Ohio, a Fracking Dumping Ground, Now Wonders About the Safety of Its Drinking Water

I guess that the state of Ohio is having one of those “Well, duh!” moments, when the folks there realize that expansive environmental degradation is not just the domain of their neighbors across the river in West Virginia.

            As with my last post that ended with West Virginia Senate Majority Leader John Unger warning that the toxic spill that deprived 300,000 residents of his state of basic drinking water could, if ignored, serve as a harbinger to the rest of the country. Through the lax enforcement of regulation and even the absence of regulation other parts of the country could have poisoned water pouring out of their taps as well.

            Just as West Virginia leads the country in mountaintop removal, Ohio leads the country in being a dumping ground for fracking waste. Fracking requires tons and tons of water, which becomes contaminated because of the chemicals used in the fracking process. Because Ohio is blessed, or cursed depending on your point of view, with unique rock layers that are ideal for disposing of fracking waste, the Buckeye State is home to over 200 injection wells where hydraulic fracturing waste is pumped deep underground, sometimes as deep as 5,000 feet.

            With so many West Virginians out of water for so long, a number of Ohioans are now asking how safe is it to pump tons and tons of waste under the rocks that provide their groundwater. A major spill in a river is a disaster, but the flow of the water cleanses the river within weeks or months. On the other hand, once groundwater is contaminated, it could be decades or even centuries before the contaminants make their way from an aquifer.

            Just as it seems obvious, now, that letting a large tank filled with a toxin to sit next to a major water source was a bad idea, you kind of wonder why weren’t some Ohioans a little leery of letting folks pump toxic waste into the rocks under their state in the first place.

Industry Sues to Invalidate Colorado Communities' Fracking Bans

It seems that folks’ efforts to restrict fracking from their communities is in jeopardy in Colorado. Last month the citizens of Fort Collins approved a five-year moratorium on fracking within their city, and Lafayette has made similar changes to its city charter to make fracking illegal. Fracking is legal in the state as a whole; these are merely restrictions on fracking within the boundaries of these cities.

            Now the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), an industry sponsored organization, is suing these two communities these two towns on the grounds that their fracking bans are in conflict with state law that regulates oil and gas extraction. COGA says that only the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has exclusive authority to regulate wells in Colorado. This story goes back to around a year ago, and I've blogged about it before.

            I’m not a lawyer, so I really can’t make a judgment on the merits of this case. Considering, however, how recent research indicates the hazards of fracking (see here, here, and here)  it seems perfectly reasonable that people should be able to restrict this extractive practice from their communities. Sound reasonable? What do you think?

How Can The French Achieve This? Court Rules No Fracking in France

France Cements Fracking Ban is the headline from the Guardian. Because of pressure from environmental groups, the French passed legislation banning fracking in 2011. Today’s headline is in reference to France’s Constitutional Court, their version of a Supreme Court, which ruled that the ban is constitutional; after this court ruling the fracking ban is, without a doubt, the law of the land in France.

How is it that the French can ban fracking, while here there seems to be no question that such a ban would be an impossibility? France seems to do a lot of things right. While that country has one of the best heath care systems in the world, we here in America have a paralyzed government because our Affordable Care Act, a system that, while it is an improvement, is not as good as what French residents enjoy. France didn’t go and invade Iraq with us. They are probably better off for it, too.

More and more, due to increasing evidence (here and here) I’ve grown suspicious of hydrolic fracturing's effects on the environment, people’s health, and even our public policy and politics (here, here, here, here, and here),  and perhaps it should be banned here in the U.S. France has powerful oil companies that can lobby the French Parliamentarians, yet that power was unable to influence this fracking ban. What is different about France that their system of government can, in my opinion, serve the public good? How do they do it?

More Research Finds That Fracking Contaminates Groundwater

A recent study has found that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the closer you live to where there is fracking the more likely your water well will be contaminated with methane.

            The study was performed by Robert Jackson, a chemical engineer from Duke University. He found that home wells that were less than a mile from a fracking operation had methane concentrations that were six times higher than concentrations of wells that were farther away. He found methane in 115 of 141 residential water wells he examined.

            It is believed that the wells are contaminated when the protective metal casings and concrete around a frack well leak. Isotopes and traces of ethane characteristic of the natural gas found in the Marcellus Shale distinguish the gas found in the well water from methane that might have been produced by microorganisms in the groundwater.

            There is also the possibility that the fracking actually opens up pathways for the natural gas to seep up and contaminate the groundwater. A fracking expert from Cornell University, Anthony Ingraffea, is in the process of examining inspection reports from most of the more than 41,000 gas wells that have been drilled in Pennsylvania since the beginning of 2000. So far it looks like his research reveals that a higher percentage of fracking wells are leaking than conventional oil and gas wells drilled into other formations besides the Marcellus Shale.

            With these new findings, I wonder if there will be any Pennsylvania lawmakers who might say, “Hey, we better investigate this a little more before we let even more fracking in our commonwealth.”

Are Folks Being NIMBYs When They Say To Keep the Fracking Out of Their Town?

One of the things that I’ve heard from those inside the environmental movement is that progress on the environmental front at the federal level is not promising. With gridlock the status quo in Congress and GOP lead opposition to environmental regulation, any environmental success in Washington would be long fought and quite possibly fruitless.

            Those in the environmental movement have encouraged folks to work on the state and local levels, where people can more directly take charge of their lives and the environment around them. That’s what makes this story out of Colorado so intriguing. Not wanting fracking type gas drilling to disturb their parks, schools, and neighborhoods, the residents of Longmont Colorado banned fracking in their town.

Now it looks like they are in for a plethora of lawsuits challenging their right to restrict the controversial extraction process. The state of Colorado says that it, not local governments, has the right to regulate drilling. The energy companies claim that the ban infringes on their property rights.

Certainly local municipalities cannot enact laws that run counter to state and federal laws. No matter how many crack addicts live in a town, they cannot make cocaine legal in opposition to state and federal statutes. On the other hand, people in a community should have the right to live in a town that is unmolested by the presence of large-scale drilling, especially considering the health concerns that have been associated with fracking.

New Fracking Disclosure Requirement (Sort Of)

“New Proposal on Fracking Gives Ground to Industry” reads the New York Times headline.

Apparently the Obama administration gave a lot of ground.

Although the measure will, for the first time, make a federal requirement to disclose the chemicals used in fracking, those chemicals can be disclosed after the fracking has been completed. As originally proposed, the regulation would have required oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals and solutions 30 days before they started the process of fracking.

If this original regulation had gone forward, we would have been able to see what they were planning on pumping into the cracks and crevices of the rocks that lie thousands of feet below us, and we could have ascertained the risks posed to our groundwater and health as we reviewed the chemicals and mixtures used in fracking. If we found carcinogens or poisons, we would have been able to raise our objections and have the energy company change the fracking constituents or possibly halt the process altogether.

            But with the “significant concessions” they can go ahead and frack away, using whatever chemicals they please, and they only have to tell us what’s in their fracking solutions after those chemicals are in the ground. Does this make any sense? Have you ever heard of anything else working this way? Your city council looking at the design for a community redevelopment after they have approved it? Learning the name of your wife after you’ve married her?

            With industry being so powerful we wind up with legislation that seems like it was written in Bizarro Land and that in reality doesn’t do a whole lot of good.