A paper in Baltimore is asking tough questions that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram should be asking.
Peril lies beneath the promise of mid-Atlantic natural gas
But what are the risks to the environment? Amid the rush of so-called land men negotiating five- to seven-year leases, and the clamor over prospective payments, this question has largely remained unheard.
Industry representatives seeking the riches of the Marcellus Shale contend that this deposit lies so deep that the risks of contaminating groundwater are negligible. Still, the risks to water quality are real.
They even make a stab at busting the Natural Gas = Clean Energy myth.
Natural gas may be marketed as the cleaner alternative to diesel fuel (and much cleaner than coal), but the process of obtaining natural gas requires large-scale industrial machinery and a variety of toxic chemicals. Chemicals, water and sand are forced into the geologic formation under enormous pressure in a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Pressure forces the natural gas to the surface. With it come millions of gallons of water and a mix of underground materials that must be stored in large sludge pits. Leakage from these sludge pits can contaminate streams and the shallow groundwater table with salts, naturally radioactive materials and man-made chemicals.
Fluids injected during fracking, some of which are proprietary and unregulated, can remain in the earth after drilling ceases. In Texas, community drinking water supplies were poisoned with benzene, xylene and other known carcinogenic compounds when the Barnett Shale was exploited using hydraulic fracturing.
The cover it all, giving readers a better picture of the over-all damage caused by drilling.
Clearing forests and land for the drilling pads, pipelines and roads will increase stormwater runoff and the sediment swept into streams and rivers. Each well pad may span 3 to 5 acres. While the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s regulations require only one drilling well per 640 acres on state-owned land, the law does not limit the concentration of drilling pads on private land. Geologists estimate the optimal concentration of wells in the range of one well for each 40 to 140 acres. Miles of dirt and gravel roads will be needed to connect drilling pads to main roads.
The reporter, who just happens to be a scientist, even mentions the regulatory agencies and that oil and gas is exempt from the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
One of the greatest uncertainties is the capacity of state regulatory institutions to adequately protect landowners and public water supplies. The agencies are notoriously underfunded and understaffed, and they face the inexorable increase in regulatory burden as exploration and drilling progress. In addition, the technologies and equipment used to obtain natural gas from such deep deposits as the Marcellus are largely unregulated by the federal Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
Great bottom line!
Unless state regulatory agencies match the growth in exploration and drilling with increased numbers of regulators and increased fines when companies fail to protect the environment, the march of energy companies into the Marcellus Shale could overwhelm existing protections to water and air quality.
The Star-Telegram needs to anti up.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
I recognize that there is a small group of bloggers and so-called “activists” who are opposed to development in the Barnett Shale. I also agree that this small crowd of antis have a right to express their views, as vigorously as I have a right to express my support for Fort Worth leading the nation in natural gas production.
That’s honest debate, and I’m all for it.
But Spinning Sharon has crossed the line … and spun beyond the bounds of honesty.
Even her headline, “Baltimore Sun Reports on Barnett Shale Dangers,” is outrageously untruthful. And her spinning a non-Barnett Shale story to suit her own personal anti-development agenda smacks of a complete disregard for honest debate and for anyone who seeks an honest discussion of the issues.
The TRUTH is that the Baltimore Sun did not “report” on anything related to the Shale. Spinning Sharon is relying on an editorial – an opinion column – NOT on a news report.
I suspect SS knows the difference between a “report” and an “editorial opinion” … she just doesn’t want anyone else to know.
But SS doesn’t leave it at that overt deception. She blogs that “… the reporter … just happens to be a scientist.”
This is where it gets almost funny. Not only is the “reporter” not a reporter at all, but it turns out he’s a fish expert.
Yep, fish. He’s a fish expert with Trout Unlimited.
Now, I love fishing … especially trout fishing. But I wouldn’t want to stake my economic livelihood, or safety, or family decisions, or much else on the opinion of a fish expert.
And I’ve got nothing against Trout Unlimited, but the organization does not on its own website that it essentially oppose anything that might get in the way of a fish – roads, dams, stream diversions, cattle and livestock grazing, timber harvest, and “other land uses.”
This group is even critical of non-native and hatchery fish, saying these fish are compromising the gene pools. Apparently, only pure fish are good fish.
It’s pretty clear where Spinning Sharon’s fishman is coming from. He’s opposed to virtually any development of any kind, because it might get in the way of a fish. Kind of like how the truth might get in the way of Sharon’s personal agenda.
It’s pretty clear where you are coming from, Buddy.
Here’s my fish scientist who reported on his findings and research in a op-ed article:
Nathaniel G. Gillespie, M.S.
Fisheries Scientist
Arlington, VA
He might just know a thing or two about water pollution.
The only personal agenda I have is that my family and I can drink clean water and breathe clean air. Do you have a problem with that?
Since I’m a mineral owner it’s in my best interest to see the drilling continue. Since I’m a human who can’t live without water and air it’s in my best interest to see that it’s done in a responsible manner. DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
It seems that the Baltimore Sun did print the opinion piece. Editors will rarely print on opinion that is not relevant, well-written and factual. This opinion was written by a scientist whose specialty is fisheries. He would have special knowledge about water, pollution and the effects of pollution.
The information is true and accurate. I’m glad it was posted here.
The first posting here from “b” seems to be from a Landman type person. They operate this way.
You’re right, Anon 7:32. B has posted here before and B is either employed by the oil and gas industry or is a supported of Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams.