Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fracking. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fracking. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Facts on Fracking etc. ......


The Facts on Fracking


In this March 29, 2013 photo, a worker helps monitor water pumping pressure and temperature, at an Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. hydraulic fracturing and extraction site, outside Rifle, in western Colorado. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking — a method of extracting natural gas from underground shale formations — has become a contentious issue across America, especially in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, states that sit on top of the Marcellus Shale, the largest known deposit of shale gas in America. The shale formation could contain nearly 500 trillion cubic feet of gas — enough to power all American homes for 50 years. Oil and mining companies want to get the gas out, but environmentalist groups say the process is not safe. Here are the facts:

What is fracking, and how is it used?

Hydraulic fracturing is a 60-year-old technology. In the 1940s, oil and gas companies learned that pressurized water, sand and chemicals could be injected into a shale formation to loosen the shale and release gas and oil. The chemicals dissolve minerals and kill bacteria, and the sand props open the fractures in the shale so the gas or oil can be released. In the 1990s, oil engineers in Texas began combining fracking techniques with horizontal drilling, using higher volumes of pressurized water and chemical cocktails to release natural gas trapped in shale formations that hadn’t been reachable through vertical drilling.

What are the benefits of fracking?

In the past decade, the use of fracking has transformed America’s energy industry. In 2000, shale gas made up one percent of America’s gas supplies; in 2011 it was 25 percent. Natural gas is cleaner than America’s other two primary sources of energy, coal and oil, and, while more expensive than coal, is far cheaper than oil.

The shale boom has also helped regions that are suffering economically, creating 72,000 jobs in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2011.

What are the risks of fracking?

The chemicals that are injected into shale deposits during fracking in the U.S. include acids, detergents and poisons that can be harmful if they seep into drinking water. Trucking and storage accidents have caused spills of fracking fluids and the salty water used — called brine — also resulting in contaminated drinking water. Gas companies often do not disclose the composition of their fracking chemical cocktails, making it difficult to monitor the risks of each fracking project. Methane gas can also escape during fracking, creating the possibility of dangerous explosions.

After the fracking process, deposits of radioactive elements and huge concentrations of salt are left in the earth’s surface; in order to dispose of these deposits gas companies inject them into deep wells, in some cases triggering small earthquakes, as has already happened in eight U.S. locations. New Pennsylvania regulations enacted in 2011 require gas companies to recycle 90 percent of the briny water by reusing it to frack more shale.

Fracking allows us to burn what was until recently an unreachable fossil fuel reservoir, which leads to the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In addition to the natural gas itself, both the methane gas that is a byproduct of extraction and the carbon dioxide that is created through burning that methane are greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.

The New York State debate

Of the states over the Marcellus Shale formation, fracking is already underway in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Fracking is also being used to reach gas in states beyond the Marcellus deposit, notably North Dakota and Texas. But New York state policymakers have not yet decided whether fracking should be allowed in their state.

In September 2011, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation released its recommendations for how the state can allow fracking without endangering New Yorkers with contaminated drinking water. The DEC recommended that fracking not take place within 2,000 feet of public drinking supplies or within 500 feet of private wells, unless approved of by the landowner.

The proposed rules would also ban fracking within the New York City and Syracuse watersheds. In March 2013, the Democrat-dominated State Assembly approved a two-year moratorium on fracking from the state’s southern border with Pennsylvania to the Catskills until there is “conclusive scientific evidence” on possible health and environmental risks. Conventional drilling, which uses shallower wells and far less water than high-volume fracking, has gone on for decades in New York.

Outside the U.S.

The practice is controversial outside of America as well. France and Bulgaria have the largest shale reserves in Europe; France banned fracking in 2001 due to environmental concerns, and Bulgaria banned it in 2012. Environmentalists are looking for similar bans in England and Poland.


Related Features



http://billmoyers.com/content/the-facts-on-fracking/

 

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Let's Stop Fracking Around!

Please add your name to oppose fracking!
It's not harmless or clean.

This could be big!

A comprehensive, thorough, 93 page report on fracking's impacts on groundwater has just been released!

AND it's broken down into bite-sized chunks.
LIKE, SHARE, and take a look!
Game-Changing Fracking Wastewater Report Leaves Little Wiggle Room For Industry Deceptions
June 18, 2013
.C. Tap Water Alliance
Alberta-based environmental consultant Jessica Ernst just released the first comprehensive catalog and summary compendium of facts related to the contamination of North America’s ground water sources resulting from the oil and gas industry’s controversial practice of fracking.

Photo courtesy of Peakwater.org

Based on research collected over many years, the 93-page report, Brief Review of Threats to Groundwater from the Oil and Gas Industry’s Methane Migration and Hydraulic Fracturing, looks to be a game-changing document, providing little wiggle room for private industry and government spokespeople advocating fracking’s immunity from public concern, criticism and liability.

Ever since the pioneering days of coalbed methane fracking experiments in southeast and southwest U.S. in the late 1970s, and through subsequent and evolving grandiose technical stages of widespread experimenting with fracking in the U.S. and Canada, the deep-pocketed inter-corporate industry has consistently fought and influenced both government and citizenry by burying the truth about its cumulative impacts to the environment and human health through confidentiality agreements, threats, half-truths and deceptions. This catalog, devoted primarily to the theme of groundwater impacts, helps to shine the light upon a behemoth circus of utter pitch black darkness.

“Jessica Ernst has made a strong case,” notes Will Koop, B.C. Tap Water Alliance coordinator. “Her collection provides excellent and technically friendly working tools, enabling the public to draw their own conclusions from the critical information. This is not just an invaluable document for North Americans, but for the world.”

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
——–
Sign the petition today, telling President Obama to enact an immediate fracking moratorium:


 
 
 
 
 
"The strength of the resistance manifested itself again June 17 when more than 3,000 people of all ages and backgrounds from across New York gathered in Albany to urge Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the legislature to end the threat of fracking and promote a clean energy agenda. Robert Boyle, a long-time environmental activist and founder of Riverkeeper, remarked last year that he has never seen an environmental movement “spread with such wildfire” as the anti-fracking movement.
“It took me 13 or 14 years to get the first Riverkeeper going. Fracking isn’t like that. It’s like lighting a train of powder,” he told journalist Ellen Cantarow."

Influence of Grassroots Anti-Fracking Movement Spreads Like Wildfire

EcoWatch

Jill Wiener has dedicated a large part of the past five years of her life to keeping the use of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction out of New York State. The Sullivan County, NY, resident believes that if fracking has yet to happen in a state, it should never be allowed to happen. And where fracking is happening, it should be stopped.
Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy members/volunteers with boxes in Sullivan County, NY, in January. Catskill Citizens’ members generated (in 30 days) more than 24,000 of the 200,000 public comments submitted to New York State regarding its proposed fracking regulations. Jill Wiener is front and center (sixth from the left). Photo Credit: Dana Duke

Many of Wiener’s fellow grassroots activists in New York share this belief. They’re opposed to the regulatory path followed in other states, including in Illinois where some big environmental groups worked with the natural gas industry to get fracking legislation passed and signed into law. So far, the New York activists’ strategy for keeping shale gas drilling out of the state has worked: fracking in New York still appears to be a long way off, if it happens at all.

The strength of the resistance manifested itself again June 17 when more than 3,000 people of all ages and backgrounds from across New York gathered in Albany to urge Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the legislature to end the threat of fracking and promote a clean energy agenda. Robert Boyle, a long-time environmental activist and founder of Riverkeeper, remarked last year that he has never seen an environmental movement “spread with such wildfire” as the anti-fracking movement.

“It took me 13 or 14 years to get the first Riverkeeper going. Fracking isn’t like that. It’s like lighting a train of powder,” he told journalist Ellen Cantarow.

Spreading Like Wildfire

The movement started to spread like wildfire in New York when concerned residents began educating their neighbors about the dangers of fracking. “The grassroots groups actually informed the Big Green groups,” Wiener said in an interview with EcoWatch. “This was the grassroots telling the grass tops what was happening on the ground and doing the research and seeing that something was wrong. Back in 2008, the Big Greens thought that natural gas was a good bridge fuel, better for the climate.”

Anti-fracking activists in New York were hearing news about what was happening in Pennsylvania, stories that put them on high alert. “We had a head-start because the industry marched through Pennsylvania first,” Wiener said. When industry representatives began showing up in New York, they guaranteed millions of dollars to residents if they leased their land and minimal impact on the environment from the shale gas extraction process.

But many residents refused to buy into the industry’s narrative. “There are a lot of native New Yorkers here,” Wiener said. “We all grew up with the story, ‘Well, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.’ We’re pretty skeptical.”

Wiener became involved in the anti-fracking movement after she ran into a friend at a local supermarket who handed her literature describing what the natural gas industry had up its sleeve.

“I looked at it and said, ‘Oh dear! They’re never going to do this here. This is a hair-brained scheme,’” she recalled.

Wiener and other anti-fracking activists in the region were feeling good about their chances because they had just finished working with state lawmakers to defeat the construction of an electric transmission line called the New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI). The proposed 400-kilovolt, 1,200 megawatt, high-voltage line would have run about 190 miles from Utica, NY, to Orange County, NY.

“The whole project didn’t make sense. It was not easily defeated, but we had our elected officials on our side,” explained Wiener. The activists were expecting the same success in the fight against fracking. Getting public officials on board the anti-fracking bandwagon would be a “no-brainer,” she thought. Activists soon discovered, though, that the fight against fracking would be much tougher and drawn-out than the campaign against the NYRI electric transmission line.

Wiener’s concerns about fracking led her to Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, a group formed in 2008 in reaction to “landmen knocking on doors.” The group seeks to educate the public about fracking and to promote clean energy. At Catskill Citizens, no one takes a salary and there’s no office. The organization is run by volunteers who make decisions by consensus.

The various anti-fracking groups in New York regularly communicate with each other. “If there is a plan or an action or a piece of legislation, we keep in very close touch. We have open discussions about where we need help,” Wiener said.

Catskill Citizens has attracted “creative thinkers from all political stripes,” many of whom have organizing experience, she said. “This is not a left-wing, tree-hugging issue. It’s a public health issue and everybody deserves clean air, clean water and the right to their property and the quiet enjoyment of their property,” she emphasized.

An Artist and an Activist

An artist by trade, Wiener moved into a late nineteenth century farm house in Callicoon, NY, from New York City in 1997, where she set up a pottery studio. Along with running a pottery business, Wiener grows flowers on her farm that she then cuts and arranges for parties, weddings and special events.

“I now spend much more time ‘working’ with Catskill Citizens than tending to my own businesses,” she said. It’s Wiener’s strong convictions that allow her to work the long hours needed to help sustain a movement. “I don’t have kids. It’s not like I’m fighting for my own children. But there is right and there is wrong. And, boy, I really hate wrong,” she said.


Jill Wiener pictured front and center, holding Catskill Citizens sign at Don’t Frack New York Rally in Albany NY, Aug. 27, 2012. Photo credit: New Yorkers Against Fracking

In her work as an activist, Wiener serves as a member of the board of directors of Catskill Citizens and is on the advisory council of Stop the Frack Attack, a national coalition of anti-fracking groups.

Since moving out of New York City, Wiener also has served on the boards of the Sullivan County Visitors Association, Sullivan County Farmers’ Markets, Jeffersonville Area Chamber of Commerce and the Sullivan County Alliance for Sustainable Development. She ran for the Callicoon Town Council in 2011 but did not win a seat. “I believe it is my duty to participate, to try to make our communities better where we can and protect them where we must,” she said.

Before she became involved in the anti-fracking movement, Wiener said she had trouble standing up and speaking in front of just a handful of people. In recent years, though, she has become a spokesperson for the movement, speaking at events where she puts her gas industry expertise and her quick wit on display in front of large crowds. “One of my proudest moments was at the [Don't Frack New York rally in Albany in August 2012] when I spoke in front of over 2,000 people,” she said.

On most days, Wiener said she is phoning fellow anti-fracking activists to talk strategy, attending meetings or performing ordinary organizational duties to help make the movement even bigger. “Our numbers keep increasing and I think our resolve keeps getting stronger and stronger because everyday something else that is an obvious wrong comes from this industry,” she said.

“The industry had for years and years sold natural gas as this perfect solution to our energy problems and to climate change. They sold it as wonderful and clean and green and you put a straw into the ground and you just sort of suck the gas out and it’s very simple,” Wiener said. “But it really turns out that it wasn’t. This is not your grandmother’s gas well.”

The rush to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale and other shale gas plays is creating industrial zones in rural areas across the U.S. The industrialization of wide swaths of forestland, meadows and mountains is threatening the health of humans who live near the drilling zones and disturbing animal and plant species who inhabit these regions.

Most people agree that the natural gas extraction process harms the environment. But they disagree on the extent of the harm. There’s debate on whether the benefits of natural gas production outweigh the harm it causes. According to Wiener, the natural gas industry often takes “one kernel of one word of truth and they surround it in this pile of misinformation.”

Five Minutes of Happy Dance

The odds appear to be stacked against anti-fracking activists, especially when they compare their meager budgets with the industry’s huge war chests. “It’s very hard to break through that with the truth when you’re faced with insurmountable amounts of money. But somehow we manage to do it, person to person to person,” she said.

Echoing a major theme in Gasland 2, the new documentary made by filmmaker Josh Fox, Wiener said the political elite’s overwhelming support for fracking at the state and federal levels demonstrates that the nation has “a democracy problem” and that there is “undue influence by corporate money.”

The influence of money also is seen in the nonprofit sector. Referring to the Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) involvement in the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, Wiener said she takes exception to environmental groups that are “GINO,” or green in name only. The Pittsburgh-based center, formed earlier this year, bills itself as a coalition of companies and groups working together to improve environmental performance of industry operations. In addition to EDF, the center’s members include Chevron Corp., CONSOL Energy Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell plc, as well as Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future and the Pennsylvania Environment Council.

“If the Environmental Defense Fund actually wanted to do something good, they could take their incredible power and the money that they’ve gotten from Mayor Bloomberg, and put it to good use by educating the public on the dangers of shale gas extraction,” she said. In August 2012, Bloomberg Philanthropies awarded the EDF with a three-year, $6 million grant for its work to “minimize the environmental impacts of natural gas operations through hydraulic fracturing.”

According to Wiener, the EDF “could walk into Pennsylvania because they have relationships there and say, ‘That’s enough now, stop! You put a moratorium on this right now. Unless and until you get it right and you’re not putting people’s lives at risk and polluting their air and changing the character of your state in an irreversible way, you don’t do it.’”

North of the border, in New York, pro-industry officials and environmental activists alike are beginning to believe the strength of the anti-fracking movement could spoil the natural gas industry’s dream of a shale gas bonanza in the state. Wiener, who describes herself as “really stubborn,” believes New York can remain free of shale gas drilling as long as she and fellow activists keep applying pressure.

But what if anti-fracking forces do succeed in New York? That was a question that a state lawmaker asked Wiener at a recent meeting. “My own state senator—not particularly on our side—said, ‘Jill, what are you going to do if you ever manage to stop this? Are you going to sit back and do everything you did before?’”

“I said, ‘No, if we can stop it in New York, you think I’m going to leave everybody else behind? No. Five minutes of happy dance and then we’re right back to work.’”

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
——–

Sign the petition today, telling President Obama to enact an immediate fracking moratorium:




http://ecowatch.com/2013/influence-grassroots-anti-fracking-movement-like-wildfire/

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

To Frack or Not to Frack?

The last few months have been a whirlwind of activity to stop the environmental destruction of a practice employed for gas drilling known as 'fracking' or hydraulic fracturing.

Below are just a small sampling of recent articles and it would seem we need to consider the consequences of our energy source and its environmental implications, just as with the environmental destruction caused by mountaintop removal.


As Robert Kennedy, Jr. said of Mountaintop Removal: The Fight over Coal Mining is a “Fight About Democracy.”

Do Big Corporations have a right to destroy environments, sicken communities and contaminate drinking water?


To Frack or Not to Frack?
— By Kate Sheppard

It's been a busy week for anyone following the national debates over hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," the controversial method used to cut into shale rock to extract natural gas. In New Jersey, a strong bipartisan majority in both chambers of the legislature approved a bill banning fracking in the state as its neighbor to the north, New York, appeared ready to end its moratorium on the practice.




Geothermal: The Safe Way to Use the Energy Beneath Our Feet
By Jordann Kaye
As the debate about hydro-fracking (also known as hydraulic fracturing) continues to rage in states like New York and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, it may be time to shine the spotlight on a less controversial way to harvest a natural resource from the ground -- geothermal heat pumps.


Insiders Warn “Shale Plays are Just Giant Ponzi Schemes” in Bombshell-Laden NY Times Piece on Natural Gas, Fracking
By Joe Romm


Tell T. Boone the Pickens Plan Must Put People Over Profits

The Fracking Fuss
What it's about—and why you should care


From The Progress Report:
The natural gas industry has developed the coloring book “Talisman Terry’s Energy Adventure,” starring the “friendly fracosaurus,” a smiling dinosaur who glosses over environmental concerns and promotes the message that fracking is smart.


Mark Ruffalo wants you to stand up to hydrofracking

NY fracking ban continues for at least another year

Pro-fracking ad accidentally reveals dangers of fracking
by Christopher Mims

Fracking Disclosure Pursued on Different Fronts

Fracking with our food: how gas drilling affects farming

Oil Company Investors Seeking the Big Two to Come Clean About Hydraulic Fracturing
Posted by FREDERICA CADE

The most danceable fracking explainer you’ll see today
by Jess Zimmerman



Tell President Obama: Keep Our Drinking Water Safe

Drinking water in thousands of homes 'contaminated with harmful levels of methane'
By Daily Mail Reporter



Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid (VIDEO)

Major fracking spill happening now in Pennsylvania

Fracking Gone Wrong: Finding a Better Way

The Dark Side of the Boom

Study: Dangerous Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracking
A congressional probe has found oil and gas corporations involved in the drilling practice of hydrofracking injected hundreds of millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into wells in more than a dozen states from 2005 to 2009. The chemicals were used in the fluids used to open up deposits of natural gas deep below ground. The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee also found that companies used at least 650 products that are known or possible human carcinogens, or are hazardous air pollutants
.

Democratic Report: Carcinogens Injected Into Wells During Fracking

Study: Gas from ‘fracking’ worse than coal on climate
By Ben Geman

Fracking concern in South Africa?

From: Ruona Agbroko, Reuters, JOHANNESBURG


Blowout at natural gas well releases drilling fluids to environment

Fracking Ground Water
From: Andy Soos, ENN

Pennsylvania Limits Authority of Oil and Gas Inspectors
by Abrahm Lustgarten


Leaked EPA Documents Expose Decades-Old Effort to Hide Dangers of Natural Gas Extraction

Monday, October 7, 2013

Fracking: The Costs



Published on Friday, October 4, 2013 by Common Dreams

Shut It All Down: Report Calls for Nationwide Ban on Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing gas drilling turning America's water into cancer-causing, radioactive waste

- Jon Queally, staff writer  




The explosion of hydraulic fracturing in the last several years, according to a new report, is creating a previously 'unimaginable' situation in which hundreds of billions of gallons of the nation's fresh water supply are being annually transformed into unusable—sometimes radioactive—cancer-causing wastewater.

According to the report, Fracking by the Numbers, produced by Environment America, the scale and severity of fracking’s myriad impacts betray all claims that natural gas is a "cleaner" or somehow less damaging alternative to other fossil fuels.

The report explores various ways in which gas fracking negatively impacts both human health and the environment, including the contamination of drinking water, overuse of scarce water sources, the effect of air pollution on public health, its connection to global warming, and the overall cost imposed on communities where fracking operations are located.

“The bottom line is this: The numbers on fracking add up to an environmental nightmare,” said John Rumpler, the report's lead author and senior attorney for Environment America. “For our environment and for public health, we need to put a stop to fracking.”

In fact, the report concludes that in state's where the practice is now occurring, immediate moratoriums should be enacted and in states where the practice has yet to be approved, bans should be legislated to prevent this kind of drilling from ever occurring.

Though the report acknowledges its too early to know the full the extent of the damage caused by the controversial drilling practice, it found that even a look at the "limited data" available—taken mostly from industry reports and government figures between 2005 and 2012—paints "an increasingly clear picture of the damage that fracking has done to our environment and health."

So what are the numbers?

The report measured key indicators of fracking threats across the country, and found:
• 280 billion gallons of toxic wastewater generated in 2012,
• 450,000 tons of air pollution produced in one year,
• 250 billion gallons of fresh water used since 2005,
• 360,000 acres of land degraded since 2005,
• 100 million metric tons of global warming pollution since 2005.
“The numbers don't lie," said Rumbpler. "Fracking has taken a dirty and destructive toll on our environment. If this dirty drilling continues unchecked, these numbers will only get worse."
The Environment America report comes on the heels of a study released by researchers at Duke University earlier this week that found a "surprising magnitude of radioactivity" in the local water near a fracking operation in Pennsylvania.

And ClimateProgress adds:
The report also pointed out the weaknesses of current wastewater disposal practices — wastewater is often stored in deep wells, but over time these wells can fail, leading to the potential for ground and surface water contamination. In New Mexico alone, chemicals from oil and gas pits have contaminated water sources at least 421 times, according to the report.
Those toxic chemicals are exempt from federal disclosure laws, so it’s up to each state to decide if and how the oil and gas companies should disclose the chemicals they use in their operations — which is why in many states, citizens don’t know what goes into the brew that fracking operators use to extract oil and natural gas. Luckily, some states are beginning to address this — California recently passed a law ordering fracking companies to make their chemicals public, an order similar to laws in about seven other states.
The report also noted the vast quantities of water needed for fracking — from 2 million to 9 million gallons on average to frack one well. Since 2005, according to the report, fracking operations have used 250 billion gallons of freshwater. This is putting a strain on places like one South Texas county, where fracking was nearly one quarter of total water use in 2011 — and dry conditions could push that amount closer to one-third.
In addition to the impact on surface and ground water supplies, fracking is a well-known contributor to global warming and numerous studies have shown that the methane emissions created by the extraction and transportation of natural gas far outweighs any benefit generated by its ability to burn "cleaner" than oil or coal.
Download or read the complete report here (pdf).

Fracking produces annual toxic waste water enough to flood Washington DC --Growing concerns over radiation risks as report finds widespread environmental damage on an unimaginable scale in the US 04 Oct 2013 Fracking in America generated 280bn US gallons of toxic waste water last year – enough to flood all of Washington DC beneath a 22ft deep toxic lagoon, a new report out on Thursday found. The report from campaign group Environment America said America's transformation into an energy superpower was exacting growing costs on the environment. "Our analysis shows that damage from fracking is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago," the report, Fracking by the Numbers, said.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Concealing the truth about fracking.....

Please join with others speaking out against censoring research showing the adverse effects of fracking by adding your name below:

From Environmental Action,


Tell the EPA to quit protecting frackersYou won't believe what the EPA is covering up now. The agency has already covered up reports on fracking in Wyoming, Texas, and Pennsylvania to protect the polluters, not the planet. A new story in EnergyWire suggests why: they have been under political pressure to cover up fracking's danger to our planet, and to our health.*

The EPA needs our help to stand up to that pressure and do its job. That's why
I will be standing with members of all three affected communities next Wednesday at EPA Headquarters and the White House. Click here to add your name, and I will deliver it in person.





Environmental Action members demanded Gina McCarthy be confirmed to head the EPA because we believed she would take strong action to protect our environment, as she has in the past. Sign here to tell McCarthy to stand up to frackers and politicians alike by reinstating the research that proves fracking is bad for our water, land and air.

Shocking reports show that EPA research proved that fracking was contaminating people's drinking water, even rendering it flammable. But when the research looked bad for frackers, the EPA didn't pull the plug on drilling, it pulled the plug on the research**.

Thanks to courageous whistleblowers at EPA, we now know the agency has been sweeping its own research on fracking under the rug and putting the health of families and our environment at risk. We have already gone to the EPA office in Philly to thank the whistleblowers and speak out against censorship. Now we need to get the message to the head of the EPA. McCarthy wasn't head of the EPA when this happened, but McCarthy inherited the scandal and needs to address it.

Censorship of fracking studies has already happened in Parker County, Texas, Pavillion, Wyo., and now, in the town of Dimock in my home state of Pennsylvania. You might recognize that name, because it's near where Josh Fox of Gasland I and II lives. Well if the EPA wanted to cover up research proving that fracking contaminates drinking water, they picked the wrong town in the wrong state to do it. But we need your help to make sure this scandal gets attention from the most powerful people at EPA and the White House. Click here to tell the EPA to reopen their investigations into contamination of water by fracking.

Jesse Bacon,
Environmental Action


**Fracking EPA Censorship: 3 times is a tradition, Jesse Bacon, Environmental Action Blog, August 7th 2013


Tell the EPA to stop blocking fracking investigations


Fracking censoredThey are not protecting us. Over the past year, the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly shut down its own fracking-related water contamination investigations after being pressured by the oil and gas industry.

We knew that fracking has contaminated water from Pennsylvania to Wyoming, and thanks to EPA whistleblowers, now we know the EPA knew it too. So now they need to reopen their investigation into this dangerous and dirty drilling practice and stand with the people and the planet hurt by fracking.

Please fill out the form below and edit the message with your own story of what water you hold dear. We'll deliver your messages to the new EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and President Obama to make sure the EPA does its job to protect all of us.



Tuesday, June 30, 2015

CorpWatch: Pemex Secretly Expanding Fracking In Mexico, Say Activists




Pemex Secretly Expanding Fracking In Mexico, Say Activists
by Richard Smallteacher, CorpWatch Blog
June 26th, 2015

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib
Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the state owned oil company, is quietly expanding operations to extract oil from shale deposits in six Mexican states. However, the company has failed to disclose its use of a controversial technology called fracking and explain the potential environmental impacts to local communities, say activists.

The Mexican government estimates that there are as much as 141 trillion cubic feet of viable shale gas reserves in Mexico, almost nine times greater than “conventional gas” reserves. In order to get at these deep underground reserves of gas and oil, Pemex has turned to new fracking technologies developed in the U.S. that involves boring holes deep into the earth and then blasting out millions of gallons of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to split up rock and extract the gas contained inside.

Over 900 fracking wells have been drilled around the country – notably in Veracruz in the south is as well in the neighboring states of Oaxaca and Puebla. The Burgos Basin, a shale formation that lies under three northern states that border Texas – Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas – has also been targeted for exploration. Ultimately Pemex hopes to expand Mexican shale production to 45 percent of total output by 2026.

“We don’t know a thing about it,” Gabino Vicente, a local politician in Santa Úrsula, Oaxaca, told Inter Press News Service. “Normally, companies do not provide information to the local communities; they arrange things in secret or with some owners of land by means of deceit, taking advantage of the lack of money in the area.”

“Farmers are upset because they were not informed about what would happen to their land,” Ruth Roux, director of the Social Research Centre at the Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, told the news agency. “They’re starting to see things changing around them. (They) complain that their land fills up with water (and that) the land isn’t producing like before.”

Just as in other countries around the world, from Britain to South Africa, a local resistance movement is building quickly.

The Mexican Alliance Against Fracking presented a 14,000 signature petition to the Mexican parliament last July and staged protests in the capital city that drew an estimated 60,000 people. However, they were unable to stop Enrique Peña Nieto, the president of Mexico, from signing into law an energy bill that allows foreign investment and fracking in the country.

A few politicians have taken up this matter. “It is important that more Mexicans should know the truth about fracking,” Oaxaca Senator Benjamín Robles Montoya from the center left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), wrote on his public Facebook page. “It is an issue that should concern and distress everyone.”

“(Fracking) will have devastating consequences in the state of Chihuahua, from the intensive use of water and its contamination, and from methane emissions that produce 21 times more greenhouse gases than does carbon dioxide,” Chihuahua Senator Javier Corral from the center right National Action Party told Frontera NorteSur. “Over there (Chihuahua), where rain is not plentiful, how will they bring the (water) necessary for drilling a well?”

Water contamination is just one of the reported impact of fracking. Ruperto de la Garza, a geologist at the Gestoría Ambiental y de Riesgos consultancy, published a report last year that showed a statistical correlation between the fracking and earthquakes in Mexico with a large spike in such events in the state of Nuevo León.

“The one thing that has changed is the introduction of fracking. There is no other explanation,” Garza told the Global Post. His findings are consistent with research into earthquakes and fracking in eight U.S. states like Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. /

Mexican activists are now working to educate local communities about the extent of undisclosed fracking by Pemex. Last month CartoCrítica, an organization dedicated to the research and design of maps for use by civil society, released details of hundreds of fracking wells around the country.

Slowly activists are starting to slowly change popular attitudes to the technology. On June 21, activists from 11 Mexican states gathered in Papantla, Veracruz, (where 172 fracking wells have been drilled) to sign a joint statement to resist fracking among other destructive trechnologies. “Our lands, territories, rivers, basins, health and life are not commodities,” they wrote in their declaration. “The peoples of the mountains, valleys, plains and coasts will not allow entry to any project of death (hydroelectric, watershed diversions, pipelines, mining, deforestation, fracking or transgenic) to our territories.”




http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=16038



Friday, October 16, 2015

Massachusetts: You're being SCAMMED by the FRACKING GAS PIPELINE!



Massachusetts residents are being SCAMMED by a Kinder Morgan Pipeline that will bring FRACKED GAS from areas that are enduring ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION. 

How is this CLEAN ENERGY when you destroy the environment of other states? 
How is this CLEAN ENERGY when you destroy the drinking water of your fellow Americans? 

FRACKING was Dick Cheney's WET DREAM! 

It's time to end it! 

Over 100 New Studies Demonstrate the Risks of Fracking 
Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York, EcoWatch 
Excerpt: "The emerging science, including more than 100 studies after New York's ban was announced, further shows that Gov. Cuomo and his Administration were right to ban high volume fracking." 
READ MORE



Fracking site. (photo: AP)
Fracking site. (photo: AP)


Over 100 New Studies Demonstrate the Risks of Fracking

By Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York, EcoWatch
16 October 15

 partnership encompassing nationwide medical and public health experts and scientists released the third edition of the Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking. The compendium, the first two editions of which were important in highlighting the science in New York before the ban was announced, compiles and summarizes hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and other important findings on fracking. The emerging science, including more than 100 studies after New York’s ban was announced, further shows that Gov. Cuomo and his Administration were right to ban high volume fracking.

For the first time, the compendium includes a section on fracking infrastructure, examining the impact of pipelines and compressor stations on health and safety in New York. Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization of physicians, nurses and other public health professionals, joined with Concerned Health Professionals of New York to release the report nationally and send the new report to Gov. Cuomo and Health Commissioner Zucker, with a letter urging the state to put a hold on gas infrastructure expansion until and unless their safety can be demonstrated through comprehensive public health and environmental assessments.
Additionally, the organizations sent letters with the report to President Obama and the Surgeon General asking that they acknowledge the health risks and to call for a meeting. They also sent letters to the governors ofPennsylvania and Maryland, highlighting the significant health risks and calling for moratoria or ban on fracking.
The health groups’ letter to Gov. Cuomo and Commissioner Zucker likewise applauds them for their leadership in relying on solid scientific research and protecting the public health and safety of New Yorkers. In the face of numerous proposals to expand gas infrastructure in the state and emerging scientific evidence of impacts and risks from infrastructure, the health groups are calling for New York to use its power in the permitting process to put on hold and deny permits to expand gas infrastructure and for assessments of public health and environmental impacts to be undertaken. The letter notes that in many cases the federal government has approved permits without adequate consideration of critical issues and impacts.
The letter states, “We strongly urge New York State to put on hold and deny any expansion of natural gas transmission and storage projects, until and unless their safety can be demonstrated through comprehensive public health and environmental assessments.”
The letter notes the range of proposed projects and potential impacts, “What we already know about the public health and climate risks of fracking infrastructure is troubling. What we don’t know is all the more alarming. As New York is faced with numerous proposed new and additional gas pipelines, compressor stations, storage facilities and a major liquefied natural gas terminal, we believe it is crucial to examine both the individual risks these projects pose and to consider their cumulative impacts, including to the state’s climate and energy goals.”
The section of the compendium on drilling and fracking infrastructure compiles the science evidence available, which includes evidence of alarming risks. For example, compressor stations and pipelines are both major sources of air pollutants, including benzene and formaldehyde, which create serious health risks for those living nearby.
As the letter says, in their review of fracking, New York’s Department of Health (DOH) and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rightly noted the potential for harmful air impacts, environmental impacts and other risks from infrastructure. (DOH Health Review p. 5 and Findings Statement p. 27) Given the risks, this year the Medical Society of the State of New York and the American Medical Association each specifically called for comprehensive health impact assessments regarding the health risks associated with fracking infrastructure, including natural gas pipelines and compressor stations.
The letter also notes that infrastructure poses climate impacts, which are counterproductive to the state’s climate and greenhouse gas emissions goals. New York concluded (DEC Findings Statement, p. 18) that natural gas contributes to climate not only directly but also by furthering availability and consumption of fossil fuel, which “has the potential to undermine the deployment of various types of renewable energy and energy efficiencies, thereby suppressing investment in and use of these clean energy technologies.”
Kathy Nolan, MD, MSL, of Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility—New York, said, “Gov. Cuomo and his Administration showed great wisdom and courage in listening to the science and ultimately prohibiting high volume fracking in order to protect public health. Similar to fracking, numerous gas infrastructure proposals pose risks of harm to public health, air pollution and exacerbating climate change. For the wellbeing of all New Yorkers, Gov. Cuomo should put on hold and deny gas infrastructure expansion proposals until and unless their safety can be demonstrated through comprehensive public health and environmental assessments.”


 http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/32963-over-100-new-studies-demonstrate-the-risks-of-fracking


Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal




Bill Clinton's Million Solar Roofs program was a joke and a fraud.
meanwhile...
Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal
Back in April, just before the New York primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign aired a commercial on upstate television stations touting her work as secretary of state forcing “China, India, some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.” She promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.’”
The television spot, which was not announced and does not appear on the official campaign YouTube page with most of Clinton’s other ads, implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and abroad. But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.
Far from challenging fossil fuel companies, the emails obtained by The Intercept show that State Department officials worked closely with private sector oil and gas companies, pressed other agencies within the Obama administration to commit federal government resources including technical assistance for locating shale reserves, and distributed agreements with partner nations pledging to help secure investments for new fracking projects.
The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether U.S. success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.
The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.
In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how Clinton “sold fracking to the world.” The emails obtained by The Intercept through a separate Freedom of Information Act request provide a new layer of detail.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment. During the April 15 Democratic debate in Brooklyn, New York, Clinton insisted there was no inconsistency between her positions:
Q: OK. Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you’re done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?
CLINTON: No, well, I don’t think I’ve changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.
Industry-Backed Launch
The Global Shale Gas Initiative, Clinton’s program for promoting fracking, was announced on April 7, 2010, by David Goldwyn, the State Department’s special envoy for energy affairs, at the United States Energy Association (USEA), whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.
In a widely covered event in Krakow three months later, Clinton announced that “Poland will be part of the Global Shale Gas Initiative,” and the State Department would “provide technical and other assistance.”
Goldwyn, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment, spoke to National Journal last month, explaining that “[Clinton’s] instruction to me was that it was OK to talk about helping other countries get access to their own resources, as long as the focus of our engagement was how they could do it safely and efficiently, and that’s why the program had almost an entirely regulatory focus.” Goldwyn emphasized that the shale gas initiative was not designed to help the private sector and instead should be seen as “a really very modest government-to-government.”
But the emails show an aggressive effort to engage private energy companies and use Poland as part of a larger campaign to sell fracking throughout the region.
An email dated December 3, 2010, shows that the State Department had Poland firmly in its bull’s-eye and that companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Canadian firm BNK Petroleum, and Italian energy company Eni expressed interest in tapping into Polish shale. One official suggested “enlisting Eni” to help organize the pro-fracking campaign in Poland, as well as bringing in U.S. companies. Earlier that year, in April, Poland’s then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski also took a trip to Texas to visit a fracking production site.
“I think we should be open to working with the Poles to spread knowledge and understanding of Poland’s (and Europe’s) shale gas potential,” wrote the State Department’s Chuck Ashley, who now works in the Office of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
“Poland,” Ashley wrote, “is a laboratory for testing whether U.S. success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country, with different shales, and a different regulatory environment.” Ashley also noted that “popular and political support is strong now, but this could change when shale gas wells come to their backyards.”
In fact, that did change. As drilling rigs transformed from prospect to reality, Polish citizens attempted — as it turns out, successfully — to fend off companies interested in fracking in Poland, including Chevron. A group called Occupy Chevron formed in reaction to the potential for shale drilling in Poland and Chevron filed a lawsuit against the occupiers. Facing the backlash and low global oil prices, in January 2015, Chevron announced it would halt operations in Poland.
Public-Private Partnerships
Despite Goldwyn’s recent assertion that the fracking campaign was a modest effort, the emails show what Goldwyn referred to as a “whole of government” approach that included deploying assistance from a range of agencies. At least 13 different government agencies were part of the effort.
Take Morocco, for example. A joint program with Clinton’s Global Shale Gas Initiative and the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) event for visiting Moroccans involved several U.S. government federal agencies in the proceedings. That included the EPA, National Security Council, USTDA, USGS, BLM, FERC, and the Commercial Law Development Program.
After signing the agreement, Moroccan officials visited the U.S. for a series of meetings with the National Security Council, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Bureau of Land Management, along with meetings with the American Gas Association and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a lobbying group for the largest American fracking companies.
The emails reveal that the NSC had a “biweekly shale gas call” in which it offered the State Department its input on Global Shale Gas Initiative priority countries.
Moving Forward
The Global Shale Gas Initiative eventually became enveloped in the broader and still-existing Bureau of Energy Resources, a special wing within the Department of State devoted to the geopolitics of energy. “You can’t talk about our economy or foreign policy without talking about energy,” Clinton said, announcing the new bureau in 2011.
The office, staffed by 85 people, focuses on a range of energy development, but with a special focus on unconventional gas development and infrastructure, such as fracking and liquefied natural gas terminals, to support the development of the international gas market.
Now called the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program, the Global Shale Gas Initiative lives on under Secretary of State John Kerry (though they’ve taken down the website) but with the prospect of a commercial-scale global shale gas boom greatly reduced. Only the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and China have commercialized the controversial horizontal drilling technique.
The pause in fracking, however, might be momentary. A number of energy companies that worked closely with the State Department now employ lobbyists that are fundraising furiously for Clinton’s campaign. ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist, as well as lobbyists for liquefied natural gas terminals designed to connect the U.S. to the global gas market, are among the most prolific fundraisers.
Goldwyn, too, is still actively promoting similar policies in the private sector through his consulting company Goldwyn Global Strategies, as counsel to the energy lobbying firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and through his association with the Atlantic Council, a think tank that promotes fossil fuel development.
The State Department’s shale gas initiative “was clearly driven by the promotion of Big Oil’s expansion,” Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace USA, told The Intercept. “That it was one of State’s highest priorities undermines their credibility as leaders in the global effort to prevent the calamitous threats of climate change.”
Newly disclosed emails show Clinton State Department officials working alongside fossil fuel companies aggressively pushed for fracking even in countries where local objections were growing.
THEINTERCEPT.COM