Planning A 330-Mile Party On A Shoestring

Posted on September 8, 2009August 13, 2019 by Liz

(I was going to write a Light Up The Delaware River Party wrap-up today but seeing as how photos and stories are still coming in, I’ll wait a few days.)

Dear Drilling Companies That Are Eying Sullivan County (Part 2):

I promised yesterday to provide you with a short primer on “How to organize a 330-mile party in under five weeks for less than $1,000” so, gather round.

(Oh good! Mobil-Exxon’s stalking the blog today. Welcome, welcome!)

1. The first thing you need when trying to organize a community is a good idea. It should be easily explained and understood and it should include a component of fun. (Your idea for filling the shale bed with toxic chemicals and consequently polluting the land and water is easily enough understood and explained but honestly, the “fun” piece is missing.) For instance, my idea for Lighting Up The Delaware River Party came from Gandhi leading the Indian people to the sea to make salt. He wanted them to reclaim their resources and the strength that comes from working shoulder-to-shoulder in an act of solidarity. So we started with that idea and added puppets, songs, movies, dance, poetry, a canoe regatta, campfires, kayaking. It was a blast!

What’s the genesis of your idea? This is important! When I asked one of your spokespeople outside the July 15, 2009 DRBC hearing if he’d be willing to put your toxic chemicals in an impermeable container and then place them in his child’s glass of water, he said, “No!” without hesitation. It’s just not a good way to garner trust and support. And more important, it’s just not fun.

2. You have to meet people where they live. Seriously, the way you’re going about selling fracking fluids and contaminated wells needs some honing. It’s no good sitting in a meeting room hoping we’ll find you. (Many of us are hanging on by a thread and what with working 2 or 3 jobs, we don’t have a lot of time or energy for your little soirees.)

And for sure, it doesn’t help your case to simply deny there’s a problem. Granted, most of us who’ve been living in The Basin or rural New York, Colorado, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana and Ohio for decades or centuries don’t have a lot of financial resources but we’re not stupid, for Pete’s sake. We can read a local newspaper! We know about Dimock, PA, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Ohio… It doesn’t help your cause if people think you’re hiding a bunch of garbage in a closet. So in your interest, I urge you to come clean.

3. The best way to promote an idea in a tight-knit community is to be vested in that community and to have a ton of good-hearted friends: join the local fire company; become a well-known agitator whom people trust whether or not they like you and help bolster your local resources — rivers, land, schools, local production & distribution of food and goods. The list is long and varied so step right up. Here are a couple PR beauts you could jump on in a split instant:

Vest yourself in the community. I know it’s not a tactic you’re familiar with so it bears some explanation. For instance, you can volunteer to help farmers get the hay in during the season. You can deliver cups of coffee to our volunteer firemen who work long hours all day and then roll out of bed when the fire alarm peals. If that sounds like overkill, at least provide jobs for local people. They’ll remember you fondly, I promise!

Support the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2009 so all the nervous Nellies out there feel appeased and safe. If history’s a clue, you probably won’t have to fix any of the problems you create but at least you’ll look responsible.

Stop funding Congress. It makes you look bad and detracts from the wonderful product you’re promoting. (People end up thinking you couldn’t sell gas drilling to a tribe of orangutans without having most of them in your pocket. You can see how unwholesome it makes you appear.)
Pay the damned severance tax you convinced Pennsylvania Governer Rendell to pull. Are you nuts? (I’m asking as one organizer to another so don’t get in a huff.) The tax will cost you barely anything in the billion dollar scheme of things and it’s great publicity. Pay the tax and look like a regular guy. You can’t buy that kind of good press.
The next time you convince a major American university like Penn State to write a bogus “economic impact study” for you, at least fess up that you funded it. (Again, we’re not stupid and it makes you and your university stooges look sleazy. Sorry. I can’t help you if we can’t be forthright with each other.)
If you aren’t vested in the community and you can’t distinguish Sullivan County from Wayne or Orange or if we look like numbers on a geologic plat map to you, here’s a great idea: recruit a local organization to front for you. (I’ve gotta’ tell ya’, this is a really important piece and the whole Sullivan County Partnership thing? You blew it. True or not, most of us don’t think they could find the teats on a hog. (Let’s try this: give me a call and we’ll see if we can’t find you someone less…forgettable.)

Another big help is to know your local media and be trusted by them. I’ve got to hand it to you on that point. The work you’ve done with the media in Wayne County, PA has been inspirational! Almost as impressive as the national silence on some of the “ooops” factors you’ve precipitated in Dimock, Fort Worth and elsewhere.

And that’s where I think we can collaborate. I’ll introduce you to the crackerjack local media who’ve remained beyond your reach and you can get me 10 minutes on Lou Dobbs.

Deal?

Nockamixon Township Peforms Baseline Water Tests

Posted on August 31, 2009 by Liz

(Breathing Is Political extends its appreciation to The Intelligencer and Amanda Cregan for allowing me to re-print the following article which first appeared August 18, 2009. The “Cabot property” referenced in the article is the one Leni Santoro and I visited during our River Road Trip. A photo is viewable here. Please note that the berm around the frack pool did not appear to be more than three feet high and the return fence (running perpendicular to the road) was no higher than 2-3 feet. Because so few people we met during our journey were cognizant of drilling and hydraulic fracturing or the threat they pose to our aquifers and land, I wanted people here in the Upper Delaware Basin to know what some of our sister communities are doing to protect themselves.)

By: AMANDA CREGAN Bucks County Courier Times
Scientists are beginning to sample wells and water sources in the township. It will serve as proof if the water is poisoned by gas drilling.

If Nockamixon’s groundwater is poisoned during natural gas extraction, officials will have the evidence.

Scientists with Princeton Hydro, a New Jersey-based water and wetlands resource management company, are traveling throughout the township this week to sample wells, streams, creeks and aquifers.

With a $25,000 grant, the Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic Management Committee, a group of governmental representatives from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, voted in September to do the testing as a protective measure.

Delayed all summer by frequent rainstorms, scientists have completed testing water wells at nine homes and the Upper Bucks Regional EMS headquarters.

Now they’re roving the township, gathering 20 samples from creeks and streams. Overall, water data will stretch over a 300-square-mile region.

“We’re testing for a whole suite of chemical parameters,” said James P. Shallenberger, senior project manager for Princeton Hydro. “Right now, the objective is just to establish some base lines and sense what the water is like. If there is any drilling done, there will most likely be some follow up work closer to those drill sites.”

If the water was to become contaminated, the Lower Delaware River management committee argues, this baseline, pre-drilling data could be used to make the case that drilling was the cause.

“The baseline testing is extremely important. Because all the discussion we’ve had about accountability and liability, the onus is on us to show the integrity and clarity of our water and have documentation on it,” said the committee’s Pennsylvania chairwoman Nancy Janyszeski, who also serves as Nockamixon’s supervisor chairwoman.

Scientists are focusing their water testing on both sides of the former Cabot Industries property, she said.

The Cabot property on Beaver Run Road, just of Route 611 near Revere, is the only site in the gas drilling permit application stages at the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The 102-acre property was home to a specialty metals production operation. The site underwent a federal environmental cleanup in the early 1990s.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has given the Cabot site a clean bill of health.

The Lower Delaware River management committee is worried that one misstep at a drilling site in Nockamixon could spell disaster for its neighbors.

Township homeowners rely on private water wells and septic systems, and many are already grappling with a diminishing groundwater supply.

Natural gas is extracted thousands of feet below the surface via hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

The process uses vast amounts of water, mixed with sand and other chemicals, injected into the ground under high pressure to create fractures in the rock and allow the oil or gas to be more easily withdrawn.

Like already-affected municipalities across the country, Nockamixon officials want the gas company to disclose what chemicals are being used, but it’s considered a trade secret and is exempted by federal law.

About 250 homeowners have signed leases with Michigan-based gas drilling company Arbor Resources. Nockamixon supervisors have asked Bucks County Court to overturn a decision by the township’s zoning hearing board, which decided Feb. 9 that township ordinances go too far in restricting drilling and agreed with Arbor officials that the state’s Oil and Gas Act trumps local regulations.

If groundwater is poisoned in the drilling process, the burden of proof will be with the gas company, said Shallenberger.

“The state rules put the burden of proof on the drilling company. If there is a problem or if someone else reports a water quality issue within six months that the drilling occurs, there is a presumption the drilling company is responsible for a change in water quality,” he said.

Although these samplings would serve as a before-and-after picture of Nockamixon water quality, it would bring little relief for homeowners suffering the consequences.

“Water is crucial resource for everyone,” he said.

Princeton Hydro’s water samples will be sent to the laboratory. Results are expected in a month.

August 18, 2009

Drilling, Hydro-Fracking, Journalism & Bias

Posted on August 27, 2009 by Liz

(This column was sparked by “elb’s” comments below and invites either “elb” or the commentator of his/her choice to respond as a guest columnist. Although I disagree that the available science urges us to give drilling and hydraulic fracturing a chance, the point of Breathing is to offer a forum for intellectually-honest discussion. “elb’s” full comments can be reached by clicking the comment link to the right of this column under “recent comments.”)

Dear “elb,”

I wish you’d cited to examples when you wrote, “Those thousands in upstate NY who rallied for gas drilling see more benefits than negatives, yet you have not even made the first attempt to understand their point of view or why they reached it. Instead, you’ve inferred that they’re insane idiots who care nothing for the land, just their wallets.”

I’d be interested to know how my statement, “People are moved by threats they perceive as intimate and immediate. Unfortunately for pro-water advocates, residents of New York and Pennsylvania face many threats — many of which seem more ‘immediate’ than the potential loss of their drinking water. How will they pay their mortgages? How will they pay their student loans? Where’s their next paycheck coming from?” infers that drilling proponents are “insane idiots who care nothing for the land, just their wallets.”

In fact, I’ve written angrily as a former farm laborer and construction worker that many landholders have been forced by economic circumstances to even consider leasing their gas rights and I’ve exhorted Basin communities to take specific steps in defense of our Basin’s economy and local producers.)

When you say, “Yet I hear very little insulting, denigrating comments directed at the ‘other side’ from them, despite a passion equal to yours…,” does that include your statement, “Instead, you’ve taken the blindly narcissistic stance that ‘it’s not possible’ that you and your fellow supporters might be guilty — or even capable — of exaggerating risks?”

Does it account for Mr. Noel Van Swol calling pro-water advocates “dilettantes” at the July 15th DRBC Hearing?

Your statement provides no substantiation that I’ve exaggerated my claims so there’s little I can say in response.

However, it seems to me that certain facts must be accepted before we proceed:

hydraulic fracturing fluid contains toxic chemicals capable of rendering a water supply worthless;
the only scientific investigative study currently in existence is the one recently released by the Environmental Protection Agency;
polluted water wells must be reported within six months of the suspect gas well being drilled and fracked;
when screwing anything on the horizontal, the object will remain stable… until it doesn’t;
The Texas Supreme Court recently stated, “The [drilling] design projects the length of the fractures from the well measured three ways…. Estimates of these distances are…at best imprecise. Clues about the direction in which fractures are likely to run horizontally from the well may be derived from seismic and other data, but virtually nothing can be done to control that direction; the fractures will follow Mother Nature’s fault lines in the formation.”
no governmental or ad hoc agency has the budget or staff to oversee any aspect of drilling and fracking: not the drilling and water withdrawals nor the actual fracking and disposal of the resultant toxic waste water — a crucial gap that has been recognized by the Delaware River Basin Commission;

Despite your assessment of my position (“I see one thing over and over again on this blog — a true lack of an open mind. You’ve made up your mind about gas drilling, despite much evidence ((especially in western NYS and other areas inside and certainly outside the West) that it can live in harmony with the environment and local communities.”)) I am not opposed to drilling and hydraulic fracturing; I am opposed to slipshod processes.

And most assuredly, I am opposed to approving an activity or technology just because there are locations where it’s operated safely even though a wealth of circumstantial evidence points to very specific harms elsewhere. (Not all smokers die of smoking-related diseases. Does that mean smoking is harmless?)

To further explain my objection to shoddy process, I opposed invading Iraq without well-articulated reasons, proof and adherence to Constitutional law. I was especially opposed to our policy makers relying on Ahmad Chalabi’s vested-interest “clarifications” since he was angling to be Saddam’s replacement.

A reasonable person would have questioned the value of Chalabi’s “evidence” as I now question the value of drilling company vested-interest “evidence” and “assurances.”

More personally, having been a teenager myself, when my kids told me the party they were attending was safe, I automatically checked with the chaperones. Loving our children or liking corporations doesn’t absolve us of using common sense. If people behaved rationally and with the “common weal” firmly in mind, we’d have no need of laws or oversight or even newspapers and discussion fora.

Which leads rather nicely to the issue of the report released by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning water contamination in Wyoming about which you say, “Instead, you’ve decried the gas drilling industry’s propaganda (of which there is plenty) in favor of Earthworks’ propaganda: a press release that only hints at the fact that the EPA (1) has not yet determined the cause and source of the contaminated wells, and (2) only THREE of the 11 contaminated wells — out of 39 tested — had a toxin specific to fracking. How does that qualify for sounding a nationwide alarm, let alone the environmental catastrophe you’re constantly trying to whip your readers into a frenzy about?”)

What follows here are

direct quotes from Abrahm Lustgarten’s “EPA: Chemicals found in Wyoming Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking”:

“In interviews with ProPublica and at a public meeting this month in Pavillion’s community hall, officials spoke cautiously about their preliminary findings. They were careful to say they’re investigating a broad array of sources for the contamination, including agricultural activity. They said the contaminant causing the most concern – a compound called 2-butoxyethanol, known as 2-BE – can be found in some common household cleaners, not just in fracturing fluids.

“But those same EPA officials also said they had found no pesticides – a signature of agricultural contamination – and no indication that any industry or activity besides drilling could be to blame. Other than farming, there is no industry in the immediate area.

“…according to EPA investigation documents, most of the water wells were flushed three times before they were tested in order to rid them of anything that wasn’t flowing through the aquifer itself.

“‘It starts to finger-point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself,” said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation “could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination.'”

(Conclusive, “elb?” No, but certainly worthy of a moratorium until full explanations are available.)

a link to an earlier introductory article and
a link to the EPA’s actual report (which I was unable to locate despite searching for over an hour)

We don’t have to argue the content; readers can decide whether or not I am attempting to “whip [them] into a frenzy” or whether I’m reasonably concerned by the consequences we see in Wyoming, Fort Worth, Dimock (PA) and elsewhere of “rushing to judgment” as we did in Iraq.

Isn’t it rational to wonder why those with the least are risking the most and well-heeled energy corporations are poised to make out like bandits yet again?

Is it whipping readers “into a frenzy” to remind them that corporations aren’t always honest and government overseers are not always concerned for the well-being of the “People.” (We have ample evidence of this given the recent economic meltdown and the collusive actions of the Securities & Exchange Commission, ratings agencies and other financial pirates who secured obscene profits for a few while huge numbers of us lost our life savings and homes.)

Is it particularly onerous that I would raise those issues when our very water supply depends on drilling companies caring more for the water and our welfare than they do their profits? Is that me falling prey to “Earthworks’ propaganda” or is it a reasonable caution given the times in which we live and the fundamental nature of corporations which is to increase profits for their shareholders?

“Unlike the people you reached out to farther down the Delaware Valley, where gas drilling is likely never to come,” you write, “most landowners in this area have done their homework and — untainted by the desire to hear only the facts that support a pre-set point of view — have come to a different, far less extreme conclusion.”

I’m left to assume that their “far less extreme conclusion” is to lease their gas rights…? How is jumping in with both feet, no matter their reasons, “far less extreme” than my position which I reiterate here for the umpteenth time:

“I want the DRBC to table all drilling and fracking applications until after an Environmental Impact Statement has been issued and independent, scientific studies have evaluated the cumulative impacts of drilling, fracking and waste water disposal on the Delaware River Basin.”

Rather than being part of a frenzied rush to drill, I’m trying to set the brake on a run-away train. (Imagine how much better we’d be sitting if caution and science had informed President Bush’s Iraq War strategy before he launched “Shock and Awe.”)

You also state, “We are all actively working to avoid the kind of environmental holocaust you relish describing, even though the fact remains that no catastrophe on the scale you fear here has ever been seen in the U.S.”

I’m sure that your reasoning will provide comfort to the residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island which were, I’m sure you’ll agree, ground breaking events in their own right.

(I would appreciate you forwarding to me copies of gas leases which “avoid the kind of environmental holocaust” you believe I “relish describing….” Or perhaps you could include them in your rebuttal as evidence of lessors’ efforts to protect our Basin.)

As to your insistence that information printed by ProPublica is propaganda, please consider Mr. Lustgarten’s credentials (“Abrahm Lustgarten is a former staff writer and contributor for Fortune, and has written for Salon, Esquire, the Washington Post and the New York Times since receiving his master’s in journalism from Columbia University in 2003. He is the author of the book China’s Great Train: Beijing’s Drive West and the Campaign to Remake Tibet, a project that was funded in part by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.”) and the fact that he has chosen to work for ProPublica as a respected news source.

Then, please, provide evidence of your assertion that ProPublica spews propaganda as well as examples of gas industry propaganda.

So you see, I completely agree, whether or not it’s my ” blog to do with as [I] please,” readers should demand that we provide well-researched and balanced information for them to chew over in a civil venue.

In return, I ask the same of you and whomever you choose to write your rebuttal which I will be pleased to publish here.

Rally Asks NY State to Rescind Gas Drilling Moratorium

Posted on August 25, 2009 by Liz

According to The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY, “A rally Sunday sponsored by supporters of natural-gas drilling in the area attracted hundreds of people to General Clinton Park in Bainbridge, according to organizers.” An official attendance figure was not available “but…organizers parked about 400 cars.”

According to The Star Gazette, “Dan Fitzsimmons, an organizer, said 871 vehicles parked for the event, many with two or more occupants.”

Uh oh. Fifth grade angst is stopping my heart.

The future health of the Delaware River Basin will probably be decided in a few short weeks. The financial futures of our local producers hang in the balance. The clean drinking water source for 15 million+ people is on the chopping block. Our neighbors in Dimock, PA and Pavilion, Wyoming are pleading with us to wake up — to join hands with them.

But, as an organizer of “The Light Up The Delaware River Party,” my fifth grade refrain is, “Will as many people come to my 9-6-09 party as showed up at the Landowners’ shindig.”

I’m so pathetic I almost didn’t publish The Star Gazette’s more flattering crowd assessment of the pro-drilling rally.

So what’s a grassroots organizer to do? What variety of factors motivated 1000-2000 people to rally for drilling and hydro fracking in New York State when the EPA just reported, “… that initial investigations found 11 of 39 tested drinking water wells [Pavilion, Wyoming] were contaminated. Among the contaminants are toxics used in oil and gas production.”?

I’m flummoxed beyond words. As Leni Santoro and I hand-delivered Light Up The Delaware River Party invitations throughout the Delaware River Basin, we encountered two scenarios over and over again: (1) most people in the Basin had not heard of gas drilling or hydraulic fracturing; and (2) every single person who heard about it from us for the first time was outraged and dumbstruck that drilling and hydro fracking are being seriously considered in The Basin.

People are moved by threats they perceive as intimate and immediate. Unfortunately for pro-water advocates, residents of New York and Pennsylvania face many threats — many of which seem more “immediate” than the potential loss of their drinking water. How will they pay their mortgages? How will they pay their student loans? Where’s their next paycheck coming from?

A while back, I wrote, “Faced with famine, dwindling resources and invaders who carried contagious diseases, the inhabitants of “Easter Island” (Rapa Nui) turned on one another and plundered the lands of those who were killed. Their cultural totems were destroyed by civil wars and the people were reduced and enslaved…. In times of threat, we all reach for familiar comforts, tending to turn our backs to the storm and cast worried glances at strangers. So I ask myself, have our fears so crippled us that we can’t learn the lessons of history?”

If gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing come to The Delaware River Basin as they have to Fort Worth, Texas, Pavilion, Wyoming and Dimock, Pennsylvania, what power will we have to stop them in New York State? New York City has registered its opposition to any threat against its water supply, but what about those of us who live in the Upper Basin? The same economic forces at work in Pennsylvania (the loss of 220,000 + industrial jobs in five years and the destruction of small local farms) will carry the “Drill, baby, drill” anthem across the Delaware River and into New York State.

Where will we plant our feet to stop them?

“The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has scheduled a public hearing on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 to take testimony on its proposed revisions to the draft docket for the application by Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at PPL’s Wallenpaupack Environmental Learning Center in Hawley, Pa. The revised draft docket will be available for public review about 10 business days prior to the September 23 hearing. As before, there will also be an opportunity to submit comments in writing. The earliest occasion on which the commission may act on the docket is at its next public meeting, scheduled for October 22, 2009.”

The 9-6-09 “Light Up The Delaware River Party” is one of the last chances you’ll have to be heard before the DRBC decides an issue that will impact your lives for as long as you live in The Basin. For those of us who remain, the future looks bleak.

Don’t pretend it isn’t happening. It is.

Don’t think sanity will prevail without your voice. It won’t.

Don’t think pro-water advocates are exaggerating the threat from drilling and hydro fracking. It isn’t possible.

Don’t miss this chance to celebrate the works of the river and its people. There won’t be many others.

Don’t leave gas drilling policies in the hands of drilling companies as the residents of Wyoming and Texas and Dimock did or you’ll be left with the same contaminated waters and worthless land as is their portion.

Stand up now. Demand that the DRBC require an Environmental Impact Statement and scientific studies of the cumulative impact of drilling and hydraulic fracturing on The Delaware River Basin. Require a detailed explanation of which agencies will oversee contaminated waste water disposal.

Light up your portion of the Delaware River. Find out how to plan an event in your area. Tell us what you’re planning and invite others. (Post your events at the “party location” page even if it’s a “closed” family event. The DRBC needs to know we’re alive and active.) Don’t forget to email photos of your event to ljbucar@earthlink.net or leni5s@yahoo.com. They’ll be posted on a map of The Basin and presented as a collage to the DRBC.

Come to the table before it’s barren.

EPA Confirms Drinking Water Contamination by Toxics Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

Posted on August 19, 2009 by Liz

(The following joint press release from Earthworks and The Powder River Basin Resource Council is re-printed here by permission of EarthWorks Action. At this crux moment in our fight to protect our own Delaware River Basin, no report is more timely. Please read the story and then organize a Light Up The Delaware River Party. Many of us believe The Delaware River Basin Commission will decide the Basin’s fate by mid-October or earlier. 9-6-09 is our moment to come together as a Basin Community and say, “We need Environmental Impact Statements, cumulative effects studies and evidence that someone, somewhere will be monitoring the drilling industry and its disposal of toxins.”)

**************************************************************************************

EPA Confirms Drinking Water Contamination by Toxics Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

Joint Press Release: EARTHWORKS * Powder River Basin Resource Council

EPA will investigate nearby oil and gas development to determine contamination source

Pavillion, WY citizens call for fracking moratorium

Pavillion, WY, August 14, 2009 – This week U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told a group of over 70 that initial investigations found 11 of 39 tested drinking water wells were contaminated. Among the contaminants are toxics used in oil and gas production.

As part of a Superfund investigation, EPA began sampling in March 2009 in the Pavillion, WY area in response to multiple landowners concerns about changes in water quality and quantity following EnCana’s increased gas development in the area. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and EnCana had continually assured Pavillion residents that there was no evidence of hydrocarbons or toxic chemicals in their drinking water wells.

“Our families and neighbors are experiencing everything from miscarriages and rare cancers to central nervous system disorders, seizures, and liver disease” said John Fenton of Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, a citizens group formed to address oil and gas contamination.

EPA confirmed the presence of 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), a known constituent in hydraulic fracturing fluids, in three wells. This is the same chemical that was documented in the water well of Laura Amos, a Colorado landowner, after nearby wells were hydraulically fractured by EnCana. EPA reported that other water contamination, in the Pavillion wells, included methane, as well as adamantanes (a form of hydrocarbon) and six other chemical compounds of concern.

In 2001 EnCana’s fracturing operations in Silt, Colorado were linked to methane and other contamination of Ms. Amos’ nearby water well. Amos was unable to test immediately for chemical constituents related to hydraulic fracturing as she was unable to identify what chemicals were in EnCana’s drilling products. In 2003 Ms. Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal cancer and she later discovered that 2-BE had been used in EnCana’s fracking products. According to Dr. Theo Colborn at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, known health effects of 2-BE include elevated numbers of combined malignant and non-malignant tumors of the adrenal gland, kidney damage, kidney failure, toxicity to the spleen, the bones in the spinal column and bone marrow, liver cancer, anemia, female fertility reduction, and embryo mortality.

As a result of the EPA’s findings, residents in the Pavillion area are now calling for a halt to EnCana’s fracturing operation. “It’s very concerning that we are finding known fracturing products and hydrocarbons in our citizens’ water wells,” says John Fenton. “We’ll await EPA’s determination as to what is the cause of this contamination. However, in the mean time, we are asking EnCana to ensure no more fracturing occurs in the area.”

EPA stated that they will continue sampling, meeting with all parties and working with EnCana to determine the source and extent of the contamination. Randy Tuween, an EnCana representative at the meeting, pledged to fully cooperate with the community and EPA officials.

“Full cooperation in this instance requires that EnCana fully disclose what products and chemicals have been used in the Pavillion/Muddy Ridge fields,” says Deb Thomas, organizer for the Power River Basin Resource Council and the Pavillion Area of Concerned Citizens. “This shows why federal regulation of fracturing and drilling operations is so important. We have been seeking answers from EnCana and the State of Wyoming for years. We are very pleased that EPA is now getting results. All citizens deserve clean water.”

In June, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (S. 1215/HR 2766) was introduced to require disclosure of fracturing chemicals to public agencies and to lift the exemption for hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation, known as the FRAC Act ensures that a federal minimum standard would prohibit endangerment of underground sources of drinking water while allowing states flexibility in implementing that standard.

“Citizens throughout the country have been reporting changes in their water well’s quality and quantity after nearby hydraulic fracturing operations for years and voicing concerns about both short and long-term health effects,” said Jennifer Goldman of Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project. “The FRAC Act is critical to ensuring that we know what toxics are being injected into and near our aquifers and to holding the oil and gas industry accountable for the environmental and health impacts.”

*** END ***

For More Information

Contacts:

Deb Thomas, Powder River Resource Basin Council: 307-645-3236
Jennifer Goldman, EARTHWORKS: 406-587-4473
John Fenton: 307 856-7098

On hydraulic fracturing:
http://www.earthworksaction.org/hydfracking.cfm

On the inadequate regulation of hydraulic fracturing:
http://www.earthworksaction.org/halliburton.cfm

On Laura Amos, the Colorado landowner poisoned by 2-BE (including links to the Endocrine Disruption Exchange report on 2-BE)
http://www.earthworksaction.org/cvLauraAmos.cfm

On the Powder River Basin Council
http://www.powderriverbasin.org

EARTHWORKS | 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 | Washington, D.C., USA 20006
202.887.1872 | info@earthworksaction.org | Privacy Policy

Light Up The Delaware River Party: “Shot Heard ‘Round The World?”

Posted on August 12, 2009 by Liz

If you live in The Delaware River Basin, love its Wild & Scenic Specially Protected Waters or just like hanging out with your friends at gigunda parties, here are a few free and easy (some harder) ways you can help make the Light Up The Delaware River Party “the shot heard ’round the world.”

Follow the links on the red poster to:

Find out what a “Light Up The Delaware River Party” is and when it’s happening;
Add your event at the brand new “Light Up The Delaware River” party website;
Find out what events are planned for your stretch of The Delaware River.

NB: Last night, I told you CottageWorks was hosting the “Light Up The Delaware River Party because we hadn’t had a chance to create a stand-alone site for it. When I woke up this morning, I had an email from the indefatigable Tanyette. During the night, she’d created the site and sent it live. I’m still stunned by her determination and energy. Thank you, thank you, Tanyette!

Delaware River Basin Commission: Postpones 30,000,000 Gallon Withdrawal from Delaware River

Posted on July 16, 2009 by Liz

The Delaware River Basin Commission’s agenda for July 15, 2009 contained twenty docketed items for review. The meeting was scheduled for 1:00 pm. At noon, except for some media crews, the Hearing room was empty. By 12:55, in the middle of a gorgeous summer workday, it was standing-room-only. Interested parties plugged laptops into outlets and blessed wireless networks.

Several items docketed for DRBC review were approved with little discussion. Only two or three members of the public addressed applications other than Docket #20 and with each DRBC decision, the audience shifted, taking deep calming breaths.

At 1:36 PM, the DRBC announced “that the public record on [DRAFT DOCKET D-2009-20-1] will remain open until Wednesday, July 29, 2009 to allow an additional opportunity for the public to submit written comments.” Some in the audience weren’t sure they’d heard correctly but it was official: no decision would be made on Docket #20 until after the extended public comment period passed.

Why had DRAFT DOCKET D-2009-20-1 roused residents of the Delaware River Basin to leave their farms and offices in the middle of a work week?

On May 19, 2009, according to the DRBC website, DRBC Executive Director Carol R. Collier announced that sponsors of natural gas extraction projects “could not begin any natural gas extraction project located in shale formations within the drainage area of the basin’s Special Protection Waters without first applying for and obtaining commission approval. This determination.. asserts commission review over all aspects of natural gas extraction projects in shale formations within the drainage area of the basin’s Special Protection Waters, regardless of the amount of water withdrawn or the capacity of domestic sewage treatment facilities accepting fracking wastewater.”

On May 22, 2009 Chesapeake Appalachia asked the DRBC “to review” its request to remove up to 30 million gallons of surface water from the West Branch of the Delaware River over a period of 30 days “to support Chesapeake’s
natural gas development and extraction activities…for natural gas wells drilled into the Marcellus Shale and other shale formations…for the applicant’s exploration and development of natural gas wells in the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Less than 40 working days later, the public was sitting in the DRBC Hearing Room.

Although the majority of speakers supported the Executive Director’s May 19, 2009 determination, several raised issues of agency jurisdiction and enforcement responsibility. Filmmaker, Josh Fox (Water Under Attack) asked a series of questions which, for the most part, went unanswered. “Who will be monitoring the wells and the trucks hauling the waste water? If that monitoring is a requirement of the application process, is there a body that will enforce the regulations? I’ve witnessed trucks dumping fluids. I have glass jars full of stuff that truckers were ordered to dump in the Susquehanna River.”

Most projections by both opponents and supporters of natural gas drilling anticipate tens of thousands of wells being drilled in the Basin. It’s clear that no federal or state agency has budgetary funds to monitor the majority of water withdrawals, their impact on the river or where the waste water is dumped and under what conditions. Mr. Fox summed up the sentiments of the majority of speakers, “They’re [natural gas drilling corporations] going to lawyer us to death. You’ll need a private army to enforce any regulations.”

Another opponent of hydraulic fracturing in the Basin asked that drilling companies test wells of any person living in the Basin both before and after drilling commences and not limit the testing to potable water. Yet another suggested that drilling companies pay for the water they use in their operations.

Specific to the amount of water being withdrawn, several speakers addressed water temperature, stressing that variations will endanger the Basin’s shad and trout populations.

Over the last decade, the Basin has sustained lengthy periods of drought that resulted in flash flooding when the rains finally arrived. “What will happen to the open pits of waste water during a flash flood?” one woman asked while someone else demanded, “Will drilling companies be required to stop withdrawals during a drought? Will they have the financial ability to stop the withdrawals?”

One member of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability (DCS) said after the Hearing, “We asked the DRBC to do an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prior to considering any application for gas extraction activity in the basin. DCS attorney Jeffrey Zimmerman spoke and had previously submitted a detailed letter to the Commissioners. We believe there are legal grounds for requiring this EIS.”

The DCS has also posted a “Help Save the Delaware from Gas Drilling revised petition at its website and is asking the public to continue submitting statements to the DRBC.

Comprehensive oversight and enforcement by the DRBC is constrained by The Delaware River Basin Compact and a US Supreme Court Decree (Section 3.5 (c)) which apparently gives de facto veto power to the Compact’s signatories: The President of The United States and the Governors of Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

That’s where confusion and mixed intent reign.

Politically-speaking, State Governors are often the first to be voted out of office when the national economy tanks. Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania lifted the ban on drilling in State forests and called natural gas drilling of the Marcellus Shale a potential Gold Rush while saying significant problems caused by early exploration must be balanced with its benefits. His Department of Environmental Protection appointee, John Hanger, provided more insight as to the Commonwealth’s position on hydraulic fracturing and natural gas drilling, “… some of the chemicals could be dangerous to human health but the risk has to be weighed against the benefits that will come from the exploitation of…the ‘enormous’ gas reserves contained in the Marcellus Shale.” Although “he pledged that officials would respond diligently to any complaints about polluted water resulting from the drilling,” he was unable to “confirm or deny reports that water in the northeast Pennsylvania township of Dimock — where many producing wells are located — is being contaminated by chemicals…”

To add further confusion, DRBC’s rules and regulations state, “The Commission will rely on signatory party reviews as much as possible” which may be one of the points Governor Rendell intends to press.

Proponents of natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing repeated their assertions that new drilling methods and chemicals are safe, though none cited to any independent scientific studies. Noel Van Swol of Fremont alluded to DCS and their ilk as “dilettantes.” He further stated, “Seventy thousand acres are ready to be leased in New York from Hancock to Port Jervis. The towns are dying. Anti-drilling presentations falsely assume that water withdrawals from the Delaware are not renewable,” and claimed rainfall would replenish the water taken by drilling companies.

Our world’s water supply is a closed system. Despite Mr. Van Swol’s assertions, rainfall cannot “replenish” that closed system. It’s merely one inherent part of it.

The next business meeting and public hearing of the Delaware River Basin Commission will be on Wednesday, September 23, 2009.