CROSS CURRENTS : Frack, rattle and roll
Fran Alexander frana@nwarktimes.com
Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/Editorial/67585/
“ The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘ I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. ’ ” — Ronald Reagan It has occurred to me than anyone too young to know that Bill Haley and His Comets made the song, “ Shake, Rattle, and Roll, ” famous in the early ’ 50 s will not catch the beat of this article’s title. That song’s refrain, however, keeps humming in my soul as I think about what is going on underground in Arkansas and all across the country. Perversely, Ronnie Reagan’s ghost seems to be haunting me as well.
Arkansawyers have begun to realize that there is a big deal happening in the center of their state north of Little Rock and Conway, and it has rattled land and mineral rights owners, small towns, the governor and the state legislature. There’s natural gas in them-thar hills, and we all know anything resembling an energy resource these days has speculators, investors, politicians and energy companies slathering and slobbering in excitement. With a wad of billions for the state economy (yes, with a “ b” and ranging from $ 5. 5 billion between 2005 and 2008 to speculations of $ 17. 9 billion over several years ), a paltry enviro-conscious gnat of a citizen babbling, “ Uh, any money or rules for protecting the land, air and water ? ” might as well step in front of a freight train opened at full throttle. For example, when state representative Betty Pickett of Conway County tried to bring up rational environmental issues in a resolution she hoped would calm the feeding frenzy at the state legislature, those good ole boys, with all the manners of hogs at the trough, wouldn’t even let her finish her presentation. When the Sierra Club tried a proposal to increase the number of Oil and Gas Commission regulators to help inspect the thousands of wells to be drilled (there are now only eight ), their measure failed.
“ Don’t wanna hear it” is the response when pesky ethical details get whispered in the halls of Arkansas power so you, as a citizen, should not be surprised in the years to come that reports will probably be seeping out that drilling in the Fayetteville Shale Play is costing a lot. If all it costs us is just money, that will be the ideal bad consequence.
The “ play” is mostly taking place in Van Buren, Faulkner and White counties, although Cleburne, Conway and Pope also get to reap some of the economic windfall. Hundreds of millions of dollars in state tax revenues and perhaps 10, 000 jobs certainly smack of prosperity, as well it should when little physical or fiscal overhead is being figured into calculations.
As usual, we old spoiler environmentalists with zilch influence just keep raining on parades and for the same old reasons. We would love to change our tune, but the environment and human health continue to subsidize bizness-asusual. Fracking this shale for gas production is just a new twist on the same old methods we humans have always used to rape the Earth for resources.
Drilling for gas the easy way involved putting pipes into the Earth in the right places and capturing the usable gas that spewed out. To release gas captured in shale layers, however, the rock must be fraced, fracked or fractured (pick one ). This particular formation of shale being “ played ” (oil and gas geologic prospecting and extraction ) comes closest to the surface here in Fayetteville, hence its name, and runs deeper in the central Arkansas counties, down some 5, 000 feet in places. Wells are drilled down to the seam, then make an arching right-angle turn horizontally into the narrow shale layer for a few more thousand feet. Next, approximately 1 to 5 million gallons of water per well is mixed with drilling sand and a soup of chemicals and injected into the shale at high pressure. This fracks the rock and releases the gas that is then transported to markets through pipelines lacing across Arkansas and other states. (Pipelines bring a whole different set of problems. )
Keep in mind that once this water is removed from the surface of the land from streams, ponds, rivers, lakes, municipal water supplies, etc., it is not supposed to be returned to the water supply. Approximately 40 percent to 60 percent that is pumped into the shale comes back up, however, carrying the toxic drilling fluids and can also contain naturally occurring hazardous baddies like mercury, arsenic, radioactive materials, hydrogen sulfide and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene ). And where does it go ?
The millions of gallons of poisoned water can be re-injected into special deep wells in the hope, with no guarantee, that it will stay in formations away from fresh water aquifers. It is sometimes dumped in open impoundments where its chemicals evaporate into the air. Wherever it goes requires transport, and that exposes it to the environment and us yet again.
Also, oil and gas facilities can release more than 50 toxic air pollutants from a variety of sources, according to a spokesman for the National Resources Defense Council. Yet in Arkansas these wells can be legally sited as close as 100 feet from a home, school, business, etc. Across the nation, wells are being drilled in parks, golf courses, national forests and neighborhoods — anywhere the mineral rights below have been leased is fair game.
“ I’m from the government, and I won’t help you, ” is more what is happening these days, and even scarier is knowing instead that the real help is going to the energy companies so they do not have to worry about pesky pollution details. Federal regulations exempt oil and gas exploration and production from the tough parts of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Super Fund Law, the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act and the Toxic Release Inventory (which would require you be told when or if you are or could be exposed to production toxins ).
From Arkansas’ new millions that mineral owners will pay the state in severance taxes, 95 percent will fund highways and 5 percent will go to the general fund. So far it looks like the environment and human health will again sponsor our energy addiction.
Next time: Will we do anything about this situation ?
Fran Alexander is a local resident and an active environmentalist.
Copyright © 2001-2008 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved. Contact: webmaster@nwanews.com
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Discovery Farms' program highlighted on its Web site and in Northwest Arkansas Times story
Please click link to read about
Discovery Farms environmental program in Wisconsin
Please click on link to read
Northwest Arkansas Times story on Discovery Farms environmental program in Wisconsin
Dairy farmer discusses program that monitors environmental data
BY TRISH HOLLENBECK Northwest Arkansas Times
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/67369/
SPRINGDALE — Joe Bragger says he believes farmers and nonfarmers can work together to solve environmental and economic problems.
There are fringe groups out there that will never be happy with anything he does, Bragger, a dairy farmer who also raises chickens and beef cattle on his family’s farm in west-central Wisconsin, said Monday.
But then there are the rest of the people who farmers can work with to get things done, he said in an interview after giving a speech about Wisconsin’s Discovery Farms Program during Arkansas Farm Bureau’s 60 th annual Officers & Leaders Conference at the Holiday Inn in Springdale.
Discovery Farms environmental program in Wisconsin
Please click on link to read
Northwest Arkansas Times story on Discovery Farms environmental program in Wisconsin
Dairy farmer discusses program that monitors environmental data
BY TRISH HOLLENBECK Northwest Arkansas Times
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/67369/
SPRINGDALE — Joe Bragger says he believes farmers and nonfarmers can work together to solve environmental and economic problems.
There are fringe groups out there that will never be happy with anything he does, Bragger, a dairy farmer who also raises chickens and beef cattle on his family’s farm in west-central Wisconsin, said Monday.
But then there are the rest of the people who farmers can work with to get things done, he said in an interview after giving a speech about Wisconsin’s Discovery Farms Program during Arkansas Farm Bureau’s 60 th annual Officers & Leaders Conference at the Holiday Inn in Springdale.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
American basket flower (Centaurea Americana) blooming on World Peace Wetland Prairie and other unmowed places throughout northwest Arkansas
Please click on image to ENLARGE photo of American basketflower made on July 10, 2008.
American basketflower photos and description˜
American basketflower photos and description˜
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Government protection of wetland pathetic
EPA Enforcement Is Faulted
Agency Official Cites Narrow Reading of Clean Water Act
By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 8, 2008; A06
An official administration guidance document on wetland policy is undermining enforcement of the Clean Water Act, said a March 4 memo written by the Environmental Protection Agency's chief enforcement officer.
The memo by Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, was obtained by the advocacy group Greenpeace and released yesterday by two House Democratic committee chairmen. It highlights the confusion that has afflicted federal wetland protections since a 2006 Supreme Court decision.
That 5 to 4 decision, known as Rapanos v. United States, held that the Army Corps of Engineers had exceeded its authority when it denied two Michigan developers permits to build on wetland, but the court split on where the Corps should have drawn the line on what areas deserve protection.
A plurality made of up Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. proposed an across-the-board reduction in the Corps' regulatory role, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- who cast the deciding vote -- called for a case-by-case approach in deciding how the government should proceed. That left the ruling open to interpretation.
In his memo to Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, Nakayama wrote that the document the agency issued in June 2007 to guide regulators' decisions under the Rapanos decision is having "a significant impact on enforcement." Nakayama and his staff concluded that between July 2006 and December 2007, EPA's regional offices had decided not to pursue potential Clean Water Act violations in 304 cases "because of jurisdictional uncertainty."
Much of the controversy centers on what sort of waterway and accompanying wetland should qualify for protection. The administration's guidance instructs federal officials to focus on the "relevant reach" of a tributary, which translates into a single segment of a stream. In the memo, Nakayama argued that this definition "isolates the small tributary" and "ignores longstanding scientific ecosystem and watershed protection principles critical to meeting the goals" of the Clean Water Act.
Chairmen Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sent a letter yesterday to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson saying they have "grave concerns" about the way the agency is implementing the Clean Water Act.
The two noted that Nakayama concluded that in all, the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent guidance document "negatively affected approximately 500 enforcement cases" in nine months. They also questioned why EPA's Grumbles did not raise the issue when he testified before Oberstar's panel less than three months ago.
"This sudden reduction in enforcement activity will undermine the implementation of the Clean Water Act and adversely affect EPA's responsibility to protect the nation's waters," the congressmen wrote. "Yet instead of sounding the alarm about EPA's enforcement problems, the agency's public statements have minimized the impact of the Rapanos decision."
In response to a question about the congressional inquiry, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said in an e-mail: "We will be reviewing the new request and will work with the chairmen to provide information on our enforcement program."
Eric Schaeffer, who used to head EPA's civil enforcement division and now heads the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group, called Nakayama's memo "very significant. It lays out very clearly why you can't enforce one of the most important parts of the Clean Water Act."
EPA officials are not the only ones growing frustrated with the confusing legal interpretations of the Rapanos decision. Robert B. Propst, a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, wrote in a Nov. 7, 2007, decision that he was reassigning a wetland case "to another judge for trial. At least one of the reasons is that I am so perplexed by the way the law applicable to this case has developed that it would be inappropriate for me to try it again."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
Stormwater Management Total Stormwater Management Service Design, Repair & Maintenance www.apexcos.com
Agency Official Cites Narrow Reading of Clean Water Act
By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 8, 2008; A06
An official administration guidance document on wetland policy is undermining enforcement of the Clean Water Act, said a March 4 memo written by the Environmental Protection Agency's chief enforcement officer.
The memo by Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, was obtained by the advocacy group Greenpeace and released yesterday by two House Democratic committee chairmen. It highlights the confusion that has afflicted federal wetland protections since a 2006 Supreme Court decision.
That 5 to 4 decision, known as Rapanos v. United States, held that the Army Corps of Engineers had exceeded its authority when it denied two Michigan developers permits to build on wetland, but the court split on where the Corps should have drawn the line on what areas deserve protection.
A plurality made of up Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. proposed an across-the-board reduction in the Corps' regulatory role, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- who cast the deciding vote -- called for a case-by-case approach in deciding how the government should proceed. That left the ruling open to interpretation.
In his memo to Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, Nakayama wrote that the document the agency issued in June 2007 to guide regulators' decisions under the Rapanos decision is having "a significant impact on enforcement." Nakayama and his staff concluded that between July 2006 and December 2007, EPA's regional offices had decided not to pursue potential Clean Water Act violations in 304 cases "because of jurisdictional uncertainty."
Much of the controversy centers on what sort of waterway and accompanying wetland should qualify for protection. The administration's guidance instructs federal officials to focus on the "relevant reach" of a tributary, which translates into a single segment of a stream. In the memo, Nakayama argued that this definition "isolates the small tributary" and "ignores longstanding scientific ecosystem and watershed protection principles critical to meeting the goals" of the Clean Water Act.
Chairmen Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sent a letter yesterday to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson saying they have "grave concerns" about the way the agency is implementing the Clean Water Act.
The two noted that Nakayama concluded that in all, the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent guidance document "negatively affected approximately 500 enforcement cases" in nine months. They also questioned why EPA's Grumbles did not raise the issue when he testified before Oberstar's panel less than three months ago.
"This sudden reduction in enforcement activity will undermine the implementation of the Clean Water Act and adversely affect EPA's responsibility to protect the nation's waters," the congressmen wrote. "Yet instead of sounding the alarm about EPA's enforcement problems, the agency's public statements have minimized the impact of the Rapanos decision."
In response to a question about the congressional inquiry, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said in an e-mail: "We will be reviewing the new request and will work with the chairmen to provide information on our enforcement program."
Eric Schaeffer, who used to head EPA's civil enforcement division and now heads the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group, called Nakayama's memo "very significant. It lays out very clearly why you can't enforce one of the most important parts of the Clean Water Act."
EPA officials are not the only ones growing frustrated with the confusing legal interpretations of the Rapanos decision. Robert B. Propst, a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, wrote in a Nov. 7, 2007, decision that he was reassigning a wetland case "to another judge for trial. At least one of the reasons is that I am so perplexed by the way the law applicable to this case has developed that it would be inappropriate for me to try it again."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
Stormwater Management Total Stormwater Management Service Design, Repair & Maintenance www.apexcos.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
