Federal oversight of fracking in dispute
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey drew jeers from drillers and cheers from environmentalists last month when he launched his latest push to bring hydraulic fracturing under federal oversight.
Depending on one’s perspective, allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the controversial technique would either disrupt the natural gas industry and erect a new regulatory hurdle or provide baseline standards and reassure people who fear that the process can ruin underground supplies of drinking water.
“The bill is designed to make sure that we don’t have problems. I think it’s a very important precaution,” Mr. Casey, D-Pa., said during a recent interview.
Developed more than 60 years ago by oil and gas company Halliburton and used today in all Marcellus Shale wells, hydraulic fracturing is a technique that injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground under high pressure to crack rock and allow trapped natural gas to flow.
Some of the mixture remains underground. And some of the chemicals, although added in relatively small quantities, are harmful.
That toxicity is what scares environmentalists, who wonder exactly what substances drillers are shooting into the earth, whether the fluid can foul drinking water, and if the process is being adequately regulated.
“So far, states have not stepped up to the plate to fill those shoes,” said Jessica Goad, policy fellow at The Wilderness Society.
Mr. Casey’s FRAC Act — Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals — has two components.
One would put hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” under the auspices of the EPA and remove a 2005 congressional exemption — dubbed the “Halliburton loophole” — that prevents the agency from regulating it.
The other would force drillers to reveal publicly all chemicals used in fracking, except for proprietary formulas.
Read more
Sen. Casey’s FRAC Act – full-text of the legislation
Sen. Casey’s FRAC Act – full-text of the legislation
WASHINGTON, April 2, 2011 — Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., D-Pennsylvania has introduced the bill (S.587), legislation that would “amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing.”
The bill, introduced on March 15, was co-sponsored by Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Maryland, Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-New York, Frank R. Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, Bernard Sanders, I-Vermont, Charles E. Schumer, D-New York and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. It was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
A copy of the full-text of the legislation follows:
S.587
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act’ or the ‘FRAC Act’.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
(a) Underground Injection- Section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘underground injection’ means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection.
‘(B) INCLUSION- The term ‘underground injection’ includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations relating to oil or gas production activities.
‘(C) EXCLUSION- The term ‘underground injection’ does not include the underground injection of natural gas for the purpose of storage.’.
(b) Disclosure- Section 1421(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(4) DISCLOSURES OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- A person conducting hydraulic fracturing operations shall disclose to the State (or to the Administrator, in any case in which the Administrator has primary enforcement responsibility in a State), by not later than such deadlines as shall be established by the State (or the Administrator)–
‘(i) before the commencement of any hydraulic fracturing operations at any lease area or a portion of a lease area, a list of chemicals intended for use in any underground injection during the operations (including identification of the chemical constituents of mixtures, Chemical Abstracts Service numbers for each chemical and constituent, material safety data sheets when available, and the anticipated volume of each chemical to be used); and
‘(ii) after the completion of hydraulic fracturing operations described in clause (i), the list of chemicals used in each underground injection during the operations (including identification of the chemical constituents of mixtures, Chemical Abstracts Service numbers for each chemical and constituent, material safety data sheets when available, and the volume of each chemical used).
‘(B) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The State (or the Administrator, as applicable) shall make available to the public the information contained in each disclosure of chemical constituents under subparagraph (A), including by posting the information on an appropriate Internet website.
‘(C) IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE IN CASE OF MEDICAL EMERGENCY-
‘(i) IN GENERAL- Subject to clause (ii), the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) shall require that, in any case in which the State (or the Administrator, as applicable) or an appropriate treating physician or nurse determines that a medical emergency exists and the proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret chemical used in hydraulic fracturing is necessary for medical treatment, the applicable person using hydraulic fracturing shall, upon request, immediately disclose to the State (or the Administrator) or the treating physician or nurse the proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret chemical, regardless of the existence of–
‘(I) a written statement of need; or
‘(II) a confidentiality agreement.
‘(ii) REQUIREMENT- A person using hydraulic fracturing that makes a disclosure required under clause (i) may require the execution of a written statement of need and a confidentiality agreement as soon as practicable after the determination by the State (or the Administrator) or the treating physician or nurse under that clause.
‘(D) NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUIRED- Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) authorizes a State (or the Administrator) to require the public disclosure of any proprietary chemical formula.’ For any query with respect to this article or any other content requirement, please contact Editor at htsyndication@hindustantimes.com
US Fed News
April 2, 2011
http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1391001461.html
Penn State seeks water-well owners for study on gas drilling effects
University Park, Pa. — Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences is seeking owners of private drinking-water wells near completed natural-gas wells in the Marcellus shale region to participate in a study of the impact of gas development.
Funded by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center, the study will assess the potential impacts of Marcellus gas drilling on rural drinking water wells, according to Bryan Swistock, extension water resources specialist. The data collected from the study is for research purposes and the education of each homeowner, he pointed out.
“Private water wells near completed Marcellus gas-well sites will be selected for free post-drilling water testing of 14 water-quality parameters,” Swistock said. He noted that to be eligible for this free, post-drilling water testing, participants must meet all of the following criteria:
— Own a private water well (no springs/cisterns can be included in the study).
— Have an existing Marcellus gas well (drilled and hydrofractured) within about 5,000 feet (one mile) of the water well.
— Had your water well tested by a state-accredited water laboratory before the Marcellus gas well was drilled and are willing to share a copy of those water-test results with Penn State researchers.
“Due to funding constraints, all eligible applicants cannot be promised inclusion in this study,” Swistock said. “Selection will be based on eligibility, geographic location and other factors.”
Participants selected for the study will benefit personally by receiving a free test of their home drinking water supply and information about the results of those tests, Swistock said. Residents with water wells that meet the research criteria above should visit the following website to indicate an interest in participating in this research study: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/marcellus.
March 18, 2011
http://live.psu.edu/story/52126#nw69
N.J. proposal would outlaw ‘fracking’ process for natural gas drilling near Delaware River
As the Delaware River Basin Commission works to establish a set of rules governing the natural gas drilling that is expected to boom in northeast Pennsylvania in the coming years, environmentalists are concerned that mining companies may find reason to cross the river and set up shop in New Jersey as well.
Critics say wastewater produced by these gas wells contains harmful substances and poses a threat to towns up and down the Delaware River in Pennsylvania and in New Jersey.
Meanwhile, lawmakers on the state and federal levels have started to react by sponsoring legislation that would close regulatory loopholes that would allow the drilling. One bill proposed in New Jersey would outlaw the process known as hydraulic fracturing entirely.
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a drilling technique in which a mix of water, sand, and chemicals is injected into the well bore at high pressure to crack the rock, allowing natural gas to flow more freely.
The process has been used extensively in western Pennsylvania in a previously inaccessible underground rock formation called the Marcellus Shale.
Advances in technology, including fracking, have allowed drilling companies to access the gas-rich formation in ways previously impossible.
Critics, however, say the wastewater generated from fracking poses a serious public health risk. Some of the water has been allowed to be treated at municipal sewage treatment plants that some experts say are not capable of remediating the chemicals found in the fluid.
So far, in the Delaware River Basin, wastewater from only one municipal sewage treatment facility, 30 miles west of Trenton in Hatfield, Pa., has found its way into the Delaware. The treated wastewater was released over a one year period into the Neshaminy Creek, which drains into the Delaware south of Trenton.
When combined with chlorine, a chemical typically used to treat drinking water, some of the compounds found in the waste can form potentially cancerous agents. Recent studies have also found unhealthy levels of radium and uranium.
The radioactive elements, which can be found deep underground, have in some cases been brought to the surface after fracking.
While drilling companies have primarily focused on extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, some environmentalists warn that a second, potentially gas-rich shale formation lies deep beneath a section of northwest New Jersey as well.
Known at the Utica or Martinsburg shale, authorities said it was simply a matter of time before gas companies begin pointing their drill bits at areas around the Kittatinny Mountains, north of the Delaware Water Gap.
According to Terry Engelder, a geosciences professor with Penn State University’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, the Utica formation is close to the surface in Ohio and New Jersey but dips much deeper underground in Pennsylvania. A section of the formation is exposed above ground around Port Jervis, N.Y., he added.
“The Utica formation hits the Kittatinnies up by High Point and comes into Bucks County, so fracking could come a lot closer to home than people realize,” said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.
While drilling into the Utica Shale, which sits between 7,000 and 3,000 feet below the Marcellus, may prove more costly and challenging to access, experts like Conrad Volz, director of the Center for Health, Environments, and Community at the University of Pittsburgh, said it was inevitable that energy companies would set their sights on northern New Jersey.
“‘Might’ is not the question. The question is ‘when,” Volz said. “It’s all a matter of economics. It’s also a matter of capital and operational ability.”
Meanwhile, officials with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said the state currently has no regulations on natural gas exploration.
“There is no natural gas drilling that’s going on, so it’s really not been an issue,” DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese said.
While Volz and Tittel are concerned drilling may come to New Jersey, Engelder said the potential to find natural gas here is low.
“There are indications that the Utica shale is going to be productive west of the Marcellus, so that’s the bombshell,” he said, “but I believe it’s very unlikely that anyplace in New Jersey the Utica will have a potential for being a gas shale.”
He said the rock in this area has been exposed to too much heat underground.
“The rock has been subjected to too high a temperature and the gas shale becomes burned toast,” he said. “I’m very confident of that.”
Still, Volz said that without concrete knowledge as to whether gas is present in the formation, companies could still attempt to drill exploratory wells in the region.
State and federal lawmakers have been raising the alarm about the potential for gas drilling in the region.
Bills recently introduced in the U.S. House and Senate by New Jersey lawmakers aim to close loopholes for natural gas drillers that have been written into federal environmental regulations.
The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act’s definition of “underground injection” to include fluids used for hydraulic fracturing, which would force gas drilling operations to meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards. It would also require public disclosure of the chemicals used in the process.
“There have been too many reports of contamination by fracking operations to let the practice continue without better oversight,” Lautenberg said in a statement earlier this month. “When it comes to our drinking water, safety must be the top priority.”
“People have a right to know if chemicals are being injected into the ground near their homes and potentially ending up in the water supply. This bill will ensure that the (EPA) has the tools to assess the risks of fracking and require appropriate protections so that drinking water in New Jersey and other states is safe,” he said.
In the House, Rep. Rush Holt, D-12th District, was among three congressmen who introduced the Bringing Reductions to Energy’s Airborne Toxic Health Effects (BREATHE) Act this month.
Holt’s office said the legislation aims to close a loophole in the Clean Air Act that exempts oil and gas rigs from certain air quality standards. It also adds hydrogen sulfide, a byproduct of oil and gas drilling, to the act’s list of hazardous pollutants.
“Extracting natural gas should not threaten public health or pollute our water,” Holt said in a statement. “As the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resource Committee’s Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, I strongly support legislation to close loopholes that shield fracking from basin environmental protection regulations.”
“Our loyalties shouldn’t be with oil and gas companies — our loyalties should be with families affected by fracking,” he said.
On the state level, Sen. Linda Greenstein, D-Plainsboro, was among three legislators to sponsor a bill last year outlawing hydraulic fracturing completely in New Jersey.
Published: March 28, 2011
By Matt Fair/The Times
Contact Matt Fair at mfair@njtimes.com or at (609) 989-5707
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/03/lawmakers_seek_to_ban_fracking.html
EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater
The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday reported finding elevated levels of iodine-131, a product of nuclear fission, in rainwater in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The levels exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) permitted in drinking water, but EPA continues to assure the public there is no need for alarm:
“It is important to note that the corresponding MCL for iodine-131 was calculated based on long-term chronic exposures over the course of a lifetime – 70 years. The levels seen in rainwater are expected to be relatively short in duration,” the agency states in a FAQ that accompanied yesterday’s brief news release.
“In both cases these are levels above the normal background levels historically reported in these areas.”
EPA said it is receiving “verbal reports” of higher levels of radiation in rainwater samples from other states as well, and that Americans should continue to expect short-term contamination of rainwater as radioactive isotopes spread through the atmosphere from Japan.
“We continue to expect similar reports from state agencies and others across the nation given the nature and duration of the Japanese nuclear incident.”
EPA is analyzing rainwater samples taken from 18 monitoring stations around the nation, promising to release results soon. It is stepping up sampling of rainwater, drinking water, and milk.
The Food and Drug Administration released a statement on milk Saturday:
At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that harmful amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. and, therefore, there is little possibility of domestic milk being contaminated as a result of grass or feed contamination in the U.S. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation.”
EPA also maintains 140 air monitoring stations. Those have detected radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in five Western states: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, and, as of yesterday, Nevada.
The isotopes detected in Western states have been found in minuscule amounts, officials say, much too small to threaten health. Scientists trace the isotopes to Japan because they are products of nuclear fission—iodine-131, xenon-133, and cesium-137.
“Unless you have an accident like this, you wouldn’t expect to see this. No doubt it’s from Japan,” Ted Hartwell, manager of the Desert Research Institute’s Community Environmental Monitoring Program, told the Associated Press.
Mar. 28 2011
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/03/28/epa-expect-more-radiation-in-rainwater/
LV Sierra Club chairman urges people to oppose fracking
BETHLEHEM | Drilling in the Marcellus Shale could make drinking water in the Lehigh Valley flammable, radioactive and full of cancer-causing chemicals, according to the chairman of the Sierra Club of the Lehigh Valley.
Don Miles, chairman of the local Sierra Club, said hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” will pollute wells and rivers in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York and New Jersey if it’s allowed to continue unchecked.
“The Marcellus natural gas drilling boom is the greatest natural threat to Pennsylvania in the last 50 years,” Miles said to a classroom of mostly senior citizens at Northampton Community College on Tuesday morning.
Fracking is the process of extracting natural gas by drilling a well and pumping it full of highly pressurized liquid. The liquid causes rock to fracture, releasing natural gas for companies to collect. The practice has been commonplace for years in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and other western states.
In the past few years, companies have focused on the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation spanning from West Virginia to New York. Experts estimate it could hold as much as $1 trillion worth of natural gas.
Environmental advocates claim the pressurized liquid contains carcinogens. Pumping it underground to break rock formations could allow natural gas and cancer-causing agents to mix with drinking water, Miles said. On top of that, the Marcellus Shale has radium, a naturally occurring radioactive element, Miller said. He cited a New York Times article that found radioactive fracking waste in the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to roughly 800,000.
While the Marcellus Shale does not extend into Lehigh or Northampton counties, Miles said, the Delaware and Lehigh rivers extend into those areas and face possible pollution. Those rivers provide the drinking water for much of the Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia, he said.
However, officials in the natural gas industry insist there is no documented case of fracking causing ground water contamination.
Travis Windle, spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, pointed to recent comments from Taury Smith, New York’s state official geologist, as proof. In a March 14 interview with The Albany Times-Union, Smith said the reported cases of well contamination near fracking sites were caused by unrelated factors.
“Hydraulic fracturing has a long and clear record of environmental safety,” Windle said.
Miles urged members of the audience to write their state representatives asking for strict regulations on fracking or to at least tax the gas companies. Pennsylvania is the only state allowing natural gas drilling without a tax, he said.
“I never thought we’d have Pennsylvania trying to emulate the high environmental standards of West Virginia,” Miles said sarcastically.
March 24, 2011
By Tom Shortell
The Express-Times
Reporter Tom Shortell can be reached at 610-258-7171, ext. 3581, or tshortell@express-times.com.
Penn State Professor Discusses Marcellus Shale and Water Quality
Bryan Swistock, Ph.D., spoke at the Lehigh Valley Watershed Conference at Lehigh University March 11.
Bryan Swistock, Ph.D.
Although the Lehigh Valley does not sit atop the Marcellus Shale, the extraction of natural gas from this geological formation in other parts of Pennsylvania was a hot topic at the recent Lehigh Valley Watershed Conference.
The conference, held at Lehigh University’s Packard Lab March 11, attracted dozens of environmentalists, naturalists, elected officials, fishermen, academics and businesspeople to hear speakers like Bruce Swistock, Ph.D., who delivered a “Report on Marcellus Shale and Water Quality Across Pennsylvania.”
Introduced by Lehigh professor of earth and environmental science Frank Pazzaglia, Ph.D., Swistock is a professor with Penn State University’s Water Resources Extension and a leading authority on the impact of fracking on water quality in the Keystone State.
That impact has grown as the number of gas wells has grown exponentially since 2007, he pointed out.
In 2007, there were just 27 wells in Pennsylvania. In 2008, there were 161 wells; in 2009, there were 785 wells; and in 2010, there were 1,213 wells, primarily throughout rural central and northern Pennsylvania.
“It’s really our old gas drilling on steroids,” he said. “Everything is much, much bigger.”
In some parts of the state, where the Marcellus Shale formation is very thick, some residents have literally become “overnight millionaires” from selling drilling rights to natural gas extraction companies, with lease rates of $6,000 to $7,000 per acre and royalties of 20 to 25 percent, Swistock said.
Along with the direct impacts from drilling, emotion over the benefits versus the environmental consequences of natural gas drilling has increased dramatically, Swistock told his audience.
“In the last three years I’ve done dozens of programs where there are police,” he said, adding that in areas where drilling isn’t permitted people tend to be angry that they’re forbidden from tapping into the voluminous natural gas reserves 5,000 to 10,000 feet beneath their properties. In areas where gas drilling is permitted, people tend to be angrier over the prevalence and impact of drilling, he said.
“People who have their own water supplies are very concerned about what Marcellus might do to their groundwater,” he said. “Nobody knows exactly how many wells will be drilled when this is all said and done.”
In terms of regulations, Pennsylvania lags behind, with many of its regulations for Marcellus Shale drilling dating from 1984, Swistock said.
For example, the bonds required to cover the cost of water supply replacement are only equal to $2,500, he said.
There are no regulations on seismic testing in Pennsylvania and 3D seismic testing with dynamite is allowed without setbacks, he added.
When it comes to water quality in the areas surrounding where drilling is occurring, the issues related to Marcellus Shale are numerous, he continued.
Sediments and detergents may be used in the fracking process–a process which can result in waste fluids containing “very high” levels of radionuclides, including radium and uranium, being brought to the surface, Swistock said.
Benzine–a carcinogen–has also been found in waste fluids associated with fracking, with an average of four to five million gallons of fresh water needed for each horizontal well drilled, Swistock said.
In many cases access to the water needed for fracking is under landowner control, and although property owners can’t legally sell their water in Pennsylvania, they can charge a trespass fee to individuals accessing it, Swistock explained.
Of the 50 states, Alaska and Pennsylvania “are the only two states that don’t regulate private water systems at all,” Swistock said, referencing the wells from which most people in rural parts of the state obtain their drinking water. “We find that only about 5 percent of the water wells we tested have sanitary construction that would be required in 48 other states.”
For residents whose private wells are located near fracking sites “the only way you can really prove a water supply problem is if you have pre-drilling and post-drilling data,” he added.
This is especially true because many wells were never tested before Marcellus Shale drilling began and may have had “pre-existing” problems such as methane contamination, making it difficult to know if the methane in them is the result of methane gas migration from nearby fracking operations, he said.
For wells located within 1,000 feet of a gas well and tested within six months of drilling, there is a “presumed responsibility” on the part of those drilling for gas, he said.
Swistock cautioned against pulling YouTube-type stunts such as lighting a faucet on fire, which he said can be done if high levels of methane are contaminating the water supply.
“It’s a very dangerous thing to do,” he commented.
For homeowners who want to test and monitor their wells there are devices available, but they can be expensive, he added.
“I’ve had a lot of people at programs crying because they want to protect their water but they can’t afford testing,” he said. “They feel very helpless.”
“There are no easy answers,” he concluded, before answering questions from audience members.
Among the entities sponsoring the watershed conference were the Watershed Coalition of the Lehigh Valley, the Northampton County Conservation District, Wildlands Conservancy the Lehigh County Conservation District, the Saucon Creek Watershed Association, Lower Macungie Township and Lower Saucon Township.
By Josh Popichak
March 21, 2011
http://hellertown.patch.com/articles/penn-state-professor-discusses-marcellus-shale-and-water-quality
State penalizes drilling waste firms
HARRISBURG — State environmental regulators took action Monday against a pair of southwestern Pennsylvania businesses operated by a man charged last week with dumping gas drilling waste and sludge illegally.
The Department of Environmental Protection issued administrative orders against R. Allan Shipman, Tri County Waste Water Service Inc. and Allan’s Waste Water Service Inc.
The orders suspended operation of Tri County’s wastewater facility and suspended the authorization of Allan’s Waste to collect, transport or store solid waste.
Shipman, 49, and Allan’s Waste Water Service of Holbrook were both charged last week with dozens of criminal counts for, among other things, allegedly dumping millions of gallons of wastewater into streams and mine shafts.
The administrative order against Allan’s Waste and Shipman said they were responsible for the illegal depositing of gas well production water, sewage sludge, grease trap water and other wastewater onto the ground, underground or in state waterways.
Christopher Capozzi, a lawyer for Allan’s Waste, declined to comment.
March 22, 2011
http://www.timesleader.com/news/State_penalizes_drilling_waste_firms_03-22-2011.html
Lautenberg Supports Natural Gas Fracking Bill
Both Senate and House lawmakers have offered versions of the legislation that was introduced in 2009.
U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has joined Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) in introducing legislation, S.587, to establish basic health protections that must be met when gas companies use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract underground natural gas.
The large number of gas drilling operations in Pennsylvania’s Delaware River Valley could threaten the source of drinking water for millions of New Jersey residents.
“There have been too many reports of contamination by fracking operations to let the practice continue without better oversight,” stated Lautenberg. “When it comes to our drinking water, safety must be the top priority. People have a right to know if chemicals are being injected into the ground near their homes and potentially ending up in the water supply. This bill will ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency has the tools to assess the risks of fracking and require appropriate protections so that drinking water in New Jersey and other states is safe.”
Security Products 2011 Virtual Event
Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1084) with 31 cosponsors.
The “Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act,” introduced in the Senate on March 15, would:
* amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) definition of “underground injection” to include the underground injection of fluids used for hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities; and
* require public disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracturing process.
The fracking process involves injecting millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into underground rock formations to blast them open and release natural gas. Fracking chemicals themselves can be hazardous, and the process can release naturally occurring hazardous substances such as arsenic and mercury as well as other heavy metals and radioactive materials from underground. The drilling wastewater, which has been found to contain radioactive substances, is often released into rivers that supply drinking water.
Similar legislation was introduced in 2009. According to Earthworks, the practice of fracking has expanded to 34 states since then.
“Energy development doesn’t have to threaten our drinking water and our communities’ health,” said John Fenton, a rancher from Pavillion, Wyo., where the U.S. EPA has warned some residents to stop drinking water from wells contaminated with arsenic and other chemicals associated with drilling and fracking. “We just want the oil and gas industry to follow the rules like everyone else,” said Fenton, a board member of the Powder River Basin Resource Council.
“How can we allow drillers to use hundreds of thousands of gallons of fluids with cancer-causing chemicals near our homes and schools without even telling us what they’re using?” asked Gwen Lachelt, director for Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, which is working nationwide in communities impacted by drilling. “The public deserves to know what chemicals are used so they can protect their families and industry can be held accountable when problems occur. Without the FRAC Act, drillers will continue to get a free ride.”
Source: Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Earthworks
Mar 21, 2011
http://eponline.com/articles/2011/03/21/lautenberg-supports-natural-gas-fracking-bill.aspx
Don’t turn Pennsylvania into Texas
Introducing his first budget last week, Gov. Tom Corbett proposed gutting state funding for education while sparing natural gas drillers from the type of production tax imposed by all other major gas-producing states. Corbett argued that a gas industry unencumbered by a production tax would turn Pennsylvania into “the Texas of the natural gas boom.”
Well, there already is a “Texas of the natural gas boom.”
It’s called Texas.
And despite a longstanding, but loophole-ridden, 7.5 percent production tax on the nation’s most productive gas wells, Texas, like most states, is faced with a huge budget deficit.
In fact, a recent report by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Texas’ projected budget gap for fiscal year 2012 is the largest in the nation when measured against its current budget, at 31.5 percent.
Unlike his fellow Republican budget-cutters in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where projected budget shortfalls stand at 16.4 and 12.8 percent respectively, Texas Gov. Rick Perry can’t blame greedy state employee unions or out-of-control social spending for his money woes.
State employees in Texas have long been barred from collective bargaining and the state is notoriously stingy when it comes to spending on schools and social programs.
A 2009 study by the National Education Association found Texas ranked near the bottom for per-capita spending for public welfare programs and per-student expenditures in public schools. Nearly one-quarter of Texans lack health coverage, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, compared to about 10 percent in Pennsylvania and 15 percent nationwide.
That still hasn’t helped Texas escape the downturn in tax revenues ravaging all states, due largely to a weakened economy that seems to just now be on the road to recovery.
In fact the very refusal by uber-conservatives like Perry – who has proposed that his state opt out of the Social Security system and maybe the Union itself – to even consider reasonable and fair tax increases over the years is what has driven Texas closer to the brink than any other state.
That’s the road Tom Corbett is proposing we follow in his proposed budget.
He would rather take money and services away from public-school students, the poor and elderly than impose a fair tax on the gas industry, which, by the way, contributed nearly $1 million to his campaign.
Corbett’s proposed budget is unfair, unconscionable and unethical.
And it is likely to land us in the same mess as Texas.
http://citizensvoice.com/news/don-t-turn-pennsylvania-into-texas-1.1117896#axzz1GJB7bAaK
March 13, 2011