Switchboard, from NRDC › Amy Mall's Blog

Oil and gas industry trying to crush local governments

2012-02-13T22:14:22Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Some of the most interesting news lately in oil and gas development centers around the hard work being done by local governments to update their rules in order to best protect their citizens, their communities, and their quality of life. For example:

Routt County, Colorado, requires natural gas producers to sample and test all domestic water wells and springs within a project area and up to two miles beyond the furthest gas well prior to the start of any drilling and monthly thereafter for the life of the well. Companies have to use a qualified, independent water sampling firm and test for inorganic and organic contaminants. I think this is the best baseline testing and ongoing monitoring program in the country.
The city of Grapevine, Texas prohibits any wells within 1,000 feet of a home, school, fresh water well, public park, religious institution, public building, or hospital building. These are the safest setbacks that I know currently exist.
The city of Longmont, Colorado has banned pits of any type, a very important step in reducing the dangers of toxic oil and gas waste.

In what appears to be a backlash at these local protections, the oil and gas industry and its allies in state government are now pushing legislation in states across the country to prevent municipalities from protecting their citizens:

The Pennsylvania legislature just passed a bill that restricts the ability of local governments to zone drilling operations. Instead, municipalities would be required to allow drilling in all areas except for the most densely-populated residential areas.
A bill pending in the Colorado senate would preempt all local regulation of oil and gas operations.
A bill passed by the Idaho house restricts the power of counties to limit drilling or the building of oil and gas infrastructure such as pipelines, dehydration plants or compressors within their borders.

As more local governments work to catch up to the threats posed by oil and gas operations and address the concerns of their constituents, we'll see more efforts to crush these local government efforts. NRDC believes that communities should instead be allowed to protect themselves and their future by restricting dangerous oil and gas operations and establishing strong rules that require the highest environmental standards.

Immediate action should be taken to stop drinking water contamination from leaking natural gas well in Ohio

2012-01-19T04:42:41Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

I just learned from a news article that, in 2008, two families in Medina County, Ohio, reported that their drinking water became contaminated after nearby natural gas drilling and fracking. After the fracking, their water smelled and tasted bad, bubbled, became flammable, and contained a gray slurry of cement. Even though there were documented flaws in the cementing of the wells, state authorities repeatedly told the families that the contamination could not have been caused by the nearby industrial activity. One family has spent $15,000 of its own money for a water cistern so they can have clean and safe water.

In October, 2009, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources documented another source of contamination--an abandoned well near these homes. This natural gas well on a neighbor’s property is not properly sealed and is leaking into the local aquifer.

I am very upset to learn that in two years no action has been taken to reseal that well. This is just one illustration of why Americans across the country do not want new oil or gas drilling in their communities. State or federal regulators should take immediate action to clean up this dangerous contamination. They have the authority to protect an underground source of drinking water. Why haven't they?

New research paper on health impacts near natural gas drilling for humans and animals; U.S. Senate encourages more data; new ozone testing

2012-01-16T22:11:19Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Last week I mentioned a new peer-reviewed paper on the "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health." It has now been posted on the web. This groundbreaking article details 24 cases of animal and owner health problems with potential links to natural gas extraction operations in six states. The authors interviewed veterinarians and analyzed soil, air, water, and medical test results. Among their findings: exposure came from many sources, including hydraulic fracturing fluid spill, drilling fluid spill, stormwater run-off, leaking pit, wastewater dumped on property, wastewater dumped into creek, contaminated water, pipeline leak, compressor station malfunction, and flaring of well. The natural gas production process involves many stages and pieces of equipment, and they all pose threats to the environment. The health impacts discussed include reproductive, neurological, urological, gastrointestinal, dermatological, upper respiratory, burning of eyes, headache, and sudden death. I am going to paste one excerpt here to illustrate how disturbing and important this paper is, and then recommend that you read all 22 pages yourself:

"The most commonly reported symptoms were associated with reproduction. Cattle that have been exposed to wastewater (flowback and/or produced water) or affected well or pond water may have trouble breeding. When bred cows were likewise exposed, farmers reported an increased incidence of stillborn calves with and without congenital abnormalities (cleft palate, white and blue eyes). In each case, farmers reported that in previous years stillborn calves were rare (fewer than one per year). In most cases where diagnostics were pursued, no final diagnosis was made; in other cases, acute liver or kidney failure was most commonly found. Of the seven cattle farms studied in the most detail, 50 percent of the herd, on average, was affected by death and failure of survivors to breed."

On a related matter, this is somewhat dated news but I thought it still important: in the U.S. Senate report on annual appropriations for the Health and Human Services Department (issued in September), the Senate encouraged the Centers for Disease Control to develop a wide variety of baseline community health data that will be tracked over time and will allow communities to monitor the impact of current and future natural gas drilling sites on the health of individuals living nearby. Thanks to Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey for championing this cause. Can anyone honestly disagree with the need for more scientific research data on the health and environmental impacts of living near natural gas production sites?

I was glad to see that a large study is about to begin in Utah regarding high ozone levels. It is eye-opening to see that $5.5 million dollars are being spent to study ozone in Utah alone. Wow. what about the many other dangerous air pollutants stemming from natural gas pollutants? Thanks to the funders: Uintah Impact Mitigation special service district, Western Energy Alliance, Bureau of Land Management’s Utah Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , and in-kind equipment contributions from the state of Utah, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and University of Colorado at Boulder. We hope this is a solid scientific study that leads to useful conclusions.

The Pennsylvania Clean Air Council (CAC) reports that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) is planning to place an ozone monitor in Bradford County near Marcellus Shale operations due to the lack of rural monitors. One is not enough, but it is a start. CAC also reports that PA DEP is currently preparing a Marcellus Shale long-term comprehensive air sampling report, which it says is imperative to determine the extent of the emissions to which Pennsylvania citizens are exposed.

More expert research on the health concerns surrounding natural gas production

2012-01-12T15:34:02Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

A new article on the topic of the health concerns surrounding natural gas production has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly journal published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors of the article found that, despite recognition of the environmental public health concerns related to drilling in the Marcellus Shale, neither state nor national advisory committees selected to respond to these concerns contained recognizable environmental public health expertise. They also found that 62.7% of individuals who testified at a public hearing held by the Department of Energy's Natural Gas Subcommittee and were not in favor of drilling mentioned health concerns.

The public is increasingly concerned about the human and animal health risks from nearby oil and gas production operations. We need to focus a lot more science and research on understanding these risks and how best to prevent them.

Lots of news (bad) about the health risks from oil and gas production

2012-01-11T19:55:53Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Over the last few days there has been a lot of news related to the human health impacts of oil and gas production.

In Erie, Colorado (in the Denver area), moms are complaining about family health symptoms that they think are related to nearby oil and gas drilling, including asthma, dizziness, allergies, gastrointestinal distress, and migraine headaches. These moms are very concerned that drilling is now planned near two elementary schools. There are plenty of data from around the country that oil and gas production operations can emit substantial amounts of toxic air pollutants. Yet this was the response of Encana, the company drilling in Erie: "Health claims based on anecdotal data and not sound science can't be substantiated." But dangerous air pollution can be substantiated with air sampling and other testing. Children's health is at stake. Is Encana telling these moms to take a hike? Or will the company support independent testing and monitoring of the air in the community and fully investigate these complaints?

In Pavillion, Wyoming, the U.S. EPA is investigating contamination of a community's drinking water and has released a draft report for public review. The oil and gas company in Pavillion--also Encana--said EPA is "moving too quickly" and should "start the clock over" for public comment.

Complaints about contaminated air and water related to oil and gas production continue to arise nationwide. I was really pleased to see that a new peer-reviewed research paper entitled "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health" has been accepted for publication in New Solutions, A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy. The paper is authored by Robert E. Oswald, a biochemist and Professor of Molecular Medicine at Cornell University, and Michelle Bamberger, a veterinarian with a master's degree in pharmacology.

The Bamberger/Oswald paper is not posted on line yet (I will update this post when there is a link), but I have seen an early copy. The authors spent a year documenting cases of animal and owner health problems with potential links to natural gas extraction operations in six states. They interviewed veterinarians and analyzed soil, air, water, and medical test results. Their very detailed paper summarizes the results of their investigation and provides several case studies. The authors are very up front about the challenges they faced in obtaining definitive information on the link between hydrocarbon gas drilling and health effects, but they conclude that: "Documentation of cases in six states strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife." The authors make a number of excellent recommendations to protect human and animal health and food safety. Everyone following this topic should read this article.

To shed more light on the human health risks of oil and gas production, a conference was held earlier this week on "Epidemiologic and Public Health Considerations of Shale Gas Production." Industry derided this conference as a "pep-rally against oil and natural gas development," but here are some of the presenters at the conference: Dr. Vikas Kapil, the Chief Medical Officer of the National Center for Environmental Health, Dr. Jerome Paulson, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health & the Environment, and Dr. Roxana Witter, Assistant Research Professor at the Colorado School of Public Health. I attended this conference, and I can assure you that it was nothing like a pep rally. It was, instead, a very serious gathering of environmental health experts from around the country who discussed the available data--and the need for more data and scientific investigation--regarding human health impacts. Dr. Kapil noted: “We don’t have a great handle on the toxicology of fracking chemicals.” Dr. Witter noted that the oil and gas industry had refused to cooperate on an air quality study in Colorado, because the study was "focused on interpreting data for its public health implications."

Doctors at the conference discussed the idea of establishing an independent organization, funded by the industry (because it has the money), to conduct medical and scientific research on the health impacts of oil and gas operations. Models include the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, which was funded by $300 million of tobacco industry money, and the Health Effects Institute, with an $11.5 million budget in 2010, which is half funded by the automotive industry. In Germany, Exxon-Mobil is providing one million euro (about $1.27 million) for an independent scientific study of the risks from shale gas drilling. A neutral facilitator was hired to manage the research, and only researchers without any financial ties to the oil and gas industry are allowed to participate. And as I mentioned recently, Australia has allocated $150 million for a research study.

In the U.S., the oil and gas industry makes fun of our top medical experts and dismisses the concerns of moms worried about the health of their children.

How does fracking affect food safety? No one knows

2012-01-06T18:00:18Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

We've all heard about efforts to protect New York City's watershed from the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Now there is a new effort to protect NYC's foodshed. Chefs for the Marcellus is a group of chefs, restaurateurs, and other food professionals dedicated to protecting the foodshed that supplies much of the produce, dairy and meat products, and beer and wine that they purchase for their establishments. Many of the farms in the New York City area are organic but, even if they aren't, they depend on clean air, water and soil to produce their fresh food and beverages.

Yesterday I blogged about how more research is needed on the health impacts of living near, working near, or otherwise being exposed to oil and gas exploration and production operations, including fracking. This should include research on the food products that are produced near these activities. Farmers and ranchers around the country have reported various unusual health symptoms in their livestock that they believe may be linked to nearby oil and gas operations, including birth defects, stillbirths, blindness, hair loss, poisoning leading to death, low or no milk production, low fertility, smaller litters, and additional unexplained illnesses. A Pennsylvania farmer growing heirloom tomatoes and wine grapes has reported that his water tests found extremely high levels of arsenic, benzene, mercury, and other toxic contaminants after fracking occurred on his property. What is the risk if someone eats any of these food products?

NRDC believes the USDA and independent experts should be investigating the potential impacts on food safety for livestock and crops located near oil and gas extraction sites, including implications for organic certification.

Top U.S. expert: health risks of gas drilling are unknown; Australia way ahead of the U.S.

2012-01-05T21:45:11Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

The nation's top environmental health expert has elaborated on his views that we need more research on the impacts of natural gas drilling on human health and the environment. In a recent e-mail, Dr. Christopher Portier wrote: "Studies should include all the ways people can be exposed, such as through air, water, soil, plants and animals."

Dr. Portier also stated that "We do not have enough information to say with certainty whether shale gas drilling poses a threat to public health." He said that research should include investigation of impacts on livestock and fish that people might eat. NRDC agrees; for years we have been documenting reports from farmers and ranchers about the environmental and health impacts they have observed.

Dr. Portier is the director of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Center for Environmental Health. In September I blogged about Dr. Portier's comment, regarding living near oil and gas operations, that: "In some communities it has been a disaster."

Sadly, we are not aware of any such research going on in the United States. But we might be able to learn something from Australia. The Australian government is allocating roughly US$150 million to establish an independent committee to provide scientific advice on the impact of natural gas projects (in this case in coalbed methane formations) on water supplies. New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, has a temporary ban on fracking, as does Germany's most populous state, North Rhine Westphalia, the Canadian province of Quebec, and South Africa for its Karoo region. France has banned fracking. Moratoria in the U.S. include New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, and fracking is not allowed in North Carolina.

Predatory oil and gas leasing--what it means for mineral owners and mortgages

2011-12-29T20:10:45Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

We've blogged before about how oil and gas leases can put mortgages, title insurance, and homeowners insurance at risk. Journalists are conducting groundbreaking investigations and reporting on these topics. Among the most important findings in recent reports:

The New York Times reviewed more than 111,000 documents and found that fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins.
At least two-thirds of leases reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from mineral owners.
Some leases allow companies to leave toxic waste on the mineral owner's property.
Thousands of mineral owners have joined class action lawsuits claiming that they were paid less than they expected.
Banks have become increasingly reluctant to give new mortgages for properties with gas leases on them.
Leasing may violate the terms of current mortgages, and bank regulators from several state and federal agenies are discussing the implications.
The Times reports that Chesapeake Energy withholds royalty payments from mineral owners who have mortgages unless consent is obtained from their mortgage company.
A Reuters investigation found that more than 100 mineral owners in Michigan are suing Chesapeake Energy for breach of contract and defrauding them. According to Reuters, bonuses promised to mineral owners went unpaid, and many shell companies were set up to allow minerals to be leased from elderly farmers at very low prices.

"Predatory lending" is a term that was coined to describe abusive practices in mortgage lending that took advantage of unknowing homebuyers.

Now in the oil and gas industry there is "predatory leasing." Without any government protections, it is "leaser beware." We strongly recommend that anyone considering leasing their oil or gas resources consult with a knowledgeable oil and gas attorney who represents land and mineral owners. Mineral owners can also find resources on line, such as NRDC's Don't Get Fracked website, and the Landman Report Card.

Why EPA should create new rules for toxic oil and gas waste in 2012

2011-12-27T06:43:21Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

With the void of federal protection from toxic oil and gas waste, states can and should create better rules. As I mentioned in a recent blog post, a new West Virginia law takes one tiny step in that direction. From now on in West Virginia--for horizontal wells only--drill cuttings and other drilling waste can only be buried on someone's property if the surface owner consents.

An article in today's Dominion Post illustrates why rules like this are so important. According to the article, the Teel family in Wetzel County, West Virginia, is suing a division of Chesapeake Energy for permanently damaging and polluting their property and groundwater with toxic natural gas waste. Their complaint says that Chesapeake cleared about five acres on their property and "assured them the land would be suitable for home sites when work was complete." Instead, Chesapeake used that spot for drilling and fracking waste. The Teels say that Chesapeake dumped "foamy, foul-smelling material" into unlined trenches 12-15 feet deep and buried it, and that it is now migrating through the soil and groundwater.

The Teels, like many other Americans, are victims of toxic oil and gas waste that is inadequately regulated. We've blogged about how this waste is getting into the environment and being poorly managed with often minimal oversight in spots around the country. We know how toxic this waste can be, and we also know the industry has better methods that can be used for storing and disposing of it. Why should the Teel family have to pay out of their own pocket for a lawyer to represent them in court to protect their land and water from toxic waste? They don't own mineral rights and are getting zero economic benefit from the oil and gas industry.

One of the disposal methods is underground injection of the waste. While this method is almost always going to be a better option than burial in a residential or agricultural zone, it is the lesser of two evils with its own risks to groundwater, and needs to be improved. EPA just issued a notice that it has entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order with EXCO Resources (PA), LLC for violations of the rules governing underground injection of oil and gas waste. It appears that EXCO kept injecting waste into a well that it knew had failed mechanical integrity, didn't inform EPA of the problem in a timely manner in accordance with the permit, and operated the well at a pressure exceeding its permitted maximum injection pressure.

Before this order was issued, the Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air was alerted to the dozens of trucks that were unloading waste in this location everyday. Concerned about the activity, they paid to test water from nearby springs and report that they found very alarming contamination data. There is not enough information at this point to know if any contamination is linked to the problematic disposal well, but we certainly hope that EPA will be fully investigating the potential groundwater impacts from this toxic waste site.

While it's good to know that EPA is enforcing the law at the Pennsylvania injection well mentioned above, these problems need to be prevented in the first place. EPA's current standards for underground injection wells are not strong enough for toxic oil and gas waste. Disposal wells used for underground injection of toxic waste from other industries are built to much higher standards than those used for oil and gas waste. It is long past time for national oil and gas waste rules to be strengthened--for pits, undergound diposal wells, and other methods currently used by the industry.

NRDC has asked the U.S. EPA to write new rules for toxic oil and gas waste. The current rules have not been updated since the late 1980s. Needless to say, a lot has changed since then, as documented in our petition to EPA. We hope the EPA will take up this issue in 2012.

Water experts concerned about health risks of fracking

2011-12-22T16:49:33Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) includes members of the general public, state and local agencies, and private groups concerned with safe drinking water. It advises the EPA Administrator on everything relating to drinking water and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

According to a recent article in Inside EPA (available by subscription only), at a December 15 meeting, members of the Council raised questions about the lack of information regarding the human health risks from fracking, and expressed concern about the EPA's limited authority to regulate the practice.

I am pleased to hear the Council is following this issue, and hope in the future its members encourage EPA to do more to inform the public about the health risks.

Many hazards from natural gas gathering lines remain, despite new pipeline safety law

2011-12-20T16:27:17Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

This guest blog was researched and written by NRDC Legal Fellow Matthew McFeeley, and updated on December 22 with a clarification:

Recent developments in our natural gas system have shown serious gaps in the country's pipeline safety standards. Although, in a rare show of bipartisan cooperation, Congress recently sent a pipeline safety bill to the President, the bill does not address all issues related to pipeline safety.

In transporting natural gas, there are three kinds of pipelines: (a) “gathering lines” transport the gas from the wellpads to a larger pipeline system; (b) “transmission” lines then deliver the gas to distribution companies, frequently traveling long distances; (c) finally, “distribution” lines are the small lines that carry the gas to consumers and businesses.*

As noted in a recent Philadelphia Inquirer article, gathering lines in a defined rural area** are completely unregulated; there are no rules for pipe thickness or strength, welding, burial depth, or inspections. Gathering lines in other areas are subject to regulations, but they are much weaker than those for transmission lines. This may be because, historically, gathering lines were smaller and thought to be less risky. But many gathering lines today are as big as, or bigger than, many transmission lines and may operate at the same extremely high pressures. New gathering lines can be more than 24 inches in diameter and operate at pressures upwards of 1400 pounds per square inch.

This is bad news when it comes to the safety of gathering lines. Compounding the problem, it gives companies an incentive to classify pipelines as gathering lines even when they travel long distances at high pressure. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has allowed this to happen by failing to create strong regulations. Instead, the agency refers companies to a manual on classification produced by an industry group. Not surprisingly, the industry manual allows pipeline operators to interpret the rules such that many of their lines remain unregulated.

In 2010, 240 reported natural gas pipeline safety incidents in the United States killed 21 people and injured 105 others. These numbers are sobering. But the statistics do not include accidents along gathering lines in rural areas. Because those gathering lines are unregulated, the operators of gathering lines aren’t required to report accidents. So there is no reliable information concerning how many more accidents are occurring on lines where there is no oversight.

The Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the safety of our nation’s pipeline system, recently outlined a number of recommendations to address the many dangers that pipelines continue to pose. The recommendations include:

Requiring PHMSA to regulate all pipelines including gathering lines
Mandating remote or automatic shutoff valves on transmission pipelines
Requiring more pipelines to accommodate and use “smart pigs” (inspection devices which can be inserted in a pipeline and can travel along the length of the pipe in order to assess structural integrity and flow restrictions)
Requiring operators to have tools to recognize and pinpoint locations of leaks and line breaks

The new pipeline safety bill is a small step forward, but it does not include these priorities. Among other things, the bill will double the maximum fine for safety violations and very modestly increase the number of safety inspectors. The country still has a long way to go when it comes to improving pipeline safety. A year of major accidents and missteps by pipeline operators and regulators alike has revealed serious flaws in the safety of our nation's pipelines. In addition to the problem of an aging pipeline system, pipelines are transporting increasing volumes of corrosive products like raw tar sands.

* It's important to note that there are other lines which PHMSA doesn't even consider "pipelines" and, as a result, are completely unregulated by PHMSA. The pipes, called "flow lines" or "production piping," transport a mixture of oil, gas and/or water that emerges from the well through the production process (which includes separation, dehydration, and metering). It's not until after this production process that gathering lines begin. In natural gas production these activities often occur on the wellpad. However, when these activities occur far from a well, long unregulated flow lines may pose a significant risk of breakage, spills or even explosions. For a more detailed article on where gathering lines begin and end, go here.

** Ten or fewer homes within a quarter-mile right-of-way of the pipeline in any mile-long stretch of pipe.

Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination

2011-12-19T06:15:09Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Updated: December 19, 2011

NRDC supports federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We believe this is a sensible approach that would ensure a minimum federal floor of drinking water protection in the more than 30 states where oil and gas production occurs.

Opponents of such regulation claim that hydraulic fracturing has never caused any drinking water contamination. They say this because incidents of drinking water contamination where hydraulic fracturing is considered as a suspected cause have not been sufficiently investigated, either because scientists and regulators could not properly investigate (did not have the information or technology needed) or because they chose not to, even where signs point to hydraulic fracturing. Some cases where groundwater was contaminated during hydraulic fracturing operations have been attributed to other causes, such as faulty well structure, even if a well failed during the hydraulic fracturing process.

Below is a list of incidents where drinking water has been contaminated and hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause. I can't emphasize enough that there are more cases of drinking water contamination around the country related to oil and gas production; those listed below are cases where a homeowner had enough detailed knowledge to know that a nearby well was recently fractured and specifically included that information in reports. In many cases of drinking water contamination where hydraulic fracturing has not been mentioned as the cause, it may be because the homeowner does not know if the nearby gas well was recently fractured. It does not mean that hydraulic fracturing is completely absolved. As you will see, these cases are not limited to just one company or one state. The stories from around the country are unfortunately familiar.

Please send me other incidents of which you are aware, and I will add them to this list.

Arkansas: In 2008, Charlene Parish of Bee Branch reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. Her water smelled bad, turned yellow, and filled with silt.

Arkansas: In 2007, the Graetz family in Pangburn reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. The water turned muddy and contained particles that were “very light and kind of slick” and resembled pieces of leather.

Arkansas: In 2009, a family in Bee Branch, who wishes to remain anonymous, reported changes in water pressure and drinking water that turned gray and cloudy and had noxious odors after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company.

Arkansas: In 2007, a family in Center Ridge reported changes in water pressure and water that turned red or orange and looked like it had clay in it after hydraulic fracturing of nearby wells owned by Southwestern Energy Company. They told their story on YouTube.

Arkansas: In 2008, a homeowner in Center Ridge reported changes in water pressure and water that turned brown, smelled bad, and had sediment in it after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. He also told his story on YouTube.

Colorado: In 2001, two families in Silt reported a water well blow-out and contamination of their drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of four nearby natural gas wells owned by Ballard Petroleum, now Encana Corporation. Their drinking water turned gray, had strong smells, bubbled, and lost pressure. One family reported health symptoms they believe are linked to the groundwater contamination.

Colorado: In 2007, the Bounds family in Huerfano County reported a pump house exploded and contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of nearby wells owned by Petroglyph Energy.

Colorado: In June, 2010, the day hydraulic fracturing began on a nearby gas well in Las Animas County, landowner Tracy Dahl checked his cistern and found approximately 500 gallons of grayish brown murky water where water had previously run clear for years. The Dahls have extensive water testing documentation going back many years, verifying that their water has always been clean and clear. They were told by Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) staff that the water could not be tested for chemicals in the hydraulic fracturing fluid because there is insufficient information about the chemicals used. Three monitor wells on the ranch are now producing methane at an escalating rate.

New Mexico: A 2004 investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found two residents who reported that the quality of their water was affected by hydraulic fracturing.

New York: In 2007, the Lytle family in Seneca County reported contamination of drinking water the morning after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Chesapeake Energy Corporation. The water turned gray and was full of sediment.

New York: In 2009, the Eddy family in Allegany County reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by U.S. Energy Development Corporation. The water turned "foamy, chocolate-brown."

North Dakota: The North Dakota non-profit organization Bakken Watch reports very serious health symptoms in humans, livestock, and pets after nearby hydraulic fracturing. Their website has photos of sick animals, pit leaks, and corroded tanks. North Dakota state legislators admit they are "understaffed and overwhelmed" and "struggling to provide adequate oversight amid an explosion of activity in North Dakota's oil patch."

Ohio: In 2007, there was an explosion of a water well and contamination of at least 22 other drinking water wells in Bainbridge Township after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Ohio Valley Energy Systems. According to the State investigation, one of the contributing factors to this incident is that: “the frac communicated directly with the well bore and was not confined within the “Clinton” reservoir.”

Pennsylvania: A gas well near the home of the Simons family in Bradford County was drilled in 2009 and re-fracked in February, 2011. Shortly after the 2011 operation, the Simons family reports that their tap water turned gray and hazy. After the water changed, family members began getting severe rashes with oozing blisters, and one child had to be taken to the hospital for torrential nosebleeds that would not stop, nausea and severe headaches. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) tested the water and found very high levels of methane and other contaminants in the water, but said it was safe to drink. Since the Simons family stopped using any of their water, these symptoms have gone away but the water still “stinks awfully; it is a scummy, rotten, nasty smell...”

Pennsylvania: In September, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by 13 families who say they have been and continue to be exposed to contaminated drinking water linked to hydraulic fracturing. Eight different properties in Susquehanna County are said to have contaminated drinking water. One child has neurological symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic substances. Southwestern Energy, the company operating the well near these families, responded that it promptly investigated all complaints and that both the company and the Pennsylvania Department of the Environment independently tested the water and found no link between gas operations and the water quality and no problems with the integrity of the gas well.

Pennsylvania: In 2009, the Zimmerman family of Washington County reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Atlas Energy. Water testing on their farm found arsenic at 2,600 times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits, naphthalene at five times the federal standard, and mercury and selenium levels above official limits.

Pennsylvania: In 2008, two families in Gibbs Hill reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Seneca Resources Corporation. Their water had strong fumes, caused burning in lungs and sinuses after showering, and caused burning in the mouth immediately upon drinking. The state found that the company had not managed the pressure in the well properly and had spilled used hydraulic fracturing fluids that contaminated the drinking water supply.

Pennsylvania: In 2009, families in Bradford Township reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Schreiner Oil & Gas. The drinking water of at least seven families has been contaminated.

Pennyslvania: In 2009, the Smitsky family in Hickory reported contamination of their drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Range Resources. Their water became cloudy and foul-smelling. Testing found acrylonitrile, a chemical that may be used in hydraulic fracturing.

Pennsylvania: A family in Bradford County reports that its water turned black and became flammable from methane contamination in 2009 after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well operated by Chesapeake Energy. The water cleared for a while but turned black again in 2010. Relatives living down the road also report their water turning black in 2010.

Texas: Larry Bisidas is an expert in drilling wells and in groundwater. He is the owner of Bisidas Water Well Drilling in Wise County, and has been drilling water wells for 40 years. Two water wells on his property became contaminated in 2010. When his state regulator stated that there has been no groundwater contamination in Texas related to hydraulic fracturing, Mr. Bisidas replied: ""All they've gotta do is come out to my place, and I'll prove it to them."

Texas: In Wise County, Catherine and Brett Bledsoe report that their drinking water became contaminated in 2010 soon after hydraulic fracturing began on two natural gas wells bordering their property. The water stung their eyes during showers, and their animals refused to drink the water. Without any assistance from regulators, the Bledsoes paid for their own water testing. The testing found benzene, a known carcinogen, at double the safe levels.

Texas: In 2007, three families who share an aquifer in Grandview reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by Williams. They experienced strong odors in their water, changes in water pressure, skin irritation, and dead livestock. Water testing found toluene and other contaminants.

Texas: The Scoma family in Johnson County is suing Chesapeake Energy, claiming the company contaminated their drinking water with benzene and petroleum by-products after hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells near the Scoma home. The family reports that its drinking water sometimes runs an orange-yellow color, tastes bad and gives off a foul odor.

Texas: Tarrant County Commissioner J.D. Johnson, who lives in the Barnett shale area, reported groundwater contamination immediately after two gas wells on his property were hydraulically fractured. His water turned a dark gold color and had sand in it.

Texas: Carol Grosser, in south Texas, noticed changes in her water after a neighbor told her a nearby well was being hydraulically fractured. Carol noticed changes in her water pressure and rust-colored residue in her stock tanks. The fish in her tanks died, and some of her goats had abnormal milk production and produced kids with unusual birth defects.

Texas: Toby Frederick began noticing a foul odor and discoloration in his water after "an oil company blew out some casing during a hydraulic fracturing job northeast of his property." Mr. Frederick paid for his own water samples, which found traces of benzene, a known carcinogen, in his water. He sent samples to his local Ground Water Conservation District, but never received any results. The Texas Railroad Commission told him his water was drinkable, even though it is brown and smells like diesel fuel.

Texas: The Executive Director of the Upper Trinity River Groundwater Conservation District in north Texas stated that the District "gets 'regular reports' from property owners who said that 'since a particular [gas] well had been fracked, they've had problems' with their water wells, such as sand in them, saltier water or reduced water output...."

Texas: Susan Knoll in the Barnett shale reports that last year her drinking water became foamy right after hydraulic fracturing of a well adjacent to her property. Since that time, additional gas wells have been fractured near her home and her drinking water has continually gotten worse. It sometimes foams, becomes oily, and has strong odors that burn Susan's nose when she smells her water. Susan has a lot of videos and more information on her blog.

Texas: Grace Mitchell, a resident of Johnson County, Texas, is suing Encana and Chesapeake. According to her lawsuit, soon after drilling and hydraulic fracturing took place near her home in 2010, her water became contaminated, feeling slick to the touch and giving off an oily, gasoline-like odor. Testing results performed on her well water confirmed it was contaminated with various chemicals, including C-12-C28 hydrocarbons, similar to diesel fuel.

Texas: The Harris family of Denton County, Texas, is suing Devon Energy. They say that their water became contaminated soon after Devon commenced drilling and hydraulic fracturing near their home in 2008, and that their water became polluted with a gray sediment. Testing results performed on the well water found contamination with high levels of metals: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, lithium, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, strontium, titanium, vanadium, and zinc.

Virginia: Citizens reported drinking water contamination after hydraulic fracturing. Water was murky and had oily films, black sediments, methane, and diesel odors. Individuals experienced rashes from showering. The Buchanan Citizens Action Group reported over 100 documented complaints of adverse effects of hydraulic fracturing and the Dickenson County Citizens Committee reported ground water quality deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of hydraulic fracturing events.

West Virginia: The Hagy family in Jackson County, West Virginia, is suing four oil and gas companies for contaminating their drinking water. They say their water had "a peculiar smell and taste" and the parents as well as their two children are suffering from neurological symptoms. A news article reports that the lawsuit makes the connection between the drinking water contamination and the hydraulic fracturing process.

West Virginia: In Marshall County, Jeremiah Magers reported in October, 2010, that "As soon as they 'fracked' those gas wells, that's when my water well started getting gas in it." He also lost all the water in his well.

West Virginia: In Wetzel County, Marilyn Hunt reported to the EPA in 2010 that: "frac drilling is contaminating the drinking water here." Residents report health symptoms, such as rashes and mouth sores, as well as illness in their lambs and goats, which they suspect is linked to drinking water contamination.

Wyoming: Families in the small town of Pavillion have been reporting contamination of their drinking water for at least ten years. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in the many wells in the area owned by Encana Corporation. Drinking water has turned black, smelled bad, and tasted bad. Individuals report medical symptoms they believe are related to water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found contamination in 11 water wells, and concluded in the draft report on its investigation that: "the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing."

Last updated: December 19, 2011

Geochemistry scientist on fracking: "The problem is going to get worse, not better"

2011-12-19T06:11:21Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

I recommend a very informative interview with Karlis Muehlenbachs, a professor of geochemistry at the University of Alberta who has researched contamination of groundwater by natural gas. Dr. Muehlenbachs states: "The shale gas boom combined with hydraulic fracking will cause wellbores to leak more often than run-of-the-mill conventional wells. The problem is going to get worse, not better."

He also makes a point that NRDC has also been making for a while -- the oil and gas industry has the technical ability to reduce risk: "The biggest problem is that half or more the wells drilled leak due to improper cement jobs or industry is not following best practices."

The oil and gas industry repeatedly states that hydraulic fracturing is safe and has never contaminated groundwater. It's true that, until recently, there have not been scientifically grounded independent investigations that seek to fully understand the role of fracking in most groundwater contamination incidents . One exception is the investigation of the groundwater contamination in Bainbridge Township, Ohio, where the state found that one of the contributing factors was: “the frac communicated directly with the well bore and was not confined within the “Clinton” reservoir.” Others are the current EPA investigation into the groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming, and the larger EPA study looking into other cases around the country.

Companies can and should be following better standards to reduce the risk to groundwater from fracking. Since they're not, groundwater contamination continues to occur around the country. To protect human health and the environment, it is essential that there are stronger government regulations at both the state and federal level.

West Virginia: used to be "almost heaven," now is hell for some residents near natural gas operations

2011-12-16T23:29:05Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Earlier this week the West Virginia legislature passed a bill to create some new rules for natural gas drilling in the Marcellus shale. It's a perfect example of the vicious cycle we have seen around the country -- residents complain about contaminated water and poisoned air, states pass bills that create some new rules that don't do all that is necessary to reduce risk to public health and the environment, more people complain as the industry continues to expand, states go back to the drawing board. We have recently seen this in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. States should instead be jumping ahead of the curve (and they are perfectly capable of doing so because the better technologies are not rocket science), but they're not.

The West Virginia Surface Owners' Rights Organization (WVSORO) says: "We are beyond disappointed that the Governor and Legislature weren't willing to do more for surface owners to help them have their rights recognized and respected." They have details on the legislation on their website. WVSORO points out one highlight of the bill: For horizontal wells only, drill cuttings and other drilling waste can only be buried on someone's property if the surface owner consents. It takes so much to shock me these days, but I honestly cannot believe that the West Virginia Governor’s bill would have continued to allow on-site burial of toxic waste on a surface owner's land without their consent. Unbelievable.

The bill also increases fees so that the state can hire more inspectors. That's a good thing.

But a guest editorial in the Huntington News points out that the bill provides more protection for trout than for humans.

What's it like to be in West Virginia drilling hell? There's a good feature story that relates what West Virginia residents are facing, just published in Guernica, an on-line magazine.

Another Loophole for the Oil and Gas Industry in the Clean Railroads Act

2011-12-14T18:55:05Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

This post was researched and written by NRDC Legal Fellow Matthew McFeeley:

Guess what? There is another loophole for the oil and gas industry in a federal environmental law. As NRDC has reported before, over the years the industry has persuaded Congress to carve out special exceptions in our major environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the infamous “Halliburton loophole” that exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry has spent billions lobbying Congress for special treatment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the industry spent $146 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2010 alone.

Here’s another special exemption that not many people know about: the loophole for toxic oil and gas waste in the Clean Railroads Act of 2008. Prior to 2008, a federal statute called the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) restricted states’ ability to enforce their environmental, health and safety regulations at solid waste transfer facilities located at railroad sites. Congress passed the Clean Railroads Act (CRA) to close this loophole, which was a good thing, because it helped states clean up sites with construction debris and other dangerous waste. But the CRA did not close the loophole all the way--instead it left the loophole open for oil and gas wastes. As a result, states still have limited authority to enforce their environmental, health or safety regulations at any facilities where oil and gas waste is transferred “by or on behalf of” a railroad.

This oil and gas loophole is now having real impacts. According to a recent article from Pennsylvania from Below, the residents of Sunbury, Pennsylvania are discovering what a dirty and risky problem the CRA loophole can be. Without warning to nearby residents or local officials, a company called Moran Industries opened an oil and gas waste transfer facility in January, 2011 at a site with an old rail connection in their neighborhood. Residents report that trucks filled with natural gas production waste now rumble through their neighborhood, where the waste is loaded onto railcars at the site before being transported to Ohio. The material looks like a combination of soil and rock, and has a strong chemical odor. The residents want answers about what is contained in the waste, but have no way of knowing if it contains hazardous chemicals. Given the presence of highly toxic substances in natural gas waste, including the naturally-occurring radioactive materials in Pennsylvania’s natural gas fields, their concern is legitimate.

Moran claims the site is being operated by or on behalf of Norfolk Southern Railroad. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been investigating the site for almost a year, but has yet to determine on whose behalf it is being operated. If the DEP finds that Moran Industries is not operating on behalf of a railroad, then the site would be subject to state regulation. But the DEP has not made any indication when its decision will be made. Meanwhile, trucks full of oil and gas waste continue to unload at the site without oversight.

Without any state oversight, the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) has jurisdiction over an oil and gas waste transfer site at a railroad facility. But, according to STB staff, the agency doesn’t conduct any environmental analysis or permitting of a facility unless a new rail line is built or an old one is abandoned. So, unless the state decides to regulate, the facility in Sunbury will continue to operate without any oversight whatsoever, and the public has no information about the nature of the waste, how it is being managed, or what measures—if any—ensure the public is protected.

NRDC has asked EPA to write new rules for all oil and gas waste because the waste can be very toxic--but is currently not subject to any hazardous waste regulations. There should not be any loopholes for this toxic waste, especially in the middle of communities. All that spending on lobbying seems to be paying off for the oil and gas industry. But it may be costing the residents of Sunbury and similar communities dearly. Congress should close the CRA loophole—along with all other loopholes— for toxic oil and gas waste.

Thanks to Mark Szybist at PennFuture for providing us with information on this important issue and for his efforts to get the Pennsylvania DEP to regulate the facility.