Appalachian Lives Matter

It is probably obvious that I care deeply about the things I write about in this blog. I love the mountains and the people of Appalachia where I grew up, the wonderful creatures that we share this world with, and the environment in general.

            Although these things are important to me, as I sit and write about them at my computer, these topics can become a little abstract for me. I’ll blog about the mines in Appalachia, but I’m thousands of miles away from them. I don’t wake up with coal dust on my windowsill, and I don’t see the yellow sulfur stains that the mining brings to streams and rivers.

            From the fieldwork that I’ve done, testing the water quality at the estuarial waters of the San Diego River, I’ve actually seen the salinity of the water increase over the last decade, evidence of rising seas and a warming world. Despite the concrete evidence, the numbers rising over time and the graphs inching upwards, I don’t perceive the world as being warmer than I remember it ten or fifteen years ago. I just don’t. Global warming remains a terrible abstraction for me.

That abstractness about the environment changed today. A Facebook friend sent the above video along to me. It’s a portion of a new film called Dear President Obama Americans Against Fracking in One Voice. The man who is talking about his work in fracking, his mishap, and his subsequent cancer diagnosis is Sal Bombardiere. I went to high school with Sal. He was a friend of mine. It is heartbreaking to see a man, any man, so sick and so broken. But I know this man. I remember Sal as a fun guy, a jokester. Somebody you certainly wanted as your friend.

            Although I’ve written critically about hydraulic fracturing (here) and (here), I have not read great deal on the topic; so I have been trying to keep an open mind. I’ve talked to folks in the industry, and they have been quite convincing when they have explained the safety of the extraction process.

            That has changed today. I don’t know how anyone can watch Sal in this video and dismiss the concerns of those worried about fracking operations close to or in their communities.

            Where I was suspicious, I am now angry. Chris Hedges, the journalist, author, and activist, in his recent book with cartoonist Joe Sacco, Days of Destruction Days of Revolt, has called Appalachia an economic sacrifice zone. Along with the economy, Hedges can add the sacrifice of human lives. Maybe it’s time for people to start saying and repeating another simple phrase: Appalachian lives matter.

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.

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 Science Reveals Fracking To Be a Bad Deal

It’s looking more and more like fracking is not such a great idea. I’ve avoided seeing Gasland, wanting to take a good look at fracking and see for myself what the process was all about. While visiting in West Virginia I’ve talked to frackers, and a lot of their defense of the drilling practice made some sense to me at the time.

            Well, there’s the stuff folks tell you, and then there’s the stuff that you read about in the news and what the science tells you. And as of right now, from the news and the science, it looks like fracking is a lousy deal.

            A report from Environment America, a federation of environmental advocacy organizations, gives some pretty scary numbers: Last year in the U.S. fracking produced 280 billion gallons of toxic waste water, enough to flood an area the size of Washington D.C. under 22 feet of bad water. Fracking by the Numbers concludes that damage from fracking, “is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago.”

            Damage from fracking can also be acute. Just this last week a study from Duke University and published in Environmental Science & Technology found that fracking wastewater discharged into a stream in the Pittsburgh area had elevated the levels of radioactivity in the stream. Sediment collected downstream of a fracking operation had radium levels about 200 times greater than sediment collected upstream of the fracking operation. And as I’ve posted earlier, a recent study found that wells close to fracking were more likely to be contaminated with methane.

            It is true that not all the studies have found contamination problems. Is this one of those times when the typical scientific rejoined, “more research needs to be done,” can be heard? Perhaps there might be safe fracking, but I’m beginning to think that it is from a rare combination of certain geologies, very safe drilling practices, and a fair amount of luck.

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.”