Tuesday, December 1, 2015 the Upper Makefield Board of Supervisors unanimously passed their version of the shale gas drilling moratorium resolution. This will be used to give weight to our appeals to the Delaware River Basin Commission and the PA Legislature to permanently ban fracking in the Delaware Basin.
Now all three townships that comprise the zoning jointure have passed such ordinances. Their Solicitor has the Riverkeeper’s guide book for drilling ordinances and also the guide for pipeline zoning. With these tools it should be possible to craft zoning ordinances that give the maximum protection to air and water quality and the environment generally. Although there is no urgency to act quickly, it is crucial to invest the time to get a good ordinance in place as a fall-back should efforts to ban fracking fail.
Every resident of Bucks County should be respectfully working to make sure that Supervisors take the next steps.
In addition to the resolution, and drilling and pipeline ordinances, we anticipate that innovative lawyers will be offering bold strategies for townships to protect their citizens from the worst abuses of the shale gas industry. To get an idea what shape this might take visit Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF.org)
That oil and gas interests might be reluctant to accept information pointing to the end of the fossil fuel era is completely understandable. But the just released report by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled The Climate Deception Dossierdocuments decades of deliberate deception aimed at sewing doubt in the media and the public’s perception of climate science. The report reveals industry internal secret documents that prove there has been a strategy to hide the truth. It’s little wonder that so many politicians today find it easy to deny the opinion of 97% of the scientific community. They’ve been blinded by money and duped with lies.
Proof of decades of deception by fossil fuel industry: Union of Concerned Scientists.
I can’t improve on the summary that appears in the summer issue of UCS’s journal, so I urge you to read it for yourself and then browse through the report that it announces. Although those few who have been close to the issue for years knew of various elements of the deception, the strategy was largely successful and history may yet look back upon the years since 1988 as the beginning of society’s greatest and most disastrous propaganda lies.
For those who follow NoFrackingBucks.net there is a disturbing confirmation that the oil and gas industry is ruthless and unrelenting in its hunger to expand regardless of the cost to society and future generations. Although our focus is very local, the menace is global and it will touch everyone – especially the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
We must consider both actions and words in weighing arguments about fossil energy. On the fracking issue, the industry has gotten legislation to exempt itself from regulations aimed at protecting the environment, and has succeeded in getting other legislation that severely limits the ability of local government to protect municipalities from the ravages of gas and oil extraction. These self-serving legislative campaigns are perverse and destructive. The deception and amoral (some might say psychopathic) campaign to discourage society from acting prudently in the face of a clear danger is a disgrace. If you agree, take the time to phone your state representatives and your US senators and congressman. Tell them to read the evidence and see for themselves how we all have been duped. Demand that public policy reflect climate reality.
Fracking interests have long held sway over regulators and politicians in Harrisburg. So it was no surprise to see fracking advocates gloat when a federal EPA report seemed to support their contention that the objections to fracking were overblown. The editorial in the June 7th Bucks County Courier-Times echoed their fullsome sense of vindication:
“In a much anticipated study that was more than four years in the making, the EPA announced last week that it had found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. As POLITICO reported: “That conclusion dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets.”
The editorial made it sound like some sort of trial had taken place, and that fracking was exhonorated of blame after due deliberation. In truth, the matter never came to trial. The report cited was actually inconclusive. “No evidence” was found because there was insufficient baseline data from before fracking to attribute the water quality problems to the onset of fracking activity. In other words there wasn’t a conclusive way to prove that the contamination came from fracking and not some other more mysterious source. Since the ingredients of the fracking fluid is “trade secret” the EPA investigators could not identify a proverbial smoking gun either.
The fact is that EPA cannot say with any certainty how widespread or systematic impacts to drinking water from fracking are, due to a lack of available data. (ecowatch.com)
Moreover, the data from Dimock where the famous flaming water taps were filmed, was excluded creating an obvious distortion of the statistics that favored the drilling industry. When you understand how politicians and the bureaucracies they oversee are influenced by corporations and trade associations, it’s easy to understand how an inconclusive study can be reinterpreted and molded to say what the administrators and pols want to hear.
“A thorough review of the study suggests that the EPA misrepresented the findings of its own study in both the press release and the high-level summary. EPA’s statement that it did not find evidence of widespread, systematic impacts fails to accurately reflect the uncertainty in the underlying data. The fact is that EPA cannot say with any certainty how widespread or systematic impacts to drinking water from fracking are, due to a lack of available data.”
We don’t usually expect political spin in supposedly objective scientific findings. And the EPA is catching plenty of flack as it gets scrutinized by those of us not satisfied with the “cooked” sound bites and summaries. The Courier editorial obviously failed to drill down for critical peer review before waxing poetic about the “not guilty” verdict. But then editorials are not necessarily informed opinion these days.
Journalistic kidding aside, the tone of the editorial suggests that nothing more need be considered:
“That argument now officially discredited, it is time to move on. Let us let the gas and oil industry do what it does without burdensome regulations and other unreasonable constraints that make mining economically impractical.”
There is a long and impressive list of peer reviewed scientific studies, not massaged or edited by politicians, that demonstrate serious health issues such as birth defects, low birth weight, and respiratory problems. New data shows elevated Radon levels in homes near fracking sites, and there is a lot more to come. The citations for some of these studies (easily found with Google) are on the “Links” page of this website [NoFrackingBucks.org].
There is certainly NO acquittal in sight for fracking, and the evidence foretells that the verdict will be “guilty as charged” if we can get an unbiased judge and jury.
Postscript:
On 6/23/15 an article in the New York Times reported that congress passed a bill that, “Would require EPA to start reviewing the toxicity of 64,000 unregulated chemicals, but at a pace of about 10 chemicals per year.” Sen. Lautenberg had wanted hundreds a year reviewed, but Chemical Industry Lobbyists got the bill’s language eviscerated – another illustration of corporate influence getting in the way of good science and the public interest. “The nation’s 10 largest chemical companies spent $171.4 million lobbying during the 2014 election cycle. Here we see an example of what they are buying.
The language of the proposed ordinance lacks teeth and provides a huge amount of wiggle room. In my opinion, as a former business owner, it’s actually quite favorable to a driller – that is unless he’s encumbered by high principles and scruples. I’ve marked up the linked copy to highlight specifics. Before discussing these, let’s look at the context in which they will come into play.
Financial Responsibility
The driller is likely to be a limited liability corporation (LLC). This means just what the name implies. The corporation exists to shield its owners from otherwise unlimited liability for the risks of the business. The street savvy owner can pour just enough money into the LLC to conduct operations. When things go wrong, the LLC can be allowed to go bankrupt. But if things go well, the cash generated flows to the owner(s). Banks know this and they generally require the owners of such a business to personally co-sign for loans.
The municipalities and the public has no such protection. Even if Exxon-Mobil, with its vast resources were backing the LLC it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to collect more than the assets of the drilling LLC. Financial responsibility is thus a really big concern. The proposed ordinance has provisions for a bond ($50,000) and unspecified liability insurance, but neither of these is sufficient protection considering the massive risks and likelihood of leaks, spills, and fires.
Enforcement
There is always expense involved in enforcement. With an operation like well drilling and fracking, much of the work is conducted out of sight using practices and procedures unfamiliar to regular code enforcement personnel. Violations can easily go undiscovered until irreparable harm has been done and/or a disaster brings them to light.
The proposed ordinance has a lot of language that requires subjective judgment. You can bet that a driller will insist on the most lenient and cost efficient interpretation. It will be up to the enforcing authority to decide if they wish to spend the money to litigate. Litigation is a slow and deliberate process with many opportunities for delay and diversion.
Click to View or Download the proposed ordinance.
The court docket’s always crowded, and the best lawyers bill their time $300, $500 or more an hour – and yes, you do need that level of talent when stakes are high. Justice has a very high price, even if you are the government.
The document
I recommend that you see for yourself. But here are my observations and objections:
The “standards” are vague and invite litigation.
The language relies on PA and Federal regulations that have failed to protect others in our state.
The setbacks for operations are only 100 feet. Some of the trucks used in these operations are nearly that long (70 feet).
Drilling can create permanent pathways for migration of toxic material (arsenic, radon) outside the well casing. Once drilled and fractured it can’t be undone.
The documents propose a 15 acre minimum tract. Wells commonly are drilled with multiple branches extending out 1 or 2 miles from the well site. They can resemble spokes of a wheel where the vertical well shaft is the axle and horizontal branches radiate out. There even can be such “wheels” at a second level. The fracturing begins near at end of the each branch.
Fracking uses huge volumes of water. Fresh water is combined with “trade secret” toxic chemicals and fine sand (also toxic) to make the injection fluid. After fracturing much of this is ejected, followed and combined with “produced water” or brine from the shale. Where the geological formations permit, these fluids are dumped into deep disposal wells. Such wells are associated with seismic activity (earthquakes), and much more rarely, so is fracking. It may not be possible to show direct cause and effect in an individual instance. Indeed, advocates of fracking insist that the geometric increase in the number of quakes is mere coincidence. Not much help when the foundation of one’s home is cracking.
The staging and rapid handling of the large volume of toxic fluids, produced brine, chemicals, and dusty sand make spills almost inevitable with the probability of surface water contamination. Storm water management is a problem. Open retaining ponds are a source of air pollution.
The logistics require thousands of heavy truck trips over roads to and from the well site greatly increasing maintenance costs, and creating major inconvenience and traffic hazards.
Although the proposed ordinance seeks to regulate the hours of operation, the pressurized fluid in the ground does not respect such intentions. Some extraction equipment may, of necessity, operate 24/7. At currently operating drill sites it is always 24/7.
Oil and gas wells leak methane and other gasses. In fact, research shows that the leaks wipe out the principal advantage of natural gas as a clean-burning fuel. The unburned methane that leaks is many times more damaging than the carbon dioxide of combustion.
The limitations of sound levels are well intended, but meaningless. Loudness is a subjective perception that is relative to ambient sounds (birds, crickets, leaves rustling). When one is enjoying the stillness of a country evening, the smallest sounds carry miles. The measurement would presumably be made at the boundary of the site. The “45 decibels” specified is equivalent to the ambient sound level in a home. But a diesel truck at 100 feet is 70 decibels and measured at curbside it is 80 decibels. There will be continuous diesel traffic. These noises measured at the source of the noise it would be exponentially louder. Terrain and environmental conditions can cause sound to travel great distances with intermediate “dead” zones. Obviously it is very difficult to regulate noise pollution.
A well head or pipeline fire is beyond the training and equipment of local firefighters, yet it is a real risk.
Once water supplies are contaminated complete remediation in nearly impossible.
The smells and toxins in airborne pollution drift miles from the drilling site.
There’s more, but this captures the essence of the criticism. One telling aspect of the proposed ordinance document is the fact that the specifications for the chain link fence for the site are more lengthy and detailed than the noise or pollution provisions.
URGENT NEED TO AVOID FRACKING IN NEWTOWN, UPPER MAKEFIELD, AND WRIGHTSTOWN
Bring your children, your neighbors, your friends to two critical meetings:
Tues., July 7 at 7pm – the Newtown Township Planning Board will meet to discuss a resolution to allow fracking in Newtown Twn. (Rt. 413, off Durham Rd.)
Wed., July 8 at 7pm – the Newtown Township Supervisors will meet to hear the recommendation of the Planning Board and vote on the resolution.
Stop Fracking poster (click to download) by Greg Deal.
With the out-sized influence of the fossil fuel industry in PA, with the predictability of human error, with the inevitable escape of methane gas during drilling, extraction and abandonment of wells, there is no sure way to regulate fracking’s impact. The proposed resolution makes clear the risks involved (to use the language of the resolution)
Air and water pollution
Offensive or noxious odors, gases, dust, and glare
Junk, refuse, trash or abandoned material (including the well itself)
Hazardous or toxics materials
Blowouts
It doesn’t mention other known risks:
Decreased property values (and banks refusing to provide mortgages for properties that have wells on or near them)
Noise and road damage 24/7 from18-wheelers hauling supplies in and fracking waste water out (not to mention the amount of water used in processing)
The fact that every vertical well into the shale can conceal 10-16 horizontal well branches that can run 2-4 miles underground
Lawyerly language full of loopholes and slippery language.
The proposed resolution uses vague, slippery language like
“except pipelines WHERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY”
“UNLESS SUCH PLACEMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE”
“the operator shall take ALL POSSIBLE PRECAUTIONS…to minimize noise levels”
The price for this irreversible damage? “A letter of credit or other financial security” approved by the governing body “BUT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.” Litigation to enforce would cost more. Remember, once any ordinance is passed, it can be amended at any meeting, so the language of the law is not much protection even if air-tight .
On Dec. 20, 2013, the PA Supreme Court ruled that municipalities “must act as trustees to protect the rights of PA citizens” to “clean air and pure water” and the “preservation of natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” STAND UP FOR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE. Arrive no later than 6:30pm to be sure to get a seat. Check to be sure that the meeting agendas haven’t changed.
Thanks. Marguerite & Richmond
Reading a paper copy of this? Details, links, and supporting information are available on our blog site: NoFrackingBucks.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment.