This was a do-over meeting.  The first one, held December 15 in Wilkes-Barre, abruptly and improperly ended when a number of protesters shouted down the Commissioners as they moved for unilateral approval of all the permit applications without allowing for public comment.  The protests clearly rattled the SRBC commissioners.  Not used to such public outrage, the SRBC was left without the ability to neither conduct their business nor provide an opportunity for other advocates to speak.

The hearing room inside the Capitol building in Harrisburg, PA yesterday was filled to capacity.  Dozens of community members delivered very passionate testimony describing the acute consequences of allowing the frackers to poison their waters.  A number of other environmental organizations echoed the residents’ concerns.  Besides the direct environmental consequences, the SRBC’s decision on these permit applications has serious legal and political implications.

The main duty of the Commission is long-term management planning of water resources.  As part of their mandate, the SRBC has conducted a number of studies related to everything from acid mine impairment and pond management to agricultural uses and other water supply issues.  Plenty of examples abound for this kind of study- indeed it’s an integral part of their Compact.

This Compact also contemplates joint authority, policy coordination, and uniform standards among member states.  This mandate requires deference to the rules, regulations, and activities of New York and Maryland too, not just Pennsylvania.  New York has placed a moratorium on fracking while the state conducts their Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement and promulgates their associated rules and regulations.  New York’s look in to fracking fell short in several aspects including a comprehensive look at the potential public health impacts. But at least they conducted a study.

Maryland is currently in Phase II of their fracking study. Due on the Governor’s desk by August 1, Maryland will conduct a scientific study and propose best management practices for fracking activities in the Old Line State.  The Army Corps made a bold statement when facing a similar decision in their role as part of the nearby Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC).  Just before Thanksgiving, the DRBC met to consider allowing fracking within the Delaware basin.  Aware that nearly 10,000 fracking insurgents were scheduled to protest, the Army Corps joined the majority of the DRBC membership to cancel their vote.

Clearly, there is a growing consensus throughout the Marcellus region that a sober, comprehensive study on drilling impacts is warranted before allowing industry to ride roughshod over landowner rights and effected communities. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania dictates SRBC decisions.  The Commonwealth dominates the Commission; none of the SRBC representatives from New York or Maryland attended the hearing.

The time is now for the SRBC to fulfill its mandate.  Long-term planning, rather than shortsighted permit-by-permit determinations, is essential for managing an industry seeking so much from the Susquehanna.  The SRBC has done the right thing for listening to the concerns of the community.  Now they must side with them.      
 

For the state of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation and Laguna and Acoma Pueblos, cleaning up abandoned uranium mines can be a life or death issue. Radioactive material from uranium mining can leach into ground and surface water and be blown by the air, directly impacting surrounding communities. This has caused serious public health issues in the area, and funds are desperately needed for remediation.

While HR 785 will help restore some western waters and remediate some abandoned hardrock mines, a stead-stream of long-term funding is the only real solution out there to tackle this serious problem. The Obama administration and several members of Congress have introduced proposals that would deal with this issue and finally reform the 1872 Mining Law.

The antiquated 1872 Mining Law essentially allows the mining industry to harvest precious minerals from our public lands for free.   To collect a fair return for taxpayers, the President proposes instituting a leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain hardrock minerals.  This system will allow taxpayers to receive a royalty from the precious metals extracted from public lands in the same way as the oil and gas industry. 

The 2013 budget request for the Department of Interior includes proposals estimated to save a net of $2.5 billion over the next ten years. In particular, the President’s budget reforms the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation program for abandoned hardrock sites with a fee on the production of hardrock minerals on both public and private lands. 

Other reforms include:

• Fees on non-producing oil and gas leases to encourage development of our Nation’s domestic energy resources;
• Instituting permanent net receipts sharing for energy minerals;
• Charging a royalty for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• Increasing onshore and offshore oil and gas inspection fees to require industry to cover more of the costs of overseeing their operations

In addition to the revenue raising measures related to hardrock mining, the President also proposes to move forward with their fracking study.  A $13 million increase this year will fund work with the Department of Energy, United States Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency on a research and development initiative aimed at understanding and minimizing potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of shale gas development and production through hydraulic fracturing.

This, in addition to numerous programs related to spurring the development of clean energy technologies, represents an important step forward in boosting our economy while protecting public health and the environment.

The activists showed up at Macy’s the day before Valentine’s Day to let shoppers know that Macy’s has thus far taken no action to help rid the jewelry industry of dirty gold: gold that may have been produced at the cost of human rights abuses, labor violations, and environmental destruction, among others.

Valentine’s Day is one of Macy’s busiest shopping seasons in the year, with the jewelry departments full of shoppers looking to buy gold jewelry for their special someone. Some of these prospective shoppers in Washington DC were greeted today by the large banner, held by over 3 dozen helium balloons, floating over the store’s main entrance informing shoppers about Macy’s dirty secret.

Few people who are going to Macy’s to buy a gift for their loved one have any idea that Macy’s is one of the few major jewelry retailers to refuse to take action to get dirty gold out of its display cases. The gold earrings and rings being bought at Macy’s for Valentine’s day may have been mined with children’s hands, it may have cost a community its clean water, or it might have destroyed protected ecosystems. Those are things no one wants their love associated with. The cost of dirty gold is high, but Macy’s continues doing what is easy rather then doing what is right. Macy’s customers deserve better. They deserve to know that the retail store they are shopping in is taking the necessary steps to clean up the gold industry.

Macy’s is the 5^th largest retailer of jewelry in the United States. Last year, Macy’s made over $1.5 billion in jewelry and watch sales. Unfortunately, there is no telling how much of that $1.5 billion comes from dirty gold. Perhaps all of it does; but Macy’s can’t tell you otherwise. That’s just not acceptable. That is why we need Macy’s to step it up. $1.5 billion is a lot of purchasing power, and it’s time for Macy’s to put that power towards cleaning up its gold supply chain.

This Valentine’s Day, it’s time for Macy’s to join dozens of other jewelry giants in committing to the Golden Rules. Until then, Macy’s will not only be breaking our hearts, they may be destroying the lives of communities struggling with dirty gold.

A subsidiary of Rio Tinto and BHP - Billiton is proposing to mine a rich copper vein on public and private lands east of Superior, Arizona. Because the proposed mine would most likely destroy the area in question, the company, called Resolution Copper, is pushing for legislation to privatize the Oak Flat Campground, which has been withdrawn from mining since the 1950’s, and surrounding public lands in the Tonto National Forest.

Tribal leaders from both Arizona and New Mexico traveled to DC to show their opposition to any legislation that will destroy sacred sites in the area, including Oak Flat Campground and Apache Leap. 

The Southeastern Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act passed the House of Representatives in October of last year, but we are still hopeful the legislation won't come up for a vote this year in the Senate. Earthworks and our partners have been working since 2005 to keep public lands in public hands and protect the cultural and ecological resources found in the potential mining area.

A chance to work?

Remember that rule? The rule that Governor Martinez's Oil Conservation Commission voted to put in place that requires nothing more than what companies are already required to disclose on Material Safety Data Sheets?

These requirements are supposedly in place to protect industry workers who handle toxic fracking chemicals and additives. Problem is, companies are only required  to disclose about HALF of the chemicals they actually use in fracking operations.

Big problem. Full and public disclosure is required now to protect industry workers and the people who live with oil and gas development on their land and in their communities.

Huge thanks to Representative Brian Egolf for his leadership in sponsoring this critical legislation and Representatives Gail Chasey and Bill O'Neill for their support of HB 187 in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee yesterday.

It is incumbent up the state to require common sense standards to protect the health and safety of New Mexicans who bear the impact of energy development for our country.

Yes, you read that right. 

And, still these phosphate mines are not required to report their releases to the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory - a publicly available database so communities can have information on the amount of pollution released in and near their homes.

And, what's worse, the company is asking for an exemption from water quality standards for two selenium polluted streams near Simplots Smoky Canyon Mine in Idaho.

The "phosphate patch" in this region is notorious for the number of livestock deaths associated with selenium pollution.

For more information, read this great piece.  And, to read our comments to the EPA to require phosphate mines to report its toxic discharges to the TRI, read here.

In 2007, Garfield County was the most heavily drilled county in Colorado and was one of the most heavily drilled areas in the entire Rocky Mountain region.  With some 2000 wells permitted per year, by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), the area was a flurry of heavy trucks, dust, and conflict. 

In addition to the usual beefs between surface owners and industry, which are proliferating throughout the shale plays today, Garfield County had seen one of the country’s first publicized cases of water contamination resulting from oil and gas activities. 

An EnCana crew noticed irregularities while completing a well south of Silt, Colorado, including a drop in the level of cement they had placed between the well casing and the borehole wall.  Intended to seal this annular space to keep gas from rising toward the surface, the cement drop meant that somewhere, several thousand feet below the surface a fracture was receiving cement, and possibly other fluids. 

Shortly thereafter, neighbors were shocked to observe the creek on their property bubbling.  Eventually they were able to convince the regulators to investigate and EnCana was fined. 

The penalty COGCC levied for the Schwartz well problems was nearly $400,000 and was the largest fine the agency had ever imposed. 

The Garfield Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) needed a staff member to focus exclusively on oil and gas, so they created a position and hired a mining geologist.  Disliking being in the middle and having no power, the incumbent left within two years for a higher paying job in industry.  The County tore through two other oil and gas staffers, each lasting only a matter of months.  I knew it would be stressful, but I took on the challenge in 2007.  The County liked the fact that I was trained in geology and law, and they thought my tenures in the public and nonprofit sectors indicated less likelihood that I would be tempted away by greener pastures in industry.    

Water Contaminated by Oil and Gas

Within my first week on the job, the Assistant County Manager took me to see the Divide Creek seep area, where the EnCana/Schwartz well problem had occurred.

COGCC had imposed a moratorium on drilling there, as the County oversaw a hydrogeologic investigation, paid for EnCana in lieu of the fine.  The Mamm Creek Hydrogeologic Study was in its second phase, and a consulting firm was arranging to sample over 60 domestic water wells.

I met with the project manager and COGCC, and accompanied the field crew on a sampling trip. This was familiar territory as I had started my career sampling wells for an environmental consulting firm and continued to oversee such studies as the head of Delaware’s Groundwater Quality program in the 1980s. 

The files I read seemed to suggest there had been some debates over the purpose of the Mamm Creek study, which was now carefully worded along the lines of seeking an understanding of the “conditions” there, yet not explicitly stating the obvious question:

Did EnCana cause contamination that had not been fully defined, and were oil and gas development practices likely to cause more contamination?

Clearly, we were walking a fine political line, trying to ameliorate the tensions between the industry and neighbors affected by their activities without alienating the industry. 

Inconvenient Findings

In the fall of 2007 the consultants issued a draft report on the Mamm Creek Phase II study.

The report not only lacked any conclusions about the role oil and gas development played in the appearance of methane in domestic wells, but it lacked a conclusion section altogether, which is a standard component of any scientific report. 

I wondered why the consultant would be so equivocal when it seemed to me that they had been paid to determine the cause of the contamination they had found. 

They did state that several water wells were contaminated-one so heavily that it presented an explosive hazard-and that about 100 gas wells had been improperly constructed, in contravention of the COGCC well construction regulations.  They said that the methane either came from the rocks underlying the aquifer through gas wells or natural migration, or that it occurred naturally in the aquifer itself. 

Concerned that the consultants might be pulling their punches, I spoke with the County Manager and County Attorney and we decided to hire another consultant to review the data, with a specific mandate to determine the cause of the methane contamination.       

The new consultant, Geoff Thyne, was a professor at the Colorado School of Mines.  A graduate student under his guidance took on the analysis as her master’s thesis, and she reviewed hundreds of sampling records.  She performed statistical analyses and concluded that the formation that the domestic water wells drew water from, did not show signs of contamination from natural gas activity before the rigs moved in. 

After the gas wells proliferated, not only did the instances of contamination with hydrocarbons appear, but their concentrations rose with the number of gas wells .

The reaction of the COGCC is a blog for another day. Suffice it to say that they conspired with the industry to try to discredit Dr. Thyne’s and Tamee Albrecht’s work. After all, a finding that oil and gas wells contaminated groundwater not only had serious implications for the industry, which by this time was feverishly working to increase its holdings in the Marcellus Shale, but it also implicated COGCC’s rules in the cause of contamination, which might make COGCC look bad too. 

A Third Phase to Get to the Bottom of the Problem

I thought further data might clear up whatever questions about the role of industry in the contamination remained.  So I designed a third phase to the Mamm Creek study. 

This time, we wouldn’t depend solely on geochemical data that the experts found arguable.  This time we would install monitoring wells specifically to help define the nature of the flow in the aquifer that domestic wells drew from. 

Not only would there be monitoring wells, but they would be nested pairs that could provide insight into the movement of the groundwater in three dimensions.  If groundwater was moving upward, then that would suggest that methane could also be migrating upward from the gas reservoir, and that the appearance of methane in the aquifer resulted from natural causes.  If the water was not moving upward, then it was likely that either methane was naturally occurring in the aquifer or that the gas wells were providing conduits for the migration up into the aquifer. 

The chemical data we would retrieve from the monitoring wells could help determine whether there was methane native to the aquifer, and if not, there would only be one remaining possibility: the gas wells, which we knew to be improperly constructed, were providing a pathway for the hydrocarbons to migrate up into the aquifer.

Changing Politics

The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), including two pro-drilling Republicans and one Democrat, approved my budget request for Phase III.  The Democrat, Tresi Houpt, also sat on the COGCC and often argued in favor of measures presented to both commissions to protect human health and the environment. 

However, in November 2010, as we prepared to sample the new monitoring wells, Tresi was unseated by another pro-drilling Republican. 

In December 2010 the County Manager told me the County government would be reorganized and the Oil and Gas Department would be dissolved.  I lost my position as a department head and would now report to a person who acted as if directed to prioritize industry interests before the public interest.

The monitoring wells were sampled in January and the consultant called to tell me the lab results over the phone in the spring of 2011. Every single monitoring well contained thermogenic methane, the kind that is made through geologic processes and not by modern microorganisms.  More importantly, the majority of the wells contained methane homologs (like butane and ethane), which had been missing from the domestic well samples in Phase II. 

Industry representatives claimed the absence of those homologs, which were present in the actual gas samples from the gas wells, indicated that the methane didn’t come from the same formation as their gas, therefore, the gas wells weren’t responsible for the migration.   The homologs changed the geochemical picture. 

The consultant was still reviewing the piezometric (i.e., pressure) data from the wells to try to determine the groundwater flow direction.  Sensing that my days were numbered under the changed complexion of the BOCC and the reorganization, I asked the consultant to work quickly.  

I scheduled the consultant to report on the Phase III study at the June 2011 Energy Advisory Board meeting. The consultants asked me for another month to review data and develop their conclusions. That would have completed the study by July, or August at the latest.  The County fired me at the end of June.

Today -- a year after the first sampling of the County’s monitoring wells and fully six months after the consultant should have completed Phase III, the study has evaporated into thin air. 

Meanwhile, COGCC did their own study showing that gas wells have leaked into the aquifer.

Garfield County residents, and others, deserve an update on what happened with the approximately $300K that was spent on Phase III and how the BOCC seems to think it’s going to twist the facts this time to prevent the industry from leaving the area, due to the acquisition of potentially “hostile data.” Or will they just hide it like they did the health study? Either way, you have to ask yourself why.   

Now that I wrote a letter to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, the BOCC has decided to spend another $90,000 to “continue studying.” But two rounds of data have already been collected and people deserve to know the results now -- it has already been a year since the wells were drilled and sampled. 

What are they waiting for? Remember how the industry managed to delay the results of the Colorado School of Public Health’s study until the BOCC decided it was too thick to continue?  Same tactic here? One has to wonder.

A novelist in her spare time, Judy Jordan has worked in the environmental field for over 25 years, first as a hydrogeologist managing the State of Delaware’s Groundwater Quality program.  Since then she has managed contaminant investigations for DuPont and served as a Superfund lawyer for the Pennsylvania DEP.  She was the Oil and Gas Liaison for Garfield County, Colorado during its boom in the 2000s.

Sadly, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, 101 State Representatives, and 31 State Senators just declared them right.

With their votes in favor of a bill called HB1950, these legislators have done away with zoning rights designed to give communities the ability to protect health, property, and quality of life. In so doing, they effectively told the gas industry it’s just fine to drill anywhere, anytime—and effectively ignored the flood of phone calls, letters, and rallies from citizens demanding that they “kill the bill.”

Earthworks and its allies lost no time in decrying this blatant lack of concern for communities, health, and property. So did committed and vocal legislators who spoke out against the bill during floor debate.

HB1950 is a big gift to gas companies, supposedly made in exchange for “impact fees” on gas wells. Yet the fees are so small and restricted that they are unlikely to alleviate the damage that municipalities suffer from the wheels, rigs, emissions, and toxic chemicals that gas companies bring to town.

To top it all off, Governor Corbett’s proposed state budget reduces funding to the environmental agencies tasked with protecting land, air, and water and overseeing the gas industry. Now more than ever, their coffers will depend on the acceleration of dirty drilling to generate permit fees and royalties.

The vote is over, but the fight for the public interest has just begun. The citizen outcry against the passage of HB1950 will be loud and furious—and focused on November’s State House and Senate elections.

The Associated Press story suggests that EPA thinks their Pavillion study revealing that hydraulic fracturing caused contamination of water supplies is not indicative of gas development around the country.  Simply not true.  EPA said nothing of the kind. Despite rigorous questioning from the chairman of the full committee, Ralph Hall (R-TX), EPA went to great lengths to preserve the application and integrity of the Pavillion study.  It was Congressman Hall and others who attempted to limit the scope of the study. But at no time did EPA waver from the study’s merits, nor did they speak to its precedential value for other regions of the country.

The beginning of the article reads:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in no way contends that a draft report on groundwater pollution in Wyoming could apply to hydraulic fracturing in any other part of the U.S., an EPA official told a U.S. House subcommittee…."The geologic conditions that exist with the Marcellus Shale are significantly different," (EPA) told the House Science Committee's energy and environment subcommittee.

EPA made no such claim. The fact is that the principles and results of the Pavillion study do apply other places.  Flowback pits still leech in other states. Well integrity fails.  And migration pathways exist for contaminants. The article is misleading because it suggests EPA’s opinion is that fracking could not cause groundwater pollution elsewhere.  EPA does not think that. What EPA was actually saying is that fracking caused groundwater pollution in Wyoming. And that Wyoming and New York differ.   The need for closed loop systems, strong well casing standards, water quality monitoring, and baseline testing still applies everywhere we frack.  

Attack the Messenger

The EPA drilled monitoring wells in Pavillion and took measurements for benzene, a known carcinogen.  Listening to the committee, we heard the House majority claim only that a second test at the monitoring wells revealed benzene levels half of what was discovered six months before.  I guess the implication is that additional testing might reveal even lower levels.  It took the minority to point out that the second test, though revealing benzene levels half the initial result from the first- still found benzene at 25 times its safe level.

Tom Doll testified before the committee ostensibly on behalf of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. But in his open statement, Doll intimated he speaks for Wyoming’s Governor, Matt Mead.  It’s true the Governor sits atop the Commission.  But directly stating that a witness is speaking for an elected official, rather than in his own capacity as the head of a nonpartisan administrative body, reveals that the views expressed are political rather than scientific.  Doll’s (Mead’s) view suggested that EPA did not properly consult with the relevant local authorities and that they employed poor quality data and science. 

Well, it’s either one or the other.

If the EPA’s science and data are faulty, then Doll knows that only because the EPA consulted him about the science and data.  If the EPA did not consult him, how then can he speak to the quality of their investigation?

Kathleen Sgamma, a lobbyist for the Western Energy Alliance, criticized the EPA as a political body rather than a disinterested scientific institution.  As opposed to the Western Energy Alliance-which I guess is somehow apolitical and disinterested.

It’s important to point out that this is only a draft report.  The study has so far taken more than three years and the preliminary results are thorough, thoughtful, and carefully worded.  EPA has extended the comment period and is soliciting a committee of outside scientists to take part in a peer review process.  To that end, the EPA has posted 622 pages of documents online detailing the data received from their investigation at Pavillion.  The purpose here is transparency and sound science.

Besides attacking the EPA, the tone of the hearing concentrated upon limiting the scope of EPA’s results to Pavillion alone.  Differences between the Wind River Basin in Wyoming and the Marcellus shale play in the East, should not lead us to conclude that no further study is warranted.  Nor should we think that geological differences compel us to believe that drilling must be safe elsewhere.  That is, if we know drilling is harmful in Pavillion, it does not mean that the differences in Dimock, PA make us safer.  We need the science.  Instead, we have a dog and pony show where politicians accuse scientists of acting like politicians-talk about the pot and kettle.

The hearing considered the efficacy of an EPA report describing water contamination attributed to hydraulic fracturing activities in Pavillion, Wyoming.  In reality, this hearing served as another opportunity for the House majority to rail against the EPA.  Referring to the EPA’s work as “scientific innuendo” and “regulatory straight jacketing”, the Republicans criticized the report as lacking transparency, peer review, or sufficient consultation with relevant state authorities.

The real story is that in 2008 citizens in Pavillion, WY discovered objectionable tastes and odors in their drinking water.  They petitioned the EPA to intervene.  The EPA brought in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).   Concluding that some of the contaminants in the water had the potential for detrimental health effects, ASTDR recommended that Pavillion residents undertake some precautions.  Among them, taking showers with the bathroom door open for ventilation to avoid (seriously) spontaneous combustion. 

The report itself is a highly technical, carefully detailed scientific study that took more than three years to complete.  It is the first time a federal agency has confirmed a link between ground water contamination and fracking activities.  As one of the panelists, Dr. Bernard Goldstein, noted, the real problem is that we don’t have sixty years of baseline water testing against which to measure contamination levels. 

The report completely dismantles the industry argument that sixty years of fracking has never produced one case of water pollution.  This explains why fracking proponents complain the EPA is a political body, conflicted between their dual roles as regulator and scientist.  Or suggesting that the EPA conducts “press release science” while calling in to question a yet to be completed comprehensive fracking study to be released this summer.

The report is just a draft. The EPA never made their investigation a secret.  EPA has solicited the scientific community to conduct a proper peer review of the findings.  EPA has posted on their website all the data from their investigation for all the world to view.  They extended the comment period to March 15. While local officials complain they were not properly consulted, the EPA points to their correspondence.  

Ultimately, the EPA has no stake in the outcome of this or any other study.  They gain nothing from discovering the dangers of fracking.  Those who do have political skin in the game- industry, activists, and policymakers- need to show some deference to researchers who try nothing more than explain scientific phenomena.  And maybe a little deference to the people of Pavillion who bathe with the knowledge that their shower heads could explode.  It is their stake in this issue that should demand Congressional hearings.

The committee made their agenda clear with the hearing's title: Fractured Science – Examining EPA’s Approach to Ground Water Research: The Pavillion Analysis.

Josh was there to film the hearing for his upcoming film Gasland 2.

For over 6 six years a number of companies, including Gran Colombia, have been chomping at the bit to develop a mine in the area, and for over six years the community as resisted. They have resisted bribes and threats, have faced intimidation, and dealt with the murders of community leaders for standing up against mega mining. The resolve of the Marmato has not been broken; in fact it has been emboldened.

The saga of the community vs. Gran Colombia started another chapter a few weeks ago as the Municipal Court of Marmato made some remarkable changes to their Land Use plan. The plan was altered with a number of declarations ranging from a ban on open-pit mining to keeping the city center in the historical center of Marmato, rejecting any notion of resettlement. Here are the declarations as laid out by the courts from a media release from Marmato Defence Committee and Regional Indigenous Council of Caldas (CRIDEC):

1. Maintain the name El Llano (La Betulia) (Translator's note: this is the current name of the community to which the historic centre of Marmato was to be resettled to make way for an open pit mine) and erase the name “New Marmato” from all articles.

2. Keep the municipal centre in the Historic Area, including the Mayoral and Council's offices, the church, the educational institute, the police headquarters and all other institutions central to the social and institutional dynamic of this centre.

3. Prohibit open pit mining in the municipality of Marmato, Caldas, in accord with Article 33 of Law 136 and Article 313 of the National Constitution. Provide support for artisanal and traditional mining.

4. Declare El Llano (La Betulia) as a populated urban centre and its expansion areas as urban (El Tejar, Guayabito), and ensure that it has the necessary infrastructure to serve the needs of the current and future population.

5. Maintain the perimeter of the urban centre and of the Historic Area in accord with limits established in the Land Use Plan of 2004. The Municipal Council will regulate the nature of extraction taking place within this area in accord with the law.

6. Ensure strict monitoring of any drilling for minerals taking place within the municipality.

7. Carry out the necessary steps before respective authorities in order to remove mining titles from areas located within urban areas, populated areas, areas designated for rural development, sources of water, and protected areas within the municipality.

8. Prioritize public intervention in improving the environment within the municipality, in which not more than 15% will be used.

9. Maintain the rural character of San Juan de Marmato, also recognizing that the majority of the indigenous community within the municipality lives in this area. As a result, San Juan de Marmato will be categorized as a rural parish (corregimiento) (Article 311 of Decree 1333 of 1986) and as indigenous territory (Decree 1386 of 1994). Two populated rural areas will be established: San Juan and Agrovillas Jiménez.

10. The Central Plaza and surrounding area will be have its own special management regime such that its presence remains a testimony to the history of ancestral, colonial and republican mining in Marmato, and at the same time as the risk level of the area is taken into consideration. As a result, the demolition or resettlement of cultural heritage within the sector will be prohibited and its maintenance ensured such that it is conserved. Ensure the maintenance over time of the residents, public institutions, and private establishments within the sector of Atrio and other sectors within the Historic Area, which are in an area in which risk levels can be mitigated. As a result, classify as a high priority those works necessary to mitigate risk in these areas, as recommended by the Regional Autonomous Corporation of Caldas (CORPOCALDAS).

11. Carry out the necessary steps with the Governor's Office of Caldas, the Ministry of Culture and UNESCO to have Marmato declared a World Heritage Site.

12. Undertake a review of the water system and protect sources of water for the needs of the population.

(From Colombia Support Network, translated by Teresa Welsh. Edited by John Laun)

These reforms are a strong rebuke of the federal government’s inability, or unwillingness, to support communities opposed to large-scale mines. The local courts took the steps because they could no longer contend with inaction from Bogota. As with many communities dealing with the new Latin America gold rush, Marmato finds little support from a federal government determined to build national capital with unprecedented rates of resource extraction investments.

Marmato Defence Executive Committee, Regional Indigenous Council of Caldas (CRIDEC) went on to finish the release by declaring:

We demand that the Colombian authorities, the Canadian government and Gran Colombia Gold (formerly Medoro Resources) respect the sovereign decision of the people of Marmato. At the same time, we call upon all of the miners in Marmato to ensure the immediate application of the Mining Manual of Coexistence in order to ensure an improvement in the quality of life of the population and the respect of Mother Earth.

You can read the entre release HERE, compliments of our friends at MiningWatch.

The conflict of community’s self-determination vs. multi-national corporations is not a new one and will only be exasperated by this gold rush. Marmato's actions create a primer for similar communities to follow. Hopefully, Marmato’s steps will help to lay the groundwork for other communities to take autonomous actions to block operations that threaten their health, safety, and livelihoods.

The moratorium has left a dearth of hard rock mining technical expertise in the Commonwealth.  For this reason, Virginia called in the National Research Council to report on scientific, environmental, public health, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining to help inform the Virginia legislature. 

The report is very good.  It acknowledges that which any nonscientist or policy wonk already knows.  After 30 years, the Commonwealth has nothing even approaching the kind of regulatory regime in place to ensure anything other than a Wild West-like free for all that lifting the moratorium would create.  This has done little to muffle talk in Richmond about introducing a bill to lift the moratorium.  But notwithstanding a large lobbying effort by Virginia Uranium, Inc., Governor Bob McDonnell announced last week that the moratorium will remain while they conduct further study.

This is clearly a good move.  It is important to finish studying the uranium potential in Virginia before the regulators take a look toward new rules.  In particular, we need a site-specific evaluation of the geological and hydrological conditions near the Coles Hill site.  Uranium mining is unique from some other forms of hard rock mining in its dangerous potential to contaminate the environment with radioactive material.  Southwest Virginia has heavy rains and the entire area is dangerously close to the Atlantic Ocean where hurricane force winds batter the coast each fall.

Kudos to Governor McDonnell.  My worry was he would go the way of Ohio’s governor, John Kasich.  After all but declaring the Utica shale play a panacea for all of the Buckeye state’s economic woes, his Department of Natural Resources abruptly stopped all fracking after it was linked to earthquakes.

Rather than rush ahead with risky activities that could harm the environment and public health, Virginia should take the significant time they need to perform the necessary comprehensive technical and health studies before beginning the process of designing the regulations they need. The horse goes before the cart.
 

Yesterday in Albany, well over 600 New Yorkers from across the state were out in force for the Hydrofracking Day of Action, a few hundred more than for the event in 2011. And this on the heels of last week’s final submission of comments on draft state guidelines and regulations, which early estimates put at over 40,000--more than triple than the first round of comments in 2009.

At a morning rally, the voices of celebrities, policymakers, and representatives of environmental and citizens groups rang out. Whether calling for an outright ban, stronger regulation and accountability, or alternative energy solutions, they all made their goal clear: Governor Cuomo and state leaders must do whatever it takes to protect New York’s water, air, and communities from the dangers of fracking.

Following the rally, participants dispersed for meetings with nearly every office of the Assembly and Senate, putting forth several shale gas-related bills that will be top priorities for activists and organizations during the current legislative session.

And then by the end of the day, news broke that the U.S. Energy Administration had drastically cut estimates of gas in the Marcellus Shale by 66 percent--making it seem even more reasonable for citizens not only in New York, but also nationwide, to question whether the risks of extraction are worth getting a little more gas.

As they decide how to cast their votes, New York's elected officials would be wise to do the math and make a serious and unshakeable calculation—one in which a healthy energy future is weighted far more heavily than unsafe energy development.

[UPDATED: 01/23]

The big number to remember in natural gas in the U.S. is that we consumed 24 trillion cubic feet of it in 2010. That’s a lot of hydrocarbons. Today, entire sectors are making decisions about future energy choices based on how much natural gas we have left to burn. And with the Energy Information Administration's new Annual Energy Outlook, it appears we have been making those choices on false assumptions.

The report, released yesterday, issues new estimates of recoverable natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, a vast formation more than a mile below 6* eastern states, including New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. In 2002, before the shale gas boom got underway, the US Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there were 2 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. Then, as the drilling boom was picking up steam in 2009, Penn State geologist Terry Engelder estimated that the Marcellus holds 489 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. Then in Jan 2011, the Energy Information Agency released its estimate of 410 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.

The bubble really started deflating last summer. In August 2011, the USGS said only 84 trillion cubic feet was ‘technically recoverable’. After some effort to reconcile their two wildly differing figures, yesterday, the Energy Information Agency has just issued its new estimate as part of the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook. The new total — 141 trillion cubic feet — is a 66 percent cut from the agency’s last estimate.

So, what gives with all of these varying estimates, and how are shale gas producers, investors, and advocates supposed to know what’s really going on with drilling in the Marcellus Shale?

It appears the producers are learning more with each well that they drill, and drilling, even in the Marcellus region, is a hit or miss proposition. When the 489 trillion cubic feet estimate was published in 2009, it was assumed that all wells in the region would be as productive as the early wells were, and that high rates of productivity would be distributed across the Marcellus. The new estimates reflect that those assumptions were wrong, slashing production estimates by 66 percent.

It’s also important to remember that there is a world of difference between ‘technically recoverable’ and ‘economically recoverable’ shale gas reserves.  With unusually low natural gas prices ($2.43/mcf, or per thousand cubic feet, at the time of writing), the amount of gas that is economically recoverable is a fraction of the amount of gas that is technically recoverable.

Where does that leave us? Hydraulic fracturing of shale gas puts water, air, and public health at risk from toxic contamination. The new estimates in the Marcellus Shale mean that we are taking that risk for only a few years’ worth of technically recoverable natural gas. Accounting for what is economically recoverable, one has to wonder if we can afford that risk to burn a few more years of natural gas?

[CORRECTION: the original post described the Marcellus Shale as underlying 8 states. According to the USGS, it actually underlies 10 states.  But in terms of gas extraction, only 6: VA, WV, MD, OH, PA, NY.  Click here to jump to the corrected text.]

"Range would drill and complete the wells the same way if we had it to do over again," Pitzarella said. Source

The background:

In December of 2010, the EPA issued an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order because two landowners in Parker County had explosive levels of methane in their water wells and in their homes, plus they had drilling toxins in the water. EPA’s investigation caused them to believe that Range had “caused or contributed” to the contamination. They also believed that the responsibility—burden of proof—for determining the pathway of the contamination should fall on Range Resources rather than the taxpayer.  I have blogged about this case extensively.

On December 1, 2011, I attended a hearing in Weatherford, Texas where Range Resources was petitioning the court for a plea to jurisdiction. In my opinion, this is Range’s last ditch effort to weasel out of responsibility for the fracking contamination they caused. Sitting in the courtroom listening, it was obvious to everyone, including the judge, how the water wells became contaminated. You can read my blog post, Decision in Range Resources case would make Big Gas Mafia untouchable in Texas, which describes what I witnessed at the hearing.

What Range Resources knew about the geology in Parker County:

The attorney for Range Resources, […], elaborated in great detail about how “abundantly clear” it is that the area has “angular and nonconforming and unpredictable geology” with many natural pathways for gas to migrate.  Source

He also elaborated, at length, that the area is known for the shallow gas in the formations above the Barnett Shale. Range Resources maintains that the Butler and Teal wells they drilled into the Barnett Shale did not cause the contamination in the water wells. They claim the contamination is from shallow gas in the area.

What a petroleum engineer knows about the geology in Parker County:

In the first unbiased reporting from, Jack Smith, about this case, he quotes Thomas Richter, a senior petroleum engineer with PGH Petroleum and Environmental Engineers in Austin:

In his affidavit, Richter said the wellbores of Range's two gas wells penetrate through the Strawn, Atoka, Bend, Conglomerate and Marble Falls formations. Each of these "has been or is currently producing natural gas," Richter said. There have been 117 gas wells completed or recompleted in those formations within five miles of Range's wells, he said.

What Range should have done considering the considerable knowledge about the geology in Parker County:

Richter goes on in his affidavit to explain how the cementing of the two wells is inadequate to protect drinking water from migrating gas.

Richter also says Range violated an important Railroad Commission regulation, Statewide Rule 13, by not adequately casing and cementing the Teal and Butler wells to ensure that they were isolated from gas-producing formations above the Barnett.

What Statewide Rule 13 says:

(a) General
(1) … all usable-quality water zones be isolated and sealed off to effectively prevent contamination or harm, and all potentially productive zones be isolated and sealed off to prevent vertical migration of fluids or gases behind the casing.

Although Range Resources claims their cementing job complies with TRC Statewide Rule 13’s requirements for cementing below potable water, it does not appear to comply with the cementing requirements of (1) above.

It is “abundantly clear” that Range Resources knew they were drilling in an area with “angular and nonconforming and unpredictable geology” and an area known to produce shallow gas from the “Strawn, Atoka, Bend, Conglomerate and Marble Falls formations,” yet they cut corners and failed to protect the aquifer as required by Statewide Rule 13 from “all potentially productive zones.”

What Range Resources vows to do in the future:

And Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs has vowed they will strike again:

"Range would drill and complete the wells the same way if we had it to do over again," Pitzarella said.

The Texas Railroad Commission is an industry lapdog that has enabled these serial polluters and they are now untouchable. 

The conference’s late afternoon session focused on the shale gas boom.  Dovetailing with the President’s recent showing of support for fracking, the panel participants echoed the need to develop our nation’s natural gas resources in a safe and responsible way.   Almost as a nod to the afternoon’s earlier disruption, Skip Horvath, President & CEO of the Natural Gas Supply Association, intimated that the public health concerns of community members “…come from the heart and we take them seriously”. 

Part of Skip’s presentation described what companies call the Black Swan for the industry.  Unlike the Natalie Portman film, a Black Swan, in economic jargon, is a low probability, high-impact event.  These include political instability, severe regulatory constraint, and broad systemic risks.  In short, the kind of thing that could devastate an industry, even if the chances are remote.  Among the systemic risks, Skip tells us, are seismic activity and detrimental public health effects. To alleviate investor concerns, both Skip and fellow panelist Regina Hopper, President & CEO of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, insist that to avoid these risks, the industry must rely on sound science.  

I agree.  Community concerns do come from the heart, should be taken seriously, and we must rely on sound science.  However, I’m not convinced the science so far points to anything other than an impending Black Swan.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination found in monitoring wells in Pavillion, WY.  Responding to similar concerns in Dimock, PA, the EPA will in a couple months release results from a study there.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently released another report that links fracking with earthquakes in Oklahoma.  The Buckeye state quickly issued a moratorium on new fracking permits after earthquakes there were attributed to hydraulic fracturing.  Even industry’s principal claim- that natural gas is a cleaner burning fossil fuel- has now come under scrutiny.  Each happened only in the last few months.

Regina Hopper pointedly said that one key to industry success is a continuing dialogue between natural gas proponents and the affected communities.  I believe she is genuine.  I too believe in dialogue and sound science.  Rather than go the way of the tobacco industry, my hope is that the energy industry will truly embrace science’s contribution toward safe and responsible natural gas development.  Even when the results do not always support their position.
 

Is Freeport-McMoRan the worst corporation in the world?

If communities in West Papua, Indonesia had anything to say about it Freeport-McMoRan would certainly be named the worst corporation in the world. Now you can help get Freeport-McMoRan listed as 2012’s worst corporation in the world.

Every year the Public Eye Award is given to the world worst corporation on earth. Previous winners include;

• Chevron, for their oil disaster in Ecuador;
• Newmont for their irresponsible mining and pollution in Ghana and Peru; and
• AngloGold Ashanti, for it’s contamination of land and poisoning of people with its gold mining in Ghana.

This year Freeport-McMoRan joins this shameful group as a finalist for the “award”.

Why should you vote for Freeport?

Freeport-McMoRan’s Grasberg mine – the largest gold mine on earth – has generated significant controversy because of its waste disposal methods, impacts on a sensitive ecosystem, lack of transparency, and conflicts with communities around human rights and other issues. The mine generates a staggering amount of waste—700,000 tons per day—and it is estimated that the mine will produce 6 to 7 billion tons of waste in its lifetime. This may well be the largest volume of waste produced by any single industrial activity in the world.

To protect its massive operations in West Papua, Freeport-McMoRan has given $79.1 million to police and military forces in the past 10 years, according to the group Indonesian Corruption Watch (the same group, ICW, is now reporting Freeport-McMoRan to the US Dept. of Justice under bribery charges). The Indonesian police and military – both of which have a very poor human rights record – have violently protected Freeport McMoRan’s interest in the area for years. According to community records, 160 people were killed in the mine area and surroundings between 1975 and 1997.Recently, the violence has continued.  

Workers at the Grasberg mine went on strike in September, claiming they were Freeport McMoRan’s lowest-paid employees in the world. Ten people have been killed during and after the strike, further illustrating the mining company’s complicity in violent oppression of workers and community members at the hands of the military and police protecting mining interests and operations in the region.

The three month strike involving more than 8,000 workers had been settled in late December, but early this year the threat of another strike loomed as the workers' union recently said that several of Freeport's subcontractors had not paid more than 900 employees at the mine.

Freeport McMoRan’s Grasberg mine in West Papua is rife with major human rights and environmental problems. Earthworks “Golden Rules” report lays out a few of these problems in simple terms:

• Providing financial support to police and military forces, which each have a history of human rights violations
• Dumping millions of tons of mining waste into the river, destroying an important estuary at the river’s mouth
• Harming the health and livelihoods of people living downstream who depend on river water

The Golden Rules report goes on to recommend that Freeport-McMoRan and other mining companies implement policies to ensure that the mining operation and its security forces do not continue to perpetrate human rights violations or operate against the community’s wishes.

Seems Freeport-McMoRan has a long way to go to meet this recommendation. Precisely why we are voting for them as 2012’s worst corporation on earth.

The rally in the Capitol Rotunda sent a loud and clear message to kick off the 2012 legislative session: Kill the Bill that would allow gas operators to do what they please in communities—local rights and protections for people and property be damned.

Having passed the Senate and House late in the 2011 session, the bill (currently SB1100 and HB1950) was initially developed to establish impact fees on drillers, seen as a politically winnable baby step toward making gas operators pay for the damage they cause. (As opposed to a meaningful severance tax, unlikely with gas-loving Governor Corbett in office.)

But then the bill entered the sausage factory of lawmaking, and out came provisions designed to satisfy the hunger of gas companies to drill everywhere, anytime. The rationale given is the wish for consistency in gas development, rather than a “patchwork” of local rules—an ironic position given the industry’s strong resistance to complying with federal laws and oversight and real reform of state regulations.

Municipalities across Pennsylvania have in place (or, in response to the Marcellus gas rush, are working to adopt) measures that protect air and water quality, public health and safety, and private property, such as gas facility location and setbacks and limits on noise and hours of operation. SB1100/HB1950 would trade this well-established municipal right—supposedly in exchange for limited impact fees and regulatory changes.

Fortunately, many municipal officials and residents of the Commonwealth aren’t interested in making such a lopsided deal, and are speaking out against the bills in letters and petitions. If committees from both Houses reconcile differences in the two versions of the bill, legislators casting their final votes would be wise to listen more to the people who elect them than the companies that try to buy them.

Pennsylvania residents: you can continue to take action to Kill the Bill by calling your state legislators. Visit PennEnvironment for more information and a sample message.

In 2008 we interviewed Pavillion's Louis Meeks about the contamination of his water by the oil and gas industry. It was stories like his, and industry and state government inaction, that finally got EPA involved.

After initial testing in August 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) urged Pavillion-area residents not to drink their water or use it for cooking. The reason: their drinking water wells were contaminated with hazardous chemicals commonly associated with oil and gas development.

In the wake of that testing, the EPA began investigating whether the contamination was actually caused by oil and gas development – that is, they set out to determine if oil and gas development actually was guilty of contaminating people’s drinking water wells.

Last month, the preliminary results of that investigation were released as a draft report: yes, oil and gas development, including hydraulic fracturing, is the culprit.

This is a huge deal.  If these results are confirmed, they will definitively refute the oil and gas industry’s oft-repeated claim that hydraulic fracturing has never contaminated drinking water wells.    

And so the oil and gas industry, and its friends in the Wyoming state government, are pulling out all the stops to block and delegitimize the EPA study before it becomes final.

EnCana Oil & Gas USA, which owns and operates over 200 gas wells in the Pavillion area denies that drilling is to blame for the contamination stating that many of the toxins “occur naturally.” On January 6, 2012, EnCana sent a letter demanding that the EPA suspend the comment period on the report claiming that the agency didn’t give the company copies of all the data it used to compile the report.

The same week, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming and Wyoming Water Development Commission accused the EPA of not following its own water-testing protocols by holding the water well samples two days too long before conducting tests.

These accusations are a political ploy to cover-up the results and bring a halt to the study. We’ve seen this time and again with industry shirking responsibility and the government turning its back on the people who bear the impact of energy development in our country.

And it’s not just me that’s saying it.  It’s the Pavillion residents too:

“Pavillion residents made continual requests for help from the state of Wyoming and industry before seeking assistance from EPA to address the contamination issues. For over 10 years the state refused to help us. That’s when we went to the EPA. Now it appears the state is joining the industry in fighting this study tooth and nail,” – John Fenton, Powder River Basin Resource Council Board Member and Chair of Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens.

Industry and the state are so frantic to discredit the study, they’re making claims that make no sense.  Listen to Wilma Subra – a chemist, president of Subra Company, and board member of the State Review of Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), and MacArthur genius grant recipient:

“The EPA is conducting a scientifically sound investigation of the contamination in the Pavillion area. Problems with hold times are very common and this did not compromise the results. If anything, longer hold times make the results less likely to indicate contamination.”

Pavillion is a town of about 160 residents in the middle of the Wind River Indian Reservation, 150 miles east of Grand Teton National Park.

Toxic chemicals were found in nearly 9 out of every 10 wells sampled. In monitor wells drilled by EPA, benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, was found at 50 times the limit safe for human health along with numerous other toxic chemicals including 2-BE, a chemical used in fracking operations.

Through the years contamination has been suspected, EnCana supplied and then halted drinking water service to residents.

In 2011 EnCana tried to sell its entire Pavillion/Muddy Ridge gas field to Legacy Oil & Gas out of Midland, Texas. Legacy backed out of the sale in late November.

Last session, the MGA considered two bills designed to spur state agencies to develop the rules of the road toward responsibly ensuring the natural gas bridge remains narrow and short.  As is so often the case with the initial introduction of broad policy ideas affecting a relatively new industry, the bills died in the state senate.  Undeterred, Governor Martin O’Malley issued an Executive Order creating a commission to study the practices and potential impacts of gas drilling within the state.  Just days before the MGA banged the gavel opening this year’s session, the commission delivered its initial findings.  Part 1 of the report covers sources of revenue and liability standards for gas exploration and production.  Parts 2 and 3, due for future release, will provide recommendations for potential impacts and best practices.

Follow the Money

Delegate Heather Mizeur is expected to champion a legislative package mirroring the Commission’s revenue raising suggestions.  Among them, a fee on existing gas leases to fund Parts 2 and 3 of the Commission’s work.  We also hope to see a severance tax bill that can pay for regional monitoring and an amendment to the state’s bonding requirements that remove statutory dollar amounts in favor of bonding levels set by the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Who’s to Blame?

Who’s to say where the diesel fuel in your drinking water came from?  Just because there’s a gas well injecting many thousands of gallons of chemicals under enormously high pressures in to the ground mere feet from your property line, does not prove that industry chemicals caused your water contamination.  At least not according to Maryland’s current liability structure that relies on old common law notions of nuisance and trespass. 

The Commission report recognized the problem right away.

“A dispute between…an individual and an oil and gas company is a classic example of asymmetry of resources.” (page 19)

“…any legal theory currently available will probably require the individual to produce evidence on complex and cutting edge issues of engineering, geology, and hydrogeology.” (page 19)

Instead, the Commission asks the MGA to pass a law creating a rebuttable presumption that certain damages around the time and place of drilling activities are caused by those activities.  So that what makes sense in terms of every layperson’s notion of cause and effect will also reflect the legal concept of causation.  In addition, the Commission recommends the MGA enact a comprehensive Surface Owners Protection Act.   A dozen states already have something like this.  The purpose is to simply require the industry to provide notice to surface owners of the activities planned related to drilling operations including points of entry, placement of roads, pipelines, and a method of assessing damages to property value.

The state of Maryland has a long way to go before it has in place the right kinds of rules necessary to protect the public health and property values of its residents.  These initial Commission recommendations are a step in the right direction, but Parts 2 and 3 are really where the rubber meets the road.  It is folly to predict what will happen within the Maryland legislature.  But a productive report produced- thanks to the Governor’s initiative- delivered to the MGA in time for session, may provide the necessary momentum for a bit of progress.

In a terrific op-ed in the New York Times, fisheries scientists Carol Ann Woody and Robert Hughes, express their deep concern about the impact mining has had on the nation’s dwindling fisheries and the inadequacy of the 1872 Mining Law to regulate modern mining.

With stunning facts and figures, the two scientists describe the tremendous toll to our nation’s rivers and streams, native fish, and public lands, and highlight the risk to important native fish populations in Oregon's Chetco Wild and Scenic River and Montana's Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. 

The op-ed also points to a bill introduced recently by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would:
o require mining companies to pay a royalty equal to what other industries have been paying for decades,
o provide safeguards for clean water and
o give communities and agencies a say about where mining is permitted.

It defies common sense that this law still governs mining today. 

The process to develop the guidelines (formally called the draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement, or dSGEIS) and allow for public comment is required by state law and has been underway since 2008. It certainly isn’t easy to conduct a comprehensive assessment of a complex issue and update regulations to address modern-day, industrial gas development of a type and on a scale that New York has never seen before. And the DEC gave it a decent try, issuing a 1000+ page document covering topics from water to wildlife and traffic to toxics.

Yet given how much is at stake, the dSGEIS and accompanying proposed regulations just don't cut it. Earthworks detailed several critical flaws in our comments, and with our partners in the New York Water Rangers coalition, have demanded that they be fixed. At the same time, in-depth technical comments by a group of experts persuaded leading environmental organizations that the dSGEIS is too deficient for the state to move forward with drilling.

With no consideration of cumulative impacts, analysis of economic costs, plans to dispose of hazardous waste or prohibit the use of carcinogenic chemicals, insufficient setbacks from buildings and water resources, and more, the dSGEIS and draft regulations certainly aren't what so many had hoped and waited for.

Earthworks and our partners were particularly astounded that the DEC didn’t analyze health impacts (and barely referenced health in the document), despite growing concern over the problems (respiratory distress, bloody noses, skin rashes, constant headaches, and more) faced by people (and animals) living in America’s gas patches. The DEC ignored a request from hundreds of health professionals to do so, as well as increasing evidence nationwide that such health impacts are real and are happening now—and serve as tragic and harsh examples of what could happen in New York if the state doesn’t sufficiently protect communities and air and water quality.

It remains to be seen whether Governor Cuomo and the DEC will heed such criticism and work to fill the gaping holes in the dSGEIS and regulations—a choice that would match their repeated statements that science and safety, not emotion, will ultimately determine New York's decision. Or whether they will yield to industry pressure and spin the dSGEIS so they can proceed with issuing drilling permits, perhaps in 2012.

If they take the latter path, New York could end up like every other oil and gas state that’s jumped onto the shale gas train as it rushes down the tracks: trusting an untrustworthy industry that’s rarely held accountable for damage or required to prevent it, and willing to risk the health of its citizens and environment in the pursuit of a bit more dirty energy.

Long days (and likely some nights) lie ahead for DEC staff as they sift through comments. Let’s hope that when they emerge, the day will be bright—one in which New Yorkers have not only boldly spoken out, but have truly been heard.

There are varied definitions for conflict minerals. I usually define conflict minerals as minerals that are mined and used to influence and finance armed conflict, human rights abuses, and violence. 

I also like Global Witness’ definition of “conflict resources” as “natural resources whose systematic exploitation and trade in a context of conflict contribute to, benefit from or result in the commission of serious violations of human rights, violations of international humanitarian law or violations amounting to crimes under international law”.

Two years ago this term “conflict minerals” hit the US business community with a thud. See, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act had a small section, section 1502, that mandated companies fully understand their supply-chain and report whether or not they were using conflict minerals - in this case tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold - from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The definition used for this law is a specific one and only looks at conflict associated with minerals in the regions of eastern DRC.

In a general sense many more communities around the world must deal with the conflict that mineral extraction brings and/or sustains. These minerals are seen by rebels, armies, and common gangs alike as an easy way to finance their violent agendas that lead to and perpetuate human rights abuses. (Colombia, Zimbabwe) 

Click image for complete infoographic. Credit: Venkel

Conflict minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Today conflict minerals are most often associated with the DRC because of international human rights campaigns, section 1502, and the numerous reports documenting the conflict and human rights abuses in the region.

Conflict minerals in the DRC, as listed in Section 1502, include tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold. These minerals lie at the nexus of mining and financing armed conflicts in the country’s eastern region; a region with a decade-long conflict that has produced atrocious human rights violations, gender-based violence, rampant rape, and slavery. Groups earn upwards of $185 million (2008) annually on the trade of conflict minerals.

Dodd-Frank, Section 1502, and conflict minerals

Dodd-Frank, mostly known for as a major financial reform bill, was also a huge step towards curbing the trade of conflict minerals. A small section of the bill, section 1502, is transforming the mining industry and companies - like electronics and jewelry - whose products are reliant on these mined minerals. Dodd-Frank imposes new supply-chain reporting requirements on U.S. companies sourcing conflict minerals from DRC. This is not a ban on minerals from eastern DRC, it simply requires any company using these minerals to disclose whether those minerals originated from eastern DRC.

Congress passed these requirements with the intention of curbing the trade of conflict minerals because:

“the exploitation and trade of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is helping to finance conflict characterized by extreme levels of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly sexual- and gender-based violence, and contributing to an emergency humanitarian situation therein”

The intention is ambitious. Now the implementation of 1502 must meet that intention’s ambition. If implemented soon, and enforced properly, 1502 can exemplify how consumer purchasing power and corporate accountability can help combat human rights abuses and transform industries’ supply-chain transparency.

Why are the conflict mining rules delayed?

The passage of Dodd-Frank was a huge step, but getting these requirements hammered into rules has been a tough task. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been tasked with issuing rules telling companies how to comply with Dodd-Frank. And the SEC has been dragging its feet – it was supposed to issue new rules within 270 days of Dodd-Frank passage. And now it’s been almost double that amount of time - over 530 days… and still no rules. All while people in Congo continue to suffer. 

The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable recently highlighted the delay in a group letter to the SEC urging the release of the rules no later that January 2012.

We need action from the SEC

No rules means stalled progress on conflict minerals and dirty gold.

Prompt issuing of the rules is imperative step towards curbing the trade of conflict minerals fueling human rights abuses, murders, and rapes in the DRC. These minerals could be in our phones, on our ring fingers, or in our cars. Congress took action by passing the law; it’s now time for the SEC to step up.

We are sending letter to the SEC demanding that the conflict minerals are issued immediately, and we need you to join us!

You can take action with us in calling for the SEC to complete the rulemaking process. They have had double the time allotted to issue the rules. Now is time for action. Delay of these rules allows these minerals to continue to be used in the financing of armed conflict and human rights abuses.

This saga all began in 2008, when mining claims around the Grand Canyon started to multiply, mostly for uranium mining. The Grand Canyon is currently threatened by over 1000 uranium mining claims near its borders.  Uranium mining can harm soil, ground and surface water. It also leaves radioactive wastes that last for years -- wastes that can and have made people sick.

The then-Democratically controlled House of Representatives was the first to take action. Led by Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the House Natural Resources Committee passed emergency withdrawal measures to protect the area around the Canyon from mining. When President Obama took office in 2009, the Department of Interior (DoI) created a two-year moratorium on mining around the Grand Canyon, supported by 100,000 public comments. Last year, DoI received nearly 300,000 comments in favor of the 1 million acre withdrawal.

Today, conservation won out over the influence of special interests. Future generations will thank this administration for putting short-term thinking aside to protect one of our most important national treasures. 

I blogged about the blowout on Friday and there are currently 28 comments on the post. "A Nonny Mouse" an occasional commenter, recalled the Williams blowout in Grandview that contaminated drinking water of three families and poisoned several animals. Last year the landowers settled with Williams and were forced to sign non disclosure agreements.

One Denton resident who is involved with a group making recommendations to beef up Denton's drilling ordinance read that comment and wrote to Chesapeake through their website asking about the possibility of water contamination from the blowout. Gipson wrote her an email answering her question but his answer conflicts with the answer he gave the media.

I will post both answers below. Because this industry is stuck on stupid so we will never know the truth we will have to assume the worst.

Story #1 given to the media:

No injuries or environmental threats were reported, Jim Gipson said in an email.

The rig had spud the Davis 30 12-26 well four miles northwest of Sweetwater in western Oklahoma. It was drilling ahead at 900 feet when it hit a zone of pressurized gas, which quickly flowed back up the well and caught fire.

The well was slated to drill vertically to 12,000 feet before kicking off the lateral.

Operations were at such an early stage that a raft of safety equipment had not been hooked up yet, including the blowout preventer and gas separator.

The equipment had not been installed because crews had not yet set surface casing on the well and the blowout preventer mounts on top of the surface casing, Gipson explained.

“So the weight of drilling mud was the only pressure control,” he said. A well-control crew is on site and another crew is working to salvage the rig, Gipson said. “There will be very thorough investigation into the cause of the incident,” he said.

Source

Story #2 given to concerned citizen (I removed the citizen's email address because it is a private citizen. Mr. Gipson works for CHK so his email address is available through their website)

From: Jim Gipson <jim.gipson@chk.com>

Date: January 7, 2012 3:09:49 PM CST

To:

Subject: Re: Blowout

The water table had already been isolated and sealed off from the well with steel casing and cement.

So I wrote to a petroleum engineer I know to ask what it all means in terms of possible water contamination.

article states the surface casing was not set yet -- so this is an open hole blowout -- nothing is downhole to protect aquifers, etc

Somewhere near Sweetwater, Oklahoma there is a big, gaping hole directly through the High Plains aquifer. The hole is now full of additive laced drilling mud and the newly  released shallow gas . 

UPDATE: To respond to "a casual observer" in the comments.

First, let's be precise about the email: "[A] casual observer" call it "an anonymous email." Words are important and this industry is skilled at manipulating words. It was NOT an anonymous email. It is an email from Jim Gipson, Director - Media Relations, Chesapeake Energy to a private citizen who was concerned about aquifer contamination. 

The commentor, "a casual observer," watched a video online and is now demanding a retraction because the video indicates that Chesapeake might have had a "conductor casing" in place. 

I am confident that Chesapeake does not need "a casual observer" to rush to their defense because they employ a team of people for that. 

But, let's assume that the well did have a "conductor casing." I, again, contacted a petroleum engineer to find out what that mgiht mean. 

Here is the bottom line from the petroleum engineer:

Clearly conductor casing is for drilling rig support and not for aquifer protection.

Here is some additional informaton about casing from the petroleum engineer:

Conductor Casing
Conductor casing is installed first, usually prior to the arrival of the drilling rig. The hole for conductor casing is often drilled with a small auger drill, mounted on the back of a truck. Conductor casing is usually no more than 20 to 50 feet long.  It is installed to prevent the top of the well from caving in and to help in the process of circulating the drilling fluid up from the bottom of the well. Onshore, this casing is usually 16 to 20 inches in diameter, while offshore casing usually measures 30 to 42 inches. The conductor casing is cemented into place before drilling begins.

Surface Casing
Surface casing is the next type of casing to be installed. It can be anywhere from a few hundred to 2,000 feet long, and is smaller in diameter than the conductor casing. When installed, the surface casing fits inside the top of the conductor casing. The primary purpose of surface casing is to protect fresh water deposits near the surface of the well from being contaminated by leaking hydrocarbons or salt water from deeper underground. It also serves as a conduit for drilling mud returning to the surface, and helps protect the drill hole from being damaged during drilling. Surface casing, like conductor casing, is cemented into place. Regulations often dictate the thickness of the cement to be used to ensure that there is little possibility of freshwater contamination.

Source

You can see some diagrams HERE. 

Read into that how you will, I'll say no more about it.

As my family and our animals begin our new life in Pilot Point, TX, where the air is clean, and the water supply free of drilling chemicals, I have been fielding a number of calls and emails about our new life.

"So, you're moving?"..yes.

"You sell your house?"...yes.

"Who did you sell your house to?...the matter has been resolved.

"Oh".

Someone asked if I felt we had ‘won or lost’, obviously looking for details. That got me to thinking.

Regardless of where one lives in Gasland, whether it is the urban setting or rural, I’m hard pressed to say that there is no such a thing as ‘winning’, only degrees of losing...

When the drillers first show up, one loses any sense or belief one has about personal property rights. One learns the hard way the definition of ‘split estate’, and that somewhere along the line, someone decided that mineral rights trump all other rights, including any one thought they had according to the U.S. Constitution.

When the constant noise comes, with the 24/7 screech of the rig brakes on pipe, stadium lighting blinding, huge plumes of diesel exhaust, non-stop semi truck traffic at all hours of the day and strange workmen tramping around just a few feet from one’s home, one tends to lose faith. Not in God, but in the State. The very same agencies -- the TCEQ, TRRC, and even the EPA to a large extent -- are either unwilling or unable to help anyone.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality are people appointed by the Gashole Governor, and he’s all for tearing up the entire state of Texas, if need be, to keep the gas flowing. The Commissioners have their marching orders, and they are loyal soldiers.  They're just not loyal to us.

The Texas Railroad Commission, the chief regulatory agency of oil and gas in Texas, couldn’t be more corrupt. Every one of them, led by conflict-of-interest Chairman Elizabeth Ames Jones, sees their job as promoting oil and gas development.  Not actually regulating it.

Commissioner David Porter refers to people like me as ‘unsatisfied landowners’. He is absolutely correct; I couldn’t be more unsatisfied with the TRRC’s lack of knowledge, ability or desire to help the very same people they are supposed to be protecting. The lack of enforcement actions and denial of the few enforcement actions on rare recommendation is proof enough of that.

Chairman Jones uses her position to testify before U.S. Congress, extolling all the so-called ‘benefits’ of natural gas development, and denies any water contamination is due to hydraulic fracturing. Her testimony was an appalling display pandering for congressional support in her then run for U.S. Senate. Perhaps she’s merely splitting hairs, as she has recently acknowledged reports of ground water contamination due to surface spills. This distinction brings little comfort to those with contaminated water, where testing results shows drilling chemicals in their drinking water.

When the drilling is complete, and the production begins, one loses any sense of well being and suffers from ill health effects. The gas emissions are constant, and the equipment is often faulty.

If one complains enough, the driller will install a flare and then burn those gases instead of just releasing them into the air. In doing so, the drillers will credit themselves for ‘improving’ the air quality, although it’s simply trading one emission for another. There’s nothing ‘safer’ or ‘better’ about these emissions.

When one complains to the TCEQ, they will conduct an air sample. If the sampling proves to be above limits, the TCEQ will say their equipment is faulty. When the sampling is below limits, then they say it’s ‘acceptable’ and ‘within EPA guidelines’.  It makes little difference that one’s exposure to Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes were ZERO prior to the drilling. And diesel exhaust? TCEQ does not measure that.

When the production falls, and it falls fast, losing as much as 50% or more within the first year, the drillers bring in a compressor station or two. (Or FIFTEEN, like Chesapeake is attempting in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Fort Worth) one loses any sense of tranquility and peace and sleep, as the noise is loud and constant. The compressors emit not only a loud noise, but also low frequency vibration. Is it truly unknown the cause of acoustic vibrostic disease in people who do not work in an industry where this occurs, but only because they live next to compressor stations?

When one has thoroughly exhausted all potential remedies -- the TCEQ, TRRC, County Commissioners and Judges, County Sheriff, EPA, U.S. Senators and Congressmen, Texas State Senators and Congressmen -- one realizes there’s only two choices about the future:

1. Stay and risk their health and that of their children, put a strain on their marriage and relationship with their children, or
2. Leave and risk their credit.

The decision is not easy, but there really is only one choice; One has to leave, as credit can always be repaired, health cannot. When children have sudden unexplained nosebleeds, that’s the huge flag waving that says it’s time to go, get out now.

So we have left Gasland, and life begins anew.

We cannot get back what we have lost over the last two years, but we are, by the grace of God, able to start over away from Gasland.

I can say that our ordeal has strengthened my faith in God, solidified my marriage, and given me the opportunity to spend time with my daughter instead of fighting with elected and appointed officials, filing public information requests, and losing sleep over what catastrophe will come next. I look forward to videotaping my daughter’s swim meets, not the next spill, leak or tank venting.

Leaving Gasland is not winning, it’s merely an end to losing. I will continue my work with Shaletest, continue on speaking tours, both with Mayor Calvin Tillman and perhaps occasionally without, and I will continue to speak out for those who have been negatively impacted by natural gas well development.

Tim Ruggiero
Pilot Point, TX

As a new drilling wave hits Colorado’s Front Range, local governments are working hard to get in front of drilling and have proper safeguards in place before it’s too late.

Unfortunately, local control is the last thing the state and the industry wants. COGA’s Tisha Schuller stated in the article that the “industry is engaging in a more meaningful way than it used to.”

This is actually a case of the oil and gas industry and the state dusting off a dirty old strategy and making it sound shiny and new and helpful.

In the early 1990s, La Plata County responded to its citizens getting overrun with drilling rigs and water contamination by developing oil and gas regulations. The state and the industry showed up in force to try to block the new rules claiming that the state’s oil and gas regulations worked just fine.

In the end, La Plata County did adopt strong protections. The industry succeeded in watering down the rules but it failed when it challenged La Plata County in court. The Supreme Court ruled that local governments have the authority to regulate the land use impacts of oil and gas development.

Longmont, Commerce City and other local governments are doing the right thing for their communities in trying to prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

Why the state is hiring staff to thwart local control rather than adding badly needed enforcement personnel is a big problem. In any case, Colorado needs to work hand-in-hand with local governments to put in place the best protections possible – before drilling occurs. Despite La Plata’s regulations, for many residents the regs were too little, too late. BP and other companies bought out many families whose homes became uninhabitable due to methane contamination from drilling activities.

La Plata County’s list of oil and gas impacts is long. It doesn’t have to be that way for other communities. Let’s not repeat this sad history.

When it comes to Marcellus Shale gas development, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)—responsible for coordinating water resources among Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania—seems to have forgotten their job. Fortunately, residents and organizations are increasingly ready and eager to remind them—including at a meeting on December 15 at which the SRBC green-lighted lax regulations and two dozen water withdrawal permits for the gas industry.

The Commissioners may have expected business as usual; attendees gave them anything but. Many who spoke protested the way the Commission had glossed over major flaws in the regulations—which generated hundreds of public comments and are detailed in a letter signed by more than 40 organizations. Yet the Commissioners proceeded to approve the regulations unanimously, without any debate.

Then during the Commission presentation of water withdrawal permit applications, objections by some members of the audience grew so hot that the meeting was completely disrupted. The Commissioners must have been overwhelmed by the kerfuffle—how else to explain their quickly adjourning, leaving, returning, and plumb forgetting their own rules and duties?

And thus 22 permits were approved—but as a letter from seven environmental groups (including Earthworks) points out, in such an improper manner that the vote may be legally ineffective.

Evidence is mounting of pollution by gas development in Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River is already at risk, and federal and state officials continue to wrestle with the impairment of the Chesapeake Bay (which gets half its freshwater from the Susquehanna). Yet just like every other agency and state government, the SRBC doesn’t have a plan. It hasn’t considered how much water will be needed or how much waste will be created over time, or when there are so many more waste pits, compressor stations, pipelines, and other damaging tools of the gas development trade.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler summed up the situation in a letter to the SRBC asking that the proposed regulations be shelved, in effect reminding the agency that more than Pennsylvania’s gas rush is at stake: “At the same time that Maryland, New York, and the federal government are urging restraint and greater regulation, the SRBC appears to be moving in a different direction…the SRBC should be increasing public scrutiny of hydrofracturing withdrawals, not relaxing it.”

Exactly. Right now, we can at least look forward to far greater scrutiny of the SRBC itself. And hopefully after what happened last week, the Commissioners are more awake to growing concerns over drilling—and the fact that, just like a mighty river, they’re gathering strength as they flow.

The Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) website declares that its 350+ members are

“committed to promoting responsible ethical, human rights, social and environmental practices in a transparent and accountable manner throughout the industry from mine to retail. “ 

These are noble sentiments.  How to square them with Even-Zohar’s quote?

As Director of Fair Jewelry Action USA, I too am dedicated to the development of a robust jewelry supply chain that supports human rights and environmental responsibility.  So I am quite familiar with the RJC and how it works.   It represents the most prominent attempt to address ethical shortcomings in the supply chain of the jewelry trade in North America and around the world.  Because of their prominence, any action taken by the RJC impacts the reputation of the entire jewelry sector.

RJC’s size and prominence could be a huge advantage to social/environmentally conscious jewelers worldwide, and to the communities and the environments from which our metals are sourced.  Unfortunately, as Mr. Even-Zohar declares, the opposite is true.

RJC’s Chain of Custody “destroys value” because its claims don’t match reality.  Even-Zohar’s article details how a chain of custody in diamonds would not work given the underlying structure of the diamond industry and its supply chain. 

My concerns are from a different perspective, but they are just as essential for RJC’s credibility:  

• RJC’s initiatives were developed without civil society input. 
• RJC's initiatives were developed without meaningful environmental community input. 
• RJC's initiatives require no independent oversight.
• RJC’s membership – which includes no civil society/environmental representation – DOES include the multinational mining industry. 

In short, the RJC is the jewelry and mining industries policing themselves to meet standards they developed themselves.

The ethical imperative in today’s world requires an RJC different than the current one. It requires an RJC that:

• has a transparent multi-sector decision making process,
• includes an equal seat at the table for civil society groups such labor, NGOs, and impacted communities,
• has checks and balances to provide a counterweight to interests of the large companies in its membership,
• focuses on ethical sourcing where members uphold their stated standards, and
• does not provide cover to the most irresponsible companies in the world. 

Rephrased, the RJC needs to make bedrock principles of inclusivity, traceability, and transparency.

Chaim Even-Zohar’s critique suggests it may not be possible to have a real chain of custody in the mainstream diamond industry.  It also demonstrates the RJC is losing support not just from path-breaking, fair trade, grassroots jewelers.  It is losing support from larger, mainstream interests as well. 

To their credit, RJC will review their diamond supply chain proposal. But if the RJC is under review, let’s make it thorough.  For RJC to find the credibility that it wants, RJC NEEDS support and engagement from civil society organizations.

Currently there is zero civil society representation on the RJC board or at any stage in the RJC process. Without it, the RJC will continue to cede leadership in ethical sourcing to other organizations that represent the authentic movement in ethical sourcing, such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, Alliance for Responsible Mining, Ethical Metalsmiths, Fair Labeling Organization, and my organization of over forty members, Fair Jewelry Action. 

The response in the UK market for Fairtrade and Fairmined gold; and the strong niche market in ethical sourcing in the US supports the notion that the public wants jewelry that benefits everyone. The RJC isn’t necessary to make that happen.

But many jewelers, including myself, want the RJC to work—just like we wanted the Kimberley Process to keep conflict diamonds out of the marketplace to work.  Yet like the failed Kimberley Process, I am concerned that and the RJC may have structural flaws that prevent its credibility outside of its own houses of mirrors.

Marc Choyt is founding Director of Fair Jewelry Action, USA. He is president of Reflective Images, which produces artisan fair trade gold wedding rings and engagement rings at Artisan Wedding Rings.

The gas produced in the Eagle Ford Shale has been singled out to be converted to LNG and exported, according to NGI's Shale Daily which is available only to subscribers (trial subscriptions are available).

Eagle Ford Production Targeted for LNG Export published by NGI's Shale Daily: December 19, 2011 The latest proposal by Cheniere Energy Inc. singles out the Eagle Ford Shale as a source of gas to be liquefied.

[...]

Cheniere's Corpus Christi Liquefaction LLC is developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal at one of Cheniere's existing sites that was previously permitted for a regasification terminal. The site is in San Patricio County, TX. The Eagle Ford is about 60 miles northwest of Corpus Christi, Cheniere noted.

Last week I posted an analysis on Bluedaze of the recently released Global Insight report from IHS. The report paints a picture of “inflationary pressures which will rocket through the U.S. economy as a consequence of higher natural gas prices.” Exporting domestic natural gas will create more demand which will cause higher natural gas prices.

Driving up natural gas prices isn't the only reason exporting gas is a bad idea. It takes 11 to 13 million gallons of water to frack a well in the Eagle Ford Shale. That fracking water and the associated water used in mining frack sand would water a whole lot of cattle.

Our current drought, the worst drought in Texas history, is predicted to last for several more years. In August the cost to Texas farmers was estimated at $5.2 billion in crop and livestock losses. The Texas Forest Service estimates the drought has cost us a half-billion trees so far. Sacrificing, water, our most precious natural resource to develop domestic gas then exporting that gas rather than saving it or for future use domestically makes no sense unless you only focus on short-term profits.

As the drought lingers, natural gas won't be the only thing that's more expensive. Water prices are already skyrocketing in some areas.

Growth of large private water companies brings higher water rates, little recourse for consumers by Jeremy Schwartz and Eric Dexheimer When Robert White opened his water bill last month, his jaw dropped: $250 for a month's worth of water and sewer service.

Surprise, surprise! Our water has been privatized!

White's water service is provided by a private utility owned by California-based SouthWest Water Co. LLC. Just across the four-lane Pflugerville Parkway, where White's neighbors in the Springbrook Glen subdivision — a nearly identical grid of neatly arranged brick-faced homes — get their water from Pflugerville, rates are on average about 60 percent less.

We've obviously been hoodwinked by the Big Gas Mafia. Development of natural gas resources has nothing to do with national security or energy independence and everything to do with further enriching the 1%. It has derailed our clean energy future and all the jobs possible in that more hopeful future.

And, if you think the royalties you receive might be worth the trade offs in environmental destruction, you better keep a very close eye on those royalty checks because the Texas Supreme Court just ruled that the Big Gas Mafia can commit fraud when paying you royalties.

COURT FINDS FOR BIG OIL COMPANY OVER SMALL ROYALTY OWNER IN PRECEDENT SETTING CASE Attorney: ‘You can’t really believe anything the oil company tells you’

Unfortunately, they haven’t.Yet.

So it’s time to ramp up the pressure.

Can you take a minute from your busy holiday week to call Macy’s? Think of it as caroling against dirty gold. We need to call Macy’s and tell their people (Jim and Beth) to sign the Golden Rules.

Jim Sluzewski, Senior VP, External Affairs 513-579-7764  &
Beth Charlton, Director Issue Management & Special Projects, 513-562-6928

We’re asking for 1 minute of your day to call Macy’s and ask them to sign the “Golden Rules” for responsible metals sourcing. We want to call two representatives at Macy’s - if you can only make one call, that’s ok!

Don't know what to say? Here are some suggestions:

1. Hi, I'm calling to urge Terry Lundgren (CEO) and Macy’s to sign on to the No Dirty Gold campaign. I want to know that Macy’s is doing its part to ensure that the gold it sells is not tainted with human rights abuses or pollution. Please sign on to the Golden Rules. Your customers deserve better. Thank you.

2.  Hi, I'm calling to ask if you can connect me to someone who can explain why Macy’s is lagging behind signing on to the No Dirty Gold campaign. Over 80 jewelers have signed. Now I want Macy’s join them and support human rights, fair labor, and environmental protection by signing on to the Golden Rules. Will you?

3. Hi, I'm calling because I am a Macy’s shopper. Please sign Earthworks' Golden Rules so when I return to Macy’s, I know I'm shopping at a company that cares about people and the environment.

Only 5 days left until Christmas, people are finishing their holiday shopping. Some of these gifts will be dirty gold jewelry – tainted by human rights abuses, unfair labor practices, and environmental destruction.
Over 80 jewelers have signed the “Golden Rules” for responsible metals sourcing, including Target, Tiffany & Co., and Zales. It’s time for Macy’s to step up and do their part.

Call right now and join the hundreds of others telling Macy’s to step it up for human rights! They need to hear from as many people as possible during this prime shopping week.

Give Macy’s a ring and deliver the message: “no more dirty gold”!

First, the bad news:  the EPA confirmed that the presence of contamination in water wells near Pavillion, Wyoming could be due to hydraulic fracturing.  Even in the absence of any scientific studies – as a Halliburton witness was forced to admit under oath last week – the industry and some regulators have continued to claim that hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate groundwater.  The Pavillion results seem to put an end to that fiction.

Second, the good news:  two states – Texas and Colorado - approved chemical disclosure rules for hydraulic fracturing chemicals on the same day.  So what, you say?  New Mexico passed a disclosure rule last month that was so bad, even some oil and gas companies complained that they would have to come back to ‘fix’ the rule. 

These two states have largely set the bar nationally for what “full public disclosure” means for hydraulic fracturing chemicals.  Both require the reporting of all chemicals – whether they have Material Safety Data Sheets or not.

The Colorado rule requires that all concentrations of those chemicals in the frack fluids also be reported.  Texas did not get quite that far due to opposition by that nemesis of federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing:  Halliburton.  Even though there are plenty of industry whispers that Halliburton’s secret recipes are nothing more than dish soap and diesel, with a dash of guar gum and 2-BE, Halliburton has resisted full disclosure in every state where it has a presence, so far.

Both the Texas and Colorado rules also require mandatory reporting on the FracFocus website.  Each rule will require that FracFocus modify its current voluntary and incomplete reporting of chemicals to include all fracking chemicals, and to allow the public to be able to search the website.

Neither rule is perfect, as each allows for a claim to an exemption from disclosure for a chemical under the rubric of it being a trade secret. The Colorado rule provides for a report on the number and identity of those claiming exemptions in twelve months time, so we will see whether this exemption gets overused.  A recent review by Earthworks turned up more than 170 exemptions in Wyoming since their disclosure rule was passed in 2010.

But it is important to note the larger victory here:  the Colorado (and Arkansas) rule for the first time in oil and gas regulations elevates the community right to know principle (disclosure) above the narrow economic principle of protecting corporate property. 

Instead of taking New Mexico’s path – which ignored public concerns and approved the weakest disclosure rule in the nation - Colorado made these changes in response to public comment and pressure. The door has now been opened for other states and the U.S. Department of Interior to step through.  Maybe a federal standard on disclosure would be a good next step.

This past week people concerned with Macy’s inaction to help curb irresponsible gold mining took over Macy’s Facebook page. Over 200 people flooded the Facebook page asking Macy’s to take a stand against irresponsible metal mining, join the over 80 other jewelry retailers, and sign the “Golden Rules”. For the first few days, Macy’s seemed to be ignoring people’s questions and concerns.

Today, Macy’s has posted a reply on its Facebook page. The response lays out precisely why we need Macy’s, as a major jewelry retailer, to sign on to the “Golden Rules”

Here’s the response that Macy’s posted on its Facebook page:

"At Macy's, we have policies and requirements that prohibit our suppliers from knowingly sourcing conflict minerals and gold. These requirements are in addition to our company's Vendor/Supplier Code of Conduct which we enforce via independent third party audits for our private brand merchandise. We have communicated our requirements and expectations to our market suppliers as well and will take appropriate action should a confirmed violation of our policies become known.

While we agree in spirit with the principles of No Dirty Gold, significant problems exist with gold and mineral traceability and verification and it is for this reason that we have yet to join any particular organization as none have thus far addressed those problems in a manner that provides a practical process or solution. This is true for the entire industry and not just for Macy's. We continue to work with the jewelry industry and with other groups and stakeholders seeking to address this issue in a manner that will allow us to be a participant in a meaningful way. -Kelly at Macy's"

My reply:

“Thanks for the reply, Kelly. I’m happy to hear Macy’s tells your suppliers not to source conflict minerals. However, as the rest of your statement reflects, there are major problems with traceability and verification. So actually, you don't know if you're sourcing -- and your consumers are buying -- dirty gold.  They could be, and they likely are.

The Golden Rules are a commitment by jewelry companies -- the #1 consumer of gold -- to gain that certainty by working to pressure the mining industry to change their supply chain.

Eight of the top ten jewelers in the U.S. have acknowledged their responsibility to address this problem.  Macy's is one of two that has not.

You admit in your own statement that the question is traceability and verification.  The answer is to work within the Golden Rules.  Please do your company, your customers and mining-impacted communities around the world a favor.  Sign the Golden Rules.”

As you can see we agree! Significant problems do exist on gold and mineral traceability and without retailers like Macy's demanding to know where their products are coming from this will not change. This is our point, precisely!

It is encouraging that Macy's prohibits suppliers "from knowingly sourcing conflict minerals". While this a first step in helping curb minerals that finance and cause conflict, a policy on the prohibition of conflict minerals alone is far from comprehensive.

Furthermore, the idea that Macy’s policy prohibits suppliers "knowingly sourcing conflict minerals" is deeply undermined by what Macy’s points out as "problems in traceability and verification". In addition to conflict minerals, Macy’s could well be selling minerals mined at the cost of human rights, environmental destruction, and unfair labor practices. These problems need to be fixed, not swept under the rug.

Jewelry is the #1 consumer of gold. The jewelry industry bears a huge responsibility to help end irresponsible gold mining; the #1 responsibility you might say. This is why 80 major retailers have signed on to the "Golden Rules", to fix these systemic problems. People want to know where their gold comes from and retailers have the responsibility to tell them.

Unfortunately Macy's continues to pass the buck.

It’s not to late for Macy’s to do the right thing. Macy’s can be an important ally in the fight to end irresponsible gold and metal sourcing. It’s time for Macy’s to take the intention written in their policies and put them into practice. It’s time for Macy’s to join over 80 other jewelry retailers and sign the “Golden Rules”.

These two new rules are good steps towards better public protection from hazardous fracking chemicals. Both of these rules were improved over previous versions thanks to public pressure -- especially in the case of Colorado.

But they are just steps, as we still need to address all the toxic chemicals connected to natural gas development. And that can only be achieved by plugging federal loopholes through the FRAC and BREATHE Acts.

For the first time in any state, Colorado's rules would require the public disclosure on FracFocus.org of all chemicals used and their concentrations, except for those approved as trade secrets.

Texas's rules would require the public disclosure on FracFocus.org of all chemicals used, but not the concentrations of non-MSDS chemcials. Operators can claim as trade secrets any chemicals they want, although those claims are subject to limited challenges by nearby landowners through the Texas Attorney General's office.

Do you think Macy's customers want their gold jewelry:
• mined by children's hands,
• poisoning communities' drinking water,
• or violating human rights?

We think they don't.
But dirty gold does all these things. That's why we created the Golden Rules of Responsible Metals Sourcing: to enlist jewelry retailers – who account for more than 80% of the world's gold mine production – to pressure the mining industry to eliminate dirty gold.

Unfortunately, Macy's – unlike eight of the other top 10 gold retailers in the U.S. – has refused to commit to the Golden Rules. That's why over ten thousand people emailed Macy's last week demanding they help clean up dirty gold. Now the message is spreading to Facebook. People are flooding Macy's Facebook page to tell them to sign on to the Golden Rules. We want to keep the pressure on!

Today we need you to go to Macy's Facebook page, "like" them, and leave a message on their wall like one of these:

• "Macy's, show me you care about human rights, ending child labor, and protecting the environment. Sign the Golden Rules!"
• "Macy's, I urge you to say no to human rights abuses and environmental destruction by signing on to the No Dirty Gold Campaign's Golden Rules."
• "Macy's, this Holiday season show your customers you care if the gold you sell comes with human rights abuses and environmental destruction. Sign on to Earthworks Golden Rules!"

Why isn't Macy's opposing dirty gold?

We don't know. We assume it isn't because they don't care about children working in mines or cyanide spills poisoning communities' drinking water. Maybe it is because they think their customers don't care.

That's obviously not true.

Let's keep up the pressure and show Macy's that its (potential) customers demand they take a stand against dirty gold! Post your comment on Facebook now!

a) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to regulate cigar smoke
b) The EPA plans to regulate spilled milk
c) The EPA plans to regulate peeing in the shower
d) The EPA plans to regulate farm dust

Painting a picture of how the House majority views the agency is Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL):

“We don’t trust EPA. We know they’ll come back. We know they’ll go after dust. … That’s why we have this bill,” Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said. “I’m here for my open-pit mines in Illinois, that we don’t shut them down. … For us, it’s about jobs and an overzealous EPA,” he said.

If you said none of the above, you’re the big winner.  What the House Majority calls “farm dust” is particulate matter (PM)- tiny particles only a few microns in diameter created from coal combustion, mining, and other large industrial processes.  Exposure can lead to serious health problems including decreased lung function, increased hospital admissions for heart disease, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.

The Clean Air Act, passed 40 years ago, grants EPA the authority to protect us from these public health dangers.  The law requires EPA to review the science every five years to make sure it conforms to the most current evidence available.  This scientific evidence compelled the EPA to set its first standard for the slightly larger kind of PM back in 1987- nearly a quarter century ago.  Since then, after each review, the EPA has altered this standard exactly zero times.  In 2006, the Bush Administration unsuccessfully attempted to weaken the standard and this year the Obama Administration has repeatedly said they have no intention of proposing any changes.

Despite a promised Presidential veto, the House of Representatives voted today to pass HR 1633, the “Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011”.  While pollution from PM poses serious public health risks, there is no such thing as farm dust for purposes of the Clean Air Act.  Nor is there such thing as farm dust for the purposes of HR 1633; the only place those words appear in the bill is in the title.  Farm dust sounds like nothing more than tiny harmless grains of common dirt.  Since the movement toward new regulations for either dirt or PM is just fantasy, Democrats have mocked this bill as preventing regulation of pixie dust. HR 1633 instead talks about “nuisance dust”.  Nuisance dust is PM that is:

“…generated from natural sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities typically conducted in rural areas”

So, this is not just a semantic argument over whether one characterizes dust as a nuisance, pixie, or indigenous to farms.  This is an argument over the Bingham Canyon mine in Utah.  The largest copper mine in the world, owned by Kennecott Copper, Bingham Canyon spews out particulate matter pollution that contaminates the air around Salt Lake City.  HR 1633 creates a loophole for Kennecott’s particulates.  This, of course, does not make Salt Lake City’s air any cleaner. 

Oddly, this bill, while seemingly absolving Utah from onerous regulation, actually places an enormous burden on the state.  Because the mine continues to pollute, Salt Lake City’s air remains out of attainment for certain kinds of PM.  Kennecott now wants to expand its operations.  And Utah is still responsible for developing a plan to remove enough of the particulates to keep the air breathable.  Obviously, the Bingham Canyon mine is the low hanging fruit. But, if Utah is no longer allowed to pick from Bingham’s fruit in order to reach the appropriate PM levels, the reductions have to come from somewhere.  Acheiving these reductions could likely result in the very kind of overzealous regulation the bill’s supporters fear.

The report is as disturbing as it is important.

The report ends by asking the right questions:

• How can we know where our gold comes from?
• How is this kind of mining still happening?
• What are the steps companies are taking that want tot make a difference?
• What we as consumers can do to pressure companies to reject dirty gold?

These are important questions the mining industry and gold jewelers often dodge. However, the program rightly places a lot of responsibility on the gold retailers and consumers.

There is a lot of work to do, and that’s why the No Dirty Gold campaign is continuing to pressure Macy’s and Costco to join every other major jewelry retailer in the US by signing the “Golden Rules” for responsible metals sourcing. The Golden Rules puts forth steps for retailers to take to make sure they are not selling dirty gold. In not signing the Golden Rules Macy’s and Costco is sending the message that they don’t care where their gold comes from, even if it is from these mines in Mali.

Would you shop at Macy’s or Costco if they don’t care to know if their gold comes from the mines in Mali, or the other mines around the world just like them?
 

And, if you want more detail, go to the full peer-reviewed article in Fisheries magazine, where they’ve supplied an endless number of case studies, and detailed recommendations for reforming the 1872 mining law. 

Last month, Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts introduced a mining law reform and abandoned mine clean-up bill (H.R. 3446), which tackles many of these important issues.

As the scientists say, “We encourage Congress to bring our nation's mining law into the 21st Century. It's long overdue.”

The virus spreads person-to-person but there are cases where people in remote, isolated areas contract it with no exposure. Once you have contracted the virus, you will have it for life. Getting inoculated is the only protection.

The name for this virus, “Fracking Insurgency,” was made public for the first time on October 31, 2011. Audio of the announcement is available online.

After millions spent in research, online tracking systems, studying demographics, planning, and training, there is now a blueprint for widespread inoculation of the populace. Participants will be injected with a weak dose of the Fracking Insurgency virus so they can build immunity. Repeat treatments are required for full immunity. Like most viruses, an injection with a strong dose could sicken or even kill the patient.

The plan for inoculation has several stages. Those carrying out the plan must receive the first inoculations. It is critical that those carrying out the plan not succumb to this virus. Despite inoculation, many do eventually succumb but lavish incentives and much higher than average salaries quickly produce replacements.

The second stage targets the most influential members of our society, reporters, educators, academics and lawmakers. Citizens will be inoculated in the last stage.

Chesapeake Energy’s VP of Strategic Affairs and Public Relations, Michael Kehs, recommends early inoculation against what he calls “a strong activist insurgency.” Listen to this audio clip of Kehs, at the recent Media & Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 conference talking about the need to inoculate reporters early.

Kehs explained how, Chris Helman who writes for Forbes, received his inoculation when he was flown to Tulsa to spend 2.5 days with top management. Helman was given a helicopter trip to a special pad site equipped with all the latest technology. This inoculation, Kehs explained, gave Helman the impression that Chesapeake ”cares” and that they know what they are doing.

Because they have a great deal of influence over the public, it is especially important that educators and academics receive early inoculations. This point was stressed repeatedly during the conference.

Last week, sixteen Metroplex science teachers received their first inoculation that began with a two-hour instruction session at Brookhaven College. Then they received the main component of the inoculation process: The Rig Tour™.

 "I thought that the drilling would actually happen longer," Ballou said. "But it was pretty quick, and they can drill six to eight wells at one location. The sound and the traffic must be annoying for people who live in that area, but if it produces a lot of gas in a short amount of time, maybe it's worth it."

Source

The Rig Tour™ inoculation concocted by industry is given at a “model well site” that is specially constructed and—unlike the well sites in our neighborhoods—is equipped with all the “best practice technologies.” The Rig Tour™ is nothing like the Reality Based Gas Patch Tour© recently given in the Barnett Shale to a busload of solar energy executives. The executives were halfway horrified and halfway elated. They rightly concluded that anyone who lives close to drilling activity would be highly motivated to advocate for and invest in solar energy.

The Rig Tour™ is not the only kind of inoculation our educators receive. Grants, gifts and endowments are also part of the inoculation concoction. A Hearn, Texas Elementary school has received a grant from ExxonMobil. Encana Oil & Gas is holding energy “education workshops” for Robertson and Leon County teachers. Click here for Robertson County News article.

At the end of the first conference day, I had the opportunity to speak with Blake Jackson, Social Media Coordinator for Chesapeake Energy. It was a pleasant conversation and Jackson seemed sincere, open-minded and willing to admit there is room for his industry to improve. I never forgot that he is trained to make people feel that way.

I asked Jackson if he had ever taken a Reality Based Gas Patch Tour© and he enthusiastically assured me that he had toured several times. When I questioned him further, it was as I suspected: Jackson has received several doses of The Rig Tour™ inoculation administered at a Chesapeake Energy model well site. That’s when I first realized that the inoculations must begin within the industry.

What might happen if I inoculated the inoculators? What if they took a dose of my Reality Based Gas Patch Tour©? I’ve given countless tours and, without fail, the participants quickly and easily contract the Fracking Insurgency virus. A Reality Based Gas Patch Tour© is not carefully planned and orchestrated like The Rig Tour™. A Reality Based Gas Patch Tour© might include talking with Gas Patch victims and often includes exposure to the same toxic compounds they breathe every day. 60 Minutes, PBS, CBS, EPA officials, journalists and TV news reporters from several different countries and a busload full of solar energy executives have all taken my Reality Based Gas Patch Tour©. The French seem to be most susceptible to the Fracking Insurgency virus.

Despite Kehs efforts to inoculate Ohio reporters early, the Fracking Insurgency virus is spreading rapidly across Ohio. In many cases online exposure via the iReality Based Gas Patch Tour©, even despite occasional annoying music, may be all that is needed to contract the Fracking Insurgency virus.

The force of this argument is the driver behind the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (HR 2018), a bill that removes the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to keep our water clean in favor of local oversight.  While hydrology and geology do vary from region to region, this alone does not make local governments the better regulator.  The purpose of having the federal government regulate polluting activities is to ensure that downstream communities are not adversely affected by relaxed rules in a neighboring community.  The Feds set the floor.

In practice, local governments often lack the budget, human resources, or sometimes expertise to provide the best oversight.  More importantly, industry can exercise considerably more influence over local decision makers.  Plus, they get many more bites at the apple.  If some local politicians in one area choose to enact tougher regulations to protect public health and the environment, industry can easily try their hand in a nearby jurisdiction.

Curious then, what we see from the Keystone state.  The state legislature in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is debating a pair of industry-supported bills designed to remove a municipality’s zoning power to curb drilling operations.  Instead, faceless and unaccountable Harrisburg bureaucrats will decide where, when, and how many drilling wells will appear near schools, hospitals, and senior centers in small townships all over Pennsylvania. 

These bills require every municipality to allow drilling operations in every zoning district, including residential areas. The Commonwealth’s Attorney General will decide disputes between local zoning officials and industry.  This means that when industry disapproves of a zoning ordinance, it can petition the Attorney General to sue the town.  That’s right.   These proposals effectively turn on its head the whole purpose of the Attorney General.  Instead of the AG defending citizens in disputes involving the public health and welfare, the AG will be essentially industry’s lawyer.  Industry has enough lawyers already without co-opting the state’s popularly elected chief law enforcement official.

Besides, zoning decisions have remained the exclusive jurisdiction of municipalities almost since time immemorial.  It’s just one of those essential powers everyone has always agreed belongs in local control; there’s no controversy there.  So, why is it that on the one-hand (like in D.C.) fracking proponents believe local control is best?  And on the other hand (like in Pennsylvania) they think centralized uniform standards are best?  The reason is that, in Pennsylvania, the locals care about keeping towns safe from the impacts of the oil and gas industry.  The local zoning rules tend to protect public health and property values rather than industry access.  What this reveals is that all this talk about how local governments do a better job at regulating industry simply goes out the window when the local governments do a better job at regulating industry.  
 

Late last night President Humala, in a nationally televised address, declared a State of Emergency in four provinces in the state of Cajamarca. The provinces have been the center of the country’s anti-mining protests for the past months because of the record-breaking $4.8 billion Conga gold mine project.

The declaration comes after nearly two weeks of sustained protests in the region calling for the Conga Project, owed by Denver-based Newmont Mining, to be cancelled permanently. Communities and farmers claim that the project threatens the water that has been relied on for livelihood and survival for generations.

"We are not radical. It's just that the Conga project has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people." Milton Sanchez, one of many protest leaders

Newmont had sought to assure communities that their access to water so would not be impacted because they intend on replacing lakes, which would be drained and destroyed in order to mine, with man-made reservoirs. As the highly disputed Environmental Impact Statement explains, some of these reservoirs will be used to provide communities with water, while another will be used to store mine wastes.

The State of Emergency, which took place at midnight last night, is to stay in place for 60 days per Humala’s order. This is a troubling development owing to the restrictions on civil liberties that are imposed during a state of emergency. The emergency restricts civil liberties such as the right to assembly and allows arrests without warrants.

This announcement followed the Interior Ministry asking prosecutors to file criminal charges against five leaders, including President of the Cajamarca state. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time the region has witnessed this troubling strategy of criminalizing community leaders that are opposed to extractive industries exploiting their lands. 

The Humala administration has said that the State of Emergency may be lifted in agreement is reached with communities. We hope that Peru’s Northern Andes is the site of fruitful, good-faith dialogue between communities, local officials, the federal government, and mining companies, rather than the site of increasing militarization and reduced civil liberties.

Newmont’s CEO Richard O'Brien, in a statement to the AP, said that if Newmont was unable to continue with Conga, "the scale and diversity of Newmont's global portfolio" would allow the Denver-based company to "re-prioritize and reallocate capital" to "alternatives in Nevada, Canada, Ghana, Indonesia and Suriname." Now if Newmont can “re-prioritize” environmental protection and “reallocate” their energy to gain free, prior, and informed community consent to their projects we may not have to see scenes like Conga continue to play out around the world.

Statement from Earthworks Executive Director, Jennifer Krill, on the suspension of the Conga project:

Earthworks welcomes this week's decision by Newmont Mining Co. to suspend the development of its controversial Conga mine in northern Peru at the request of President Ollanta Humala. The Minas Conga development has been at the center of many weeks of protests by community members and elected officials who are concerned about the project's impacts on the environment, water supplies, health and livelihoods. The project is a partnership between Newmont, Peruvian company Buenaventura, and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC).

We urge the company, government and communities to open up a meaningful dialogue process that is undertaken in good faith. We also encourage all parties at the table to take the necessary time to build trust and address concerns.

Newmont Mining operates Latin America's largest gold mine, Yanacocha, in northern Peru, and this is not the first time that Newmont's Peruvian operations have been mired in controversy. In 2000, a truck carrying mercury from the Yanacocha deposit spilled 330 pounds of the toxic chemical along a road near the town of Choropampa, sickening hundreds of people, including children. In 2004, Newmont Mining was forced to suspend plans to develop the Cerro Quilish deposit after residents blockaded roads and protested the project."

You can read the complete statement HERE.

Why?

Macy’s has a dirty little secret they are hiding from their customers this holiday season. Dirty gold.

TAKE ACTION: Today we launched this petition calling Macy’s CEO Terry Lundgren to sign the Golden Rules and step up for human rights, environmental protection, and fair labor, this holiday season!

We’ve been waiting for Macy’s to do the right thing and sign on to the “Golden Rules” for responsible metals sourcing for over a year now. In that time, gold mining communities have been kicked off their lands, drinking water has been polluted, and massive labor violations have taken place.

When it comes to gold, Macy’s may not be steering the mining equipment or the bulldozers, but it is in the driver's seat. Jewelry demand accounts for over 80% of annual global gold mine production, and companies that sell jewelry, such as Macy's, can play a powerful role in demanding more ethically produced gold.

By signing the Golden Rules for responsible sourcing, a number of jewelry retailers have taken an imortance stance against destructive mining. What's Macy's waiting for?

While over 80 other major jewelry retailers have stepped up to the task, Macy’s has yet to do the right thing.

That’s why today we are urging Macy’s to join us, to join you, and to join all the communities impacted by gold mining in demanding ethical gold mining with the “Golden Rules”.

Surprisingly, Macy’s remains one of the very last retail holdouts. Macy’s has done little to make sure that their gold jewelry doesn’t come from dirty sources that damage communities, their clean water, or their health.

Is that the kind of present you want sitting under your Christmas tree this holiday season?

Macy’s can, and must, do better.

It’s time for Macy’s to sign the “Golden Rules” and help stop irresponsible gold mining. There is no telling what is associated with the gold in Macy’s display cases, but if Macy’s continues to turn a blind eye on clean gold they turn a blind eye to the communities impacted by gold mines like Grasberg, Yanacocha, and Akyem,

Why Macy's?

Macy’s is one of only two of the top ten US jewelry retailers, along with Costco, that hasn't signed the Golden Rules for more responsible gold and precious metals sourcing. Macy's says it cares about the environment and human rights. Macy’s corporate responsibility page lays out some pretty fluffy goals, and vague language around their commitment to being a socially responsible company. It’s time for Macy’s to back up this fluff with some fact.

It’s time for Macy’s to step up with the rest of the industry leaders and sign the Golden Rules. Macy’s customers demand it, and the communities that are fighting the dirtiest of gold mines deserve it.

Join us in calling for Macy’s to join the over 80 jewelers and retailers in signing the Golden Rules! Together we can change how gold in mined, purchased, and sold to us.

Political -
Today the Deputy Minister of the Environment, Jose de Echave, resigned in protest. Echave said that the Humala government "lacks an adequate strategy for dealing with social conflict." He also raised concerns about the weakening on the Ministry Environment after being restructured to defer to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers

La Republica: Jose de Echave renuncio al viceministerio del ambiente
Washington Post / AP: Peru environment official resigns amid protests by peasants who fear mines will harm water

There is growing tension between the Ministry of Mining and the Ministry Environment. Last year the Ministry of Mining supported and approved Newmont’s Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Conga mine. However, after growing protests the last few weeks the Ministry of the Environment has reviewed the EIS and concluded that it had lacked comprehension and needed further evaluation because it would “cause drastic changes to the ecosystem”. Not a ringing endorsement for Newmont’s EIS for Peru’s largest ever mining investment

IDL-Reporteros: De lagunas a desmontes
Peru 21: Piden mayor evaluacion Conga

Social-
Today is the sixth day is a sustained strike that has crippled the Cajamarca region. The protests have been sporadic in the past few weeks after being called on by the Regional President, Gregorio Santos, however the most recent wave of protests have been building day by day in numbers and urgency. Groups ranging in the thousands have been occupying central plazas and coordinating marches to guard the lakes threatened by Newmont’s Conga project. The Conga project has gone from a forgone conclusion during the Garcia administration to a major moment in the new administration that communities and companies are using to measure up the new Humala administration’s intentions.

AP: Peru's highlands conundrum: gold vs. water
MSNBC: Peruvian highlanders highlight mine's environment impact
AFP: Peru mining protest closes airport

Environmental -
As written above there has been tension between the Environmental and Mining Ministries. It’s clear that upon review the Environmental Impact Statement is far from complete.

RPP: Plantean nuevo EIA del proyecto Conga para acabar con paro en Cajamarca

Also disconcerning is Newmont's obvious lack of concern for the environmntal impacts mining brings to the region. Newmont is proposing to mine a high-altitude ecosystem that coincidentally is protected in Colombia because if its fragility; Newmont also wants to remove 4 lakes and replace them with man-made reservoirs (3 for drinking, and the biggest to hold mining waste); and finally Newmont is proposing a mine site at the headwaters of multiple rivers. These factors alone demand an EIS that is developed with full due-diligence and accountability, not with expediency and rubber-stamping.

Reuters: Police, protesters clash over Newmont's Peru mine
La Plataforma Interinstitucional Celendina (PIC) via Servindi: REPORT: Perú: “El proyecto Conga de Yanacocha es inviable” aseguran celendinos

The specter of contamination arises out of a concern that the high- pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand, and toxic chemicals might migrate in to underground sources of drinking water.

For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is undertaking a study of this issue due out in 2014. The important point about this study is that it is designed to look at the entire life cycle of water use in the fracking process- not just the part about injection. The environmental, scientific, and public health communities care just as much about water quantity, flowback, and disposal as the injection itself. After injection, when the fracking fluid returns to the surface, some of it might spill. And even if all the fracking fluid is properly contained, the operators must either re-inject it or dispose of it- often at a municipal water treatment facility. The problem is that most of these publicly owned facilities are not equipped to treat this kind of wastewater. This is why we need the study. EPA is considering guidelines to aid these facilities in the disposal of fracking wastewater as well as assess the other associated risks.

But just for fun, let’s talk about just the injection part. Probably my favorite industry argument is that fracking fluids contain mostly water and only ½% toxics. Since that doesn’t sound like much, it must be harmless. But please consider that when EPA determines the acceptable levels for certain toxins, they often speak in terms of parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). By comparison, one-half of one percent is one part in 200. That’s a big difference. So when gas companies use hundreds of thousands of gallons in fracking, ½% of that still means thousands of gallons of chemicals in very dangerous concentrations. This is why we need the study.

My second favorite industry argument is that never in the sixty-year plus history of fracking, has anyone confirmed a case of contamination. This might be especially compelling if only it were true. The real problem is that we lack a sixty-year history of baseline water testing. Without this data, whenever we see methane bubbles in Dimock, PA, or fracking chemicals in water supplies in Pavillion, WY, or combustible tap water in Colorado, industry tells us it’s a seep. Seepage is an industry term for wishful thinking. Since it’s very difficult to prove the precise source of any given contamination, seepage suggests it could be naturally occurring. This is why we need the study.

One good way of getting at this is to use tracers. Sort of like using a little food coloring as a tracking beacon, a variety of benign tracers are routinely used in hydrologic studies. Tracers would definitively distinguish between anthropogenic and naturally occurring causes of water contamination. Acknowledging this point was Yale hydrology professor James Saiers during a Monday morning Q & A hosted by Resources for the Future. Responding to a question by the RAND Corporation’s Nick Berger, Saiers intimated that there is great potential for the use of tracers and his own impression was that industry is not too happy about it. Not happy I guess because industry is also concerned that injecting fracking fluids could contaminate water supplies. This is why we need the study.

Alaskans are asking Signet, the world's largest jewelry corporation to promise not to use gold from the proposed Pebble Mine - a massive copper gold mine that threatens the world's most valuable wild salmon fishery. Over fifty major jewelers have already promised.

In a full page ad in the New York Times, Alaska Native communities, commercial fishermen and Earthworks are asking Signet to help support protection of Bristol Bay.

Please join these efforts! Take a few minutes to click on this alert, and e-mail the company.

What better way for Signet to show it supports responsible gold sourcing principles than for the world's largest jeweler to promise that it won't buy gold from a mine that would jeopardize the world's greatest wild salmon fishery.

WHAT:

Next week the New Mexico OCC will consider adopting a new rule requiring the oil and gas industry to disclose the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") operations.

Industry has proposed a very weak rule.

We have proposed a rule that would make New Mexico's disclosure one of the best in the nation.

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING and urge the OCC to adopt a strong rule!

WHEN:

Thursday, November 17, 2011
9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m.

It is anticipated that public comment will be taken before lunch and at the end of the day. Lunch breaks and closing times vary widely so plan to come early.

If possible, plan to participate in the entire hearing. It is possible the hearing will last two days.

WHERE:

1220 South St. Francis Drive - Porter Hall
Wendell Chino Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Participate in the hearing and provide oral testimony during the public comment period.
2. If you cannot attend the hearing, send a letter to the OCC before November 17.
   Address your letter to:
   Jami Bailey, Chairperson
   New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission
   1220 South St. Francis Drive
   Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
   or
   email Florene Davidson: florene.davidson@state.nm.us
   and
   Please copy us so we know how many people send letters:
   email - gwen@earthworksaction.org.org
   postal mail - OGAP; P.O. Box 22003; Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154.

BACKGROUND AND TALKING POINTS:
Fracking is the high-pressure injection of enormous amounts of water, sand and chemicals into underground oil and gas formations to force the production of oil and gas.

Fracking has been used since the 1940s throughout the United States and around the world. Currently, 95% of all oil and gas wells are fracked. Most oil and gas wells are fracked several times over the life of the well.

In 2005 Congress voted to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means that the practice is largely unregulated and companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they use.

States do have the authority to require disclosure. Colorado, Michigan, Texas and Wyoming have, or are in the process of, developing such rules. Pennsylvania asks companies to voluntarily disclose the content of fracking fluids.

New Mexico has tens of thousands of oil and gas wells that have been fracked and will be re-fracked in the future. New Mexico stands to have oil and gas development and new drilling for decades to come. Many wells are drilled near people's homes, ranches, in neighborhoods and on native and public lands. New Mexicans deserve to know what chemicals are being injected in the oil and gas wells near their homes and trucked through their neighborhoods and ranches. 

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has proposed a weak rule that only requires companies to disclose about half of the contents of fracking fluids, 45 days after a fracking operation, to the FracFocus website.

Read our EARTHblog post discussing FracFocus's shortcomings.

Earthworks' OGAP has proposed that companies be required to:

1. Notify landowners prior to a fracking operation and that companies be required to disclose all fluids and substances to be used in hydraulic fracturing operations to the surface owner before hydraulic fracturing begins;
2. Disclose the type and volume of base fluids used in hydraulic fracturing, each additive used, the chemical ingredients in the additives, the additives' associated chemical abstracts service (CAS) registry numbers, and the actual or maximum concentration of each chemical ingredient used in hydraulic fracturing; and,
3. Report the required information to the FracFocus website or to the successor of that website so that the relevant information will be available even if the FracFocus website is no longer operative.

Although Congress protected the Chetco in 1988 by adding it to the National Wild and Scenic River System, the 1872 Mining Law gives mining preference over all other values and uses. Now proposals to suction dredge along much of this extroardinary river threatens allt he values the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act seeks to protect.

The good news!  The Forest Service is asking the Dept. of Interior to provide interim protection for about 17 miles of the river by withdrawing it from mineral entry for 5 years, while Congress considers legislation from the Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Representatives Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer (The Chetco River Protection Act) for longer protection.

As the Oregonian editorial states, "The Chetco need attention -- and it needs it now."

Please take three minutes, and send an e-mail to the DOI in support of protection. 

When the initial report was released, I had hoped that it would be a wake up call to the Obama administration, moving them on a path towards more responsible oversight of gas drilling. While some positive steps have been taken to protect our air, land and water from the impacts of drilling, it’s clear from this new report that we still have a long way to go.

To quote the subcommittee report:

“…. if action is not taken to reduce the environmental impact accompanying the very considerable expansion of shale gas production expected across the country – perhaps as many as 100,000 wells over the next several decades – there is a real risk of serious environmental consequences…”

The subcommittee found slow movement around protecting water and called out the EPA and the states for not adequately addressing cradle to grave water quality issues. On the air quality side of the pollution coin, the subcommittee criticized the EPA’s new air rules for not going far enough and urged them to regulated methane as well as existing pollution sources.

The subcommittee identified many ways for the Obama administration to move forward to reduce the harm from natural gas production. Disclosure of fracking fluids on public lands, the elimination of diesel fuel as a fracking fluid and not waiting until the EPA fracking study is done to take appropriate action to protect groundwater resources.

We need to move forward on all these issues, and the Obama administration should use all the tools available to them to protect communities and the environment from drilling. But, even if the plethora of recommendations from the subcommittee were to be implemented, there are still huge holes in both the science and the law that are going to hold us back from really knowing the true impacts of development, and mitigating them as best we can.

The loopholes in federal environmental laws (like the Halliburton loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act), will still continue to be a barrier to drilling safety until they are closed.

I hope that the Obama administration will look at the subcommittee recommendations as a first step on a (hopefully) short path to a safer, cleaner oil and gas industry. And, I continue to hope that the more substantial, parallel path towards a truly renewable energy future is a more signifigant part of the agenda. No matter how much we bury our heads in the sand and deny it, we all know that fossil fuels are not only dirty, but also finite.

Transparency was a big theme–hiding/spinning wrongdoings just escalates the public distrust. Yet here they are with the media equivalent of a spill — admissions that they’re using and encourage use of military tactics against American citizens. Yet, rather than owning it and admitting wrongdoing and addressing the problem they are instead trying to divert and obfuscate.

Alleged to be from the CIA:

• Admit nothing
• Deny everything
• Make counter allegations

Is it my birthday or Christmas or what? Range Resources has now changed their official statement TWICE about the taped presentation where Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs for Range Resources admits they use PSYOPS with great success against Americans.

Jump over to my Bluedaze blog for the full tragicomic details of Range's changing story in respose to being caught red-handed using military tactics against communities.

You should read the whole thing.  But some highlights:

What if the same techniques that the Army used to weaken the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used by the gas industry to intimidate U.S. citizens in Pennsylvania? Of course they wouldn't need the Black Hawk helicopters, the U.S. Postal Service can drop letters just fine. But the tactics of using financial incentives and disseminating propaganda designed to pit neighbor against neighbor?

They then document in detail a case study of them doing exactly that.

DeSmogBlog then goes on to discuss the implications of the use of these tactics:

Range [claims], “As one of America’s leading natural gas producers, we are committed to responsibly develop this resource and to being open, honest and transparent.”

Range’s rhetoric is admirable, but does it match the reality of its practices? It appears that Range’s use of psychological warfare tactics on U.S. citizens may mean that it is violating the [law].

One has to wonder, though, how frequently and to what depth are these immoral tactics being used by the gas industry on American citizens? It is certainly worthy of an in-depth examination.

I'm not a good note taker which is why I thought I would record parts of the conference. After the first panel, I decided to record the entire thing.  And Matt Pitzarella of Range Resources (audio files in wmv & mpg) and Matt Carmichael of Anadarko (audio files in wmv & mpg) got caught with their pants down -- recommending using military tactics on communities.

Their attempts to spin out of the mess they created has been tragicomic.

So far the responses excuses that Matt Pitzarella has given reporters include:

• The recordings were edited
• It was taken out of context
• I didn't agree with Matt Carmichael (Anadarko)
• I didn't know I was being recorded

My responses to his excuses:

Editing
I did not edit the recordings and when I send those recordings--in their entirety--to reporters, they can tell that.

The session topic was "Designing a Comprehensive Hydraulic Fracturing Media Relations Strategy"

Context:
It is important to first listen to the recording of Matt Carmichael. Pitzarella is responding to Matt's use of militaristic tactics and is in complete agreement when he gives an example of how Range Resources also uses military type tactics.

Matt Carmichael, Manager of External Affairs, Anadarko Petroleum said (note quotations):

"If you are a PR representative in this industry, in this room today, I recommend you do three things…"

1. "Download the US Army/Marine Corps Counter Insurgency Manual because we are dealing with an insurgency. There's a lot of good lessons in there. Coming from a military background I've found the insight in that extremely remarkable. "
2. Harvard Course – Dealing with an Angry Public
3. Rumsfeld Rules is his Bible

Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Comms and Public Affairs, Range Resources was the last presenter for this topic. He said:

"I think Matt raised the issue of looking to other industries, in this case the Army and Marines. We have several former psy ops folks that work for us at Range because they are very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments. Really all they do is spend most their time helping people develop local ordinances and things like that but very much having that understanding of psyops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in the in Pennsylvania"

Agreement:
He seems to be agreeing with Carmichael that using military tactics meant for use on our enemies in the Middle East in our neighborhoods is an okay thing to do.

Knowledge of recording:
It was announced at the beginning of the conference and at the end of the conference that all presentations would be taped. Conference attendees received emails letting us know the tapes would be available online in 4 to 6 weeks.

Pitzarella might have missed the announcements be cause--BURNING IRONY ALERT--he missed a lot of the conference while he did "Crisis Management" on Range's latest spill in Pennsylvania. But he should have gotten the emails. Besides, changing your message because you know it's being taped is not exactly transparent.

And when it comes to requiring the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking, New Mexico is the laughing stock of America's oil and gas producing states.

Before the Governor Martinez roll-everything-back-era, the state had started crawling out of the dark ages by requiring some common sense safeguards like making sure toxic oil and gas waste pits were properly lined to protect soil and groundwater.

Yesterday, despite testimony that other states and the industry-friendly Department of Energy are trending toward the full and public disclosure of all the chemicals and additives used in fracking operations, New Mexico's Oil Conservation Commission delivered a big fat nothing. They adopted a rule requiring nothing more of industry than what companies already report on Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).

MSDS are required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to protect workers. But even the DOE knows that

"the restriction to MSDS data means that a large universe of chemicals frequently used in hydraulic fracturing treatments goes unreported. MSDS only report chemicals that have been deemed to be hazardous in an occupational setting......MSDS reporting does not include other chemicals that might be hazardous if human exposure occurs through environmental pathways."
--- Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Shale Gas Production Subcommittee 90-Day Report, August 18, 2011

One of the most profound statements in the DOE reports reads:

"The Subcommittee believes that the high level of public concern about the nature of fracturing chemicals suggests that the benefit of immediate and complete disclosure of all chemical components and composition of fracturing fluid completely outweighs the restriction on company action, the cost of reporting, and any intellectual property value of proprietary chemicals.

The Subcommittee believes that public confidence in the safety of fracturing would be significantly improved by complete disclosure and that the barrier to shield chemicals based on trade secrets should be set very high.

Therefore the Subcommittee recommends that regulatory entities immediately develop rules to require disclosure of all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on both public and private lands."

So what did New Mexico do? It immediately ran out and developed rules to require.......nada. Nothing -- with the exception of making staff develop a form that companies have to fill out and submit to the state. And the information that they have to fill out is what's already on their MSDS.

The disclosure rule that was adopted yesterday was proposed by industry and supported by the Oil Conservation Division. Earthworks' OGAP proposed meaningful disclosure rules, which both industry and OCD opposed. Interestingly, the OCD opposed OGAP's disclosure proposal stating it was too much work.

New Mexico state government probably believes they’re doing the oil and gas industry a favor by allowing it to hide its toxics from the public.  But they’re wrong.

The oil and gas industry has justifiably lost the public’s trust on fracking and its community and environmental impacts  -- a fact which industry acknowledges explicitly and implicitly.

So they’re trying to regain that trust.  And although they’re capable of talking a good game regarding the need for transparency, they seem constitutionally incapable of translating talk into meaningful action.

Government and industry need to remember that disclosure is not for the industry. And it's not for the regulators.  Disclosure is for the public. It's for Americans who live with oil and gas and the communities that are bearing the impact of energy development.

Unless rules require companies to fully disclose chemicals and notify landowners and communities in advance of fracking operations it will be difficult, if not impossible, to establish the baseline water quality of their drinking water.  Without that, landowners can’t prove that drilling toxics polluted their water.

In other words, industry opposition to complete public disclosure is about avoiding blame when drilling degrades water quality. 

In times past, this sort of flimflammery might fly.  And maybe it will here too, at least in the short term.  But what’s changed, what has caused an increasingly nervous gas industry to even discuss “transparency”, is growing national opposition to fracking.  All fracking.

And so while drilling toxics disclosure is now New Mexico’s decision -- thanks to a loophole in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act inserted at the behest of ex-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney -- it might not be for long as public outcry against industry irresponsibility grows. 

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adopted a draft final rule yesterday.  There will be some i-dotting and t-crossing and then the final rule will be officially posted in January.

Yesterday, I attended a hearing of the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  The topic: Markets for Exporting LNG. Apparently, we have come full circle. In the last few years, the proliferation of fracking wells has unleashed a boom of natural gas supply in the United States.  So, we're no longer talking about importing LNG and a number of these facilities are applying to convert to export terminals.  The environmental implications surrounding this policy shift are substantial.  Clearly, a profitable market for LNG exports means more domestic drilling.  With it, greater air pollution, water use, and potentially earthquakes and water contamination.

But since the hearing did not address the effects of increased drilling on communities and the environment, let's put that issue aside for a moment. The real focus of this hearing was money.  Inquiring minds want to know, what will happen to domestic energy prices if we're shipping our LNG to Asia? The answer: I dunno. The Energy Information Administration will release its study on this topic during the first quarter of next year.  It's pretty clear from the industry enthusiasm that some folks will likely make plenty of money on this gambit.  Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) expressed his concern that exporting LNG is going to make the natural gas market as volatile as that for oil. He supports a moratorium on new permits to export LNG until we better understand the environmental and economic impacts.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Energy conceded that the permit they approved for the Sabine Pass LNG export project in Louisiana would raise gas prices in the U.S. by more than 10 percent in 2015. DOE came to this conclusion after their required Public Interest Review Determination, a process where price, impact on the local economy, energy security and supply, and national gross domestic product are the main factors considered.  We currently have a number of different government agencies conducting proper determinations as to what (besides money) is in the public interest with respect to the whole life cycle of natural gas production.  Precaution precludes proceeding on a needless and risky energy strategy. We need to keep the natural gas bridge short and narrow. After all, five years from now, a whole new energy solution may emerge.

As with most mines in this region, water is a major issue with the Conga project. [For more about the project, see this previous blog post.] The campesino communities and larger more developed centers rely heavily of the water sources of the region.

It is because of this reliance, and gold mining’s checkered history of contaminating clean water sources, that many communities near the Conga project are protesting the mega mining project.

The project sits at the headwaters of multiple river basins(ES): Jadibamba, Chirimayo, Chugurmayo, Rejo Punre, tributaries of Sendamal (Celendín); Chaullagón, a tributary of Chonta (Cajamarca); and Quengorío, a tributary of Llaucano (Bambamarca). It is impossible to qualify all of the services this ecosystem provides, and communities have long called for this area to be protected.

Seven years ago the municipality of Celendín passed a law that declared all watersheds, wetlands, and lakes within the Conga project area as protected places. The pro-mining federal government did not view this too favorably; in 2007 then president Alan Garcia signed a decree revoking all protection granted from municipalities. Thereafter only regional governments had the authority to do so. This seemed like a roadblock, but a temporary one. In 2010 the regional government of Cajamarca came to support the Celendín municipality’s protection law. In quick succession, the then Minister of the Environment turned around and ordered that protected areas can only be declared protected after the owner of the concession allows them to do so(ES). Essentially, Newmont mining would have to allow local communities to protect their land from Newmont’s own mega mine.

"Getting rid of the lakes would be like dynamiting the glaciers in the Andes, we'd be creating a problem that impacts the ecosystem," Environment Minister Ricardo Giesecke

The Conga project is a joint venture between Newmont, Buenaventura, and the World Bank’s private lending arm, the International Finance Corporation. The project’s  environmental impact study concludes that the mine operators will have to relocate multiple lakes in the area mapped out to be mined. This is one of the hot button issues with the Conga plan. According to the EIS, three lakes are slated be totally removed. These lakes hold over 1.4 million cubic meters(ES), and are proposed to be replaced with by 4 new “reservoirs” for drinking water and possibly waste disposal, build by the miners. If moving entire lakes was not enough to raise major red flags, we need only remember that this is not about the destruction of just a few lakes but of the entire ecosystem on which local communities depend. The opposition to this mine is because these communities rely on the entire ecosystem; an ecosystem that no mining company can rebuild or replicate.

In a recent report "Porque Es Inviable El Proyecto Conga De Minera Yanacocha" or “Why the Yanacocha Conga Project in Unviable”, La Plataforma Interinstitucional Celendina (PIC), a Peruivan civil society group, lays out key arguments as to why the Conga project is so problematic. The report begins by detailing how the project will “irreversibly affect the numerous laguanas,high altitude aquifers,the water flow of rivers, canals and wetlands, and their respective ecosystems... This area is one of the main sources of water resources of the Cajamarca region. The area has over 20 lakes, and the project will impact many of them.”

Two major points in the report that need be addressed by Peru’s government and the mining companies are:

1. Why does the EIA not include rules that protect watershed headwaters? PIC argues that the Water Resources Act, Law 29338, Article 75 states that “…the headwaters of the basin where waters originate are environmentally vulnerable areas. The national Authority may declare protected zones safe from use, disposal, or dumping". In fact in neighboring Colombia it is illegal to mine paramos (wetlands) above 3000m due to their fragility and ecological importance.
2. How could the Government allow a former employee of Yanacocha to be the authority in approving the mines Environmental Impact Study? No, this is not a joke. The person who approved the mining companies EIS was a former employee of that company. Mr. Felipe Ramirez del Pino was a senior official at Yanacocha from 2006 to 2009.

You can read the full report in Spanish HERE.

In an encouraging note, the government may be starting to listen to community, elected officals, and NGO groups calls to suspend the operation. They have recently agreed to review the environmental impact study and release their findings in less than two weeks(ES).

In the words of longtime human rights advocate and former director of GRUFIDES (an Earthworks partner) Fr. Marco Arana, in a recent interview with La Republica(ES):

“What happens is that the population of Celendín knows what has happened at Yanacocha and Cajamarca; they known several lakes have disappeared, several river channels no longer exist and that Yanacocha mine is the most contentious in Peru. What people know [from this] is that environmental impact studies do not guarantee protection of water and environmental security.”

Note: "ES" denotes Spanish language link

For a long time, the hydraulic fracturing-enabled drilling industry has been fighting a war to be accepted in communities around the country.

They've been losing the war.

That is, the more they've operated, the more they've polluted, and the worse name they've received.  Thanks to the good work of community groups, Josh Fox, DeSmogBlog, ProPublica, the New York Times, and many, many others, the word has gotten out that you allow the drilling industry into your community at the peril of your drinking water, clean air, and the very fabric of your community.

So industry was (and still is) faced with a choice:

• Start acting as a good neighbor really would and behave responsibly by -- keeping the community fully informed, proactively, about what you're doing; seeking to comply, not evade environmental laws that do (and should) apply to gas drilling and production, etc.,

OR

• Double down on fighting the war

With the Media & Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing 2011 Initiative, held 10/31 & 11/1 in Houston, the fracking industry chose the latter.

We know this because Earthworks sent our Texas/Gulf Regional Organizer Sharon Wilson (of Bluedaze fame) to the conference as a paid attendee, openly and honestly, to listen to what they had to say.

What she learned: the fracking industry regards the fight to get access to communities as a real war, not a figurative one.  And they are acting accordingly.  As reported in today's CNBC story, Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied, industry PR heads recommend employing the tactics of the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Manual.  They also recommend (and do) employ ex-military "psy-ops" personnel on the ground within communities.  In other words, the fracking industry is using tactics developed to wage war on our nation's enemies on the communities they want to drill.

As Sharon put it, "they view this as an occupation."

And occupiers, all protestations to the contrary, are not neighbors. Not even bad ones.  They are adversaries.

Stay tuned: There is more to this story, and to what Sharon discovered while attending the fracking industry's PR conference.

UPDATE: A reminder that communities have been experiencing these tactics on the ground for years.  The only thing new here is that they've admitted it publicly.  For example, earlier this year This American Life did an excellent piece on Pennsylvania's experience with fracking -- including "divide and conquer" tactics at the community level.

UPDATE 2: On 11/9, DeSmogBlog posted a lengthy discussion of what psychological operations are how they're being used in our communities.

Peru is once again front and center in Latin America’s new gold rush. Gold is trading at record prices, and multinational mining corporations are developing at record speeds to firm their grip on the precious metal. This blitz, however, is bringing with it a renewed wave of social conflicts and community resistance to these mega mines. It is, in it’s simplest terms, between clean water and dirty gold.

One project making major headlines is Newmont’s Conga project is Northern Peru.

This past July Newmont (US) and Buenaventura (PE) committed together to invest between $4 and $4.8 billion, with the IFC kicking in the last 4% or so. This gold project is Peru’s largest single mining investment ever. It sits just down the way from Latin America’s largest gold mine, Yanacocha, and the highly controversial Cerro Quillish (both Newmont concessions). This record breaking mining project now sits as President Ollanta Humala’s first major challenge in “Peru's paradox of stellar economic growth and growing social unrest.”
 
Newmont claims that communities are all supportive of the company coming in and turning THIS (Laugua Perol) into THIS (existing Yanacocha mine), but in fact there has been major resistance to the Conga project for over 7 years(ES). The crux of the opposition is water.
{C}
It is feared that the Conga mining project will affect water resources(ES) in the provinces of Celendín, Bambamarca, La Encañada and Cajamarca. The proposed mine would require Newmont/Buenaventura to remove no less that 4 lakes(ES). The company has promised to replace these lakes with man-made reservoirs. The problem is the communities prefer the lakes, and they know something of gold mining’s track record in Peru. They have the clean water they need for their agriculture, their livestock, and their families. Why should they jepordize their clean water for someone else’s gold? It’s a simple question that cuts right to the matter of things.

The Conga project gained national headlines because of the record-breaking amount invested in the project. It is now grabbing those headlines again, for the amount of community resistance to the project. Just a few weeks ago protestors marched to Newmont’s fully operational Yanachocha mine and blockaded the mine for two days. Following the two-day protest executives representing the mining giants, local mayors and officials, and community members convened a number of roundtables to attempt to broker a solution to the growing conflict around the proposed Conga mine. After a few heated days with few breakthroughs President Humala sent his Ministers of Mines, the Environment, and Agriculture(ES) to the region.

The ministers visited the disputed site where they were flanked by hundreds of community members and workers from the area (pictured above). The trip was deemed productive by some, yet others viewed the visit as merely as a show(ES) orchestrated by the industry. The ministers left the region with a commitment to review the existing Environmental Impact Statement compiled by the companies, but that hardly quelled the opposition of the region.

Because of the impasse many of the region’s mayors and the President of the Cajamacra region himself have called for a full suspension of the mine and have organized a region-wide general strike for Wednesday to amplify their calls on Newmont and Buenaventura to stop all operations towards the development of the Conga mine and the destruction of their critical natural resources.

Tomorrow we’ll take a closer look at the particular threats that the Conga mining project will pose to the water sources in the Cajamarca region.

NOTE: "ES" denotes Spanish language link

UPDATE:Read my next blog post about the Coga proposal's threat to water sources.

What they don't mention about the mine is its on-going copper pollution.  But, it's all over the recent news.  "In the most recent tests, state records show that copper and zinc levels have exceeded state toxicity standards for surface waters, potentially threatening fish and other aquatic life." 

The Flambeau mine is an open pit copper gold mine in Wisconsin.  Although it operated for only four years (1993-1997), it resulted in water pollution that continues today.  "The Flambeau mine site continues to be a source of contaminants to waters of the state and efforts by Kennecott to fix the problems have been unsuccessful." - 2006 press release from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

Copper pollution is a serious concern because even very low levels of copper can harm fish - particularly salmon.  The Flambeau mine is another example of an open pit copper gold mine that's failed to prevent long-term water pollution.

And yet another reason say no to the Pebble Mine - given the tremendous threat to Bristol Bay's wild salmon fishery.

Some of the ideas are better than others. The better ones look at the low hanging fruit: government subsidies of incredibly successful industries-especially the oil, gas, and mining companies. Here are a couple of the good ones.

Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to the Supercommittee describing fourteen separate oil, gas, and mining tax breaks or subsidies totaling $20 billion over ten years. Another letter, authored by Congressmen Welch (D-VT) and Blumenauer (D-OR), describes policies that would save $122 billion over ten years. Not a bad start, really. The Supercommittee is looking for around $1.2 trillion in cuts; the Welch/Blumenauer plan alone gets them better than 10% of the way there without having to look toward ending food stamps or Medicaid or closing our National Parks. 

So, the other day I was wandering by the Capitol when I happened by a press conference with Congressmen Labrador (R-ID) and Pompeo (R-KS) and famous tax reform advocate Grover Norquist. They have their own initiative to end subsidies for the energy industry. Their arguments echo many of the messages we’ve often heard about cutting spending or discouraging the government from picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

Now, the Pompeo/Labrador/Norquist plan only goes after clean energy subsidies while the Markey/Welch/Blumenauer plan targets dirty energy subsidies. My point is not whether the government should or should not encourage some investments rather than others. My point is that the former plan only gets at $90 million over ten years, as opposed to the billions saved by the latter. Don’t get me wrong. If the government were subsidizing me to the tune of $9 million a year, I’d think it pretty important.

But in the grander scheme of subsidies, tax expenditures, revenues, debts and deficits, $9 million a year is a drop in the bucket. It also just strikes me as disingenuous to listen to fiscal conservatives complain about spending relatively little taxpayer money to encourage plug-in electric vehicles when the real taxpayer money is with the oil, gas, and mining companies. It can’t really be about the money, since we’re not talking about all that much. I think instead it’s more about picking winners and losers.

The fourth (HR 3155), ironically, had to do with opening up one million acres of lands surrounding the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. Obviously, EARTHWORKS opposes mining around the Grand Canyon and we encourage you to join us.

On June 20, Secretary Salazar chose to remove 1 million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon from mining development for twenty years. This proposed withdrawal had been in the works for a couple years and underwent extensive study and public comment. A final decision on this withdrawal may occur as soon as the end of this month. HR 3155 would abruptly end the Administration’s decision-making process and instead open the door to an estimated thirty uranium mines in the area.

Just for some perspective, and out of a sense of fairness, let’s consider the arguments of the House majority. There are two: jobs and national security. If it weren’t for the Grand Canon nearby, this region of Arizona (known as the Arizona strip between the Colorado River and the Utah line) might otherwise have few job opportunities. But the tremendous tourist draw of the Grand Canyon provides a clean industry and stable job base forever. Mining also creates jobs, but usually fewer than tourism. And, these mining jobs are both temporary and increasingly lost to automation.

The national security/energy independence argument went out the window as soon as Ranking Member Raul Grijalva explained that a significant portion of the mining claims in this region are owned by a Russian company. But not just any Russian company. Several members of the House recently wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury about the Russian’s acquisition of this company. Their main concern is that the uranium taken from the Arizona strip might go to Syria or Iran.

The distinguished Ranking Member has his own bill that protects these lands from mining interests. I think ultimately he summed up this hearing best by reminding us that the real debate is not about a mining company. It’s not even about creating jobs or protecting national security. The issue here is really one of the value we place on our cultural, natural, and historic heritage. If we can mine near the Grand Canyon, then truly no place is sacred.

But today, the House declared its own willingness to sell the souls of Pennsylvania's communties for some quick revenue--introducing a bill that would strip local governments of any say over any aspect of drilling. Apparently House leaders are far more willing to take orders directly from Governor Corbett, who is so committed to doing away with any "restrictions" on gas development--say, protection of health, air and water quality, and communities--that he's even ignoring some recommendations from his own Advisory Commission.

The gas companies that filled candidates' pockets in the last state election must be laughing all the way to the bank

Costco is making two things clear: they do not feel accountable to their customers (many who make up the over 25,000 calling on Costco), and they are not moved by the thought of human rights abuses, environmental destruction, and unfair labor being associated with the gold they sell to you at their stores.

Now customers are starting to send their messages in a brand new way, via video messages directly to the CEO of the U.S.'s 8th largest gold retailer. This first video comes from Frank in Colorado, who calls for Costco to step up and sign on to the “Golden Rules” and show their commitment to purchasing clean gold that their customers can trust.

Want to make your own video? Its easy, all you need is a smartphone or a computer with a camera on it. Just take a quick 30 sec to tell Costco that you want them to sign on to the “Golden Rules”. Make sure to mention your name, where you live, and whether you shop at a Costco.

Let Costco know why you want them to sign the No Dirty Gold Campaign's "Golden Rules" to commit to supporting clean gold and moving the retail industry in the right direction. Check back for more videos as folks send them in. We’ll be posting them on this blog and on our youtube channel.

A subsidiary of Rio Tinto and BHP - Billiton is proposing to mine a rich copper vein on public and private lands east of Superior, Arizona. Because the proposed mine would most likely destroy the area in question, the company, called Resolution Copper, is pushing for legislation to privatize the Oak Flat Campground, which has been withdrawn from mining since the 1950’s, and surrounding public lands in the Tonto National Forest.

The proposed mining area is not only prized by birders, campers, climbers and hikers, it is also considered sacred to the tribes in the area. The San Carlos Apache tribe is actively opposed to the land exchange and potential mine because of the destructive impacts it would have on the surrounding ecosystem and traditional use lands. The Society for American Archeology is also opposed to the land exchange because of the potential damage that could be caused to "priceless historic and cultural resources." 

This legislation still has a long way to go before it becomes law. Earthworks and our partners will be working to ensure that this ill-conceived bill does not pass the Senate. This legislation has been proposed, and defeated, in other Congresses, and we will make sure the Senate chooses the long-term benefits of recreation and religious freedom over a short-term gain for a multinational mining company. 

A vote on the amended version of SB1100 could come as early as Oct. 31 or Nov. 1. If you live in Pennsylvania, please call your Senator immediately! Tell them:
·        SB 1100 should not reduce municipal rights to control drilling.
·        SB 1100 should protect our drinking water supplies by establishing a setback of at least 3,000 feet.
·        Senators should get their caucus leadership to commit to support these two issues.

Find your Senator, and also contact these key officials:
Senator Scarnati (R), Senate President: jscarnati@pasen.gov, 717-787-7084, 814-726-7201
Senator Pileggi (R), Majority Leader: dpileggi@pasen.gov, 717-787-4712, 610-358-5183
Senator Costa (D), Minority Leader: costa@pasenate.com, 717-787-7683, 412-241-6690
Senator Hughes (D), Minority Appropriations Chair: hughes@pasenate.com, 717-787-7112, 215-879-7777

The Grand Canyon is currently threatened by over 1000 uranium mining claims near its borders. Uranium mining can harm soil, ground and surface water. Uranium mining is governed by a patchwork of federal and state laws, including partial regulation under the 1872 Mining Law, an archaic statute that considers mining to be the highest and best use of the federal land. In 2009, over 100,000 public comments caused the Department of Interior (DoI) to create a two-year moratorium on mining around the Grand Canyon. Earlier this year, DoI received nearly 300,000 comments in favor of the 1 million acre withdrawal.

Earthworks and our partners hope that our fight to protect the Grand Canyon will end this year with the final decision from Secretary Salazar to protect this national treasure. Despite the potential for serious environmental impacts and the clear public support for the withdrawal, Republican members of the House and Senate have introduced legislation to attempt to stop the Obama administration from moving forward with the withdrawal.

The risk of potential damage is too great to risk such an iconic landscape, and I applaud the Obama administration for recognizing the sacred lands and vital waters are more precious than short-term profits for multinational mining companies.

This development comes only months after the company had publicly expressed intent to reopen the controversial mine.

The accusations stem from a prolonged massacre from 1988 to 1997 where, accouding to Reuters, at least 10,000 Bougainville residents were killed. The killings were sparked in response to the conflicts that ensued after a Rio Tinto copper mine was sabotaged to stop the persistent toxic pollution communities were exposed to. (An interesting article from the region in 1990 by writer Alastair McIntosh can be found HERE)

War crimes and genocide are two huge claims from Bougainville communities, claims that cannot be understated.

Writing for the 9th Circuit, Judge Schroeder said:

The complaint's allegation that Rio Tinto's "worldwide modus operandi" was to treat indigenous non-Caucasians as "expendable" justified restoring the genocide claim to the case. She also said the allegation that Rio Tinto acted for its own private ends in inducing Papua New Guinea's military to murder civilians justified restoring the war crimes claim.

The mere idea that a multi-national corporation could be associated these charges is indicative of the level of corporate and government corruption, human rights abuses, and labor crimes present at the Bougainville operation. Troubling trends, particularly in light of the stated intention to reopen the mine in the near future.

We’ll be following this case closely, as will the entire mining industry, as it heads back to the US District Court in Los Angeles.

Business and Human Rights Resource Center has comprehensive collection of information regarding the decades long battle that can be found HERE.

By contrast, a representative from Apache Corporation intimated at yesterday’s subcommittee hearing that industry initially opposed disclosure because of a natural, almost instinctual, resistance to all regulations. Not, of course, because of a genuine need to maintain a competitive advantage, but rather a knee-jerk reaction opposing government efforts to address public health concerns.

Dr. Cal Cooper, who runs environmental technology programs for Apache, hinted that industry opposition to disclosure simply stems from a basic dislike of regulations- without regard for whether they would actually have a noticeable effect on their operations or bottom line. Apache has a better reputation than a lot of other producers and their officer’s comments about the prevailing industry view struck me as quite revealing.

These comments were echoes from an earlier hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources committee. When asked about disclosure, Kathleen McGinty (one time head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality) said that industry has been left wondering what took them so long to get behind disclosure. This subtle yet stunning shift toward disclosure should inspire industry to join our efforts to pass HR 1084, the FRAC Act. This bill does little more than what a number of states already require- simple disclosure.

Ultimately, I think that industry opposition soured because they actually had little to hide. The public already knows the potential dangers involved with injecting hazardous chemicals in to the ground at enormously high pressures. Industry gains nothing by appearing to cloak their opposition behind trade secret protections. The right public relations move now would be for industry to support HR 1084. Public disclosure will help address the concern many advocates have and will lead us toward the responsible energy development the broader public already overwhelmingly supports.

What we already know a lot about is fracking's effects on water quantity.Senator Shaheen spoke about this in her colloquy with the former head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Kathleen McGinty. Senator Shaheen, whose own subcommittee held a follow up hearing yesterday on water use in Eastern US fracking operations, wanted to know if we should charge industry for their water use.Hedging some, McGinty acknowledged that there are lots of good technologies for water reuse; and others that can remove impurities and re-inject the water in to the water table. But the challenge is the economics remains difficult as long as water is free.

Increasingly, fracking operators are moving toward recycling their wasterwater and flowback.  Typical municipal sewage treatment facilities are poorly equipped to handle fracking fluids.  This leaves operators with the choice between the expense of disposing the wastewater elsewhere or increase recycling. Another panelist, Dr. Mark Zoback of Stanford University, agreed that economics is always the driver and suggested that maybe water resources should be regulated at the federal level.

This question of whether the state or federal government should regulate fracking dominated the discussion at both hearings.Some of the energy rich states, especially out West, have regulated the oil and gas industries for a long time.Many participate in an organization called STRONGER which is a coalition designed to share best management practices and regulations among oil and gas states.   By and large, industry argues that local control will better account for geological differences, but some are willing to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to help fill gaps.

For example, states do not regulate fugitive methane emissions.As Chairman Bingaman noted, methane is not state specific.Neither are other air pollutants, diesel fuel, or wastewater.EPA is in the process of formulating rules to govern each. The EPA's role is essential in setting national standards to avoid a state-by-state regulatory race to the bottom.  If industry claims are true that regulatory uncertainty stifles investment, then more oil and gas companies should support EPA's efforts at setting national standards to provide clarity in the market.

Reforming the antiquated Mining Law of 1872, creating a dedicated fund to clean up abandoned mines and reducing subsidies for the oil and gas industry are just a few of the money saving measures suggested by Congressman Ed Markey, the Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee. In addition to reducing our deficit and saving taxpayers money, these provisions provide important benefits to communities, public health, and the environment.

The 1872 Mining Law allows metal mining companies (both US and foreign-owned) to mine virtually anywhere on our Western public lands for free – with no return paid to the taxpayer. Charging hardrock mining companies a royalty for the gold, silver, copper and uranium they take form public lands could reduce our federal deficit by as much as $300 million a year. Congressman Markey recommends a royalty similar to what is paid by the oil and gas industry for their activities on our federal lands – 12.5%.

 Reforming our outdated mining law must be coupled with a small fee on the hardrock mining industry to clean up the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines that litter the Western states. This recommendation would reduce the amount of money taxpayers now pay for abandoned mine clean up – which is nearly 100% of the current costs. Because there is no dedicated funding source for abandoned mines, taxpayers are currently on the hook for all of the $50 billion price tag. A dedicated abandoned mine land fund would raise about $200 million a year.

 In addition to these money saving mining reforms, Ranking Member Markey also recommends some changes for the oil and gas industry, including closing an offshore royalty relief loophole, increasing the royalties for oil and gas production on public lands and making sure that the industry pays for non-producing oil and gas leases. He also recommends ending subsidies for dirty energies like oil and gas, which would reduce our deficit by billions.

 If just the few recommendations I’ve mentioned in this blog were made a reality, we could reduce our deficit by $56 billion over the next 10 years, while cleaning up our waters and protecting the health of our communities. I hope the Committee makes these important recommendations a priority.

Members of the House and Senate from Utah and Arizona introduced legislation today in an attempt to stop the Obama administration from withdrawing 1 million acres of national forests around the Grand Canyon from mining. Without the withdrawal, the lands around the Canyon are under threat from 30 uranium mines. The withdrawal is widely supported, with 300,000 members of the public commenting in support of the ban.

Uranium mining is governed by a patchwork of federal and state laws, including partial regulation under the 1872 Mining Law, an archaic statute that considers mining to be the highest and best use of the federal land. Uranium mines pose threats to public health and water from radioactive wastes, and can have serious impacts on sensitive ecosystems. Given the importance of the Colorado River and the drinking water it provides to millions, uranium mining in the area is too much of a risk.

Congressional sponsors of the legislation once again pit jobs against the environment in their press statement announcing the bill introductions. While mining does create jobs, those jobs are only available as long as the mine is open, which is predicted to be about 7 years on average for each mine. The jobs created by recreation opportunities around the Canyon, which tops 6,000 according to recent studies, are sustainable jobs that will be there long after any mines are closed.

Temporary gains are not enough to justify tainting the land, air or water around one of our most treasured landscapes. Earthworks and our partners will be working to make sure this ill-conceived legislation never becomes law, and the Grand Canyon remains as pristine as it is today. 

Phosphate mines are responsible for large releases of selenium, which is harmful to wildlife, livestock, fisheries, and public health.

Take southeast Idaho for example. Over 160 miles of streams cannot meet their beneficial uses due to elevated levels of selenium from phosphate mining. There have been repeated livestock fatalities, including horses and sheep. Health officials have cautioned hunters that elk taken within ten miles from phosphate mining areas had higher levels of selenium, particularly in their liver. And, scientists have found high levels of selenium in trout in the upper Blackfoot Watershed of Idaho, amongst other areas.

It is vital that the people who live, work and recreate in these areas have access to information about the amount of toxic pollution in and around their communities via the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The phosphate mining industry should be no exception. Our comments to the EPA can be read here: TRI comments

Chairman Tom Udall (D-NM) recalled during his opening statement the tragedy from the Church Rock uranium mill spill in 1979 when a tailings pond breached its dam spilling 1100 tons of radioactive mill waste and 93 million gallons of mine effluent in to the Puerco River. I had never heard of this event. I knew about Three Mile Island that happened the same year. I even remember Chernobyl. But Church Rock, second only to Chernobyl in terms of magnitude, occurred on Navajo lands and has never received the publicity of those other events.

The EPA is now in its fourth year of a five-year plan to clean up the Church Rock Superfund site. Both United States and Navajo governments agree that, despite substantial progress, they need at least another five years to clean up the mess.

A lot of un-mined uranium also remains in the Grants minerals belt where the Church Rock spill occurred more than 30 years ago. With high uranium prices making mining very profitable, there are dozens of mines in both the exploration and permitting phase in New Mexico, and most of those mines are located in Indian country. Many of these proposals plan to use in situ leach mining, or ISL. ISL mining is similar to fracking for natural gas wherein a high-pressure mixture of water and chemicals is injected in to an aquifer. Mixtures of uranium-bearing fluids are then pumped to the surface for processing in to yellowcake.

Many of the proposed uranium mines in New Mexico are on federal lands, which continued to be governed by the 1872 Mining Law. Earthworks and our partners have been working to pass HR 1452, the Uranium Resources Stewardship Act, to move uranium out of the antiquated 1872 law in into the more modern Mineral Leasing Act. This change will end the presumed "right to mine" afforded by the 1872 Mining Law, by allowing public land managers more discretion to decide where uranium mining is and is not appropriate.

Written with Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International

Leaders of 52 national and state organizations, including Earthworks, are demanding that the so-called Super Congress make elimination of government handouts to the oil, coal and gas industries a central part of the deficit reduction plan the panel is to present to the full Congress next month. (Read the letter to the members of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.) 

Eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuels industry could reduce the national debt by $122 billion over ten years while bettering the environment and public health for America’s families, the groups asserted:

"Americans of all political orientations strongly favor ending these subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industries. . . .  [M]ost Americans feel that Members of Congress are more responsive to their campaign donors than their constituents. Working to remove subsidies from the fossil fuel industry is one of the clearest ways you can help restore your constituents’ faith in the ability of Congress to represent them.”

Fossil fuel corporations do not need federal handouts in order to produce energy.

Over the last decade, the top five oil and gas companies alone reported over $1 trillion in profits, and another $71 billion in profits in just the first two quarters of 2011. Coal companies, which have received government aid for nearly a century, have seen their profits skyrocket in 2011. Peabody Energy, the largest private sector coal company, earned has already posted $461.3 million in profits in 2011. Consol Energy first quarter profits nearly doubled from 2010 to reach $192 million.

"While millions of Americans are unemployed, our institutions and infrastructure are crumbling, and we desperately need to invest in the clean renewable energy sources of the future, why on earth are we giving taxpayer money to fossil fuel industries that are swimming in record profits," --- Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks

"There’s a direct connection between the plight of American families, the national financial crisis, and the record profits of oil, coal and gas companies. “We can’t afford to give these corporations handouts and they don’t deserve to get them."
--- Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club

"Who will Congress listen to – their donors or their constituents? The American people overwhelmingly want these subsidies to end – the only ones who don’t are Big Oil and Coal."
--- Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International

The letter lists a range of subsidies that waste billions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. A copy of the letter with a full list of signatories is available here.

The editors fell blindly into the false choice of jobs versus the environment, and grossly understated the potential impacts 30 uranium mines could have on such a sensitive ecosystem.

Today, Earthworks and our partners at the Environmental Working Group and the National Parks Conservation Association responded to the editorial to set the record straight about the potential damage that could be caused to water by uranium mining, and the jobs that could be lost if the area around one of our national treasures is marred by development.

300,000 people spoke out in favor of the withdrawal earlier this year, and we expect the Obama administration to make their final decision before the end of the year. 

Please add your voice to this debate by commenting on the Wall Street Journal's website -- and sharing this blog with your friends via Facebook or Twitter.

This time around Annie explains how the government could possibly be broke after taking in a trillion dollars a year from taxpayers. Let’s just say the problem isn’t a gold shortage.

Spoiler alert!

Everyone’s favorite dinosaur, the 1872 Mining Law, guest stars in this latest installment, reminding us all that maybe times haven’t changed as much as men on the moon and the internet in your pocket may have you believe.

In her exploration of government giveaways Annie explains just how far we’ve advanced:

“There’s freebie subsidies: where the government gives stuff that belongs to all of us to corporations for cheap or even free. That’s billions more we should be collecting but never see! Like permits to mine public lands, granted at prices set in the Mining Law of 1872. Really. 1872. President Grant signed this law to encourage settlement of the West. News flash: it’s settled.”

Looks like we left something behind when we landed on the moon!

But the devil’s in the details. At the current cost of no more than $5 an acre for public lands we are missing out on an estimated $160 million in federal revenue. Add that to the more than $72 billion it costs to clean up abandoned mines, which companies are not responsible for, and we have ourselves a real financial crisis.

I would say it’s time to change Occupy Wall St. to Occupy Mines, but the fact is both are culprits in the theft of our resources. What we can do is reform the 1872 Mining Law.

It’s time (almost 140 years later) to rethink the way we allocate our valuable natural resources and the way we go about extraction. Let’s use this Story to move forward with the reform we know is necessary. Stay tuned to Earthworks this fall for opportunities to reform the 1872 Mining Law.

My name is Bruce Baizel. I am Staff Attorney for Earthworks, a nonprofit organization that works with communities to reduce the impacts from mining and energy extraction. Our organization has worked on oil and gas issues for more than two decades and specifically on the issue of hydraulic fracturing for more than a decade.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide oral comment to you this morning. We have thousands of members throughout the Rocky Mountain states, in Texas and in the Marcellus shale region.

Many of our members are impacted by the currently unregulated emissions from oil and gas operations throughout those states.

So this proposed regulation providing a new source performance standard for Volatile Organic Compounds; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide; an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage is of great importance to our members.

Overall, we strongly support the draft rule as a significant first step in addressing emissions from upstream oil and gas operations.

Generally, we believe that the rule will lead to greater transparency from this powerful industry in the form of accounting for the numerous sources of emissions that are currently 'invisible' due to the lack of regulation. We also believe that the rule will provide health benefits to those who live close to the thousands of gas facilities covered by this rule. And we believe that the rule will provide an economic benefit to this industry, through the capture of additional 'product' that can be sold in the marketplace.

We are confident that an industry which has figured out horizontal drilling techniques, and the thousands of versions of hydraulic fracturing chemical 'cocktails' which have unlocked access to shale gas, will also be able to find a way to comply with this rule while remaining highly profitable.

Specific to Colorado, we have three reasons for supporting this rule.

1. First, here on the Front Range, in the San Juan basin and in other areas of the Rockies, emissions from gas wells and related facilities are a significant contributor to our ozone and smog issues. This rule would help to address that issue through a reduction in VOCs.
2. Second, during one of our recent state rulemakings here in Colorado, it became evident that emissions, often showing up in the form of 'odor' complaints, were a significant irritant for those living with natural gas drilling operations nearby. We believe that this rule would help to reduce that impact.
3. Third, while industry has not been forthcoming with monitoring and analysis of emissions coming off of their drilling operations, agencies and academic researchers sampling around centralized flowback waste impoundments have found numerous volatile organic chemicals returning to the surface, sometimes in high concentrations. We believe that this rule would help to reduce these potentially harmful emissions.

Finally, and consistent with the recommendations of the Department of Energy's Natural Gas Subcommittee, we also believe that the final rule should be expanded to include the thousands of existing wells and facilities, which already constitute a significant source of emissions, and resulting impacts to people living, working or going to school nearby.

For example, in La Plata County, we have a natural gas well and its associated dehydrator tank sited less than 200 feet from an elementary school. An initial one-time fenceline grab sample from a visible 'plume' coming off the well site and towards the school showed the presence of significant levels of a known cancer-causing chemical. Two sampling efforts later – one by industry and one by the school district – and the discussion has lost track of the real goal – protecting our children from preventable unhealthy emissions – and fallen in to an argument over sampling protocols.

And, there are more than 200 of these similar types of facilities in La Plata County alone. This illustrates why we need this rule to cover existing, as well as new, oil and gas facilities.

For all of these reasons, we urge the EPA to adopt the strongest possible rule governing these oil and gas emission sources in early 2012.

I thank you for holding these hearings, and for your attention.

I was invited to appear on a panel after the showing of the documentary Haynesville: A Nation’s Hunt for an Energy Future.

I knew the film depicted natural gas drilling in the Haynesville Shale as an economic miracle for folks in north Louisiana and East Texas, with barely a mention of environmental health risks. I said yes, received an enthusiastic confirmation letter requesting my bio, which I sent in, a request to sign the “Talent Agreement,” and a list of the panel members.

Here’s the rest of the lineup:

• Gregory Kallenberg, the director of Haynesville, who according to his answers to these five questions, firmly believes natural gas is the way to go. He talks about his documentary in this video.
• Ian Duncan, Bureau of Economic Geology at UT, who does work for industry. Here is a presentation he did on shale gas.
• Justin Furnace, Chief of Staff and Legal Council at Texas Railroad Commission
• David Blackmon , senior advisor for government and external Affairs for El Paso Exploration and Production Company.
• And me, Texas Sharon.

I saw I was the token enviro on the panel, but I’ve been a turd in the punchbowl before. I did want to know how the panel would be structured, and if I would have an opportunity to correct their misinformation.

I sent back the following email:

I am quite surprised that your panel is so unbalanced. I would like to get more information on how this panel will work. I don't mind being the token environmental person as long as I have an opportunity to give my vast experiences living in the gas patch and working with people who are suffering from natural gas drilling that is too close to their homes.

The next thing I know: I received a phone call from the festival coordinator notifying me that I was uninvited to participate. Maybe they would find a more suitable panel for me sometime. Ouch! But, on second thought, I reclaimed my weekend and shrugged it off to the influence from T. Boone Pickens, one of the festival’s financial backers.

Then somebody sent me this poster from the event.

Hmmm. So the Texas Tribune Festival was co-sponsored by America’s Natural Gas Alliance. The Tribune’s website says other sponsors included El Paso Natural Gas and Energy Futures Corp., formerly Texas Utilities. I was starting to put two and two together.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." —A.J. Liebling

Then Steve Horn of DeSmog Blog published an investigative piece on Alternet exposing Haynesville as a piece of industry propaganda masquerading as an independent documentary. Turns out Gregory Kallenberg “is actually a well-connected oil and natural gas man, with both a direct and familial financial stake in the ongoing domestic natural gas boom.”

Horn learned that Kallenberg is vice president of his family’s company, Caddo Management Inc. of Shreveport. Caddo Management is an oil and gas exploration company with active drilling operations in Arkansas and Louisiana.

So do you think that when Kallenberg takes his supposed independent documentary to international film festivals he’s upfront about his oil and gas connections and the fact that he’s flacking for the industry? (Even though he makes no mention of them on his website under the “about” section or in “film credits.”)

If you believe that, you probably still believe in the independence and integrity of The Texas Tribune’s shale gas coverage.

Maybe there is an explanation of the Tribune’s behavior that isn’t explained by financial influence of the natural gas industry. But if there is, it is past time for them to make their case. And from where I sit, it better be a doozy.

We use rare earths in a wide range of modern conveniences, from consumer electronics to hybrid car batteries. 

Recently, rare earths have been in the news thanks to skyrocketing prices. High prices are a result of increased demand due to new technologies and artificially limited supply – artificially limited by China, which currently controls more than 90% of global rare earth mineral production, but less than 40% of known deposits.

Rare earth minerals are expensive and dangerous to mine, not to mention the environmental impacts common to all mining, in addition to radioactive waste concerns.

Now, companies like Australia’s Lynas Corporation Ltd. are trying to even the playing field by developing mines outside of China -- and making a buck, or $1.7 billion, while they’re at it.

This brings us to Malaysia.

In 1985, Mitsubishi Chemical of Japan opened a rare earths processing facility in Buhit Merah, Malaysia. The plant operated until 1992 without plans for dealing with the radioactive waste it produced.

Subsequently, the company has spent $100 million since closure on insufficient cleanup measures that have left the community poisoned by their mistakes. The thousands of tons of low-level radioactive waste left behind in Buhit Merah remains one of Asia’s largest radioactive waste cleanup sites.

Their failures didn’t make many friends for Lynas’ new, $230 million rare earth refinery currently under construction in Pahang, Malaysia. Lynas hopes to complete the refinery by the end of 2011 to process rare earths produced at its Western Australia mine, Mount Weld. If completed, the Lynas refinery will be the largest rare earth refinery in the world and the first project completed outside of China in almost three decades.

Given the history of radioactive waste in Malaysia, citizens are outraged about the concerning construction record and plan to store radioactive waste on-site for 1,500 years. Local members of parliament have vocalized opposition and organized over five months of protests, slowing construction. With concerns about water pollution, regional economic impacts, and radioactive waste, community opposition to the processing plant has been steadily growing.

Referencing the House Majority, Rep. Grijalva outlined the prevailing assumption that fewer regulations will deliver a miraculous blossoming of jobs and mineral wealth.

Our friends at the Economic Policy Institute have recently debunked the false choice between growing the economy and protecting the environment. A number of other allies have tackled this question as well.

Amid all of the discussion of debt, deficits, and revenues, Congressman Grijalva and Senator Udall have a simple point:

Let’s have some measure of fiscal responsibility by ensuring that American taxpayers enjoy a fair return for the treasures extracted from public lands. 

We applaud Congressman Grijalva and Senator Udall for requesting this information from the GAO. Without it, we cannot have a reasoned discussion about leases, royalties, and ultimately, reform of the antiquated General Mining Law of 1872.

Last week Italian developer Molleindustria released a new iPhone app called “Phone Story”.

Why was this app different than the other 425,000 apps?
This app was a satirical game that allowed you to play through the entire supply chain of an iPhone. 

Why did Apple ban this app?
Likely because it exposes the nastiest parts of what it takes to make our electronics. 

The game starts in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Here you are in charge of mining for coltan, a critical element in smart phones. The kicker is, that many coltan mines in the eastern DRC have horrific histories of child labor, military and rebel violence, human rights abuses, and disastrous environmental impacts. 

The game’s point is to highlight all the above, and judging by Apple’s reaction it highlighted it well. Within hours of the game’s release Apple had banned the app and removed it from its store. 

You don’t often think of human rights abuses when you are checking email or talking with mom on your smartphone. It’s obvious why Apple, or any other manufacturer for that matter, would rather you not think about these consequences, but the reality is that they exist. Right now, few smartphone manufacturers can tell you whether they are sourcing minerals from mines associated with poor labor standards, military oppression, human rights violations, or environmental degradation because supply chains are so poorly monitored. However, we’re beginning to see that it is possible to track these minerals. 

Some encouraging steps are being taken to insure that minerals retailers rely on do not come with a legacy of human rights and environmental abuses. Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require companies to state whether they are sourcing key minerals from conflict regions in the DRC is a great step towards supply chain transparency and corporate accountability. Though electronics, mining, auto, and other industries that rely on precious metals mining for products and profit must do more. 

This “Phone Story” game does something that the electronics and mining industries often write off as impossible; mapping together a complete supply chain of the mineral in our electronics from the mine to retailers display cases. As long as this mentality of “impossibility” exists so does the uncertainty around the real costs of the phone you have up to your ear. 

There is a better way to do this. 

Initiatives like the No Dirty Gold Campaign’s “Golden Rules” are helping to break through these roadblocks. The rules, calling for greater accountability in mining, have gained the support of over 80 major jewelry retailers (Costco and Macy’s are the only two major retailers that have lagged behind in signing on). It’s clear that the retail sectors that rely on mined minerals and precious metals are taking notice. These companies have realized that their ambivalence leaves them complicit in the true cost of these metals. By signing on to these principles, calling for responsible mining, they are taking a concrete first step to pressure the mining industry for greater traceability. 

There remains a long road ahead, but it’s not an “impossible” road.

Salmon spawing in the Bristol Bay watershed.
Photo: Nick Hall

This week Senator Cantwell (WA) sent a letter to the EPA urging the agency to protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay – home to our nation’s largest wild salmon fishery.

10 billion tons of toxic mine waste

The Bristol Bay watershed is at risk from the proposed Pebble Mine, which would dispose of up to 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste at its headwaters.

EPA protection Needed

The Senator has asked the EPA to use its authority under section 404c of the Clean Water Act. This provision gives it authority to prohibit or restrict the disposal of mine waste into rivers, streams or wetlands, if science shows it will harm the fishery.

Watershed study underway
The EPA is currently undertaking a watershed assessment to evaluate the impact of large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed.  The results are expected in Spring 2012.

Please click here to send a thank you to Senator Cantwell for her leadership!

More Information:

• To learn more, go to ourbristolbay.com.
• Learn more about Earthworks’ outreach to jewelers in support of Bristol Bay.
• Read Senator Cantwell's letter to the EPA.

This week, the House Natural Resources Committee held the third installment in their continuing series focused on American jobs and the energy and extraction industries. The premise of the hearing – that reasonable mining regulations to protect taxpayers and water resources always come at a cost to jobs and the economy – sets up a false choice for Americans.

We do not have to sacrifice our public lands to solve our nation’s economic crisis. Responsible management of our resources can both help bolster our economy while protecting our waters and national treasures for future generations.

Real and meaningful reform of the 1872 Mining Law would do just that.

At the hearing, entitled “Creating American Jobs by Harnessing Our Resources: Domestic Mining Opportunities and Hurdles,” Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) announced plans to introduce 1872 Mining Law reform legislation this fall.

Mining Law reform legislation, long championed by Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), would end the longstanding boondoggle that allows mining companies to take minerals like gold, copper and uranium from public lands for free, with no return to the federal treasury.

With soaring metals prices and skyrocketing industry profits, the mining industry should be stepping up to do the right thing – pay their fair share to help out in tough economic times. The debt Super Committee is beginning its process to tackle deficit reduction, and ending subsidies for both mining and fossil fuel industries should be part of that plan.

This antiquated Mining Law has long allowed the mining industry to fleece the taxpayer while remaining the nation’s largest toxic polluter. The outdated 1872 Mining Law is inadequate to regulate modern mining, which uses chemicals such as cyanide to leach metals from rock, leaving the landscape scarred with toxic waste piles and pit lakes.

I hope that Congressman Markey’s legislation not only requires compensation to taxpayers for the precious resources taken from public lands, but also protects drinking water from mine waste and declares some unique places off-limits to extraction.

“Call me naïve, but I’m inclined to trust the industry to be good stewards of this land until they prove me otherwise.”

Naïve? Nah, that’s a profound lack of judgment and ignorance of the historical abuses of the oil and gas industry.

The quote comes from a Texas Observer article about the Eagle Ford Shale, Cuero Bets on Fracking by Saul Elbein. The banker is excited about all the new development—RV parks that house the roughnecks—in the formerly quaint, quiet town of Cuero. He envisions Cuero as a vacation spot filled with tourists some day.

“THEY’RE GOING to bring tourists?” Sister Elizabeth Reibschlager asked me when I told her about my conversations with the mayor and Kleinecke. “What are people going to come look at, oil wells?

“They have their shiny idea of what’s going to happen, and they don’t want to hear anything else.”

Sister Elizabeth, a nun of the Sisters of the Incarnate Word and a Cuero native, has spent the last two years raising concerns about the drilling.

Well Sister, as Upton Sinclair said: “It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.”

How is that “trust” working in the Eagle Ford Shale?

This second installment included a discussion of HR 2803, which is a bill instructing the Interior Department to conduct a study exploring the feasibility of drilling for minerals in the shallow and deep sea beds of the United States. The bill is offered by Delegate Faleomavaega of American Samoa and is intended to potentially facilitate the exploration of mineral resources in places like Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and other American territories.

I am generally in favor of study. In fact, the only time I do not like study is when it’s an attempt to delay that which every reasonable person already knows should have happened a while ago. So I appreciate Delegate Faleomavaega’s effort here. There is much we do not know about mining on the sea floor. The US Geological Service and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement should help develop our knowledge of our potential mineral resources. And hopefully this information can lead to a sober assessment of the economic viability of their extraction as well as best practices to protect the environment.

Some of the areas contemplated by this bill are high volume tourist attractions. No amount of mining could even approach the revenue generated from the tourism industry. Clearly, any attempt to experiment with a relatively novel extraction method should provide an important case study in minimizing adverse environmental impacts- especially where some of our favorite vacation spots are involved.

Two weeks ago Conoco-Phillips invited me to a "Community Leader Engagement Meeting" in Durango, Colorado.

Besides a couple of environmental leaders, the room was filled with elected officials, school administrators and business leaders all hungry for donations and new convention centers.

C-P is the largest company operating south of the state line in San Juan County, New Mexico. It's the fifth largest producer in La Plata County, Colorado.

Five minutes into the "engagement" it was clear that the C-P employees had no intention of sharing future drilling plans and what steps they were going to take to prevent and minimize impacts to protect public health and the environment. Instead, the meeting was about what a great corporate neighbor the company is and how much the company contributes to local schools and communities.

At the time, the meeting was puzzling mainly because so little information was conveyed other than where C-P has its major oil and gas operations around the world.

During the question and answer period, C-P's public relations staff did reveal that they're working hard in New Mexico and Colorado to pave the way for a more friendly business environment by working to eliminate "onerous" oil and gas regulations, like New Mexico's Pit Rule.

The reason for that meeting started making sense when I read today's headlines that C-P has launched a national campaign to convince lawmakers and the public that more gas drilling is necessary to provide low-cost energy and high-paying jobs. C-P and the industry in general is telling everyone that will listen that they've been doing a terrible job telling the public what a marvel hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is.

Public concerns about contamination from drilling and fracking are prevailing and now C-P's CEO claims the industry needs to de-mystify fracking and do a better job promoting itself.

Hold on to your hats and get ready for more industry "spin."

At least some newspapers across the country are staying afloat with all those full-page "Clean natural gas provides jobs, jobs, jobs" ads from the last industry campaign. The tens of millions of dollars that the industry has spent on advertising to convince the public that gas is clean adds insult to injury to the communities across the country and Canada that are being sacrificed to supply our energy needs.

No matter how they spin it, gas will never come out clean.

[NCAR researcher] Wigley's computer simulations indicate that a worldwide, partial shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change through at least 2050, even if no methane leaked from natural gas operations, and through as late as 2140 if there were substantial leaks. After that, the greater reliance on natural gas would begin to slow down the increase in global average temperature, but only by a few tenths of a degree.

Along with the Cornell study and EPA analysis, 2011 may be the year that shows that -- far from a bridge -- natural gas is actually a detour on the road to a clean energy economy.

Mother Nature (that is, the natural and climate systems the concept represents) certainly has cause to be furious, like the insatiable human appetite to burn energy and pollute. But at least she’s not alone—as was clear from the gathering of several hundred people for Shale Gas Outrage in Philadelphia over the last two days.

At a rally and march yesterday, landowners spoke about the toll that gas development is taking on their properties and health. Elected officials called on their colleagues to be influenced more by citizens and less by campaign-contributing corporations. Musicians rocked the crowd with tunes about the air and water we all need, now and for the future.

Around the corner, the gas industry and its political supporters were supposedly seeking Shale Gas Insight at a trade conference. But press reports (and communications from allies who were inside) indicated that attendees were only hearing their favorite story, in which shale gas solves economic woes and nothing ever goes wrong. (A notable exception was former PA Governor Ed Rendell, who acted like a skunk at a party when he said the protesters outside have legitimate concerns and admonished industry to clean up its act.)

Unfortunately, yesterday New York officials also decided to ignore growing concerns over fracking by issuing a very flawed final draft of the SGEIS, the document that will guide deep shale gas development in the state. As the New York Water Rangers coalition points out, gaping holes remain: no consideration of impacts over time, health problems, or economic costs to communities. Also omitted were recommendations to ban toxic chemicals and classify drilling waste as hazardous.

Worst of all, New York isn’t waiting for the final review to be completed to draft new regulations—passing up the opportunity to be the first state to establish effective protections for people and the environment before issuing drilling permits.

Today, many of the Shale Outrage participants gathered again, this time to discuss strategies that can stop the shale gas rush from trampling health, justice, and clean air and water—including getting off of dirty energy and pursuing truly clean alternatives. New Yorkers are also part of this growing movement, and will prove it as they turn out in force for hearings and submit comments on the SGEIS.

A new type of storm is gathering, fueled by outrage over irresponsible gas development—and as it gains strength, one day it just might put a smile back on Mother Nature’s face.

I remember the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as the controversial legislation negotiated behind closed doors with Halliburton on one side and Vice President Cheney on the other. One of the reasons why many of us felt like that law carried the specter of a sweetheart deal for Vice President Cheney’s former employer is Section 390- the provision describing categorical exclusions (CXs). That is, drilling activities that are exempted from the standard environmental review process.

Just as my boss Lauren predicted, this hearing acted as a victory lap for the Republicans. They were smarting over a court decision striking down a recent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) guidance that instructed field offices to consider things like endangered species, public health, or the cultural and historical importance of our public lands before granting a CX. The industry spokespersons joyfully paraded the studies they commissioned purporting to document the thousands of jobs prevented by burdensome, duplicative, and redundant regulations. One of the industry lobbyists actually argued that because CXs act as a rubber stamp, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials now have more time to perform inspections and monitoring. This issue was addressed in a General Accountability Office (GAO) report that criticized the use of CXs in BLM field offices. It’s true; there are more site inspections. But GAO thinks that’s because BLM has hired 200 more staff to perform them.

 The real problem is that while industry thinks in terms of regulations, I think in terms of protections. The public lands managed by BLM are a limited and treasured natural resource. We should not cut corners around an environmental review process established over forty years ago that has served us well. Most of these CXs allow oil and gas companies to get permits for additional drilling as long as an initial environmental review occurred within the last five years. The result is an explosion of additional wells without any consideration of their cumulative impact. It’s not like a site with one well has the same environmental impact as the same site with ten.

 According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ozone levels around Farrington, NM, Pinedale, WY, and Vernal, UT have reached or exceeded allowable levels in part because of the release of nitrogen oxides from the additional wells approved under Section 390. In addition, the drilling of these additional oil and gas wells using CXs has led to a spider-web pattern of development that disrupts migration corridors and critical habitats.

 The debate here in Washington, DC will continue to focus on the environment. This hearing was only the beginning. Over the next couple of months, we will repeatedly see the House majority attack our most vital protections as job killers. The Administration already recently backed down from new ozone rules and appears also to be leaning toward developing a new watered down rule on the use of CXs.

I reject this environment versus economy frame. Regulations that force dirty industries to clean up, create a market for cleaner alternatives. When coal companies have to buy scrubbers for their stacks, the money has to go somewhere- it’s not like it suddenly disappears from the economy because there's an out of pocket cost to industry. Similarly, this country is working to create entirely new industries in the clean energy economy. This should be our focus rather than allowing oil and gas companies to undermine the progress our nation has made in protecting our environment.

Wikileaks recently released a new batch of cables that expose Denver-based Newmont Mining’s negligence before and after a cyanide spill at their Ahafo gold mine on October 8 2009. The cables reveal that Government of Ghana went as far as to accuse Newmont of an attempted cover up, and criticize the company for a series of “blunders” following the spill.

What does this mean for Newmont, which is looking to push through another major mine in Ghana?

The cable from the Accra Embassy highlights Newmont’s understated response to the initial spill. Newmont had initially insisted that no contamination had spread from the spill site. However, the breadth of the contamination was grossly underestimated. Cyanide was found in local water sources where families washed, and hundreds of fish were found dead, floating in contaminated water.

The cable lays out Newmont’s problematic response to the spill as follows:

• Mine managers took 24 hours to notify Newmont’s management in Accra, and it took Newmont over 2 days to notify the Ghanaian authorities;
• Newmont choose to use an “inherently unsafe” overflow “event pond” that violated standard international mining practices;
• There was little to no monitoring of the water level of the processing pond into which the cyanide spilled, and an electronic sensor failed to signal when the pond overflowed;
• Newmont failed to contain or trace the spill once the cyanide solution escaped from the processing pond and into neighboring properties and bodies of water.

 

Ultimately, Newmont paid $5 million in compensation to the Government of Ghana for the cyanide spill in January of 2010. These cables come to light at a time that Newmont is pushing another gold mine in Ghana, the Akyem mine, amidst allegations of forced displacement and digging up of sacred burial grounds, which Newmont vehemently denies.

What lessons has Newmont – and Ghana – learned from the experience leading up to and following the cyanide spill at Ahafo? How can communities near Ahafo and Akyem trust that Newmont will not repeat this pattern of negligence? Newmont is one of the largest gold miners in the world and has a responsibility to learn from its mistakes at Ahafo, and to do better.

At a time when gold is trading at record prices, Newmont has the opportunity to lead in the transformation of the mining industry: with safe environmental standards, fair labor practices, strong community engagement, and prior and informed consent from those communities. Newmont can, and must, choose this path for its operations in Ghana, and around the world.

This week, Earthworks No Dirty Gold Campaign and change.org are urging Costco customers to call the company s headquarters in Issiquah, WA, to tell CEO James Sinegal it s time to sign the Golden Rules, principles for more responsible mining that respect human rights, adopt fair labor standards, and minimize harm to the environment. To date, more than 80 leading jewelry retailers including Sears/Kmart, Target, and Tiffany & Co. have signed on to the Golden Rules principles. Customers are asking why Costco is lagging behind other major retailers in ensuring that the gold it sells is not tainted with human rights abuses or pollution.

Right now, Costco cannot tell its customers whether the gold in their display cases is coming at the cost of safe working conditions or from mines with cyanide spills that are poisoning communities' drinking water, said Nick Magel, coordinator of the No Dirty Gold campaign. Costco customers deserve better, and communities near mine sites deserve better.

Here are some unedited comments excerpted from among hundreds posted by concerned customers on Costco s Facebook page:

What does it cost in human health and conditions to save a few dollars on your gold jewelry?

I will not shop for jewelery at Costo [sic] until such time as it signs on to the No Dirty Gold Campaigns Golden Rules. I will not renew my membership unless Costco takes this action.

Costco, show me you care about human rights, ending child labor, and protecting the environment. Sign the Golden Rules! And then here s where it gets tricky FOLLOW THEM. (We'll find out if you don't.)

In the last six months, more than 40,000 people have signed a petition and written letters urging Costco to sign on to the No Dirty Gold campaigns Golden Rules and to take a stand against irresponsible mining practices. Costco is one of only two top 10 US gold retailers that has not yet signed the Golden Rules. (The other is Macy s.) Costco, which made $1.3 billion in profits last year, has thus far remained silent on the matter. Costco's customers deserve to know whether the gold they're buying was mined under safe working conditions, or came at the cost of human rights, or harmed the environment. 

Costco s silence is deafening, said Payal Sampat, Director of the No Dirty Gold Campaign. It s time for Costco to listen to their customers call for clean gold and sign the Golden Rules.

But they went said nothing -- raising grave doubts about whether the company is being honest about the danger of hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells.

As many of you know, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is Halliburton's patented process for injecting huge volumes of chemical-laced fluid into natural gas wells to force deposits to the surface. In 2005, the drilling services company's lobbying opened the Halliburton Loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act, exempting fracking from federal regulation.

Of course, Halliburton assured Congress and the EPA that fracking is safe, but that has not been the experience of people who live near natural gas wells in Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states.

Essentially, the presidential commission has confirmed that Halliburton puts its business interests ahead of public health and safety.

The Halliburton Loophole took away federal authority over fracking as asked the American public to trust them with their drinking water and other resources. That trust is obviously misplaced.

That is why it is essential that Congress close this dangerous loophole by passing the FRAC Act, which would restore the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act to fracking, which is used in 90 percent of all oil and natural gas wells in the nation. The contamination of drinking water by fracking chemicals is a quiet disaster that's happening every day in dozens of American communities, and we can't wait until a big disaster gets our attention to do something.

The time to act is now.

NOTE: This piece appeared in full as an op-ed in the 9/11/2009 Durango Herald.

Why the fuss about fracing and the Safe Drinking Water Act?

In a recent column (Herald, Aug. 21), Christi Zeller, executive director of the La Plata County Energy Council, argued that state rules governing gas and oil ensure that hydraulic fracturing - fracing - of gas wells won't harm groundwater. In the political realm, fracing was the subject of a 26-minute speech by U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. Closer to home, this high-pressure production technique has been the subject of three resolutions by our county commissioners.

The catalyst for all this attention is HR 2766, introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and the bill's Senate counterpart, S 1215. This five-paragraph bill does two things: It requires public disclosure of chemical constituents used in fracing and brings fracing back under the Safe Drinking Water Act, our primary federal statute for protecting public drinking-water supplies.

Three main issues have caused this bill to resonate widely. First, as we become more aware of water's finiteness, we become more protective. Without clean water, we have no future here in Colorado. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which used to require regulation of fracing, reflected that need for protection.

In recent state hearings, it became clear that the gas and oil industry has caused more than 300 instances of contaminated water in Colorado since 2003 - 19 in La Plata County - and more than 700 instances in New Mexico. As the Texas Supreme Court recently noted, estimates of the distance hydraulic fractures travel are "imprecise at best," and "virtually nothing can be done to control" the direction in which fractures run. Given this history and lack of control, people fear they might be the next person whose water well gets contaminated.

Second, we are being asked to trust one of the most profitable and powerful industries in the country - so powerful that it got White House assistance in obtaining the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption. Many times we have heard gas and oil development is "safe," until bitter experience has shown otherwise.

In the case of Laura Amos, the company denied that 2-BE, a fracing chemical linked with a rare type of cancer, was used in a nearby well. Amos later developed that cancer. In Pavillion, Wyo., it took eight years and the Environmental Protection Agency's involvement to finally get water tested. Now, sampling shows contaminants in water wells, including 2-BE. In New Mexico, the industry claimed drilling and waste pits did not leak. It took testing by the state to document levels of contaminants that violated health standards. So when we hear assurances of how "safe" fracing is, when there are no scientific studies documenting that safety, our experience tells us to beware.

Third, we see signs of the pervasiveness of chemicals all around us, and this industry is no different. Public data show that more than 340 chemicals are used in fracing, with at least 200 known to have adverse health impacts. A representative of a large fracing company estimates that, of more than 2,500 chemicals used in gas and oil fields, at least 60 to 65 percent are nontoxic. He believes it would be "simple" to raise this figure to 90 percent, as the technology "already exists," although the United States was "still behind the curve" in this area, compared to other countries.

Locally, according to EPA figures, between 12 million and 122 million gallons of fracing fluids may have been left in the Fruitland formation. In its 2002 draft report on fracing, the EPA said the Fruitland formation showed possible residual contamination from fracing.

Is it any wonder, then, that New York City does not want any drilling in its watershed? Or that Rep. DeGette wants to require disclosure of fracing chemicals?

Colorado has shown leadership in revising its gas and oil rules, and is the first state to require chemical inventories. However, even Colorado's disclosure rule will not help landowners identify chemicals to be used in the gas well next door. Nor would the rule help a nurse who needed immediate access to which chemicals were in the fluids that drenched a worker. Absent that information, medical responders could end up, as Durango's Cathy Behr did, in the emergency room not knowing the long-term effects of the contamination.

We have decades of experience with Zeller's claim that state rules work best. With our water at risk and without a full commitment to preventing contamination, we need to look at other approaches. That is why so many have been disappointed by the refusal of local leaders to support Rep. DeGette's bill. In the long run, the costs will be far less if industry commits to the use of less toxic fluids. Until then, we need to take this relatively small, yet significant, step forward by passing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals or FRAC Act.

Bruce Baizel is senior staff attorney at the Oil & Gas Accountability Project, a program of Earthworks, in Durango. Reports and sources are available at http://www.ogap.org<./p>

I mourn the loss of Stewart Lee Udall. 

From 1954 to 1960, Stewart Udall served as Congressman from a mining-dominated region of Arizona. He knew first-hand the reckless damage the mining industry causes. He knew that the 1872 Mining Law still gives mining corporations vast power to overwhelm other values on public lands. He strove to fix it.

In January 1969, when he stepped down after eight years as Secretary of the Interior, Stewart wrote:

"...after eight years in this office, I have come to the conclusion that the most important piece of unfinished business on the nation's resource agenda is the complete replacement of the Mining Law of 1872."

When EARTHWORKS (then known as Mineral Policy Center) was formed in 1988, Stewart Udall volunteered to be Chairman of our Board of Directors. He lent his prestige and his knowledge to the campaign to reform the 1872  Mining Law. Stewart testified in person at an early Reform hearing in the Senate. He and I went door-to-door in the offices of Congress, meeting with Representatives and Senators to explain the need for 1872 Reform. He wrote letters and op-ed pieces to help spread the word. 

Stewart's formal involvement with our organization ended in 1997, but he stayed concerned and committed to the cause.   

Stewart Udall's death is personal for me. 

He bravely joined my effort to found Mineral Policy Center. He brought friends and contributors to join our cause. We strategized together to shape an effective campaign. He stayed at our house.  We discussed drafts of his later books together. Mining Law Reform was but one of the many conservation and environmental campaigns in which Stewart Udall played a courageous, far-sighted role over his long and distinguished lifetime. I miss him, and I send my condolences to his family.

Four new jewelry retailers have announced their decision to shun irresponsibly mined gold and seek cleaner sources of gold and precious metals.

Brilliance Jewelry, Since1910.com, Jon R. Fox Jewellers, and Do Amore Jewelery, joined the other 77 jewelry companies and retailers in signing the No Dirty Gold campaign's Golden Rules for responsible sourcing of precious metals.

The list of Golden Rules signatories now includes more than 80 jewelry retailers representing over $14 billion in annual US jewelry sales, or nearly a quarter of total sales.

"The world is a different place then it was when we were founded in 1910. It is the responsibility of all of us to see that it remains a clean and humane environment for future generations." -- Michael Gross, President of Since1910.com.

The No Dirty Gold campaign congratulates these companies for taking a stand against irresponsible mining practices. Consumer and jeweler opposition to dirty gold comes at a time when mining companies are continuing to push irresponsible mining projects that will impact communities all over the world. The jewelry industry's rejection of dirty gold thus puts the onus on the mining companies to provide what these companies, and their customers, are asking for.

Jewelers are increasingly realizing that their customers are concerned about dirty gold and the devastating effect of gold mining on communities and the environment. The production of one gold ring generates an average of 20 tons of mine waste. Gold mining has been linked to conflict and human rights violations, forest destruction, toxic pollution, and loss of lands and livelihoods.

Percentage of Surface Drinking Water from Intermittent, Ephemeral, and Headwater Streams. Source: U.S. EPA

Wrongheaded interpretations of two confusing U.S. Supreme Court cases have put more than 20 million acres of wetlands and almost 60 percent of our streams at risk of losing Clean Water Act protections.

The EPA estimates that more than 117 million Americans' drinking water is supplied in whole or part by waters vulnerable to pollution thanks to the current confusion.

To fix things, the Environmental Protection Agency is clarifying which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act.

The new guidelines would reaffirm protection for critical waters -- including wetlands, and smaller streams, including those that flow part of the year.

Protecting wetlands and small streams is important for fish and wildlife habitat, reducing the frequency and intensity of floods, filtering pollutants, as well as supplying drinking waters to American families.

These protections are especially important because they would affect mine waste disposal, the largest source of toxic pollution in the U.S.  

Naturally, the EPA is under attack from industries that would affected by these new guidelines including the mining industry. 

That's why we're asking for your help: click here to drop the EPA a line of thanks.

We spank 'em when they're wrong -- let's thank 'em when they're right.

MORE INFORMATION:

• EPA: Clean Water Act Definition of "Waters of the United States"
• EPA: breakdown of how each state is affected