by Jeff Biggers

Before environmental lobbyists and legislators push a hydraulic fracking bill through the Illinois legislature, they need to sit down with farmers in Clinton County and learn how well regulations defended their water, farms and cankered lives from the contamination of coal slurry in the Pearl Aquifer.

Then they would fight to the end, like five southern Illinois county boards, for a moratorium on fracking—instead of a regulatory compromise that undercuts their efforts.

That was the advice given to me by an old farmer this week, as Illinois’ controversial bill to regulatehydraulic fracturing rushes its way to a vote that will have national implications.

In the process, potentially impacted residents in southern Illinois have repeatedly raised an important question: Who should we trust to speak on behalf of protecting our water, land and lives: The moratorium stance of Dr. Sandra Steingraber or the compromising role of the Sierra Club and otherenvironmental groups?

Dr. Sandra Steingraber testifies in front of the Illinois House Executive Committee Hearings on proposed fracking regulatory bill, SB 1715, on May 21.

Left in ruins from the boom and bust cycles of heavily-mechanized coal mining by absentee coal companies, who have left behind 1,300 abandoned mines, few other regions in the country have borne the deadly burden of compromised environmental and workplace safety regulations than the coalfields of my own southern Illinois.

In a line: Anyone vaguely familiar with the history of coal mining knows that similar regulatory compromises have been disasters.

From mining safety to stalled black lung enforcement, from deadly coal slurry spills to illegal coal ash dumps, from coal truck accidents to coal barge crashes, to violation-ridden strip-mining destruction and pathetic reclamation enforcement, Illinois’ notoriously rogue, underfunded and inept regulatory agencies have generally allowed Big Coal to operate in a continual state of violation for decades.

Now comes the fracking rush, and new claims by the major environmental groups of a historic compromise for regulations for “clean fracking.”

Clean fracking. Kinda like “clean coal.”

Not for Steingraber, the distinguished scholar at Ithaca College, and a nationally acclaimed environmental health expert and author who grew up in Illinois.

“I stand with you for as long as takes,” she said at a press conference on Monday on the moratorium, organized by the Illinois People’s Action (IPA) and Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing our Environment (SAFE), “Because when lives are at stake, you want the best possible science, you want the most comprehensive science, and we’re not going to give up until we get there.”

She also joined Oscar-nominated filmmaker Josh Fox at the premiere of his Gasland 2 film documentary in Normal this week.

Testifying at the Illinois House Executive Committee hearings on proposed fracking regulatory bill, SB 1715, Steingraber didn’t pull any punches, especially for the environmental organizations supporting the regulatory compromise:

Let me say that again, and my words here contain a special message for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan who brokered the deal that produced this piece of legislation: The backers of this bill claim that it contains the strongest regulations for fracking in the nation. That is nonsense. New York State promulgated a far stricter set of rules that prohibited drilling on state lands and set aside certain watersheds as off-limits to fracking altogether—and still we rejected them.

Moreover, New York State’s regulations were subject to numerous public hearings and comment periods. Hundreds of scientists provided testimony, as did thousands of business owners, farmers, faith leaders and ordinary citizens. And thrice, over nearly five years of deliberation, we’ve sent a deeply flawed environmental impact statement back to the drawing board.

Because of that democratic process, New Yorkers now know a lot about fracking. The more we find out, the deeper our objections.

And that’s because, when you look under fracking’s hood, you see terrifying problems. Behind the hard sell and soothing promises, this contraption is unsafe at any speed.

Here’s what we’ve learned in New York: Regulations cannot prevent well casings from leaking as they age and fail. Or keep methane from migrating through underground faults. Or eliminate the 24/7 noise pollution from drilling. Regulations cannot keep benzene from rising out of boreholes. There is no good storage solution for radioactive wastewater. And the jobs fracking provides are temporary and toxic.

Thus, Attorney General Madigan needs to know that should this bill pass and become law, she will be held personally responsible for every contaminated well, every fiery explosion, every horrific accident, and every sick child.

More fundamentally, scientists haven’t yet identified all the chemicals released from drilling and fracking operations. Clearly, if you don’t know what impacts need mitigating, there is no way of judging if any given set of regulations sufficiently mitigates them.
Replicated only for posterity. All credit goes to ECO WASTCH & Jeff biggers. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Original article found @http://ecowatch.com/2013/steingraber-calls-out-illinois-fracking-regulations/

WHEELING – Relentless in their efforts to keep frack water from being recycled in Warwood, neighborhood residents on Tuesday handed Wheeling City Council a petition bearing the signatures of more than 200 people who feel the same way.

For the fourth time in as many council meetings, concerned residents packed the room to urge their elected officials to stop a proposed treatment plant for natural gas drilling waste from locating on the former Seidler’s Oil Service property on North 28th Street. Houston, Texas-based GreenHunter Water is planning $1.7 million of construction at the site, which will result in 798,000 gallons of storage capacity.

After hearing more opposition Tuesday, Wheeling officials reminded residents that the property on which GreenHunter Water plans to build already is zoned industrial, and the city’s options are limited as long as the company plays by the rules.

Article Photos

Photo by Ian Hicks
Warwood resident Sam Marshall, 14, urges Wheeling City Council on Tuesday to “tell them no” regarding GreenHunter Water’s plans to build a frack water treatment plant on North 28th Street.

City Manager Herron noted the company plans to seek two variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals and also will need to present its site plan for review by the city Planning Commission. It also must secure a building permit.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman Gloria Delbrugge – herself an outspoken opponent of the plant – said GreenHunter Water officials have agreed to hold a community meeting concerning their plans, set for 7 p.m. May 22 in council chambers at the City-County Building.

John Jack, GreenHunter Water’s vice president of business development, has said a 40-foot-wide easement that crosses the trail gives the company the right to use the pipeline that runs underneath it to load treated water onto barges for transport, despite that strip of land being zoned residential. Herron isn’t so sure that’s the case, however.

“It has been our position … that they would need a zone change,” he said, acknowledging GreenHunter Water could simply truck the water away from its facility without running afoul of the zoning code.

The company could be forced to do that regardless of the zoning issue, as the U.S. Coast Guard continues to review whether fracking waste can be shipped on inland waterways.

GreenHunter Water contends there is less chance of an accident on the Ohio River compared to roadways and barge transport will mean less wear and tear on those roads.

Company officials also say the fluid they’ll be shipping poses far less of a threat to the drinking water supply than other materials such as petroleum, hydrochloric acid and coal that are shipped on inland waterways every day.

Warwood residents are concerned about the potential for spills just slightly more than a mile north of Wheeling’s water treatment plant and fear negative health effects if the plant becomes a reality.

GreenHunter Water officials say their process is safe and their provisions to control any potential spills meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency specifications. After treating the frack water, GreenHunter Water plans to ship brine water – the vast majority of its volume, company officials say – by truck back to well sites for re-use. Solid waste would go to a landfill outside Parkersburg, W.Va., with liquid waste taken by barge for disposal at one of several deep injection wells.

Replicated only for posterity. All credit goes to The Intelligencer. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Original article found @http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/585201/Warwood-Residents-Keep-Up-Opposition-to-Frack-Water-Plant.html?nav=515

The right way to understand the potential of unconventional fuels like methane hydrates and tight oil is to closely examine their production rates and their prices. If these fuels can be produced at large scales and profitable prices, they very well might influence geopolitics and economics in the ways that Mann speculates. If they cannot, then it truly doesn’t matter how much of those resources may exist underground and in the ocean floor.

Unfortunately Mann offers precious little data on price or production rates.

A debate on the future of energy Read more

If Mann’s data on methane hydrates is correct, then Japan’s experiment so far has taken 10 years and $700 million to produce four million cubic feet of gas, which is worth about $16,000 at today’s U.S. gas prices, or about $50,000 at today’s prices for imported LNG in Japan. At this point, it is an enormously expensive experimental pilot project, and nothing more. We do not yet know when it might be able to recover commercial volumes of gas, or at what rate, or at what price. We have no reason to believe that if commercial quantities are recoverable by 2018 as Japan hopes–which seems incredibly optimistic–that the price of that gas will be competitive with imported LNG.

At the same time, we have numerous forecasts projecting that renewables like wind and solar will be competitive with fossil-fueled grid power in most of the developed world by 2020, including much of Asia. For example, a recent report by Citigroup, and another by researchers at Stanford University, among many others. A 2011 report by WWF and Ecofys projects that by 2018, solar PV will be the cheapest way to generate power in much of Asia. If these forecasts–based on more than a decade of real-world cost data for large-scale solar and wind are correct, then there is no reason to believe that gas from Japan’s methane hydrate experiment will be able to compete with renewable grid power, which would constitute the largest market for that gas (unless Japan rapidly deploys natural gas vehicles in the interim, which it currently has no economic reason to do).

Mann also offers no data on tight oil production and price, but here are the key facts. In 2012, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. consumed about 18.5 million barrels a day (mb/d) of liquid fuels and produced about 11 mb/d. Only about 7 mb/d of that 11 was actual crude oil, and about 1 mb/d of that was from tight oil. The non-crude liquids the US produced have less energy content than crude, and some of it cannot be made into vehicular fuel.

One cannot easily make a case for incipient U.S. “energy independence” on the basis of 1 mb/d of new tight oil production. A host of dubious assumptions and data distortions underlie the recent energy independence forecasts which I will not delve into here, but I have examined and debunked most of the reports that Mann cites, including those from the IEA (here and here), Ed Morse at Citigroup (here and here), and Leonardo Maugeri.

The progressive substitution of expensive unconventional oil for cheap conventional oil is a fundamental reason why the global price of oil has tripled over the past decade, and will continue to rise. This essential concept–along with the correct definitions of “conventional” and “unconventional”–is lost in Mann’s treatment. It’s absolutely true that we will never “run out” of oil–there will always be oil resources that are too expensive to produce that will stay in the ground–but since 2004 we have seen the undisputable evidence that affordable oil is slipping away from us, and that the rising price of oil has contributed to the stalling of the global economy. If the world could tolerate $300 a barrel, there might be no reason for concern about future oil supply. But it cannot. As the IEA’s executive director recently noted, U.S. oil and gas prices need to go higher (through exports) to “avoid [the] shale boom turning to bust.” But prices for refined products like gasoline and diesel are already near the upper limit for American consumers.

The recent achievements from combining horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing are indeed impressive and have brought much-needed new volumes of liquid fuels to the thirsty U.S., which has long been the world’s largest oil importer. (Shale gas is likewise an impressive accomplishment, but the U.S. was still a net gas importer in 2012, according to EIA data.) But these are not new technologies. The first horizontal well was drilled in the 1930s, and hydraulic fracturing was introduced in the 1940s. Both technologies have been thoroughly applied and refined at scale in real-world circumstances for many decades, with substantial federal support for research and development.

Methane hydrate extraction, which is still in the early stages of testing and requires techniques that have only recently been attempted for the first time, is in no way comparable to tight oil and shale gas extraction. Methane hydrates are not “being developed in much the same methodical way that shale gas was developed before it,” and skepticism on methane hydrates isn’t comparable to skepticism on shale gas. Skepticism isn’t some fungible property of everything; facts about prices and production rates are essential.

Perhaps this is the real point of Mann’s take on these new technologies: He confesses that he does not want to “miss the boat” on methane hydrates as he did on shale gas. That’s a gambler’s mentality, not a shrewd investor’s.

Perhaps that is also why Mann chooses to perceive tight oil and methane hydrates through the lens of the peak oil debate, which occupies much of Mann’s 11,000-word exposition on the history of oil and gas production. His he-said, she-said treatment of the subject, attempting to portray it as a simple matter of differing opinions between “Hubbertians” and “McKelveyans,” gave far more credence to longtime and ardent peak oil critics like Verleger and Lynch, while characterizing the views of Campbell, Laherrère, and the “anti-fossil-fuel think tank” Post Carbon Institute as “not widely shared.”

If he had any real familiarity with their work, Mann would know that the latter group recognize the importance of fossil fuels while being deeply concerned about their future. He would also know that many other analysts and petroleum scientists have done serious and highly transparent research on the subject of peak oil, including Jeremy Leggett, a petroleum geologist and former faculty member of the Royal School of Mines in London; Olivier Rech, who was responsible for IEA’s petroleum forecasts from 2006 to 2009; dozens of independent analysts, petroleum engineers and economists who publish at The Oil Drum; and petroleum scientists like Kjell Aleklett of Uppsala University, and Chris Skrebowski, a former long-term planner for BP and senior analyst for the Saudi Oil Ministry.

Mann’s caricature of the “Hubbertians” may make entertaining reading, but it does not refute their data, and while the assurances of people like Verleger and Lynch may be pacifying, they offer more vague assertions and rhetoric than data on production rates. The “Drill, Baby, Drill” report by petroleum geologist J. David Hughes that Mann derides (at shalebubble.org) is the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of U.S. tight oil and shale gas to date, and it offers a starkly different projection of the future of these fuels than their cheerleaders do.

Resources in the ground are one thing, but extraction is another matter entirely. And while production of fuels like methane hydrates may be technically possible, that does not mean that they will be affordable, or that their production will be scalable. Natural gas may be a “bridge” fuel, but only if we actually build a renewably powered world at the other end of that bridge. We have ample evidence that renewables are on their way to outpricing fossil fuels for grid power within a decade, while the prospects for methane hydrates and tight oil remain shrouded in speculation and wishful thinking. If there’s a boat that Mann is missing, its name is Renewables.

Replicated only for posterity. All credit goes to Chris Nelder & Atlantic. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Original article found @http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2013/05/are-methane-hydrates-really-going-to-change-geopolitics/275275/

Alison Rose Levy

Sometimes people tell me, “If you coverfracking, you really need to see that film—that film, what’s it called?”

“Gasland?” I’ll offer helpfully.

“Yes, that’s it.”

It kind of charms me that people less immersed in this issue, than many folks I know, would imagine that I could cover the topic without knowing the film that started it all. Fact is, I’ve seen Gasland nine or more times, usually because I accompany people I feel must see it. And now, we can start all over because of the release of Gasland II.

When I sat in an HBO screening room in June 2010 to cover the first Gasland, I was moved and shocked. But I hardly dared to hope that the film would play such a powerful role in this country’s wake-up call about fracking.

The new Gasland II premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 21. It delves even deeper into the transformation of the U.S. from a first world nation to a country in fossil fuel limbo. Josh Fox and his team have followed the well pads through a land of broken dreams, deserted homes and betrayed rights, tracking the painful discovery by average Americans that governmental protections have failed them. Capturing half a dozen or so families from Australia to Wyoming to Pennsylvania, Fox’s camera accompanies their journey from disbelief to indignation to disillusionment—when no one in government seems willing or able to make industries accountable for fracking harms.

The oversized whirlpool tub in Steve Lipsky’s million dollar dream house sits empty, gathering dust ever since test results showed water contaminated following nearby fracking activities. Officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency privately advised the family never to drink the water or even use it to water the lawn, but rejected key opportunities to rein in Range Resources, the offending company.

Although the film is about fracking, its deeper subject is America in the early twenty-first century. What used to happen in the far away Third World or indigenous regions, is now going on in the U.S. Call it karma.

As the film documents, seducing the populace with promises of “energy independence,” a government that once vaunted democracy as its prime export, now disenfranchises citizens in places like Dimock, Pennsylvania, in order to supply raw resources to foreign countries. The film traces the history of the town’s aquifer contamination, which affected the drinking water in many homes. The Pennsylvania government first offered a pipeline of potable water to be constructed at industry expense, but later nixed that plan and left numerous townsfolk permanently without water.

As a result, many were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements in exchange for rock bottom buy-outs. In one poignant scene, Fox films community leader Victoria Switzer, as she “practices” being silent. No fan of democracy likes to see grassroots leaders like Switzer muted. Some of those profiled in Gasland II have been forced by their own or their children’s health to abandon homes with decimated property values. Many have accepted buyouts in exchange for silence. What the film omits mentioning is whether any of its subjects are former lessors or drilling proponents.

This sacrifice of environment and community, seen in Gasland II, is said to create “energy independence.” In the film, economic analyst Deborah Rogers explains why that’s not likely to happen. Once the export terminals and pipelines criss-crossing this country are built, and after the gas is liquefied for export to China (where gas prices are high), what could possibly happen? The currently low U.S. gas prices will mount, Rogers predicts. Americans will have invested their tax dollars in gas infrastructures for the sake of cheap energy. But that energy won’t be there.

Fortunately, there is a solution to our energy problem, and that is renewable energy technology. As Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson explains in the film, the technology for renewables has evolved so thoroughly that by 2030, 100 percent of U.S. energy needs could be supplied by wind, complemented by some use of solar and water energy. Jacobson and his colleagues on theSolutions Project are devising a detailed plan for New York state.

Gasland II zooms in on the early stages of social disruption due to extreme energy extraction. Its subjects are real and their voices still count. Unless the concerns the film highlights are heeded, more extreme forms of devastation, involving greater numbers of people could lie ahead. Gasland II questions undertaking such risks when economically viable ways to meet our energy needs exist.

Gasland II will debut nationally on HBO this summer.

Replicated only for posterity. All credit goes to Alison Rose Levy and EcoWatch. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Original article found @http://ecowatch.com/2013/gasland-ii-broken-promises-trenewable-solutions/

National Parks Conservation Association

As the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) updates rules for oil and gas drilling on federal land, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) released yesterday National Parks and Hydraulic Fracturing: Balancing Energy Needs, Nature and America’s National Heritage. This new report examines the impact of existing, proposed and potential oil and gas development on America’s national parks and offers recommendations to ensure future drilling safeguards public health and the environment.

“Our national parks are America’s most treasured places, and we need to treat them carefully as we develop the nation’s natural gas and oil,” said NPCA Vice President for the Center for Park ResearchJim Nations. “Our research revealed that some national parks are already in peril. Unless we take quick action, air, water, and wildlife will experience permanent harm in other national parks as well.”

Recommendations in the NPCA’s report include:

• BLM require that the identity of the chemicals be disclosed to the public before drilling begins, that all flowback waters be stored in closed-loop containers and treated before they are allowed to reenter public waters
• The National Park Service receive the designation of formal “cooperating agency” under the National Environmental Protection Act when there is a reasonable likelihood that national park air, water, wildlife or other resources will be affected by oil and gas activities on BLM land
• The industry provide and pay for a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for all park waters that might potentially be impacted
• EPA implementation of a regulation to cut 95 percent of ozone and toxic emissions from natural gas wells developed through frackingand take effect in 2015, take effect today and be expanded to cover existing and future wells

Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

Mora Valley, New Mexico

Monday the County Commission of Mora County, located in northeastern New Mexico, became the first county in the U.S. to pass an ordinance banning all oil and gas extraction.

Drafted with assistance from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), the Mora County Community Water Rights and Local Self-Government Ordinance establishes a local Bill of Rights—including a right to clean air and water, a right to a healthy environment and the rights of nature—while prohibiting activities which would interfere with those rights, including oil drilling and hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

Communities across the country are facing drilling and fracking. Fracking brings significant environmental impacts including the production of millions of gallons of toxic wastewater, which can affect drinking water and waterways. Studies have found that fracking is a major global warming contributor, and have linked the underground disposal of frack wastewater to earthquakes.

“Existing state and federal oil and gas laws force fracking and other extraction activities into communities, overriding concerns of residents,” explained Thomas Linzey, Esq., CELDF executive director. “Today’s vote in Mora County is a clear rejection of this structure of law which elevates corporate rights over community rights, which protects industry over people and the natural environment.”

“This vote is a clear expression of the rights guaranteed in the New Mexico Constitution which declares that all governing authority is derived from the people. With this vote, Mora is joining a growing people’s movement for community and nature’s rights,” said Linzey.

“The vote of Mora commission chair John Olivas and vice-chair Alfonso Griego to ban drilling and fracking is not only commendable, it is a statement of leadership that sets the bar for communities across the State of New Mexico,” said CELDF community organizer and Mora County resident, Kathleen Dudley. She explained that the ordinance calls for an amendment to the New Mexico Constitution that “elevates community rights above corporate property rights.”

Mora County joins Las Vegas, NM, which in 2012 passed an ordinance, with assistance from CELDF, which prohibits fracking and establishes rights for the community and the natural environment. CELDF assisted the City of Pittsburgh, PA, to draft the first local Bill of Rights which prohibits fracking in 2010. Communities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, New York and New Mexico have enacted similar ordinances.

Mora County joins more than 150 communities across the country which have asserted their right to local self-governance through the adoption of local laws that seek to control corporate activities within their municipality.

Replicated only for posterity. All credit goes to Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and EcoWatch. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Original article found @http://ecowatch.com/2013/first-county-bans-oil-gas-extraction/

Replicated only for posterity. All credit goes to SharonAbercrombie and EcoCatholic. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Original article found @ http://ncronline.org/node/50386

An injection well / fracking earthquake swarm — happening inside a working operation embedded in a residential setting.

Beginning with a 4.3M quake, followed by subsequent 3.0M, 2.0M, and 1.0M earthquakes in the region (within miles of each other)… I would expect to see several more earthquakes here before all is said and done.

This has been building over the past few weeks.. see my posts leading up to this event here… especially check the post from early April called “Oklahoma taking risks”…
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/?s=frack&submit=Search

use all the links here to stay up to date on earthquakes nationally (and internationally):

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/11302011-list-of-earthquake-links-for-global-monitoring/

———

The event today, April 16, 2013, is not shocking to those who have been paying attention.

USGS stats:

4.3M earthquake:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb000g7s8.php

Earthquake Details

• This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

—————-

3.3M earthquake:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb000g7t3.php

Earthquake Details

• This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

—————

3.0M earthquake:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb000g7s0.php

• This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

—————-

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb000g7t1.php

Earthquake Details

• This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.