Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Practicing Precaution: On the Farm and in the Marcellus Shale
My day on our organic farm in western Pennsylvania always begins with what I like to call "harvesting nutrients." The chore involves raking up the brown pellets and urine-sweetened, wasted hay from the floor of our dairy goats' living area, then hauling that product out to gardens and fields as payment forward to a prosperous future.
It is both arduous and boring, except for one thing. In these days of worrying about our farm being overrun by the Great Marcellus Shale Gas Rush, the task that others inartfully call "shoveling shit" is morning therapy for me.
The agrarian poet Wendell Berry finds his peace among the "wild things" who "do not tax their lives with forethoughts of grief." I find mine among my domesticated but still innocent herd of goats when my muscles work for their well-being. For an hour the forethoughts of grief subside. It is an act of kinetic faith, of touching the substance of things hoped for by sweeping up goat droppings. I can do at least this much good each day, even if I cannot stop the reckless gas rush.
Since we learned of the threat to us, it has been difficult to fight off depression and a sense of powerlessness. The goat maternity barn remains unfinished. The fall and winter garden chores rebuke me for being undone. The renovation of our house makes no sense anymore. Where the shale gas boom has hit, property values have plummeted. How can we plan a future with such uncertainty hanging over us?
The prospect of a Marcellus well devouring up to 10 acres of our 50-acre farm effectively negates our past and steals our future. Five years of difficult labor may be rendered worthless. Dreams for our future on this farm now seem delusional. Much as I take daily precautions to create a safe environment for our goats in the barn, the world outside them could soon be rendered toxic and unsafe for their lives and ours.
Yet no cautionary warnings or troubling evidence of serious contamination, whether from within Pennsylvania or from other gas fields all across the country, seem to deter the gas rush.
Our political leaders have completely forgotten the Precautionary Principle, which has been simply stated as: "When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm" (UNESCO). That principle is the only socially responsible choice when there is a risk of harming the public or the environment. At present there is no scientific consensus that unconventional drilling for gas in the shale by a method called "hydraulic fracturing" will not cause irreparable environmental harm, perhaps despoiling water aquifers that supply millions of people, including New York City and Philadelphia.
A Scientific American article reports that the 2004 EPA study which the gas industry so often quotes as a clean bill of health was not even about hydraulic fracturing in deep shale formations; and that buried within that study the EPA noted that "hydrofracking" fluids, which are laced with toxic chemicals, "migrated unpredictably -- through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought."
The author of that article has searched for more than a year for a study that proves that hydrofracking shale formations for methane gas is a safe technology, asking "more than 40 academic experts, scientists, industry officials, and federal and state regulators" if such a study exists. It does not.
The Precautionary Principle puts the burden of proof on those who do the drilling that it is not harmful. The gas companies are not providing it. Instead they are vigorously resisting and trying to curtail the scope of a new EPA study on the environmental consequences of this technology, just as they continue to resist federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
As the one responsible for the well-being of my goats, I take necessary precautions on my farm to protect their health. Our political leaders need to do the same for all of Pennsylvania by enacting a moratorium on natural gas drilling as New York just did. The shale is not going anywhere. We should wait until we know with scientific certainty that shale drilling can be done safely in a way that reduces to near zero the chance of ruining our groundwater.
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...
20 Comments so far
Show AllIn principle, the well drillers are right, in that the fluids they pump to fracture the shale should stay at depth. After all, shale is essentially impermeable, which is why they have to fracture it so the gas can migrate to their wells.
However, those two sentences ignore two things. First, all rocks have fractures in them, so the fluids have conduits they can use to move upward (under pressure, they will migrate upward), and no one has any idea where those fractures are, so no one can predict where the fluids will appear - that is, in whose shallow aquifers.
Second, the gas production process puts more fractures in the shale, and no one has any idea of the extent or location of them. Some of them could well extend upward into the rocks overlying the shale, providing a conduit upward toward shallow aquifers.
When the oil companies developed "fracking" to stimulate oil production (in the 1930s I belive), they sometimes used nitroglycerin to produce the fractures - a very effective technique, but very dangerous. In the 1960s, they used small hydrogen bombs - also very effective, except that the gas was radioactive.
I don't know why toxic chemicals are added to the water used to fracture the shale; water alone should do the job. Clearly it is safer than explosives, and probablly cheaper, but no one seems to have explained why water is not sufficient.
Whatever the reason, the new Republican governor in Pennsylvania won't worry about little things such as pollution. He has stated publicly that the state is open for business.
The main route of contamination is via the well itself. Only the large diameter surface hole and casing - going down 500 to 1000 feet, is cemented in the borehole bottom-to-top. This surface casing is supposed to isolate the well from the deepest water supply aquifers, but mo one actually checks if this is the case. The subsequent boreholes and runs of casing, (including the multiple long horizontal lengths in the shale) in progressive smaller diameters like a telescope, are only partly cemented. This is done to save on cement, plus fully cementing the well would be a time consuming multi-stage operation. Of course well casing cementation is an inexact science, as the Macondo disaster showed.
The PA DEP is trying to require more redundancy in the cementation, but the Republicans will probably purge the high ups in the DEP of anyone not driller-friendly.
The reason they can't just use water (plus the sand proppant that is always used) is because the water would cause swelling and bacterial over growths in the shale fractures. So at least some additives are needed. And of course there is a lot of money to be made selling the additives, particularly since the Clean Water Act does not regulate oil/gas drilling.
The surface impacts of the drilling alone are huge - particularly all the grading that is needed to construct a level pad in the hilly terrain. It can be comparable to a small strip mine job.
Yes, sheepherder, there were three different experiments in fracking for gas back in the 1960s and 1970s under that auspices of the old, (now disappeared into the US Department of Energy) Atomic Energy Commission and some oil/gas partner private firms, using nuclear bombs as the explosive fracturing force. All this was done under the Plowshares Program meant to demonstrate the "peaceful" uses of the atomic explosives. But, what was used was definitely not hydrogen bombs, not even small ones which are thousands of times more powerful than atomic bombs. What was used at Project Gasbuggy in NW New Mexico and at Project Rulison and Project Rio Blanco in western Colorado were atomic bombs. The Project Rulison bomb was a 40 kiloton explosive and at Project Rio Blanco three 30 kiloton bombs in a stack. The whole mad scheme was crazy enough, producing as you report, radioactive gas. But fortunately they were not so greed and power crazed to show off their prowess with nuclear explosives that they used hydrogen bombs. There is an enormous difference. Had they used hydrogen bombs there would likely be gigantic open pits miles across in western Colorado and NW New Mexico.
What choice does our government give us to avoid eating GMO foods which have never been seriously tested for safety? Why are they even allowed on the market without such testing? In the UK allergic reactions to soy soared when GMO soy started to be consumed?
After I posted my previous comments I thought of something else. If the people whose land overlies gas-bearing shales own the mineral rights to what is beneath their property, should be able to stop the exploitation. Even horizontal drilling from someone else's property would violate their mineral rights.
That might not stop an aquifer from being contaminated, because the contaminants will migrate horizontally once they move upward from the shale beds, but court action would be one way to slow down the exploitation.
Another approach would be to try to get the state legislature to require that the drilling companies establish water companies to treat drinking water and supply it to people in the areas affected by the contamination. I believe that this approach is what economists refer to as Coase's theorem. But it is not clear if the new governor would sanction this approach.
Sabo Cat, who has written about the onset of fracking in PA might have some insight into his new governor's thinking.
Hello sheepherder,
It is nice to see you searching for understanding of this. I am Steve Cleghorn's wife, the co-owner of the goat farm in the piece and I wanted to mention a couple of things.
First, many of us do not own our mineral rights. We are in what is called a "split estate" which turns out to be the usual situation in the west where hydrofracking has gone much further. Look for a movie called "Split Estate." Perhaps more sober than "Gasland" it is very informative. But even those who own their mineral rights are at risk of being forced, particularly by the incoming pro-drilling PA legislature, into pooling, forced to accept drilling and for a non-negotiated compensation amount. In our area, even landowners who are opposed to drilling sometimes say they'd rather sign now and at least negotiate enough money to get out than wait for what the gas company will give them.
Second, treating drinking water may be an acceptable if less than perfect solution for a household, but not for a farm and dairy. We have to have clean fresh water out in our pastures and large amounts of it in our dairy and creamery to clean and sanitize our milking and cheese-making equipment. I would much rather do that with fresh pure water than water salted with "purifiers" that I will have to buy and maintain for the rest of my life. We have a right under our PA constitution to clean drinking water.
Finally, on the radioactive gas that the little atomic bombs of earlier fracking experiments let off -- people need also to become aware that the black shale of the Marcellus IS radioactive. In earlier days a common way of locating it was with a Geiger counter. Naturally in the shale (part of what is nicknamed NORM for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material as if this were the new norm, the new normal) Radium 226 is water soluble and is brought up with the "produced water," used frack fluid that regurgitates from the well when the pressure is released. **These wells already produce radioactive gas** The question is how much and where does it go. For instance, when frack fluid is "treated" for release into the Monongahela and other water sources, is it treated (even checked) for radioactivity?
In his essay, Steve begs for us to exercise the Precautionary Principle. The kinds of issues that you raise, that I raise here, they ALL need to be answered before we let these kids cross the road.
Stephen,
I have gotten goat cheeses in my local deliveries from the Kretschmanns CSA farm. I recall it was labeled "River View Farms". Is that you?
That's our friends and next-county neighbors Sam and Susie Byler, who would not be on this forum because they are Amish and therefore off-line. We are Paradise Gardens and Farm. We also sell in Pittsburgh but we try to coordinate with the Bylers to "spread the wealth," to be in different places so everyone can get their goat cheese somewhere and at the same time we don't compete directly with each other. :-)
How dare little people stand in the way of immediate concentration of wealth for the deserving ruling class. Democracy, it turns out, means that we will be unequal as the monetary gravitational attraction of great wealth speeds towards its wonderful goal of unchallengable desire.
There is no environmental damage too great to be ignored. Besides, who owns the media?
What I find disturbing is that the system is utterly broken and people affected by this rapacious activity have NO recourse for their grievances. They can go to Harrisburg be ejected for "trespassing" if the politician is a Republican, or receive a "I feel you pain", then a stab in the back, if it is a Democrat (and I even mean state Sen. Jim Ferlo).
It is time for direct action. Damage to inaminate materials is not "violence".
"It is time for direct action. Damage to inaminate materials is not "violence"."
The problem is that "monkey wrenching" works only in novels. In real life it is treated as violence. Unless the court system is totally compromised, it could be used to slow down, if not completely stop the rapine.
No it can't. Yes, it is totally compromised - particularly in our "Commonwealth" of Pennsylvania.
Even the local media ignores the aggrieved. The Mon River, drinking water for a million people has been seriously degraded (TDS and Bromide - a smoking gun for deep formation brines) since the drilling began. Coverage in the Western Pennsylvania media has been zero, aside from a single, brief mention and driller-rebuttal in the Tribune review (the right-wing Scaife paper) and, I think, once on Channel 2. I welcome all ideas for resistance, but appealing politician, judges and even news reporters? Forget it. It's already been tried.
Its interesting how things have come full circle. PA coal once fueled the iron and steel industries and heated our homes. The first commercial oil well was in Titusville, and now back to PA for gas.
This gas is a win-win for reduction of CO2 emissions and energy independence. (Natural gas creates about 1/2 the CO2 per unit energy than coal.) EPA should be mandated to enforce uniform federal regulations and make it a win-win-win.
The risk to the pristine Delaware and Hudson watersheds must be evaluated. NYC went to a lot of expense in the 19th century to ensure it has the world's cleanest water. It would be typical of this generation to screw that up just to make a few bucks.
bbr001 writes:
"The risk to the pristine Delaware and Hudson watersheds must be evaluated. NYC went to a lot of expense in the 19th century to ensure it has the world's cleanest water. It would be typical of this generation to screw that up just to make a few bucks."
Boy does that bring back memories! When I was a kid we visited my grandparents in Brooklyn over the holidays from the Midwest. The taste of that NYC water was GREAT.
Years later I read that most NYC water came from upstate and even New England, mostly granite-based, while nearly all Midwestern aquifers are limestone based.
Meanwhile, we did at one time have legislation back in the 70s based on the Precautionary Principle. But modern Capitalism does not like it. Better to profit from despoiling, and then profit again from cleaning up the mess you made. It's the American way. Eat contaminated food and then pay for "health care."
-30-
OMR; May your number of days be in peace and that thing about the eating of contaminated food and then paying for "health care" is a statement that ought to slap everyone with this truth. Thank you. Tony
TO: SaboCat -
No, River View Farm is over in Clarion County, run by a wonderful Amish man named Sam Byler. We are in Jefferson County. Check out the link to our home page in the article. We are Paradise Gardens and Farm.
TO: All
Thank you for the penetrating comments. BBR001, you should look more into the life cycle carbon footprint of natural gas. Just the extraction and transporting processes involved could well make this energy source as dirty as any other fossil fuel. Dr. Robert Howarth at Cornell University is doing some work on that.
Dear Sheepherder and SaboCat, We have the answer to your problem of contamination of aquifers with Toxic Chemical and Gas or Oil Waste Contamination on your farms and in your water supplies. FYI There are @ 708 oil refineries around the world(Source D.O.E) that produce 1.4 million barrels of Toxic Oil Sludge on a daily basis. So do the math, approximately every 3 days you have an amount of sludge equal to the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Toxic Oil Sludge Waste is a huge problem globally.
In many areas in the world especially throughout Asia and Indonesia a method is used for disposing of the waste called (SFI) Slurry Fracture Injection. If it sounds like a process similiar to Fracking, it is. This toxic solid oil contaminated waste is liquefied and deposited back in boring's, usually 300 meters or deeper, back into the ground. The oil industries thoughts are that is the most economical way to dispose of it but it is wreaking havoc and aiding in the destruction of aquifers' and the fresh water supply on a global basis where it is used. The International Law called "Cradle to Grave Liability" is giving them second thoughts. They are now realizing that their legal responsibilities are something they must address in a more realistic manner.
We have a clean answer to stop this aquifer distruction, and it will even make the Oil Companies more money if they just use our environmentally sound methods. It's called (S-t-O, Sludge to Oil Technology by Hydrocarbon Recovery Solutions LLC, you can see how it works by going to our website at: Heliospowersolutions.com
Click on the Technologies button and download our .pdf's which will give you a good overview of the problems and how we have achieved a better way. We effectively treat this waste in a closed process that uses no water, with our Non-Toxic proprietary chemicals,that use a exothermic reaction to generate heat to separate the Toxic Oil from the solids, and water that is trapped in the sludge. The process recovers 100% of the toxics and oil and leaves only clean oil (for processing), clean solids and water that will both pass Recognize EPA tests and allow them to be returned to the environment, with no negative consequences. We have another promising technology that promises to replace fracking with a much more environmentally sustainable method as our chemicals quickly revert to inert state after use, with no negative consequences for the aquifers. We are in the process of bringing our Clean Oil Technologies into the Global Oil Marketplace. If you would like more information please contact me:
Michael@heliospowersolutions.com
I will be happy to tell you about our process. We are also seeking JV partners to help us move these incredible earth saving technologies, (S-t-O) "Sludge to Oil" <>(HRT) "Hydrocarbon Recovery Technology" <> (EOR) "Enhanced Oil Recovery", forward and establish them as the new "Gold Standard" in the way to recover Oil and Gas, with 99% less generated Co2 and process the toxic wastes that their production generate with substantially less environmental impact. I will be happy to tell you all about it, drop me an email and leave your contact information and I will be happy to give you a call to discuss how we can make a big difference in preserving your farm, and the aquifers' around the world. Best, Michael Boyter
The truly tragic part of this effort to find and extract natural gas, with concomitant damage that occurs, is that it is a completely unnecessary "errand" for humanity to be performing, with the energy "uncovered" ultimately becoming depleted, leaving a mess behind.
The vast majority of natural gas extracted is used either in household/commercial heating applications, or as fuel to produce electricity via (hopefully) combined-cycle turbine power plants. These are able to convert the chemical energy in the gas to electricity with an efficiency of up to 60%.
Ultimately, the electricity generation is the more efficient of the two uses, since any low-grade heat needed can be produced from the electricity (via heat pumps) with a Coefficient of Performance (energy multiplier) of between two and four.
That said, there is an alternative, sustainable, energy source, which results in a more economic method to produce electricity, which is available through much of the day and evening as well as during most of the year.
The means for electricity production which I'm referring to is called the Atmospheric Vortex Engine, which is an uncomplicated mechanical device, capable of harvesting "residual" solar energy that is stored in the troposphere as CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), and which is the same source of energy which powers thunderstorms.
Over both daily as well as seasonal time frames, the residual solar energy is also (more broadly) accessible in the form of warmed surface waters, which can be stored as "Underground Thermal Energy" (UTES). The temperature (and potential) of the energy stored, can be augmented, if desired, by SIMPLE, inexpensive heat-gathering solar panels. The "panels" would more likely look like fields of (say) 12" pipe segments, separated by 12-20", supported 12" above the ground, whose surface could be reflective sand or an artificial, flat, reflector.
In fact, it is conceivable that electricity could be drawn from the grid ANYWHERE, and be converted (via heat pumps) to thermal energy which could be stored locally, and then converted back to electricity, either for local or for grid distribution when it is most needed.
This is already practiced by millions of homeowners via so-called "geothermal" energy heat pump systems.
For more details, see http://vortexengine.ca
Any interested World Citizens, who might be in a position to help facilitate the next larger size demonstration plant, could contact the AVEtec owners, whose information is given at the above website.
Stephen Cleghorn, you are not alone. Even here in NY, where Marcellus drilling is on hold, the gas rush is taking its toll.
My husband and I are in our 50's. We have lived in our 115-year-old house since we were newlyweds. Over the years, we have worked with our own hands to preserve and improve our house, turning it from a house into a home. We did this not just for ourselves, but also for future inhabitants, whoever they may be.
As I walk from room to room, I see our youth in these walls. I think of many dear visitors, some of whom are no longer living. I remember my grandparents smiling, talking, laughing with us here. Once, we were new to this place--a pair of young transplants. But we have grown deep roots, and we had intended to remain here, firmly planted on those roots, until the end of our days. The gas rush has changed all of that.
We have read about the effects of shale gas drilling and fracking out West. We have studied the opinions of learned experts. And we have visited Dimock, PA to see, smell, and hear the business of shale gas extraction firsthand--the gas wells, the rigs, the compressor stations, the traffic, the scarred landscape, the waste pits, the pipelines, the diesel fumes, the water tanks that serve as sad "replacements" for ruined water wells.
Here is what we have concluded: Even when so-called "best practices" are employed (and most often they are not employed), a shale gas well pad is an intrusive and dangerous industrial site that should not be situated near homes, schools, and drinking water sources, yet shale gas wells **are** being drilled near homes, schools, and drinking water sources. Shale gas wells deplete rapidly, so in order to keep the gas flowing, more wells and more wells and still more wells must be drilled, creating an ever-widening industrial zone. It is a voracious industry. Just the scale of the thing would be frightening, even without the numerous red flags that are flying in drilling regions all over the country or the unforeseen consequences that are sure to crop up as time passes.
My husband and I have come to the sad and painful conclusion that we cannot live with shale gas extraction. If/when the rigs roll into our town, we will leave our beloved home and become shale gas refugees, seeking a haven where we can live with a reasonable expectation of safety and peace. There are some who have called us NIMBY's because of our decision. From this I have deduced that a "NIMBY" is someone who believes that human beings have a right to safe water, clean air, and a good night's rest after a hard day's work. I wear the label proudly.
I know that some are happily planning how they will spend their shale gas dollars. They hope to drill and fracture their way to a bright, new future. Is their vision the right one? No one has a crystal ball, but experience is a good teacher: I grew up in Pennsylvania, in the economic bust and environmental disaster left behind by the once-booming anthracite coal industry. Were those anthracite fortunes worth the pain and suffering they caused? Not even close, my friends. Not even close.
Dear living-in-limbo---
Thank you for that impassioned and detailed report.
When the Fracters force you out, I'd invite you to the Midwest, but we just have different forms of contamination that are devastating the reptiles and the amphibians and many birds and making even some mammals rare. To say nothing of the honey bees. (The recreational state-park lakes have fish, but that is thanks to state-run stocking so that people think that we still exist in Nature. Living in the same semi-rural area for half a century creates a long memory of the Nature of the place...)
There seems no escape.
-30-