Fracturing for fuel ought to be outlawed, many say: Will it happen?

Item from environmental email list.
Names omitted to protect those guilty of actually thinking about the situation and commenting:

In yesterday's Dem/Gazette, a front-page article said that Exxon is seriously concerned that Congress might outlaw hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, or pass regulations that make the practice too expensive to use.  Such a law would, of course, be wonderful for the immediate environment such as water resources near the natural gas sites, and is also essential for eventually solving global warming because we're doomed if we go ahead and exploit all these "unconventional" fossil fuel resources.  What do you know about efforts to pass such a federal law?  How can we help pass such a law?  

A related thought:  Either a carbon tax, or a cap & trade system, would increase the cost of producing natural gas and might make fracturing unprofitable compared with other energy sources.  

Gas-well work damages environment in several ways

Folks,

I agree 100% with Art. We need to transition from fossil fuels, and we 
need to start it in a serious way, NOW. Not just dribs and drabs here and 
there, the way we are doing it today. Whether the human race is capable 
of such wisdom, is of course, less than certain.

Unfortunately, our treatment of groundwater exhibits our shortcomings. 
Our almost universal depletion of aquifers and pollution of them is a 
really bad idea. Yet it goes on, with almost no effort to turn things 
around.

-- Malcolm

Malcolm K. Cleaveland, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Geography
Tree-Ring Laboratory TEL: 479-575-3159
Dept. of Geosciences, Division of Geography FAX: 479-575-3469
Ozark Hall 113
University of Arkansas - Fayetteville
Fayetteville, AR 72701 U.S.A. INTERNET: mcleavel@uark.edu

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Art Hobson wrote:

> Hi Dina -
>
> Thanks for this note. I wonder what indirect effects these small quakes are 
> having, on groundwater, on buried gas lines, and other things. It might be 
> worth asking Mr. Al-Shukri if he is aware of any such effects.
>
> In my opinion, the big gorilla in these unconventional gas operations (i.e. 
> any gas operation other than simple drilling and release of gas) is global 
> warming. It's been clear for decades, and James Hansen makes it very clear 
> in his recent book "Storms of My Grandchildren," that humankind must not 
> exploit these unconventional fossil resources: shale oil, shale gas, tar 
> sands, deep offshore oil, conversion of coal to liquid and gaseous fuels, 
> etc. Atmospheric CO2 is already up to 390 parts per million, and Hansen 
> shows that this level is already unsustainable and will probably melt much of 
> Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This melting has already begun, 
> but at a slow pace. The pace will increase, and the rate of global sea level 
> rise will eventually reach several meters (yards) per century. According to 
> Hansen, "For the moment the best estimate I can make of when a large sea 
> level change will begin is during the lifetime of my grandchildren--or 
> perhaps your children." Hansen is the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for 
> Space Studies and arguably the world's leading climate scientist.
>
> We must stop the insane exploitation of all these difficult-to-recover 
> unconventional fossil resources. There's far too much carbon in them for the 
> planet to handle without shifting to an entirely new climate regime, one that 
> humans won't be well suited for. The sensible way to do this is to put an 
> economic price on carbon emissions, using a carbon tax & rebate 
> (preferred--see Hansen's book) or a cap & trade system. We haven't really 
> begun to do this yet. We'd better get busy.
>
> - Art
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Dina Nash wrote:
>
>> Wonder how the folks who live "in the middle of nowhere" feel about being 
>> dismissed as unimportant? This is the area where my grandparents taught 
>> school, where more and more people are moving to (Greenbriar and in all 
>> directions out from it). What's happening to their sense of security and 
>> to their livestock, their water wells, and the foundations of their old 
>> barns and homes? At least, there's now the recognition that the drilling 
>> is causing the earthquakes. Wonder how many small ones will happen before 
>> larger ones are triggered? How many does it take for permanent changes in 
>> the water table to happen?
>> 
>> If you have information about people being affected, will you please 
>> contact me and I'll pass the information on to the Sierra Club folks who 
>> are trying to organize measured responses to the shale drilling issue.
>> 
>> Dina Nash, Pulaski County League of Women Voters, Environmental Co-chair
>> Little Rock
>> 501-554-2200 (c)
>> 
>> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>> From: Barry Haas 
>> Sent: Sun, April 11, 2010 11:28:17 PM
>> Subject: April 10, 2010 Arkansas DemGaz article: Scientist blames quakes 
>> on drilling
>> 
>> Scientist blames quakes on drilling
>> By Kenneth Heard
>> LITTLE ROCK — A series of temblors near Greenbrier in central Arkansas, 
>> including one Thursday evening, were more likely caused by gas and oil 
>> drilling than an active fault, geologists said Friday.
>> The U.S. Geological Survey reported an earthquake measuring 1.6 in 
>> magnitude about 5 miles northwest of Greenbrier at 5:01 p.m. Thursday.
>> There were no reports of damage.
>> Several other quakes hit the area over the past several months, said 
>> Haydar Al-Shukri, director of the Arkansas Earthquake Center at the 
>> University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
>> Because the earthquakes have occurred infrequently, Al-Shukri believes 
>> they are caused by workers drilling for oil and gas in Faulkner County. He 
>> expects more, minor ones to rattle the area as drilling continues.
>> “If it were a fault zone, we’d see constant activity,” Al-Shukri said. 
>> “These are occurring sporadically in areas close to drilling and 
>> injecting.”
>> He said drilling and injecting the holes with fluid create pressure 
>> underground and cause shifting of tectonic plates.
>> An area about 8 miles east of Hector in Pope County also has seen an 
>> increase in rumblings, he said. The U.S. Geological Survey reported seven 
>> quakes measuring 1.8 in magnitude or greater in the past three weeks.
>> The epicenters of the quakes were at different depths - another indication 
>> that they are not fault-based and instead are caused by the drilling, 
>> Al-Shukri said.
>> “When someone extracts oil or injects a lot of fluid into the subsurface, 
>> it causes a tip in the balance,” he said. “These quakes are the result of 
>> that imbalance.”
>> Al-Shukri doesn’t expect the earthquakes to be greater than 3.5 in 
>> magnitude.
>> Quakes measuring 4.0 in magnitude can cause minor structural damage.
>> “We don’t anticipate any problems,” he said. “They are small and most are 
>> happening in the middle of nowhere where the drilling is going on.”
>> This article was published April 10, 2010 at 5:24 a.m.
>> 
>> 
>
> Art Hobson, Physics, U Arkansas, Fayetteville.
> See my liberal-arts physics textbook and other stuff at 
> http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/.

EPA to throw cold water on natural-gas industry pollution

• Climate Change
• Wildlife
• Carbon Regulation
• Coal

EPA To Throw Cold Water on Natural Gas Industry

by Christopher MimsMarch 23, 2010 07:10 AM (PT)Topics: Climate Change, Oil and Gas, Water

• Share85
• 2254 Views

Ever since a documentary filmmaker's drinking watercaught fire as a result of contamination from a nearby natural gas extraction operation — in which millions of gallons of water, sand and top-secret chemicals are injected deep into deposits of shale to free the natural gas trapped within — the industry behind this innovation has had a PR problem.

And well it should: While the industry loves to cite a 2004 study conducted by the EPA that declared hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking" for short, safe for drinking water supplies, the EPA now says that study was wholly inadequate to address the orgy of fracking now occurring in the United States. Fracking involves pumping water and chemicals deep into the earth — and potentially into watersheds — to force natural gas to flow into shafts to be excavated. The EPA has announced that it will conduct a new study to re-evaluate the safety of the practice. But you can imagine how that's going over in an industry that has literally exploded in the past ten years, spewing so much natural gas into U.S. supplies that it has, all by itself, chopped the price of natural gas in half.

But if you thought the debate over the health care bill was dirty, you haven't begun to conceive of the fights between water, energy and the environment that will play out in the 21st century, as supplies of conventional oil dwindle and reserves of conventional natural gas (Canada is currently our largest supplier) continue to shrink. Fracking has the potential to become the U.S.'s tar sands.

Aside from the fact that exploiting remote stores of natural gas means a whole new reserve of carbon for us to send into the atmosphere, there are other parallels with the climate policy debate: Waxman and Markey are involved, and fracking has friends on the Hill, just like countless other carbon-intensive, fossil fuel-centric industries.

The bottom line is that as oil becomes scarce, and funding for our domestic renewable energy industry continues to languish for lack of a strong and consistent signal from Washington, the U.S. is left with a lousy choice: burn more coal or burn more natural gas. Fracking gets us more of the latter, which is easier on the climate, BTU for BTU, but could destroy our dwindling supplies of fresh water in the process. The debate is already getting personal for citizens of America's most populous city: New York's water comes from natural reservoirs within protected watersheds, upstate, which is precisely where oil and gas companies propose to launch yet another bacchanal of fracking.

The gas isn't going away, and neither is our need for cheap energy. Whether that will beat out our desire to have uncontaminated wells is precisely what the upcoming EPA study is designed to address. Yet, if things play out as they have in the climate arena, the science will matter only to the defenders of the environment, while industry and its cronies act to preserve their own short-term interests.

Photo credit: Todbaker

Christopher Mims is a Florida-based journalist whose work has appeared in Scientific American, Wired, Popular Science, Technology Review, Discover magazine and others.

Make a Difference & Spread the Word

Ask Congress to restore Clean Water Act now

Please double-click "view as webpage" link near top right to see full post.

March 22, 2010  View as Webpage | Forward | Subscribe   Dear Aubrey, If you think the Clean Water Act protects your drinking water from pollution, think again. Please take action today to ensure fundamental safeguards for clean water in our streams, rivers, and lakes. A confusing 2006 Supreme Court decision on the Clean Water Act has left the fate of 60 percent of the nation’s stream miles -– that provide drinking water for 117 million Americans –- in legal limbo. As a result, as reported in The New York Times, polluters are now claiming complete exemptions from reporting what they dump into local streams. Congress can resolve this problem by passing legislation to restore full federal protection for all our waters. Help us ensure that all of our nation’s waters are protected under the Clean Water Act. Urge your representative to support introducing and passing the Clean Water Restoration Act today. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Katherine Baer Senior Director, Clean Water Program

To contact American Rivers, email us at outreach@AmericanRivers.org. To update your profile or change your preferences click here. To unsubscribe click here.  American Rivers ©2010

I would like to express grave concern over the loss of protection for many of our small streams that provide clean drinking water for 117 million Americans in communities across the country. Supreme Court decisions in the Rapanos and Carabell cases have made it confusing and burdensome for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect small streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

As a result, enforcement actions against polluters have declined sharply the EPA estimates that over 1,000 cases have been shelved or dropped altogether. More recently it has become clear that some polluters are using the decisions as a justification to avoid any permitting and reporting requirements for discharging pollutants into our waters.

For the Clean Water Act to fulfill its goal of restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters, all waters must receive protection corresponding with Congress' original intent when passing this landmark law. Upstream waters must be protected from pollution and destruction if we expect downstream waters to be fit for swimming, drinking, and fish and wildlife, and downstream communities to be safe from flooding.

I urge you to act in the interest of preserving clean water for healthy communities and wildlife. Please support introduction and passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would clarify the definition of waters to eliminate uncertainty and ensure clean water in accordance with the goals of the Clean Water Act.

Thank you for your consideration.

Gas-well waste problem in Texas. See Pandora's Wells in Fort Worth Weekly at link below

Pandora's Wells | Fort Worth Weekly - News, Entertainment, Restaurants, Music

Democracy Now video below shows hidden cost of hydraulic fracturing in search for fossil fuel

The morning of February 23, 2010, on Democracy Now (every weekday morning 7am CAT Ch. 18) Amy interviewed Josh Fox, the director of the new film, "Gasland."
He traveled about 10 states and discovered widespread pollution of groundwater by hydraulic fracturing. The or a connection to CCTF is the harm caused by the reckless search for additional fossil fuels. There are hidden costs in fracturing; the public needs to know the true costs in this and all energy sources. Also the corruption involved (another cost):

The 2005 Energy Bill exempted the natural-gas industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act especially to give free rein to fracking. Imagine the amount of money spent on campaign contributions and lobbying to produce that special corporate-interest legislature.

--
Dick Bennett
jbennet@uark.edu

Arkansas Supreme Court to hear major environmental case the week before Earth Day: Will the court do the right thing?

State Supreme Court Sets Hearing on Swepco Power Plant
By The Associated Press - 2/9/2010 12:03:25 PM

LITTLE ROCK - The Arkansas Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on April 15 in a utility's appeal of a ruling that voided its permit to operate a $1.6 billion coal-fired electric generation plant in southwest Arkansas.
(Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast published, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Copyright © 2010, Arkansas Business Limited Partnership. All Rights Reserved.

Photo montage of World Peace Wetland Prairie

Please click on image to ENLARGE and navigate up and down, right and left, to see whole montage.

Montage by Lauren D. Hawkins with photos by Aubrey James Shepherd

OMNI Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology invites all to open house from 3 to 6 p.m. today

View Larger Map



OMNI Center for Peace Justice and Ecology opens new house to all TODAY!
Office Phone: (479)935-4422
omni.center.for.pje@gmail.com
“OMNI Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
educates and empowers people to actively
build a non-violent, sustainable and just world.”
Saturday,
February 2010
3:00—6:00 PM
3274 N. Lee Ave
OMNI CENTER for PEACE, JUSTICE & ECOLOGY
You are invited to celebrate the dedication of
OMNI Center’s new building! Enjoy music, re-
freshments, good fellowship, speakers, and
tours! Learn more than 35 ways to be involved
in OMNI. Help build a culture of peace in an
earth restored, that includes everyone.
Children
Welcome!
Handicap
Access
Refreshments
Will Be
Served!
Open House!

Arkansas Natural Heritage leases mineral rights

NWAOnline.com

Natural areas’ mineral rights leased

By ALISON SIDER

Saturday, January 16, 2010

LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission leased its mineral rights in two designated natural areas in the Fayetteville Shale formation to XTO Energy on Friday, for a bonus payment of more than $1.4 million in addition to any royalties from gas produced from the land.

XTO paid more than $3,000 an acre for both areas, with a 25 percent royalty payment, well above the minimum bid of $950 an acre set by the Natural Resources Committee.

The commission was approached in October by gas companies about leasing their mineral rights on 197.5 acres of the Big Creek Natural Area in Cleburne County, and 228 acres of Cove Creek Natural Area in Faulkner County, Deputy Director Chris Colclasure said.

“We’re the lessors of last resort; we’re not in the business to make money from gas leases for the Natural Heritage Commission. But we need to be good neighbors,” said Karen Smith, the commission’s director.

Large portions of the natural areas are in 640-acre sections shared with other landowners, most of whom had already leased their mineral rights to gas companies. Drilling and exploration activity could not begin in these areas unless the commission signed on as well.

“They were basically just waiting on us,” Colclasure said. The commission has not leased the mineral rights on a 640-acre section within Big Creek Natural Area that it does not share with any other landowners, Colclasure said.

The state purchased the natural areas to preserve habitats for plant and animal species and for public enjoyment. To help maintain their integrity, several restrictions were built into the leases. The commission stipulated that no gas wells or other surface disruptions can take place on the public lands, and no gas wells can be drilled within a 200-foot “buffer” zone. Colclasure said the commission also asked the private landowners who own portions of the mineral rights in Big Creek natural area to include similar provisions in their lease contracts.

This is the commission’s third and largest mineral rights lease. It leased 40 acres in the Big Creek natural area in 2007 for a $20,000 bonus and another 40 acres last summer for a $120,000 bonus. The commission also has received royalties from drilling that began in one of these areas over the summer.

The revenue from these transactions goes to the commission as stipulated by a state statute, Smith said. It intends to use the money for special projects such as land acquisitions, Smith said.

Smith said they have seen nothing negative from allowing drilling activity under their lands.

“We have stewardship staff that go to these natural areas and monitor periodically, and we have not witnessed any environmental impact to our land ownings,” she said.

Since drilling began in the Fayetteville Shale five years ago, several state agencies have found themselves with land holdings that sit on top of the valuable resource. The horizontal drilling practices employed in the Fayetteville Shale have allowed gas companies to drill laterals thousands of feet long and deep beneath the earth’s surface, so gas can be extracted with minimal disruption above.

State agencies, excluding universities, recorded $39,256,000 in accounts described as “mineral leases, mineral leases and royalties, and mineral oil and gas leases,” in the 2009 fiscal year, said Paul Lothian, the head of the Department of Finance and Administration’s accounting department. In addition, the state has received about $750,000 from mineral rights on federal land within the state that has been leased.

The Game and Fish Commission is the most active agency in the market for mineral rights. It has leased more than 11,000 acres and received bonus payments in the neighborhood of $34 million since it started leasing its mineral rights in wildlife management areas, said Deputy Director Loren Hitchcock.

Hitchcock said the commission stipulated that drilling activity can only occur during certain parts of the year and not during hunting season, leaving about a four month window. “I think we have enough safeguards in place to deal with their operations,” he said.

The commission is being sued by James Dockery, a Little Rock man who claims that the money from natural gas leases held by the agency should go to the state’s general fund and not to the agency itself.

The Arkansas State Parks Department leased its mineral rights in Woolly Hollow State Park in Greenbrier to Chesapeake Energy in May 2009 but will not allow drilling on the surface. The department received nearly $197,000 for the rights to drill under the 432-acre park.

Other state agencies that have leased mineral rights for gas exploration include the Highway and Transportation Department, the Department of Human Services, the University of Arkansas, University of Southern Arkansas and Arkansas State University at Searcy and Beebe, said Jerry Bradshaw, mineral leasing officer in the Real Estate Division of the state land commissioner’s office.

Most of these have no drilling clauses included in their lease agreements, he said.

“Everybody’s a pretty good steward of the land,” Bradshaw said.

Business, Pages 31 on 01/16/2010