iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Maria Rodale

GET UPDATES FROM Maria Rodale
 

What Americans Get from Fracking

Posted: 03/15/2012 9:48 am

by guest blogger, Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper

Americans get a lot out of the new technological process called hydrofracking (fracking)--but most of what we get, we absolutely don't want.

Fracking is the process used to blast natural gas from the ancient rocks that serve as the foundation of our surface lands. Each "frack" of a gas well, a process of exploding the underground rock in order to release the bubbles of gas it contains, requires an average of 5 million gallons of water per well, all of which gets infused with a toxic slurry of chemicals. As much as 80 percent of this water gets trapped underground, where the chemical-infused brew can slowly migrate through cracks and boreholes (natural and now, manmade), including into aquifers that serve as drinking water for people. What does return to the surface contains dangerous chemicals as well as a host of harmful substances the fluid has pulled from the geology it has passed through, including radioactive materials.

With as many as 32,000 to 64,000 wells over the Marcellus Shale formations that lie within the Delaware River watershed (that includes 8,784 square miles of Pennsylvania and New York), that means as much as 160 billion to 320 billion gallons of water that is no longer safe for human consumption in just this one corner of the country. The chemicals that are added to the fresh surface water are anywhere from 0.5 to 2 percent of the volume of that "frack" water, meaning 25,000 to 100,000 gallons of chemicals are introduced to the earth from just one shale gas drilling well. Multiply that by 64,000 wells and you have a lot of dangerous chemicals--and that's just the water pollution.

It takes three to five acres of land disturbance for each well pad, plus miles of roads and pipeline.  According to a new study, 80,000 to 200,000 acres of forest could be lost to the pipelines in Pennsylvania alone. Each drilling well also requires more than 1,400 trips by trucks burning dirty diesel fuel to service it. And now we learn that all this new drilling is also inducing construction of new liquefied natural gas facilities (LNG facilities), which convert the gas into a liquid that's better able to be shipped to foreign countries for a higher price than can be had in the U.S. In fact, according to a statement out of the U.S. Department of Energy, 10 percent of our daily consumption of natural gas has already been approved for shipment overseas, with an additional 10 percent to be decided upon within the next few months and likely to receive approval for export.

Invasive drilling operations, pollution spills, laws that strip municipalities of their zoning authorities, and laws that force homeowners to allow drilling under their private lands are among the insults that U.S. residents are suffering in order to service the gas-drilling industry.

Our children need the clean water, the fresh air, the healthy forests that we had as children--in fact, I think they deserve even better than we had as kids. It's time for this country to make a genuine commitment to sustainable energy, sustainable development practices, and a healthy future for our kids. Nature is a life-sustaining gift passed down from generation to generation. Let us be sure that our gift to future generations includes an energy path that will provide for all of their needs, the power they need to live a modern day life, but also the water, air, and forests they need to live, grow, and thrive.

What Can You Do?

The evidence against gas drilling grows every day. The reason legislators in Congress and a number of states are attempting to take action on this issue is that people are getting informed and speaking up. So do all you can to stay connected to the issue and to take action whenever the opportunity arises. A few key ways to speak up right now that will make a difference:


  • At the federal level, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, The FRAC Act, which would remove the gas and oil industry's exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, is under consideration. The U.S. Congress will also be considering the BREATHE Act, a proposal that would remove exemptions and ensure that critical Clean Air Act provisions apply to gas drilling.  We need to tell our congressmen and senators that we support these efforts to ensure that our drinking water and air are protected from pollution by gas drilling. Write your congressman and senators (not sure who they are? Congress.org can help), and urge them to sign on as cosponsors of the FRAC and BREATHE acts.



  • In Pennsylvania, new legislation has passed that will strip municipalities of their right to decide, through zoning, if and/or where drilling should be allowed in their communities. The power to prevent drilling within 500 feet of a school, for example, has been taken away from community officials. Write your Pennsylvania legislator to say that you oppose any steps that prevent a community from protecting itself from gas drilling.



  • The Delaware River basin continues to be frack free due to a moratorium in place that prohibits drilling unless and until the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) passes regulations that allow it. This is setting an important precedent for the country and ensuring the protection of the drinking water of more than 15 million people, including those living in New York City and Philadelphia. Help keep the pressure up and send your letter to the DRBC today urging the group to keep the Delaware River and its watershed frack free.



  • Consider adding your family to the photo album of folks who want to be protected from gas drilling that will be shared with the governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, as well as the Army Corps colonel who represents the president at the DRBC. There is nothing more powerful than a picture. Add yours today.


 


Maya K. van Rossum is the Delaware Riverkeeper, and has led the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) since 1994. The DRN is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization that monitors the river and all of its tributaries for threats and challenges, and advocates, educates, and litigates for protection, restoration, and change.

For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com

 
 
 

Follow Maria Rodale on Twitter: www.twitter.com/farmkitchenblog

 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:59 PM on 03/18/2012
Does this author know anything about geoscience, or about earth science? It doesn't appear she has taken the time to educate herself prior to stepping up on the soapbox.

The overwhelming majority of geoscientists have endorsed fracking. The self-appointed "experts" like Ms. van Rossum appear to have formed their opinions the absence of real science. I suppose when you point out the scientific consensus to them, they will respond that the scientists have been "bought".

(They never explain exactly why, if sceintists were so easily bought, why the oil and gas companies didn't simply purchase a consensus opinion against man made climate change. But trying to parse the opinions of self-important propagandists isn't a very productive exercise).

What irks me is people like this claim to speak for the children. The children don't want to inherit a mountain of government debt, or worse, a fully bankrupt country. Is Ms. van Rossum unaware that if this country enters into default, the EPA will be the first to go. Then you will see some real pollution.

You don't speak for the children Ms. van Rossum. You speak for the organization that pays your salary, and for which you are plumping for donations. How you sleep at night, knowing that you are impoverishing the blue-collar families that drill out gas (and the many, many more that benefit from cheap natural gas prices) is a mystery to me.
11:58 AM on 03/17/2012
The problem I have with the article is this - "the problem with fossil fuels and energy is us". We are the consumers and users and we created this demand - we are the junkers. If you want to have an impact on fossil fuels, the first and best answer is conservation, energy efficiency, and using less. It would be great to switch over to solar, wind, ground source and biomass - but I do not have the cash and this can be said for most citizens. Rather than our government (which again we allow) investing in a top down approach to alternative energy - how about directly send monies to citizens to implement conservation and alternative energy systems that work for them. This would directly impact the local communities with cash and decrease peak energy demand - decreasing peak demand lowers cost. Send me a check and I will install ground source and solar or wind if it makes sense - but a tax credit does not do it. We need to stop this approach to solving and addressing the problem - we have problems in PA and USA that need to be fixed - we need to act like adults - Come to the table - be honest of the problems and work together for our future.
04:19 PM on 03/15/2012
I used to be proud to consider myself an environmentalist, but its articles like this that remind me why that statement is past tense. Maya, do better research. Best practices regardign fracking can yield a recapture/recycle/reuse rate of over 90%. And most companies are converting their fleets to run on CNG not "dirty diesel" as you call it. Depending on what part of the country you are in, you can find large CNG fleets in operation already. Also, half of Ohio's public CNG stations are biogas which is eventually where all CNG will be produced anyway. But for biogas to be economically viable as a transporation fuel, there needs to be a healthy CNG/NGV industry.

I'm with Flea ... this is good for America!

For those that want to read about fracking and make up your own mind if these arguements are about these groups raising money and keeping their jobs or really about intellectually honest evironmentalism, check this out: 10 documented & misleading mis-facts (lies) of Gasland ... giving all enviro's a bad name! http://tinyurl.com/8y3cb2d
12:44 PM on 03/15/2012
Thinking we can have some fun with this, can you post your rap???
http://lisalongo.me/2012/03/15/frack-rap-baby/
12:02 PM on 03/15/2012
The shocking news is that even Obama seems to be onboard with it now, as he has recently been heard talking about domestic energy being at an 8 year high. I am actually shocked that he would do something that is good for this country.
12:01 PM on 03/15/2012
MIT did a study saying it can be done safely if done properly. Thousands of wells have been done and contamination was extremely rare. Nat gas is cheap and it's extremely clean. If you see a nat gas power plant there is NO SMOKE. It emits hardly any toxins, like oil and coal do. I really don;t understand why people are so against this unless A) they have a financial interest in fighting it or B) they are so dedicated to the principle of environmentalism they are against burning any fuel.
08:19 PM on 03/15/2012
It is not that we are against burning fuel, although it makes more sense to adopt a solar solution in my opinion. Here in PA there are constant cases of water, air and land contamination where ever drilling is happening. We have hundreds of families without safe water. If it could be done safely it isn't. Probably isn't cost effective enough for the gas industry. Instead they are illegally dumping their toxic waste into our rivers. Surface spills of toxic chemicals are contaminating water and land and people living near drilling are all suffering from the same ill symptoms. The gas is being taken from PA sold overseas and back to us. We are left with no water, depreciated land value and illnesses. There have been no environmental studies, health risk assessments or even a master plan that any other industry would need to do before starting. At the rate they are going in PA there will be no water left by the end of 2014 when the study the EPA is doing is due to be completed. It isn't reasonable to say that those who oppose what is happening are against jobs, economic benefits and a stable society. I believe we all want that. But at what cost? If it means not having safe water and air then it's time to go back to the drawing board.