EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, October 8, 2010 by The Oregonian
Follow Wyoming on 'Fracking' Regulation
Frank Sinatra once said that if he could make it in New York, he could make it anywhere. Thanks to new drilling rules, environmentalists can now say the same about Wyoming.
To review: Wyoming is as politically red and pro-fossil-fuel a place as exists in America. Nicknamed the "Cowboy State" for its hostility to authority, the square swath of rangeland most recently made headlines when its tax department temporarily suspended levies at gun shows for fear of inciting an armed insurrection. The derrick-scarred home of oilman Dick Cheney, the state emits more carbon emissions per capita than any other, and is as close as our country gets to an industry-owned energy colony.
So, to put it mildly, Wyoming is not known for its activist government or its embrace of green policies.
But that changed last month when Wyoming officials enacted first-in-the-nation regulations forcing energy companies to disclose the compounds they use in a drilling technique called "fracking."
From an ecological standpoint, fracking is inherently risky. Looking to pulverize gas-trapping subterranean rock, drillers inject poisonous solvents into the ground – and often right near groundwater supplies. That raises the prospect of toxins leaking into drinking water – a frightening possibility that prompted Wyoming's regulatory move. Indeed, state officials acted after learning that various local water sources were contaminated by carcinogens linked to fracking.
While the Wyoming examples may seem of little concern to those living outside of Flyover Country, they are more like canaries in the national coal mine (or gas well, as it were) – canaries potentially coming to a watershed near you. Today, 800,000 wells – many of which involve fracking – are being plumbed in a total of 34 states. That means fracking is now everywhere.
Not surprisingly, reports of drilling-related groundwater pollution have been pouring in from Colorado to Pennsylvania – and lots of these dispatches come from sites near population centers. Worse, such crises could increase as an unintended consequence of much-needed environmental initiatives. Specifically, with coal-fired power plants being converted into cleaner natural gas-burning facilities, demand for more gas supplies – and, therefore, more fracking – is mounting.
If this wasn't bad enough, the situation is further exacerbated by federal policymakers who have ignored the physician's "first do no harm" principle. Rather than initiating an informed public debate about fracking by forcing companies to at least admit what chemicals they are using, Congress has preserved fracking disclosure loopholes in the Community Right-to-Know Act, exempted fracking from the 2005 Energy Policy Act and blocked new legislation to better regulate fracking.
That has left states to try to deal with the mess.
Colorado, for example, requires companies to partially disclose fracking chemicals, but only in cases of an imminent health emergency (granted, an important step after a Durango nurse almost died when a drilling firm refused to disclose the fracking fluids she had been exposed to).
Others such as Pennsylvania and New York publish lists of fracking chemicals, but according to ProPublica, "these lists simply name chemicals that may be in any given well and do not detail the mixtures or concentrations."
Many, though, do almost nothing. And no state other than Wyoming does what the situation really requires: namely, provide to regulators a well-by-well accounting of chemicals along with the amounts of chemicals being used.
This standard should, of course, be the regulatory rule – not the exception. In a nation that learned harrowing environmental lessons from the General Electric/Hudson River affair and from the 1996 bestseller "A Civil Action," we are well aware of the dark intersection of industrial chemistry, groundwater pollution and public health.
If Wyoming can turn that knowledge into action, then so can – and must – every other state.
To review: Wyoming is as politically red and pro-fossil-fuel a place as exists in America. Nicknamed the "Cowboy State" for its hostility to authority, the square swath of rangeland most recently made headlines when its tax department temporarily suspended levies at gun shows for fear of inciting an armed insurrection. The derrick-scarred home of oilman Dick Cheney, the state emits more carbon emissions per capita than any other, and is as close as our country gets to an industry-owned energy colony.
So, to put it mildly, Wyoming is not known for its activist government or its embrace of green policies.
But that changed last month when Wyoming officials enacted first-in-the-nation regulations forcing energy companies to disclose the compounds they use in a drilling technique called "fracking."
From an ecological standpoint, fracking is inherently risky. Looking to pulverize gas-trapping subterranean rock, drillers inject poisonous solvents into the ground – and often right near groundwater supplies. That raises the prospect of toxins leaking into drinking water – a frightening possibility that prompted Wyoming's regulatory move. Indeed, state officials acted after learning that various local water sources were contaminated by carcinogens linked to fracking.
While the Wyoming examples may seem of little concern to those living outside of Flyover Country, they are more like canaries in the national coal mine (or gas well, as it were) – canaries potentially coming to a watershed near you. Today, 800,000 wells – many of which involve fracking – are being plumbed in a total of 34 states. That means fracking is now everywhere.
Not surprisingly, reports of drilling-related groundwater pollution have been pouring in from Colorado to Pennsylvania – and lots of these dispatches come from sites near population centers. Worse, such crises could increase as an unintended consequence of much-needed environmental initiatives. Specifically, with coal-fired power plants being converted into cleaner natural gas-burning facilities, demand for more gas supplies – and, therefore, more fracking – is mounting.
If this wasn't bad enough, the situation is further exacerbated by federal policymakers who have ignored the physician's "first do no harm" principle. Rather than initiating an informed public debate about fracking by forcing companies to at least admit what chemicals they are using, Congress has preserved fracking disclosure loopholes in the Community Right-to-Know Act, exempted fracking from the 2005 Energy Policy Act and blocked new legislation to better regulate fracking.
That has left states to try to deal with the mess.
Colorado, for example, requires companies to partially disclose fracking chemicals, but only in cases of an imminent health emergency (granted, an important step after a Durango nurse almost died when a drilling firm refused to disclose the fracking fluids she had been exposed to).
Others such as Pennsylvania and New York publish lists of fracking chemicals, but according to ProPublica, "these lists simply name chemicals that may be in any given well and do not detail the mixtures or concentrations."
Many, though, do almost nothing. And no state other than Wyoming does what the situation really requires: namely, provide to regulators a well-by-well accounting of chemicals along with the amounts of chemicals being used.
This standard should, of course, be the regulatory rule – not the exception. In a nation that learned harrowing environmental lessons from the General Electric/Hudson River affair and from the 1996 bestseller "A Civil Action," we are well aware of the dark intersection of industrial chemistry, groundwater pollution and public health.
If Wyoming can turn that knowledge into action, then so can – and must – every other state.
© 2010 Creators.com
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

12 Comments so far
Show Allremember: The Clean Water Act only applies to me and you - any large corporate predator is given a free pass!
if your drinking water catching on fire coming out of the tap doesn't wake you up then you are beyond hope......
damn we americans are DUMB!
The Clean Water Act does not prohibit pollution. It manages it, by setting minimum amounts of compounds that can be introduced into the nation's waters.
Threshold values are set, below which it is assumed that no harm will be done. If the values are set too high people get sick. If they are set too low, industry complains about the cost of complying. So EPA waves its hand and comes up with an intermediate value. In effect, the values are little more than guesses.
Of course, so little is known about most industrial chemicals that even if adults are not harmed by what is allowed to be released, children may be.
The Clean Water Act has produced a cleaner environment, but not a clean one. The only way to reach that goal involves zero-discharge levels, and industry would never allow that to be established.
Also we should check how these chemicals react with other compounds they will be mixed with and that they will be pumped into under the pressure and temperature conditions that they will be subjected to in these wells. All of these factors could cause issues that the individual chemical in surface conditions would not show.
for that matter, tho... why does "Industry" have a veto over the will of the People?
I read about this nifty town in Denmark, I forget the name of it, had, over the course of 40 years or so, ended up with next to no emissions... one factories waste was another's raw material.
It is truly a strange world in which Wyoming leads the country on anti-fracking. Possibly it is because their water has been affected by oil for a long time, so they understand how fracking could tip it to a point where life would be impossible for their people, their cattle, and the wildlife that attracts so much tourist money each year.
Here in the New York City area, we have been blessed with abundant and relatively clean water thanks to geography, good planning in the past, and work of groups like Riverkeepers. Many people are so urbanized that we do not really believe on some deep level that we could lose the clean water that we so take for granted. Believe it.
Joe
Cases of water coming out of your kitchen tap that explodes when exposed to flame seems like a tipping point.
Don't be too sanguine about your water supply - the recharge areas of the rivers that feed it are in upstate NY, where the proposed fracking is to occur. I suggest you folks in the city start getting pretty active in this fight to say NO to fracking ...
Every so often, in between producing monstrosities like Dick Cheney, Wyoming surprises in a positive way. After all, this was the first US state to grant women the right to vote in 1869.
Could we please stop referring to natural gas as clean burning. That only covers half of the story, the CO2 emissions from Wyoming come from natural gas processing facilities. Natural gas does not come out of the ground as pure natural gas, it is typically contaminated with CO2 and hydrogen sulfide and other nasty compounds. The CO2 is vented to the atmosphere and the acid gases are injected back into the ground. So while CO2 burns cleaner than coal its CO2 footprint is roughly the same as coal, its just that its CO2 isn't emitted when its used but when its being processed for use.
As far as I can tell from this article, Wyoming isn't banning the use of anything, only telling it's folks what is being used; in other words, they are still going to allow poisonings of people, water, etc., the only difference is now folks will know the name of what's poisoning them. The definition of progress in the good ole' USA!
The only way to stop the poisoning is not to name the poison but to stop the use of the poisons ...
You have the right to know what's killing you.
WTF?
"WTF?" Indeed ....