Petitions, letter campaigns, and more petitions

Concerned citizens across Pennsylvania keep pushing local and state government to slow drilling. One of the more prominent ways have been letter campaigns and petitions.

At least three are on the radar today.

In Indiana County a well-pad has sprung up near the Yellow Creek State Park. It's caused some alarm to people who appreciate the park to push back against well development and request that the Indiana County Commissioners act responsibly. The petition reads:

Marcellus Shale fracking is spreading across PA faster than our current laws and ordinances can keep up. It promises economic development, but there are daily reminders that the process is rife with problems, such as ruining well water for many, and causing an elevation in the levels of harmful bromides in Pennsylvania's waterways. The immediate effects of well failures and spills that release thousands of gallons of toxic waste fluid are also of great concern.

The lack of common sense regulation is clear in the Yellow Creek Conservation Zone where a company started drilling a fracking well without permission. We, the undersigned organizations and individuals believe that the ordinance which regulates the Special Recreation and Conservation Zones is currently not adequate to protect the conservation zones from the potential hazards of deep gas shale fracking. Therefore, we ask that the County Commissioners immediately revise the zoning ordinance to keep deep gas shale fracking outside of the county's conservation zones.

Just a few weeks ago, I drove to Indiana and in the space of a couple of miles I was treated to the joys of sharing the road with a line of Halliburton trucks. In places like Bradford, Tioga, and Clearfield counties these trucks are an overwhelming fact of life with hundreds a day in places.

On the state and regional level some other groups are encouraging other actions. These include PennFuture's work to push the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission to adopt a severance tax. PennEnvironment is urging you to help stop drilling on college campuses.

Seven Questions on Shale Gas Development

I had the fortune of typing up all of the questions that the audience wrote for Dr. Tony Ingraffea last night. There were over thirty and some of them really spoke to some of the issues that we've dealt with on Sustainability Now. So I took the opportunity to take a few of them and put a few of them together and then post them here for us to consider.

1. What are the projected impacts of Utica Shale development?

If you don't know, the Marcellus Shale is only one "unconventional" shale play in Pennsylvania. The Utica Shale is much bigger. It stretches into Quebec and well south of us. It's thousands of feet below Marcellus and holds trillions and trillions more cubic feet of natural gas. Right now, it's not economically viable to get at in Pennsylvania. But my home sits atop and so does my beloved Rothrock State Forest. I have a friendly acquaintance who said, "When I saw the map of the Utica Shale, I felt like an endangered species. It's that big. The impacts will be astronomical.

2. Maybe someone in the audience can explain why Penn State professors are not speaking out on this issue. Is there academic freedom on the issue of gas drilling in Pennsylvania?

This is something of a "myth" as Dr. Ingraffea might call it. There are a lot of prominent people, especially in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences who are quite pro-gas. Dr. Terry Engelder is the most noticed. However, there are several Penn State faculty who have signed a statement that is yet to be released by PennEnvironment that questions the benefit of Marcellus development. I don't know what the status of that signing statement is but I personally know at least two faculty who are signatories.

3. If Central Pennsylvania gas production all comes to fruition, about how many square miles of wells will exist?

You can track existing impacts at sites like FracTracker and the Nature Conservancy's interactive map.

4. Can you comment on the Duke study released on May 9th?

The research in that article finds evidence that there is "methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction" from the Marcellus and Utica shales. "In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg methane (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard." At distances beyond 1 km they found no such problems. Importantly, the researchers "found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids."

You can read the full article here.

5. Why has science in the US become such a target of hysteria? Can serious policy be developed in such a context?

This question is so important. It is far beyond the scope of this blog to say much about it. But Americans, and particularly conservative Americans (though not exclusively) have real trouble with science and some of the authority it comes to have. There are very serious disputes between segments of the public, politicians, and scientists over a host of things. These include climate change, the theory of evolution, and whether or not immunizations cause autism.

The vast majority of scientists working on climate change recognize that humans burning fossil fuels have forced the climate and are accelerating those climate forcings. Rates, extent, scale, etc. are open to debate. But not the cause. Of course there are people who, for ideological reasons, simply won't believe it. Short term economics are more important so they deny climate change because it's easier than accepting it and still saying economics are more important. Or God wouldn't let it happen so it's something else like sun spots.

How do you construct rational policy in this context? I guess that depends on your definition of rational. If you have to include people's values, attitudes, and beliefs in the calculations of political action, then the rationality of politics in a representative democracy might be fundamentally opposed to the forces of nature and long-term human interest. But they might still be rational.

6. What would responsible development of this resource look like? Can we slow it down?

Dr. Ingraffea spoke to this quite eloquently. At the most basic level, he suggested pressing our elected officials regularly and intelligently. Be organized and effective. Press for regulation. Press for effective restitution for violations. This is a representative democracy right?

7. I am meeting with my state representative next Friday. What 3 things do I need to understand about Marcellus and Utica development to ground my meeting with him?

Note what I said above about regulation, restitution, and pressure. Next Friday May 20th, PennFuture is holding an event with Representative Scott Conklin. I suggest attending. More details pending.

Dr. Ingraffea interview on WPSU

Emily Reddy of WPSU interviewed Dr. Anthony Ingraffea yesterday in light of his presentation on Shale gas myths and realities. You can listen to it here.

He discusses frack water recycling and whether or not natural gas is really less problematic for climate change. In short, methane (CH4) is a is about 33 times more intense greenhouse gas than CO2 over 100 years and over 100 times over a 20 year period. So much methane (CH4) seems to be lost to the atmosphere in the extraction, production, and transport of natural gas that it might produce more climate forcing than CO2. That runs counter to the notion that natural gas is a "cleaner" fuel. You can learn more about Ingraffea's findings in peer-reviewed literature by reading his most recent research article at this link.

Additionally, as a university person and a believer in the role of public and free education, I was pleased to hear Reddy ask him about university's role in these issues.

What myths and realities do you wonder about regarding shale gas?

Anthony Ingraffea: Development of Natural Gas from Shales: Some Myths and Realities

“Marcellus Shale, Fracking, Fossil Fuels-again”

Tuesday May 10th 7:00 PM
Location: HUB Auditorium
Penn State Campus, University Park, PA
Cornell Professor Anthony Ingraffea

Development of Natural Gas from Shales: Some Myths and Realities

We will evaluate myth and facts concerning some of the more notable issues involved in development of unconventional natural gas wells in shale formations.

Among these are:

• Such development is a 60-year-old Well-Proven Technology
• Operators in PA are Recycling 90% or more of their fluid wastes
• Gas Migration from Faulty Wells is a rare phenomenon
  

Sponsored by:
Penn State Eco-Action
Sierra Club Moshannon Group

Co-Sponsors:

Clearwater Conservancy
Environment-Ecology-Education
Halfmoon Township
Juniata Valley Audubon
Little Juniata River Association
Penn State Center for Sustainability
Rock Ethics Institute
Science, Technology and Society Program
Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Sustainability Now Radio
CNET coverage made possible by Halfmoon Township

Pennsylvania gets double whammy on gas drilling

First, the public gives DEP a black eye. Then a neighboring state is taking us to court.

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection has stepped back from its policy regarding on-site violation. On March 23rd, an internal memo was leaked to the press directing all DEP inspectors to run potential violations by DEP Secretary Michael Krancer. There was an immediate outcry from citizens and local, regional, and environmental organizations. It looks as though that may have played some part in the policy's reversal.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, DEP is saying that Krancer's intent was not clearly stated. Some, like Sierra Club's Jeff Schmidt aren't buying it. The article quotes Schmidt as saying, "I think they never intended for it to be public, therefore they never planned to deal with it if it became public. Now they're coming up with one story after another to change history." Activists in the blogosphere, on Facebook, and Twitter seem to agree. And history now has the recent well blowout in Bradford County.

That threat to public health and the environment have prompted Maryland's attorney general to sue Chesapeake Energy. The attorney general's statement begins as follows:

BALTIMORE, MD ( May 2, 2011) - Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler today announced that he has sent a letter to Chesapeake Energy Corporation and its affiliates, notifying the companies of the State of Maryland's intent to sue for violating the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). On April 19, thousands of gallons of fracking fluids were released from a well owned and operated by Chesapeake Energy into Towanda Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River, which supplies 45% of the fresh water in the Chesapeake Bay. In his letter, Attorney General Gansler notified the company that at the close of the required 90-day notice period, the State intends to file a citizen suit and seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under RCRA for solid or hazardous waste contamination of soils and ground waters, and the surface waters and sediments of Towanda Creek and the Susquehanna River. The State also intends to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under the CWA for violation of the CWA's prohibition on unpermitted pollution to waters of the United States.

You can read more about the suit at The Baltimore Sun.

There are now a few high-profile lawsuits in the work. Do you think Maryland is in the right on this?

Governor Corbett suggests "drilling for natural gas below campus"

Governor Corbett has proposed a new move to expand natural gas's scope in Pennsylvania and to fill the budget hole that higher education faces. Drill for gas below campus. So reports the Erie Times News in this story.

Gov. Tom Corbett told the Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Trustees that the state's universities could ease their financial woes by tapping into Marcellus shale deposits beneath their campuses.

Speaking at Edinboro University during his first visit to northwestern Pennsylvania since taking office, Corbett said six campuses in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education sit on the Marcellus shale formations now being tapped for natural gas.

The proposed state budget would cut the state's higher education system a whopping $220 million. The state higher education system faces Penn State faces a 52% state budget decrease, amounting to a 2% cut in the PSU budget, and approximately $182 million. What does the Penn State system's map look like relative to the Marcellus Shale map in Pennsylvania?

A Penn State campus system map.A Marcellus Shale play map in Pennsylvania.

Penn State has an awful lot of land on that map. Why not tap the campus gas reserves? They can feed the new power plant that University Park will get. Right? And then we can float education on gas. Right?

"Disregard" or "Accountability" from the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission

As we reported yesterday, a host of activists descended upon Governor Tom Corbett's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission's second meeting yesterday in the Rachel Carson Building in Harrisburg, PA.

Activist Gene Stilp's antics have garnered a fair amount of attention. According to Philly.com, he wore a "carefully pressed blue suit [and] blended in well at Wednesday morning's meeting of the all-white, mostly over-45, and mostly male Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission." He proceeded to call the Commission " the biggest prostitution ring outside of the legislature," and then looked Lt. Governor Jim Cawley in the face and said "You are the biggest prostitute in the ring." He was escorted out of the room.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports Conrad Volz, a professor from the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health said of produced water, "It's not water -- it's toxic fluid that flows back!" Jerry Mead of The Academy of Natural Sciences told the commission "his graduate student had documented instances of leaking fracking fluid."

DEP Secretary Krancer"quickly responded that the agency will not be shy with enforcement."

"If you give me those pictures, we will go after those operators and we will fine them," he said.

Lt. Governor Cawley has stated that he believes in transparency and accountability. He is reported to have said that he thinks that what the Commission finds is more important than its make-up. Activists dispute that claim saying that the Commission is tipped heavily in favor of the industry. Conrad Volz called the panel "'fatally flawed for not including any public health officials. Others used stronger language, referring to the commission as 'a sham.'"

But The Gazette also reports that not all of those present oppose drilling.

Jackie Root, a Tioga County resident representing a new landowners group, said the commission also needs to hear from those who have benefited from leasing. Development should be managed, not banned, she said, adding that a moratorium on drilling would "impinge on our rights to develop our assets."

But activists outnumbered those in favor. Jessica Buckland*, "a mother from Centre County, choked up as she talked about her 3-year-old son and her passion for mountain biking. "You buy politicians and favors -- I don't have that kind of clout."

Her complete comments are included here:

"I might cry while I read this statement. Lest you think these tears are those of a hysterical woman, know that they are sadness, fear, and anger. They are tears of anger.

I am here before I am directly affected. I am here for me and all Pennsylvanians. I am a mother, a mountain biker, a Pennsylvanian, and constituent. I live in Centre County, Pine Grove Mills, about 90 miles away. You in the industry have no right to invade and pollute our state and our land. Your blatant disregard for our rights is unAmerican. You lie, manipulate, destroy in the name of progress. You buy politicians and favors. I do not have that kind of clout or money. But I DO have something that you do not: fierce love for my state and land.

This means that I actually have more invested in this land than you. This means I am actually more powerful than you...and there are many others like me.

I will not be ignored. WE WILL NOT BE IGNORED. We will not let you destroy our land. We do not believe your lies.

I demand accountability, transparency. And I demand that my representatives, my government and my commission represent my views--our views--, my tax dollars, and my love for our land. And I demand that you start with a moratorium on drilling."

We will be following up with more as the news comes in from other activists across the state and we hope to speak with some members of the commission as well.
- - -
*Jessica Buckland is married to Sustainability Now co-host Peter Buckland.