Tag Archives: hydraulic fracturing

The Curious Case of Fracking: Questions from the Road

ConcernedScientists

(From ConcernedScientists) Over the past few weeks, we talked to people in communities around Los Angeles and asked them about their thoughts on hydraulic fracturing* (“fracking”) and what questions they might have. Here’s a small sample of what we found.

Please Respond by 10pm Tonight – Support the Ban on Horizontal Drilling (Fracking) in the George Washington National Forest

Support the Ban on Horizontal Drilling (Fracking) in the George Washington National Forest

428 acres of which are located in Monroe County.

This ban is proposed by the Forest Service in their Draft Management Plan which was released for public review in 2011.

URGENT: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED (please respond by return email before Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 10 pm)

If you would like to support this action, please GO HERE and send us a note with your name and we will add you to our petition of supporters…thank you!

Dear Supporters,

The US Forest Service is in the process of making their final decision on whether or not to allow fracking in the George Washington National Forest, 428 acres of which are located in Monroe County (see map below). Many counties and cities in Virginia have written letters supporting the ban on fracking proposed by the US Forest Service in their Draft Management Plan, released for public review in 2011. (See June 5, 2013 Watchman article below). Nevertheless, recent pressure from the gas industry could cause the Forest Service to withdraw the ban from the Final Management Plan which will govern activity in the forest for the next 15-20 years. While the amount of recoverable gas in this area of the Marcellus may not be significant, the Utica shale which lies under it could contain significant reserves.

SWTO prepared an informational packet for each of our County Commissioners and attended their meeting on Wednesday, June 5th to request that they write a letter to the US Forest Service in support of the ban. It would be helpful for the Commissioners to hear from their constituents.

If you would like to sign the following letter encouraging the County Commission to let the US Forest Service know that Monroe County, WV supports the ban on fracking in the GW National Forest, PLEASE send your response by return email with your full name, place of residence and zipcode. Husbands, wives and children of voting age may sign separately.

Example: Please sign my name – JOHN DOE, Union, 24983

THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION!

Letter to the County Commission from the Residents of Monroe County

To the attention of Shane Ashley, Bill Miller and Clyde Gum:

Dear Commissioners,

We, the undersigned citizens of Monroe County respectfully urge our County Commission to write a letter to the U.S. Forest Service supporting the ban on horizontal drilling (fracking) in the George Washington National Forest, 428 acres of which are located in Monroe County. This ban is proposed by the Forest Service in their Draft Management Plan which was released for public review in 2011.

A ban on horizontal drilling in the forest will protect drinking water supplies, enable ongoing recreational use of the forest and preserve the forest for future generations.

Sincerely,
List of Monroe County Residents

Article in The Watchmen, June 5, 2013

US FOREST SERVICE PROPOSES BAN ON FRACKING IN THE GW NATIONAL FOREST
The beautiful George Washington and Jefferson National Forests combine to form one of the largest areas of public land on the east coast. Together, they cover vast sections of the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky.

The George Washington National Forest alone hosts more than a million visitors each year and is a direct source of drinking water for over 262,000 people including the residents of Monroe County who live in the 71 square mile area located within the West Virginia portion of the James River Watershed. The entire forest is located within the watersheds of the James and Potomac Rivers which together supply drinking water to the 4.5 million people living in northern Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metro area.

The US Forest Service is currently in the process of revising the George Washington National Forest Land Management Plan. 428 acres of the GW National Forest are located in Monroe County, approximately 3 miles northeast of Moncove Lake State Park, the county’s recreational haven. The beautiful Cove Creek originates from springs in this pastoral section of the county and winds through the heart of the 428 national forest acres, known as the Cove Creek Wildlife Management Area (see map).

The Forest Service released a Draft Plan for public review and comment in 2011 recommending a ban on fracking (horizontal drilling) in the GW Forest.* Without this ban, the Cove Creek Wildlife Management Area and other sections of the GW National Forest would be open for fracking. A ban of this type would contribute to preserving the integrity of the forest but would not affect shale gas development on private land.

Soon after the release of the Draft Plan, 11 local governments surrounding the GW submitted letters in support of the Forest Service’s proposed ban: Roanoke, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, and Staunton, and the counties of Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Rockbridge, Rockingham, and Shenandoah. They expressed concerns over fracking in the GW and characterized the decision made by the Forest Service as a well-justified and sensible precaution in light of the documented environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Additionally, comments supporting the Forest Service’s proposed ban were filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, and two major metropolitan water suppliers—the Fairfax County Water Authority and the Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct, which supplies Washington, D.C. and Arlington County and Falls Church, VA.**

Bipartisan public opinion has also come out strongly in favor of not opening up the GW to horizontal drilling. Over 95% of the 53,000 people who submitted comments to the Forest Service, support the Forest Service decision to ban horizontal drilling for natural gas in the George Washington National Forest.***

In support of the ban, former USDA Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Rupert Cutler sent a letter to his successor, the Honorable Harris Sherman, USDA Undersecretary urging him to use his “authority to prevent the opening of the George Washington National Forest to hydro-fracking for the development of natural gas.”****

This summer, the U.S. Forest Service is expected to release the final forest management plan for the GW, which will guide all activity in the over one million-acre forest for the next 15-20 years. Although the Forest Service is aware of the potential threat fracking would pose to public water supplies, fish and wildlife habitat, and the recreational opportunities in the GW, due to pressure from the gas industry, there is a possibility the Forest Service would withdraw the proposed ban on fracking.

The Forest Service listens to the public and was instrumental in keeping the APCO power line out of Monroe County. In a recent phone conversation, US Forest Service Planning Staff Officer Ken Landgraf expressed his keen interest in hearing the opinion of a County Commission in the West Virginia section of the GW National Forest. It is not too late for residents to ask the Monroe County Commission to submit a letter supporting the ban on fracking proposed by the Forest Service. For individual Monroe County residents, there is still time to send public comments and letters to the US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (agsec@usda.gov)

Footnotes & References

* To view a summary of the 2011 Draft Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, please go to: https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5323642.pdf To view the entire 2011 Draft Forest Plan, please go to: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5297819.pdf

** To view the letters from cities and counties in Virginia supporting the ban on fracking, go to: http://www.svnva.org/index.cfm/1,135,529,0,html/County-City-Urge-Forest-Officials-to-Protect-Water.

*** Analysis of the 53,000 public comments was compiled by the Shenandoah Valley Network, a Virginia based non-profit organization whose Public and Local Government Comment Analysis (2012)is available at http://www.svnva.org/ass/library/10/svn-gwnf-comment-analysis-2012.pdf.

All the comments are available on the US government website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5337589

**** Excerpt from the letter to the Honorable Harris Sherman, USDA Undersecretary, quoted by permission from Rupert Cutler.

Protect the Children

PEHSU Information on Natural Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing for Health Professionals

The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSU) Network encourage families, pediatricians, and communities to work together to ensure that children are protected from exposure to environmental hazards.

Background: Natural gas extraction from shale is a complex process which includes: 1) building access roads, centralized water and flowback holding ponds and of the site itself ; 2) construction of pipe lines and compressor stations; 3) drilling ; 4) hydraulic fracturing; 5) capturing the natural gas; 6) and disposal (or recycling) of, flowback water and drill cuttings.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as hydrofracking or fracking, uses a combination of water, sand, and chemicals injected into the ground under high pressure to release natural gas. The HF process is also used in some parts of the country for extracting oil. This process has become much more common in the US over the last decade. It was first used for natural gas in Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas. The practice has recently spread into other states, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York.

August 2011

Health Issues: Questions regarding the possible health effects of Natural gas extraction/Hydraulic fracturing (NGE/HF) have been raised about water and air quality. To ensure that children’s health is part of the ongoing evaluation of possible human health effects of NGE/HF, the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) network, which consists of experts throughout the country dedicated to preventing adverse pediatric health outcomes from environmental causes, developed this fact sheet. A distinct challenge in discussing these possible health effects is the lack of research regarding the human health effects of NGE/HF. Most of the research to date focuses on ecosystem health. Because many questions remain unanswered, the PEHSU network recommends a precautionary approach to toxicants in general and to the NGE/HF process specifically.

Water Contamination: One of the potential routes of exposure to toxics from the NGE/HF process is the contamination of drinking water, including public water supplies and private wells. This can occur when geologic fractures extend into groundwater or from leaks from the natural gas well if it passes through the water table. In addition, drilling fluid, chemical spills, and disposal pit leaks may contaminate surface water supplies. A study conducted in New York and Pennsylvania found that methane contamination of private drinking water wells was associated with proximity to active natural gas drilling. (Osborne SG, et al., 2011). While many of the chemicals used in the drilling and fracking process are proprietary, the list includes benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, ethylene glycol, glutaraldehyde and other biocides, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen treated light petroleum distillates. These substances have a wide spectrum of potential toxic effects on humans ranging from cancer to adverse effects on the reproductive, neurological, and endocrine systems (ATSDR, Colborn T, et al, U.S. EPA 2009).

Air Pollution: Sources of air pollution around a drilling facility include diesel exhaust from the use of machinery and heavy trucks, and fugitive emissions from the drilling and NGE/HF processes. These air pollutants are associated with a spectrum of adverse health outcomes in humans. Increases in particulate matter air pollution, for example, have been linked to respiratory illnesses, wheezing in infants, cardiovascular events, and premature death (Laden F, et al, Lewtas J, Ryan PH, et al, Sacks JD, et al). Since each fracturing event at each well requires up to 2,400 industrial truck trips, residents near the site and along the truck routes may be exposed to increased levels of these air pollutants (New York State DECDMR, 2009).
Volatile organic compounds can escape capture from the wells and combine with nitrogen oxides to produce ground-level ozone (CDPHE 2008, CDPHE 2010). Due to its inflammatory effects on the respiratory tract, ground-level ozone has been linked to asthma exacerbations and respiratory deaths. Elevated ozone levels have been found in rural areas of Wyoming, partially attributed to natural gas drilling in these locations. (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2010). In an air sampling study from 2005 to 2007 conducted in Colorado, researchers found that air benzene concentrations approached or exceeded health-based standards at sites associated with oil or gas drilling (Garfield County PHD, 2007). Benzene exposure during pregnancy has been associated with neural tube defects (Lupo PJ, et al), decreased birth parameters (Slama R, et al., 2009), and childhood leukemia (Whitworth KW, et al., 2008).

Noise Pollution: Noise pollution from the drilling process and resulting truck traffic has not been optimally evaluated, but since drilling sites have been located in close proximity to housing in many locations, noise from these industrial sources might impact sleep, and that has been associated with negative effects on learning and other aspects of daily living (Stansfeld SA, et al., 2003, WHO 2011).

Special Susceptibility of Children: Children are more vulnerable to environmental hazards. They eat, drink, and breathe more than adults on a pound for pound basis. Research has also shown that children are not able to metabolize some toxicants as well as adults due to immature detoxification processes. Moreover, the fetus and young child are in a critical period of development when toxic exposures can have profound negative effects.

Recommendations: In light of the lack of research investigating the potential adverse human health effects from gas and oil well operations located in close proximity to human habitation, as well as considering the unique vulnerability of children, the PEHSU network recommends the following:

  • Continuing the surveillance of water quality, noise levels, and air pollution in areas where NGE/HF sites are located near communities.
  • Monitoring the health impacts of persons living in the area, preferably with cohort studies.
  • Increasing the awareness of community healthcare providers about the possible health consequences of exposures from the NGE/HF processes, including occupational exposures to workers and the issue of take-home toxics (e.g., clothing and boots contaminated with drilling muds).
  • Disclosure of all chemicals used in the drilling and NGE/HF and product dewatering to ensure that acute exposures are handled appropriately and to ensure that surveillance programs are optimized.
  • Given the short half-lives of volatile organic compounds and the fact that many of the NGE/HF chemicals have not been disclosed, biologic testing should not be pursued unless there has been a known, direct exposure.
  • In addition to the annual testing for coliforms and nitrates recommended by the U.S. EPA and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the AAP guidance recommends that families with private drinking water wells in NGE/HF areas should consider testing the wells before drilling begins and on a regular basis thereafter for chloride, sodium, barium, strontium, and VOCs in consultation with their local or state health department.

As invaluable resources for their local, state, and regional communities, health professionals should advocate for human health effects to be a part of the discussion regarding NGE/HF.
For further information, please contact your regional Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, available at www.pehsu.net.

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Toxicological profile for Benzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Committee on Environmental Health and Committee on Infectious Disease. Drinking Water from Private Wells and Risks to Children. Pediatrics 2009;123:1599-1605.

Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M. Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective. IN PRESS: Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, September 4, 2010. Expected publication: September-October 2011.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Public Health Implications of Ambient Air Exposures as Measured in Rural and Urban Oil & Gas Development Areas – an Analysis of 2008 Air Sampling Data, Garfield County, Colorado. 2010.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Public Health Implications of Ambient Air Exposures to Volatile Organic Compounds as Measured in Rural, Urban, and Oil & Gas Development Areas, Garfield County, Colorado. 2008.

Etzel RA, ed., American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Committee on Environmental Health. Noise. In: Pediatric Environmental Health. 2nd ed. Elk Gove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003:311-321.

Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague WG. Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 2001;285:897-905.

Garfield County Public Health Department (GCPHD). Garfield County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Study June 2005-May 2007. G. C. P. H. Department. Garfield County, CO.
Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Association of fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in six U.S. Cities. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 October; 108(10): 941–947.

Lewtas J. Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects. Mutat Res. 2007 Nov-Dec; 636(1-3):95-133.

Lupo PJ, Symanski E, Waller DK, Chan W, Langlois PH, Canfield MA, Mitchell LE. 2011. Maternal Exposure to Ambient Levels of Benzene and Neural Tube Defects among Offspring: Texas, 1999–2004. Environ Health Perspect 119:397-402.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Mineral Resources. Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. 2009.

Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. PNAS 2011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100682108

Pandya RJ, Solomon G, Kinner A, Balmes JR. Diesel Exhaust and Asthma: Hypotheses and Molecular Mechanisms of Action. Environ Health Perspect 110(suppl 1):103-112 (2002).
Rodier, PM. Developing brain as a target of toxicity. Environ Health Perspect. 1995 Sept; 103(Suppl 6):73-76.

Ryan PH, LeMasters GK, Biswas P, Levin L, Hu S, Lindsey M, Bernstein DI, Lockey J, Villareal M, Khurana Hershey GK, Grinshpun SA. A Comparison of Proximity and Land Use Regression Traffic Exposure Models and Wheezing in Infants. Environ Health Perspect. 2007; 115:278-284.

Sacks JD, Stanek LW, Luben TJ, Johns DO, Buckley BJ, Brown JS, et al. 2011. Particulate Matter–Induced Health Effects: Who Is Susceptible? Environ Health Perspect 119:446-454.

Slama R, Thiebaugeorges O, Goua V, Aussel L, Sacco P, Bohet A, et al. 2009. Maternal Personal Exposure to Airborne Benzene and Intrauterine Growth. Environ Health Perspect 117:1313-1321.

Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68: 243–257.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Outdoor Air – Industry, Business, and Home: Oil and Natural Gas Production – Additional Information. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/oil- gas_addl_info.html. Last updated 06/05/09. Accessed 04/21/11.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health assessment document for diesel engine exhaust. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality; EPA/600/8-90/057F. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA; PB2002-107661, and http://www.epa.gov/ncea

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Private Drinking Water Wells. http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/well/faq.cfm. Last updated 05/04/11. Accessed 04/29/11.

Whitworth KW, Symanski E, Coker AL 2008. Childhood Lymphohematopoietic Cancer Incidence and Hazardous Air Pollutants in Southeast Texas, 1995–2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:1576-1580.

World Health Organization. Burden of disease from environmental noise – Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. 2011.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Ozone Nonattainment Information Proposed Ozone Nonattainment Area – Sublette County and Portions of Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties. Last updated January 2010. http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/Ozone%20Nonattainment%20Information.asp Accessed 6/17/2011.

This material was developed by the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC) and funded under the cooperative agreement award number 1U61TS000118-02 from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

Acknowledgement: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the PEHSU by providing funds to ATSDR under Inter-Agency Agreement number DW-75-92301301-0. Neither EPA nor ATSDR endorse the purchase of any commercial products or services mentioned in PEHSU publications.

Sign a Petition to BAN Fracking

Hello Everyone,

Now that everyone is back from vacation, those of you who haven’t signed the BAN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PETITION on change.org have a chance to click on the link below / or copy and paste it into your browser:

You can also send an email to your friends, community connections, family and like minded acquaintances. The email could read something like this:

Dear Friends, I just signed a very worthwhile petition to save our planet’s 1% fresh drinking water supply from being depleted by natural gas extraction using a technology known as hydraulic fracturing which requires phenomenal quantities of fresh water.

The water is pumped out of local rivers, streams and underground aquifers, then mixed with toxic chemicals and sent down the well under high pressure to fracture the shale rock and release the gas. Up to 80% of the water used is removed from the  “evaporation-precipitation” cycle that provides our planet with fresh water and will remain sequestered underground for generations to come – inaccessible to man and the eco-system upon which we depend for our survival. If you would like to save our planet’s finite supply of water and sign this petition, just click on the link below, or copy and paste it into your browser:

Thank you for letting our elected officials know what your priorities are!

Thank you for taking the opportunity to participate in the democratic process by making your voice be heard!

~Roseanna (Member of SWTO Steering Committee)

Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas Pollutes Water Wells

Source: Scientific American

A recent study shows that hydraulic fracturing the Marcellus Shale for natural gas is contaminating drinking water wells.

By David Biello | May 9, 2011
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: A new technique for releasing natural gas in shale rock has contaminated at least some drinking water wells in Pennsylvania and New York State.

Drilling for natural gas is booming in Pennsylvania—thanks to fracturing shale rock with a water and chemical cocktail paired with the ability to drill in any direction. Despite homeowner complaints, however, research on how such hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is impacting local water wells has not kept pace. Now a new study that sampled water from 60 such wells has found evidence for natural gas–contamination in those within a kilometer of a new natural gas well.

“Methane concentrations in drinking water were much higher if the homeowner was near an active gas well,” explains environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University, who led the study published online May 9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “We wanted to try and separate fact from emotion.”

The researchers discovered methane in 51 of the 60 wells tested—that is not out of the ordinary. A small amount of methane from both deep and biological sources is present in most of the aquifers in this region of Pennsylvania and New York State. By measuring the ratio of radioactive carbon present in the methane contamination, however, the researchers determined that in drinking water wells near active natural gas wells, the methane was old and therefore fossil natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, rather than more freshly produced methane. This marks the first time that drinking water contamination has been definitively linked to fracking.

Continue reading

Senators Question Safety of Water Used in Gas Drilling

Source : New York Times

Several Democratic senators said Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency should step up regulation of the natural gas industry because they are concerned that toxic chemicals used in drilling could enter the public water supply.

In a Senate hearing, Democrats pressed the agency about the consequences of a fast-growing drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, that involves pumping chemicals and water deep underground to release gas deposits.

“The industry has failed to meet minimal acceptable performance levels for protecting human health and the environment,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland and chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the environment committee. “The question is, What is E.P.A. doing about this?”

A recent article by The New York Times reported that these drilling fluids, which are often processed at sewage treatment plants, contain radioactivity at levels far higher than federal regulators say is safe for these plants to handle.

Read more >>

The Dirty Secret of Natural Gas

The latest communication from the Sierra Club…

Did you know that communities in Wyoming sometimes have worse air quality days than Los Angeles due to natural gas drilling?1 Or that hydraulic fracturing – the drilling method used by the oil and gas industry – creates polluted wastewater which includes radioactive materials and toxic chemicals?

Unfortunately, oil and gas lobbyists have succeeded in carving out loopholes in the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act, leaving communities all over the country to suffer from the effects of unregulated drilling – dirty air and polluted drinking water.

Tell your representative that it is time to close these loopholes and protect our air and water from oil and gas drilling.

Companies involved in hydraulic fracturing should have to report the chemicals they pump underground, and their injection wells should be covered by the protections provided by the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, they should be required to meet Clean Air Act standards, just like other industries across the United States.

Tell Congress to end the environmental exemptions for the oil and gas industry.

People should not have to worry about the safety of their drinking water or breathe dirty air because of natural gas drilling. It’s time to close the loopholes in environmental laws that allow natural gas companies to evade government oversight and pollute our air and water.

Sincerely,

Deborah Nardone
Sierra Club Natural Gas Reform Campaign

Earthquakes ocurring on the site of fracking byproduct injection wells

Excerpt:
A geohazards supervisor with the Arkansas State Geological Survey, Scott Ausbrooks, told the Associated Press that this Arkansas earthquake swarm could be related to natural gas exploration in the area. The area where the earthquakes have been occurring is part of the Fayetteville Shale–an area of rich organic rock in north-central Arkansas. The Fayetteville Shale area has more than 400 completed gas wells.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110218/tr_ac/7883826_arkansas_earthquake_swarm_could_be_related_to_natural_gas_injection_wells

Frack Drilling Company to pay 4.1 million to Dimock PA for contaminating their water.

A major victory. For all the people who say that drilling doesn’t harm the water. What say you now?

Cabot Oil (of Dimock PA water contamination infamy), has agreed to pay the townspeople 4.1 million for the contamination of their water.

Whether by gas, or by chemicals, hydraulic fracturing DID contaminate the water of Dimock PA. But that can’t happen here, right? RIGHT?

Does no-one have any common sense today? The problem is not Cabot oil. The problem is: the hydraulic fracture process is inherently flawed. One cannot inject millions of gallons of contaminated water into the earth below the water table under immense pressure, to release the gas and then expect the water to not get contaminated!

Make no mistake about it. with over 30,000 wells stated for drilling in Marcellus shale, and the entire state of WV lying over the shale bed YOUR WATER IS NOT SAFE! The time to fight is now. Before they have ruined our water, destroyed our property values, and wrecked our roads and our scenic landscape.

Join the fight! It’s free, and your water is priceless.

See the Press Release from the State of PA:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=15595&typeid=1