Drilling and fracking for shale gas continues to expand across the East Coast despite consumer outcry over the environmental and health risks associated with this dangerous form of fossil fuel extraction. Now, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has identified new potential targets in central and southern Maryland, as well as the Eastern Shore, in addition to the Marcellus Shale in Western Maryland. The oil and gas industry and their advocates can be expected to treat Maryland like a sacrifice zone in order to extract as much gas as possible unless we implement a permanent ban on fracking for oil and gas in the state.
Fracking is the controversial process of injecting a mixture of water and possibly toxic chemicals underground at high speed to break up shale, releasing methane and other gases along with radon. The process has already been linked to tainted drinking water in Wyoming and Pennsylvania. And storage of the wastewater produced by fracking is suspected in causing a series of small earthquakes in eastern Ohio.
For now, while the oil and gas industry has its prospects set on fracking in two counties in Western Maryland, they claim that their expansion will not include areas within the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. But this is just lip service. Consumer and environmental groups understand that over the long-term, the oil and gas industry's run of record-breaking profits depends on acquiring new reserves.
That means it's just a matter of time before they'll be pushing to drill and frack in the basins identified by the USGS: the Gettysburg, which stretches south from the Pennsylvania border, passing beneath Frederick; the Taylorsville, which stretches south from beneath Annapolis to the lower Potomac; the Del Marva, which consists of several separate rock formations beneath much of the Bay and the Eastern Shore; and the Culpeper, which stretches north from Virginia under western Montgomery County near Gaithersburg and north to Frederick.
For Marylanders who would be exposed to the risks and costs of fracking and who want to learn more and weigh in on the future of our state, it will not be easy to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Thanks to the oil and gas industry's well-financed public relations machine, you won't hear how most of the new jobs the industry promises will go to out-of-state workers with oil and gas industry experience, not to local Marylanders. And you won't hear them talk about how much of this gas will be exported to Europe, Japan and China.
Get ready to defend your state from the powerful lobbying arm of an industry that is deeply embedded in the halls of U.S. Congress and state and local governments across the country.
Brace yourselves for the hidden costs that will permanently change Maryland's landscape and harm local economies. The oil and gas industry will underestimate the true cost of repairing local infrastructure from the damage unleashed by up to a thousand heavy trucks rolling in and out of small towns for each new well, many transporting hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic waste. And you won't hear the industry and its advocates acknowledge the negative impacts on the sectors of the economy, such as tourism, agriculture and the fishing industry, that sustain rural Maryland communities.
Dig in for a big fight to defend your water, not only from the inevitable spills of waste as it is trucked across the state but also the long-term risk of contamination of underground sources of drinking water from injecting tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals into each well, not knowing how these chemicals will react and move over the following years and even decades. You will also need to defend your water from private entities that aim to gain control of public utilities and profit from the industry's huge demand for water for fracking.
From start to finish, fracking is too risky for Maryland -- it threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate we depend on. Marylanders should urge their representatives to support a ban on fracking. It is the only way to protect our state from the irreparable harm of a reckless industry.
Wenonah Hauter is executive director of the national consumer nonprofit organization Food & Water Watch. Shane Robinson is a member of the Maryland House of Delegates representing Montgomery County.
Follow Wenonah Hauter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@foodandwater
The Feds may be willing to put the burden of proof on impacted citizens, but the state shouldn't make the same mistake. Every step of the way, the industry must be required to demonstrate full compliance, constantly monitored and verified. If they won't comply, tell them to take a frackin' hike.
No you won't get the facts from the Anti-Frackers because they know they don't have the facts or the evidence on their side.
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-deems-fracking-safe-states-debate-drilling-laws-223600852.html
Anti-Frackers are the only political group that make Climate Change Deniers look Smart. They believe if the science conflicts with your politics its a Corporate or Government conspiracy.
Is not the pattern obvious?
Fracking. Mining. Drilling. We must face the fact that in the long run It is going to happen. Someday. Somehow. Somewhere. Whether it be out of need or greed the relentless demand for resources eventually always triumphs. But the cost to taxpayers and the State does not emerge (usually) until long after the extraction process is completed and the drillers have moved on. So - what is the solution? Mitigation and access to the funds that pay for mitigation.
Since clean earth water and air are in fact necessary for the survival of the human species: Let 25pct. of all the proceeds before cost or taxes from any extractive industry (mining/ drilling/ fracking) be escrowed for 30 years. Subject to the sole determination of the State and local governments: In the event that the State or locality determines no ecologic damage was done, the escrowed funds are released after 30 years. If damage occurs or occurred, the funds are used to pay for environmental mitigation, with the remainder of funds (if any) released.
We the people should not stop progress or economic development, but neither should we the people be left as helpless victims.
Nor does it break up shale, it fractures it [as the name states].
Fracturing the earth's formations has been going on for millions of years. One can see fractures by taking a hike through washes, gulleys and canyons.
Fracturing only takes place when the formation is 100-million times denser and more impermeable than concrete. Concrete is a sponge in comparison to shale. This shale has been holding gas for millions of years. A mylar balloon can only hold gas a few days. Automobile tires can only hold gas for a few months.
Our government used nuclear bombs to break up tightgas sands in Colorado. It didn't work. Some nerdy engineer came up with using K-Y Jelly and sand to open mostly existing fractures and hold them open by an average of 1/4 of a inch. That works. Then the gas doesn't need to be extracted. It just flows because of a pressure differential.
As for fracking, if the well is properly completed, there is no way fracturing itself can contaminate aquifers. If all transfers and storage of fluids is done properly, frack fluids cannot contaminate the environment.
The questions should be: Is the drilling of ANY well regulated and monitored by the appropriate agency? Is the storage and transferring of ANY gas, fluid or solid regulated and monitored by the appropriate agency.
What we have is a political war not unlike the Civil War. Should the EPA be top dog or should State Agencies be top dog? Right now, we are paying both agencies to do the same job. But instead of doing their jobs, they are trying to undermine the other agencies. Ergo: we are paying twice for a job that isn't being done at all.
At the moment, it is coal-fired and natural gas-fired electric plants that are in competition.
There is enough natural gas to supply home heating and cooking. We can even produce natural gas in our own backyards [see Mother Earth News 1970-2012 for numerous articles]. But there isn't enough natural gas [at the moment] to displace coal usage.
Our political system doesn't seem capable of taking a comprehensive assessment of anything. It's just a pie-throwing contest for a movie comedy. So God knows what I'm hoping for here. But since humans have overspent Earth's ecological budget (which will surely come to bite us if we continue), I was imagining an America that places a moratorium on all large developments. I would not recommended that any but the very most egregious existing projects be stopped. Take time out to examine the pros and cons of proposed developments, while doing a better job with the projects that are here already. While I can't say how it could be done politically, progressives could at least begin to think in those terms. We've got to start SOMEwhere.