weight of the phenomenon they describe, to say nothing of its consequences. But in those moments when one pauses to consider the ramifications of human activity on the planet for generations and generations ahead, things can feel beyond bleak. And yet: This past year saw the nations of the world reached their first-ever agreement on an ambitious plan to rein in emissions, perhaps the most significant progress yet made on this issue.

We reached out to some of the leading scholars of climate change, conservation, and ecology, and asked them what, as the Earth begins yet another trip around the sun, is giving them cause for hope and despair. Below are their answers, lightly edited for length and clarity.

Reason for despair: I despair that we don’t consider water to be scarce or valuable. A century of lax water laws and regulations has spoiled most Americans. We turn on the tap and out comes as much water as we want for less than we pay for cable television or cellphone service. When most Americans think of water, they think of it as similar to air—as infinite and inexhaustible. In reality, it’s both finite and exhaustible.

Because we don’t respect water as remarkable, we use needless quantities for frivolous purposes, such as growing grass in the desert. And because we don’t pay the real cost of water (only the cost of the infrastructure to provide it), we remove the incentive to conserve. Perhaps most important, our innovation economy has encouraged engineers and inventors to create water-saving technologies that extend our supply; but the price of water is so low that few of them have viable business plans.

Reason for hope: We have a suite of options to confront the crisis and prevent it from becoming a catastrophe. These options include conservation, which remains the low-hanging fruit; reuse of treated municipal effluent; and desalination of ocean or brackish water. We can also price water sensibly to encourage conservation, while protecting access to water for persons of modest means. Finally, we can use the power of market forces to encourage a modest reallocation of water from low to higher-value uses. A low single-digit percent reduction in agricultural water consumption would solve the municipal and industrial water-supply problem. Modernization of farm irrigation systems, paid for by cities and industry, would protect the viability of rural communities and secure needed supplies for the urban sector.

None of these options requires a radical change in our behavior, but they will require the moral courage and the political will to act.

Reason for despair: Climate change is the biggest challenge our planet faces. The science is clear, the risks are real, and the phenomenon’s impact on every part of our planet is increasingly visible. In mid-December, nearly 200 countries met in Paris to secure a historic agreement to reduce the impacts of the global threat. The negotiators for every single country involved have accepted that we need to take immediate and substantive action on this threat. Back at home, however, Congressional Republicans continued their decades of denial. In a symbolic rebuff of global urgency on the issue, both the House and Senate voted to repeal President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. By the time our legislators—a few hundred people—finally accept the overwhelming scientific evidence about the threat, I despair that time will have run out for future generations. I fear that killing, or endlessly delaying, the nation’s serious efforts to mitigate this threat will be catastrophic: rising seas swallowing island nations, floods wiping out towns and villages, unprecedented heat waves and drought destroying crops and lives, and even global instability that provokes wars.

Reason for hope: What gives me optimism is watching our country take a positive role in the Paris international-climate agreements after decades of foot dragging on the issue. When the United States leads, other countries follow. This means that the U.S. efforts to secure strong climate actions in Paris and at home will make a hugely positive impact globally on carbon emissions. The United States has, in fact, long been a leader on environmental technology innovation. In the 1970s, it was American car-emission standards that led to the development of catalytic convertors. These devices were the first to ever clean up the toxic soup coming out of cars’ tailpipes.

The rest of the world followed America. Today you can’t find a car without one.

After we banned leaded gas, Europe and the rest of the world came along. In 2009 we initiated another world-leading effort, regulations that will cut automotive carbon pollution in half as well as double the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles by 2025. For decades, American environmental efforts have led to innovation, saved lives, and created jobs. As a result of these regulations, our car industry is today undergoing a technological and economic revolution. Our automakers are building the most fuel-efficient vehicle fleet in history and are already ahead on a trajectory to doubling fuel economy by 2025. The world needs the United States to continue and expand its technological leadership in mitigating climate change.

Reason for despair: Despair? Yes, it is there. Not because I don’t think that eventually we will have a low- or zero-carbon world. We will. But how can one not despair at the certain destruction we’ve already ensured with the warming and chaos that is now built in to the climate system? This month flooding in my husband’s home city of Chennai reached second floors, with more than 1.8 million people displaced. In one 24-hour period there was nearly 11 inches of rainfall. California remains in the grip of a powerful drought. It is 60 degrees in Boston, in December, in what’s likely the world’s warmest recorded year, a distinction which may be eclipsed 12 months from now. All the while, the politics of hatred are rising, like the sea levels.

Reason for hope: COP21, the UN talks in Paris, ended with a degree of hope that is unprecedented in the world of climate. Despite the absence of a binding agreement or emissions promises that have any hope of avoiding catastrophe, there has been almost delirious optimism, even from many environmental activists. (Not from all, of course. James Hansen and Bill McKibben have been outspoken in their criticisms of the weaknesses of the treaty, and they’re right.)

But I find four major reasons to be hopeful. The first is that China is acting decisively to reduce emissions from coal. The second is that renewable energy is now an economically viable alternative to fossil fuels, and will be even more so if we can eliminate the $450 billion a year in subsidies for the dirty fuels. The third is that the fossil-fuel companies are without doubt on the defensive. From the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline to government investigations into Exxon’s cover up of its own climate research, the behavior of this industry is finally on view. True, it is still quite powerful in Congress, but the combination of science, economics, and exposure is sounding the industry’s death knell. As we’ve already seen with coal, I predict that oil and gas won’t survive the mounting pressure to “keep it in the ground.” And that brings me to my fourth reason for hope: the growth of a global grassroots movement for climate justice and ecological sanity. It has taken a long time for us to get here, but it’s now unstoppable.

Reason for despair: Climate change. It’s the perfect problem: more global, more long-term, more irreversible, and more uncertain that virtually any other public-policy problem facing us. Climate change is a lot worse than most of us realize. Almost regardless of what we do on the mitigation front, we are in for a whole lot of hurt.

On the policy front, we have now talked for more than 20 years about how we need to turn this ship around “within a decade.” Not unlike the ever-elusive fusion technology, that hasn’t happened yet. Global carbon emissions declined slightly this year—for the first time ever without a global recession—but the trends are still pointing in the wrong direction. Worse, turning around emissions is only the very first step. It’s not enough to stabilize the flow of water going into the bathtub when the goal is to prevent the tub from overflowing. We need to turn around atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. That means turning off the flow of water into the tub—getting net emissions to zero and below. It doesn’t help our efforts that many people seem to confuse the two. A study involving over 200 MIT graduate students faced with this same question revealed that even they confuse emissions and concentrations — water flowing into the tub and water levels there. If MIT graduate students can’t get this one right, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Reason for hope: Climate change. Many signs point to some real momentum to finally tackle this momentous challenge.

The Paris Climate Accord builds an important foundation. It enables transparency, accountability, and markets to help solve the problem. Many governments are moving forward with pricing carbon: from California to China, from Sweden to South Africa, we see ambitious action to reign in emissions in some 50 jurisdictions. Meanwhile, lots is happening on the clean-energy front. That’s particularly true for solar photovoltaic power, which has climbed up the learning curve — and down the cost curve — faster than most would have expected only five years ago. That has also provided an important jolt for sensible climate policy. Then there’s R&D for entirely new technologies. Bill Gates leading an investment coalition with $1 billion of his own money is only one important sign of movement in that direction. The excitement for self-driving, electric vehicles is palpable up and down Silicon Valley, to name just one potentially significant example. In the end, it’s precisely this mix of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and, of course, Washington that will lead — and, in part, is already leading — to the necessary revolution in a number of important sectors, energy and transportation chief among them.

#   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #

See also the activities of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network here.

Earthquakes Occur in Virginia

Virginia to review natural gas fracking rules

From an Article by Steve Szkotak, Associated Press, May 31, 2014

RICHMOND—Virginia is looking anew at regulations governing hydraulic fracking for natural gas, a drilling method that has spawned a gold rush for the energy resource in the U.S. and given rise to its own environmental movement.

The review comes ahead of a Dallas energy company’s plans to drill in tens of thousands of leased acres south and east of Fredericksburg. To date, drilling for natural gas in Virginia has occurred only in the southwest Coalfields region of the state.

The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy has assembled an advisory panel of state officials, an industry representative and others to review the state’s existing rules on fracking, as the process is informally called. Its first meeting is Wednesday in Richmond.

Michael A. Skiffington, the DMME’s program support manager, said the advisory panel will offer recommendations in several areas, including whether drilling companies should be required to disclose what chemicals they use to drill.

Panel members will also review best industry practices and whether additional requirements are needed for drilling in different regions of the state, Skiffington said.

Citing quickly evolving drilling methods, he said the department is reviewing its existing regulations to ensure they “provide for safe and environmentally sound natural gas production.”

Many drilling companies voluntarily disclose contents of their fracking fluids, but critics contend they can avoid full disclosure by declaring chemicals or precise recipes as trade secrets.

The review also comes as interest grows in the Taylorsville Basin in eastern Virginia. Containing an estimated 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the basin is beneath the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula along the Chesapeake Bay. It also extends into Maryland.

With an eye on tapping those reserves, Shore Oil and Exploration Corp. has leased approximately 84,000 acres in five counties in the Fredericksburg area: Caroline, Essex, King George, King and Queen and Westmoreland. The company said it hopes to start drilling by 2015.

Environmental groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and The Nature Conservancy have sounded the alarm about the prospect of drilling in an area snug to the Chesapeake Bay, which is amid a massive federally directed cleanup after years of pollution and neglect. The area east of Interstate 95 already has more stringent regulations on fracking because of its proximity to water source.

In a letter to DMME from the Southern Environmental Law Center, representing an array of conservation groups, the state’s existing regulations are called inadequate.

It warns, “Virginia must not repeat the lessons learned during the drilling boom in West Virginia and Pennsylvania where the fast pace of development forced regulators to play catch up with the industry’s widespread impacts on the environment and communities.” We have an important opportunity to insure [sic] that Virginia’s regulatory framework is amended before high-volume hydraulic fracturing is underway in the state.”

EARTH’S WATER COMPARISON: Ocean Water (large blue sphere), Groundwater (small blue sphere), Freshwater (nearly invisible blue dot).

Source: Howard Perlman, United States Geological Survey.  Data source: Igor Shiklomanov “Worlds Freshwater Resources” in Peter H. Gleick (editor), 1993, Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources (Oxford University Press, New York).

Note: The arrow is missing which locates the tiny freshwater dot below the others. Clearly, legislation is needed to provide a legal framework for the protection of our limited water resources here on earth.  As more and more chemicals are released into the environment, less of our existing water resources will be useful to us.  Life support is our number one need, as drinking water, for growing our food, for food preparation, and for the continued preparation of the products that support our life functions.

Dunkard Creek is on Mason-Dixon Line

Greene County creeks leased for drilling by PA-DCNR

From an Article by Emily Petsko, Washington PA Observer-Reporter, April 4, 2014

Two Greene County creeks are doubling as drilling sites for local energy companies, joining the more than 1,400 acres of public waterways across Pennsylvania leased to natural gas companies by the state in the past year. Sections of Ten Mile and Dunkard creeks, both state-owned waterways, were recently leased by the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to three separate companies for horizontal drilling.

According to the state’s Conservation and Natural Resources Act, DCNR is permitted to enter into lease agreements for the extraction of fuel, oil, natural gas or any other mineral deposits on commonwealth-owned lands. DCNR receives the bonus and royalty payments, which are deposited into the Oil and Gas Lease Fund for conservation, recreation and flood control programs.

“Although DCNR does not manage the riverbeds as it does state parks and forests, the agreements are negotiated by DCNR because we have expertise based on our more than 60-year history of gas leasing on state forest land,” said Christina Novak, DCNR press secretary. Novak said drilling activity is “nothing you would notice on the surface” because it occurs deep below the waterway.

DCNR netted nearly $6 million since last year. While most waterway leases were signed during Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration, Novak said one $6 million waterway lease occurred in May 2010 during Gov. Ed Rendell’s term. Eight of nine waterway leases were signed between March 2012 and March 2014.

Most recently, Chevron signed a lease March 12 for 57 acres of Dunkard Creek for $228,000 with DCNR. Two-and-a-half acres of Ten Mile were leased to EQT Production Co., which has a local office in Washington. The company will pay a $10,200 bonus to DCNR.

Underneath another section of Ten Mile, Colorado-based Vantage Energy signed a lease January  31^st for 80 acres at a cost of $321,692. In addition to the bonus payment, all companies are required to pay a 20 percent royalty rate.

Media spokespersons for EQT and Chevron did not respond to calls seeking comment Tuesday. State Rep. Pam Snyder, D-Jefferson, said she was not made aware of the drilling leases for Ten Mile and Dunkard creeks.

NOTE: Greene county is the SW corner county in Pennsylvania bordering WV on its west and south.  Dunkard Creek is about 38 miles in length weaving back and forth across the Mason-Dixon line.  Ten Mile Creek flows thru Waynesburg (center of Greene county) and on east to the Monongahela River.

Solid Waste Truck Lineup

Landfill Tonnage Caps Needed for Shale Drilling Wastes

NOTE: — Comment Period Ends November 13th —

The WV Public Service Commission, which regulates this state’s solid waste landfills, is currently considering a request in Wetzel County that would allow unlimited amounts of shale gas drilling waste (drill cuttings and drilling mud) to be dumped in local landfills.

The Lackawanna Transport Company which operates the Wetzel County Landfill has filed an application with the PSC for a “certificate of need” to construct and operate a dedicated disposal “cell” for the disposal of solid drilling wastes.

Under memos recently issued by DEP to landfill operators (but not provided to county Solid Waste Authorities) there is ABSOLUTELY NO LIMIT on the total tonnage of drilling waste going into our landfills. And there is no requirement to monitor these wastes for radioactivity known to be associated with it.

The landfill tonnage caps contained in WV’s landmark Solid Waste Management Act were designed to insure that our landfills could operate well into the future. For more than a year now the PSC and the DEP have allowed the Wetzel landfill (and others) to exceed their legal tonnage limits to accept this drilling waste.

This is your chance to tell the Public Service Commission that this is not acceptable and that you want our landfills to be available for everyone’s grandchildren to use decades from now.

To file a “protest/opposition” comment on this case simply go to this website:

http://www.psc.state.wv.us/Scripts/OnlineComments/formalComments.cfm?CaseID=57932&CaseNumber=13%2D0832%2DSWF%2DCN

Once there, fill in all the name, address, phone information, etc. Under comment type — choose  “PROTEST”. The comment box will then display “Comment in Protest of Case 13-0832-SWF-CN”.

Here is a list of concerns you can use for your comments:

Make sure to ask for a public hearing on this case in New Martinsville. The huge increase in tonnage at the landfill is using up space and shortening its useful life. The existing landfill tonnage caps must be restored.

There has been a large increase in traffic near the landfill. The roads near the landfill are being damaged by the increase in heavy truck traffic.

Some Marcellus shale drilling wastes are known to be radioactive.

The existing leachate treating system may not be able to handle the toxic mix of drill waste products. The liquid discharges from these landfills may pollute streams or groundwater nearby.

It is urgent that you do this now, because the comment period ends on Wednesday, November 13, 2013. Thanks for your attention.

Don Garvin, WVEC Legislative Coordinator, DSGJr@aol.com
West Virginia Environmental Council (WVEC)
Charleston, WV

Monongahela River @ Pittsburgh

November 1-2, 2012, Omni William Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh, PA

A one-and-a-half day workshop is scheduled to bring together experts to discuss current water management technologies and process utilized to address water use and impacted water disposal.  This workshop, co-sponsored by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA), will focus on the engineering design and in-the-field implementation of water use and reuse activities. 

Overview:
Shale oil and gas exploration and production has dramatically increased as a result of advancements in both exploration technology and reservoir simulation techniques; specifically horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
Opportunity: This one-and-half day workshop is scheduled to bring together experts to discuss current water management technologies and processes utilized to address water use and impacted water disposal. This workshop will focus on the engineering design and in-the-field implementation successes and challenges of water use and reuse activities. The workshop will provide a forum for the presentation of current management processes and case-studies as well as provide attendees the opportunity to interact with technical experts who are actively working and addressing these timely and critical issues.

Technical Program:

Keynote Address: Jeffrey Daniels, Director of Subsurface Energy Resource Center at Ohio State University and Cal Cooper, Manager of Special Projects at Apache Corporation will give the address to kick off this workshop.

Day 2 Opening Address: Danny Reible, Director of the Center for Research in Water Resources at the University of Texas at Austin will open the second day of the workshop

Water Treatment:
Chair: Al Sacco, Texas Tech University; Co-chair: Audra Morse, Texas Tech University. Speakers: Nathan Hancock, Director of R&D, Oasys Water, Inc., Tor Polmgren,Schlumberger Environmental Testing, John Lucey, Executive Vice President, Heckmann Group, Cal Cooper, Manager of Special Projects, Apache Corporation

Water Sourcing/Logistics: Chair: Dan Mueller, Zephyr Environmental. Speakers: Paula Ballaron, Regulatory Program Director, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Sam Bacon, Encana Energy

Wastewater Disposal: Chair: Mark Wilson, GE Power & Water; Co-chair: Lee Lundberg, Veolia Water. Speaker: TBD from Texas A&M, TBD from Chesapeake, TBD from Veolia Water

Water Reuse and Recycle: Chair: Jessica Gray, ERG; Co-Chairs: Martin Abraham, Youngtown State University, Tracy Young, Dow Water. Speakers: Aaron Johnson, Dow Water & Process Solution, David Yoxtheimer, Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research.

In addition to the keynote, second day opener, and four technical sessions, there will be a panel discussion of experts in the field on day two, and networking opportunities during coffee breaks, lunches, and receptionist throughout the workshop.

For those unable to attend the “Water and Wellness” seminar yesterday, you can watch the entire program of speakers on the video clips referenced below. The program was held in Morgantown, Saturday, September 8th and sponsored by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the WV Sierra Club, and WV Highlands Conservancy. Focus was on Marcellus shale gas development (MSD) and mountain-top removal coal mining (MTR).

Dr. Wilma Subra was keynote speaker, with presentations also by Dr. Michael Hendryx, Dr. Jill Kriesky, and Dr. Ben Stout. Additional speakers included residents of WV and PA who have personally been impacted by either shale drilling or mountain top removal coal mining and they shared their personal stories.

Dr. Wilma Subra presented information about the harmful toxins associated with shale gas drilling and their effects on human and animal health and environment. She presented statistical research about the levels of these chemicals that have been measured and documented all around these drill sites, compressor stations and beyond. It should be enough to lead even the most skeptical person into a call for action to demand a closer look by our regulatory agencies and legislators to determine if this “unconventional drilling” is as safe as the industry claims that it is! The industry rushed into the Marcellus drilling frenzy without really knowing all the facts about the short and long term impacts to health and environment. The resulting evidence coming from these communities now is just too serious to ignore!!!

>>> Diane Pitcock, www.wvhostfarms.org (See Part 12 below.)

NOTE: Everyone who lives anywhere in the region of drilling should watch these first two videos, where Dr. Wilma Subra describes the toxins and risks associated with shale gas development. You don’t have to live close to a well site to be affected… Robert Donnan.

Water & Wellness: Health Impacts of Fossil Fuel Extraction
Saturday, September 8, 2012 seminar in Morgantown, WV

Part 1 – Opening greetings and a presentation by environmental scientist Dr. Wilma Subra who begins her presentation at the 12-minute mark of the video.
http://youtu.be/znFOo7CloVg (36:32)

Part 2 – End of presentation by environmental scientist Dr. Wilma Subra.
http://youtu.be/LiV1XAWeSac (17:04)

Part 3 – Presentation by Greene County, Pennsylvania resident Pam Judy describing the health effects her family has experienced from a compressor station that was built 780 feet from their new home.
http://youtu.be/-qVGWAZXi7s (7:14)

Part 4 – Presentation by Christina Woods of Doddridge County, West Virginia who describes problems with dust from drilling traffic on the road near their home which were compounded when flowback being was applied to the road for dust control.
http://youtu.be/vjDBCyf8Ypo (5:18)

Part 5 – Presentation by Linda Headley of Fayette County, Pennsylvania who describes how being surrounded by Marcellus Shale drilling sites has adversely affected her family’ health and wellbeing.
http://youtu.be/JPIauYgBNYo (3:16)

Part 6 – Presentation by Nada White of Boone County, West Virginia who describes the health effects of coal mining and mountaintop removal.
http://youtu.be/uM9Mi1LSJDw (4:53)

Part 7 – Presentation by panelists Dr. Michael Hendryx – Professor in the School of Public Health at West Virginia University; Dr. Jill Kriesky – Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) at University of Pittsburgh; Dr. Ben Stout – Aquatic Biologist at Wheeling Jesuit University.
http://youtu.be/umfg0PO5xg8 (31:42)

Part 8 – Q&A session with panelists Dr. Michael Hendryx – Professor in the School of Public Health at West Virginia University; Dr. Jill Kriesky – Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) at University of Pittsburgh; Dr. Ben Stout – Aquatic Biologist at Wheeling Jesuit University.
http://youtu.be/02Gc5fjzEuM (36:33)

Part 9 – Q&A session with panelists Dr. Michael Hendryx – Professor in the School of Public Health at West Virginia University; Dr. Jill Kriesky – Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) at University of Pittsburgh; Dr. Ben Stout – Aquatic Biologist at Wheeling Jesuit University.
http://youtu.be/OkUV8SsYR2Q (4:51)

Part 10 – Lorelei Scarbro of Raleigh County West Virginia describes what happened during and after mountaintop removal mining took place behind her house.
http://youtu.be/LLwEP1QUCX0 (9:15)

Part 11 – Danny Cook of Boone County West Virginia describes what happened during and after mountaintop removal mining took place behind his house.
http://youtu.be/DKMftkX7jgA (6:18)
Magazine story:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201203/coal-mining-appalachia102.aspx

Part 12 – Diane L. Pitcock describes the WV Host Farms Program.
http://youtu.be/5YhCyf-WbCg (6:30)

The Energize West Virginia with Natural Gas town hall meeting at the Morgantown Ramada Inn Tuesday evening, July 10th, must have been amusing to anyone aware of plays with words. The world consists of an exterior reality, which we try to duplicate with words to communicate with others.

The dissonance between the shale gas industry and the people who experience shale gas drilling is preposterous. That is to say absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous, unbelievable. The industry is top down, like an army, or some churches, with “reality” emanating from the head. The people who experience shale drilling are diverse, disconnected from one another, seeing only what is in their area, and mad as “hades” at their losses.

When one draws back and looks at the matter, it is clear what is going on. Our (the world’s) reliance on a single source of energy, hydrocarbons, is reaching a limit. Where the bulk of our energy comes from can be written in two equations understandable to a high school chemistry student. Any kind of mining always takes the easy stuff first. By now the easy hydrocarbon stuff is gone. To get hydrocarbons, more and more difficult deposits must be exploited.

Voiceless people all over the world have been trounced on for oil, now it is time for the home folks. Listen here rural folks, you’re now it! If you hear people talking about the damage they sustain, there is no doubt about their pain. Diminished health, diminished values of property, diminished enjoyment of life, diminished prospects for their children.

Probably most people are still more or less indifferent, it is not their ox in the ditch. As long as they can enjoy plenty of food, security, air conditioning, amusement, it really doesn’t mean too much one way or the other. It only comes home to those who are affected.

When the long, hot summer is over and the crops don’t come in, we’ll hear a different story. Each hot week without significant rain makes global warming converts. When you can’t grow corn, many people are hurt. We live within a delicate shell on a planet too small for all its many people.

Next winter, even if it is warm, will be interesting, too. Maybe someone will come up with a way to eat the extra hydrocarbons.

S. Tom Bond, Farmer, Citizen, Lewis County, WV

“We have come down to the wire,” said Delegate Tim Manchin (D-Marion). “I think the public really wants and deserves a bill.”  An unusual Sunday morning session of the Joint Select Committee on Marcellus Shale has been set for Charleston, prior to a regular Interim Session of the Legislature. The meeting seeks to work out four proposed amendments, including likely contentious language to protect and compensate surface landowners and expand the ability of state regulators to deny new drilling permits when appropriate.

“Why should we listen to some professor theorize about jobs when we can have the hard data about the jobs?” Delegate Tim Manchin said. “If jobs are the reason why our people should be inconvenienced by roads and trucks and scarring of the land, why shouldn’t we know how many jobs?”  Manchin said he’s been told industry officials and some Senate committee members want to slow down that process.  “We’re going to miss any chance of having a special session,” Manchin said. “I’m deeply concerned, but cautiously optimistic.”  See the status of the SB-424 bill here.

Gas industry spokesmen have said there are things in the amendments to SB-424 that they oppose. But environmental groups have warned about impacts, and the WV-DEP has agreed it needs more staff and tougher rules to regulate new horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking techniques that involve much larger operations and more complex permits. Surface landowners from around the state have also told horror stories about having their property invaded and damaged by drilling operations. And new studies are questioning whether natural gas really has the greenhouse gas advantages over coal that have been cited in the past.