WASHINGTON, DC—A new investor advisory released today raises significant questions about the serious risks associated with Anglo American plc’s (LSE: AAL, JSE: ANGLO) Pebble mine project in southwest Alaska. The advisory details the growing list of regulatory, legal, engineering, and political challenges facing the London-based mining giant as it struggles to secure permits for the controversial gold-copper mine planned for the headwaters of Bristol Bay, the world’s biggest wild sockeye salmon fishery.

The Pebble mine project in southwest Alaska is a 50-50 joint venture between London-based Anglo American plc and Canada-based Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. known as the Pebble Limited Partnership. The report points to the dramatic drop in share price over the last year at Northern Dynasty Ltd. - whose only project is the Pebble Mine – as evidence of the lack of confidence in the Pebble project. The company’s share price has dropped by more than half – from $20 a share in February 2011 to less than $10 a share in January 2012.

“Opposition to the Pebble mine project has translated into a barrage of legal, political and regulatory hurdles over the last year,” said Jonas Kron, an analyst with Trillium Asset Management Corp. who reviewed the report. “After scrutinizing the project details, we believe there are significant risks that must be considered,” he added.

The project’s location in the headwaters of Bristol Bay, the world’s largest producer of wild sockeye salmon, presents significant difficulties for Anglo American and Northern Dynasty. While the companies have yet to enter the permitting phase, they have already encountered substantial opposition from the communities and industries that rely on the salmon fishery, including recent key developments that could preclude development altogether.

• EPA will release results from a scientific assessment of the suitability of large-scale development in the watershed in April 2012.
• In October 2011, Lake and Peninsula Borough voters approved a citizen initiative popularly known as “Save Our Salmon”. The initiative precludes permits for large resource extraction activities like the Pebble Mine that disturb more than 640 acres and that will have a “significant adverse impact” on any salmon stream.
• In April 2011, a group of nearly 30 investors representing $170 billion in assets and holding 13 million shares in Anglo American, urged the EPA to conduct a 404c Clean Water Act review of the mine, given its considerable risks.

“If the Pebble mine is constructed and results in substantial damage to the people and ecosystems of Bristol Bay, it will cast a cloud over all mining projects – even safe and responsible ones – increasing costs and slowing appropriate development,” said Stu Dalheim, Vice President at Calvert Investments. “The consequences of Pebble mine could not only destabilize the global fishing industry but the mining sector as well.”

The complexity and technological challenges that face the Pebble mine pose significant risks in the hydrologically complex and ecologically rich region of Bristol Bay,” said Dr. David Chambers, Ph.D. president of the Center for Science and Public Participation.

A politically powerful coalition opposes the mine because it threatens Bristol Bay salmon. This group includes the commercial and sport fishing industries, which generate $450 million annually for Alaska’s economy and support ten thousand jobs, and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, a $1.9 billion corporation representing approximately 9,000 Bristol Bay Alaska Native shareholders. In addition, over fifty leading U.S. and U.K. jewelers with sales of $5.5 billion have pledged not to buy gold from the Pebble mine.

Researcher Bonnie Gestring with Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization Earthworks prepared the report, which was reviewed by investment analyst Jonas Kron of Trillium Asset Management Corp. Dr. David Chambers of the Center for Science and Public Participation also reviewed the report for technical accuracy.

Full report at: http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/bb-investorrisk-2012
More information at: http://ourbristolbay.com

# # #

The TSX-listed company, which has Rio Tinto as a near-19% stake, has been keeping potential investors up to speed with its progress “so that if there is a move by any company to take over Northern Dynasty, it would be a competitive situation”, Sean Magee said in an interview.

Anglo American owns the other 50% of Pebble, which may prove crucial to the company’s copper growth ambitions after it agreed to sell a 24.5% of its Chilean Anglo American Sur assets to Mitsubishi for $5.39-billion last year, in an apparent bid to block State-owned Codelco from lifting its stake in the company on the cheap.

The Pebble Partnership this week released the baseline environmental document for the project, located near Bristol Bay in the most northern US state, comprising of around 27 000 pages – which would stand around 1.5 m tall if stacked together.

The study is the culmination of nearly eight-years of work costing around $150-million, and prepares the way for the environmental permitting process for Pebble to begin on completion of a prefeasibility study later this year.

“It has given us confidence it can be developed in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way,” Magee told Mining Weekly Online.

The study considered environmental factors including seismicity – the state is earthquake prone –, soil geochemistry and water ways.

SALMON CONCERNS

Much of the criticism the project has garnered focuses on the fact that Bristol Bay has one of the largest wild sockeye salmon fisheries in the world, arguing that Pebble’s development would threaten this.

The Pebble partners have consistently maintained their belief that the mine can be built in such a way as to prevent any harm to the fish populations.

Magee said the scientists that compiled the environmental baseline document had also found “a couple” of marine species listed under the US Endangered Species Act, but that these were located around the port site, and that the Anglo and Northern Dynasty would undertake steps to ensure they were protected.

This would include only working on construction at the port facilities during certain times of the year.

Despite the assurances, there has been no shortage of opposition to Pebble, estimated to cost $4.7-billion to construct in an early 2011 preliminary study, with even the New York Times criticising it in a March 2011 editorial.

Days before the Pebble Partnership released its document, non-governmental organisations the Wild Salmon Center and Trout Unlimited released their own report that found there to be “too much at stake ecologically,economically, and culturally to risk development of the Pebble deposit”.

LEGAL CHALLENGE

Late last year, voters in the state’s Lake and Peninsula borough supported a measure that could block developments bigger than one-square mile, effectively preventing development at Pebble.

The Pebble Partnership announced it would challenge the new effort, and was later joined by the State of Alaska, which is fighting the ordinance on constitutional grounds.

The Superior Court of Alaska held a preliminary hearing into the matter in January and the judge brought those two cases together.

Hearings are not likely to start until early next year, Magee said.

DIRTY GOLD, ETHICAL OIL

One of the campaigners against the mine, No Dirty Gold, has painted the project as a potential source of “dirty gold” – where extracting the precious metal harms the environment and communities, and has urged jewellery retailers not to buy it.

The campaign is similar to those taken up against Canada’s oil sands in Alberta, which the country has responded to by calling the world’s second biggest source of the fuel “ethical oil”.

The argument is that Canada’s oil does not support regimes that abuse human rights. Canada has more recently attacked the foreign NGOs and external funders of local NGOs opposing proposed oil-sands pipelines.

Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll, speaking to an Alaska audience a year ago, delivered a similar message.

“I do not accept that campaigning environmental groups from outside Alaska with strong vested interests in raising funds through opposing our project have any legitimacy in the debate,” he said, whilst describing Pebble’s potential production as “ethical gold”.

“...the minerals – copper, gold, and molybdenum – produced by Pebble will be among the cleanest, most ethically produced in the industry.”

US ELECTIONS

A key factor in whether Pebble gets environmental approval from the US government could be whether or not Barrack Obama gets re-elected in November.

He failed to green-light the proposed divisive Keystone XL pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta to refineries in Texas, much to the chagrin of his GOP opponents, who argue the jobs and energy security the project would bring outweigh the environmental risks.

There could be a similar debate unfolding regarding the Pebble project, given the parallels.

Magee said Vancouver-based Northern Dynasty expects to complete a prefeasibility study on the project by the middle of the year, after which it would review it with Anglo American before announcing the findings towards the end of 2012 or early in 2013.

Only after that would the permitting process begin, expected to last into late 2016.

Assuming the project received the go ahead, first production would arrive only in 2020.

The March 2011 preliminary economic assessment of the project forecast copper equivalent output of 1.15-billion pounds yearly, making it even bigger than the giant Oyu Tolgoi operation Ivanhoe Mines is building in Mongolia, as well as the Bingham Canyon mine in the US, which can be seen from the moon.

Rio Tinto, the world’s third-biggest mining firm, owns the majority of both of those operations.

It is because of its size and potentially huge profits that Pebble has caught the interest of companies such as Rio Tinto and Anglo American.

CONSORTIUM OF MAJORS

“There have been a number of major companies that have had interest in Pebble,” Magee said.

“Our view is it’s very likely that this project will be developed by a consortium of major companies by the time it goes into production. When that occurs and who will be involved, we don’t know.”

He added that Northern Dynasty’s management has been careful to shop the project to other companies such as BHP Billiton and Chinese groups to ensure that those “that may have an ownership interest in this asset are aware of its value”.

Over the past year, the market has cut the implied value of Pebble significantly, if Northern Dynasty’s share price is any measure to go by.

The stock, which was trading at C$19.34 a share 12 months ago, closed on Friday at C$7.25 apiece, giving the company a C$688-million market capitalisation.

While that might make the firm far more attractive to potential suitors, not much is likely to occur until Pebble is closer to clearing the permitting hurdles. And there could be a fierce fight ahead.

“We’ll continue to hit the headlines,” Magee conceded.

But he is also quick to add “the public support for the project is greater than what you’d determine if you were only reading headlines”.

Chocolate: A heart-shaped box of truffles may be a sweet dream for chocolate lovers, but it's a nightmare for many workers. Most of the world's cocoa beans come from plantations in Ghana and Ivory Coast, where a 2010 BBC investigation exposed the widespread use of child labor, human trafficking and even slavery to harvest cocoa.

Flowers: Most roses and other flowers sold in the United States are imported from Colombia, where the cut flower industry is also known to use child workers and forced labor. Because the flowers have to look perfect, they're treated with immense amounts of toxic pesticides, which contributes to high rates of lung and nerve disease in a workforce dominated by women and children.

Jewelry: Child labor, forced labor and dangerous conditions are well-documented in the mining industry. Gold mining uses mercury and cyanide to separate the metal from ore, and leaves behind mountains of toxic waste -- more than 20 tons of waste to make one gold ring. The film Blood Diamonds dramatized the role that diamond mining plays in fueling and funding brutal wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola and other African nations that have killed and displaced millions of people.

So should you boycott Valentine's Day? I'm not. I'm all for showing my loved ones how much I care, on Valentine's Day tomorrow and every day. A hand-crafted card, a heartfelt note, a home-cooked meal or (ahem) a special favor are all ways to express your love. And for a gift that keeps on giving you can get involved in efforts to change the way these destructive industries do business. Joining a campaign not only amplifies your voice but brings you together with others who share your concerns.

Last February, Change.org mounted a petition drive that persuaded 1-800-Flowers to add Fair Trade-certified bouquets to its collection and create a code of conduct that prohibits its suppliers from using forced and child labor. Now the Fairness in Flowers campaign is asking consumers to write other major florists urging them to ensure their flowers are not grown and processed with the use of exploited labor or child labor.

More than 100,000 consumers have joined the No Dirty Gold campaign, which works to get jewelers to promise to use only gold mined responsibly. To date, 80 leading jewelry retailers worldwide have signed the pledge. Global Witness, a human rights group that helped bring attention to the bloody truth about the diamond trade, recently pulled out of a flawed United Nations-backed program to certify conflict-free diamonds, but remains active in the campaign to reform the industry.

OK, here's the toughest one to pass by (at least for me) -- chocolate. Global Exchange is among the groups working with schools, churches and community groups to get leading chocolate companies to promise that their sweet treats don't exploit or endanger workers on African cocoa plantations.

Real love doesn't trash the planet or force children to work in dangerous mines or pesticide-drenched fields. There's no reason that jewelry, chocolates and flowers have to take such a heavy toll. This Valentine's Day, let's show our love not only to our sweethearts, friends and family, but to the Earth and people around the world.

Today, over 80 jewelry retailers from around the world, including 8 of the top 10 US retailers, committed to cleaning up dirty metals by signing the No Dirty Gold campaign's "Golden Rules" for more responsible metals sourcing.

80% of the gold mined worldwide is turned into jewelry.

Tiffany & Co., Target, Sears/Kmart and JCPenney have all committed to taking steps to clean up irresponsible gold mining, such as studying their metals supply chains, revising their supplier sourcing criteria to include the Golden Rules, increasing recycled gold content, among others. Some have even signed the Bristol Bay pledge to refuse gold from the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska (which has been voted down in a referendum, but is still being pushed forward).

Who hasn't signed on? Macy's (which includes Bloomingdale's), the fifth largest retail, and Costco, the ninth largest.

The Golden Rules call on mining companies to meet a set of social, human rights, and environmental criteria for gold and other precious metals.

    Respect basic human rights outlined in international
    conventions and law
    Obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of
    affected communities.
    Respect workers' rights and labor standards, including
    safe working conditions
    Ensure that operations are not located in areas of
    armed or militarized conflict
    Ensure that projects do not force communities off their
    lands
    Ensure that projects are not located in protected
    areas, fragile ecosystems, or other areas of high conservation or ecological
    value
    Refrain from dumping mine wastes into the ocean,
    rivers, lakes, or streams
    Ensure that projects do not contaminate water, soil, or
    air with sulfuric acid drainage or other toxic chemicals
    Cover all costs of closing down and cleaning up mine
    sites
    Fully disclose information about social and
    environmental effects of projects
    Allow independent verification of the
    above

Here's a list of retailers that have signed on.

Learn more:

Website: http://nodirtygold.org/goldenrules.cfm

The Golden Rules are a set of social, human rights, and environmental criteria for gold and other precious metals. Jewelers who have signed the Golden Rules are committed to selling gold jewelry that is mined and smelted responsibly.

This is good news for consumers, the environment, and the communities who live with metals mining says No Dirty Gold campaign director Payal Sampat. "Dirty gold must become a thing of the past," she said. "No one wants their Valentine's Day jewelry tainted with human rights abuses or toxic pollution. But this can't happen unless companies like Macy's commit to cleaning up their supply chains and sign the Golden Rules."

Macy's is one of the last major jewelry retailers to sign the Golden Rules. The department store chain, which includes Bloomingdale's, is the fifth-largest retailer of gold jewelry in the United States, with more than 800 locations in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.

On February 13, activists with the No Dirty Gold campaign hung a balloon banner at the Macy's Washington, DC store, reading, "Macy's: Don't Break Our Hearts. Dump Dirty Gold."

"Until Macy's ends its love affair with dirty gold, the company's commitment to sustainability and transparency is just a bunch of hot air," said No Dirty Gold campaign coordinator, Nick Magel.

Costco, the ninth largest U.S. jewelry retailer, headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, has also declined to sign the Golden Rules.

Sampat says the campaign's effort to secure commitments from jewelers to oppose dirty gold production is a crucial step because about 80 percent of newly mined gold is made into jewelry.
Open pit gold mine in Waihi, Waikato, New Zealand (Photo by SallyNZ)

The world's largest jewelry retailers, including Walmart, Sterling, Zale's, Tiffany & Co., QVC, Target, Sears/Kmart and JCPenney have all committed to study their metals' supply chains, revise their supplier sourcing criteria to include the Golden Rules and increase recycled gold content.

Michelle Pearlman, senior vice president and president of Jewelry, Sears Holdings, said, "The No Dirty Gold campaign is a great initiative that pushes for sustainability and ethical sourcing on gold. We are proud to be a part of it and to offer our customers gold that was obtained in a responsible manner. Sears strives to be a green company and we will continue to work to build lifetime relationships with our customers starting from the mines up."

Cyanide used in leaching gold from ore can pollute water resources and kill aquatic life. Gold mining can pollute nearby waters with acid mine drainage, which is harmful to wildlife and people. Some mines discharge toxic waste in rivers, lakes or oceans, or store the waste tailings in reservoirs that can leak or burst. Mine wastes include byproducts like mercury and heavy metals, which can enter the food chain and sicken people and animals.

Refining the gold in smelter furnaces releases air pollution, especially oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, which are components of smog and acid rain, as well as lead. Smelters release tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The Golden Rules call on mining companies to meet these basic standards in their operations:

•     Respect basic human rights outlined in international conventions and law
•     Obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities
•     Respect workers' rights and labor standards, including safe working conditions
•     Ensure that operations are not located in areas of armed or militarized conflict
•     Ensure that projects do not force communities off their lands
•     Ensure that projects are not located in protected areas, fragile ecosystems, or other areas of high conservation or ecological value
•     Refrain from dumping mine wastes into the ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams
•     Ensure that projects do not contaminate water, soil, or air with sulfuric acid drainage or other toxic chemicals
•     Cover all costs of closing down and cleaning up mine sites
•     Fully disclose information about social and environmental effects of projects
•     Allow independent verification of the above

Marc Choyt, president, Reflective Images, a Santa Fe-based jewelry company known for its modern Celtic designs, takes pride in his signature on The Golden Rules. "We are 100 percent in support of the No Dirty Gold campaign," he said. "Precious metals mining causes tons of toxic pollution and is often tied to human rights abuses, which are unacceptable to us and our customers."

"Not only do we manufacture exclusively with recycled gold," said Choyt, "but in 2008, my company was perhaps the first manufacturer in the jewelry sector to move its entire American and international manufacturing to recycled silver as well. We are now creating ethical mine-to-market custody, and also write the Internet's leading resource on fair trade jewelry issues, www.fairjewelry.org."

A number of jewelers who have signed The Golden Rules have also signed a pledge to refrain from buying any gold that might be produced from the proposed Anglo American Pebble Mine due to concerns that it will ruin one of the world's richest salmon fisheries in Bristol Bay, Alaska.

The proposed Pebble Mine would siphon as much as 35 billion gallons of fresh water out of the headwaters of Bristol Bay every year, eliminating critical salmon habitat, finds a new report released last week.

Produced by the Wild Salmon Center and Trout Unlimited, the report details multiple concerns with excavating Pebble's massive deposit of copper, gold, and molybdenum.

Approval of the mine and its infrastructure will likely spur a much larger mining district, substantially increasing odds that mining will harm Bristol Bay's wild salmon, the report found. Pebble's infrastructure would enable mining claims covering 793 square miles, an area 10 times larger than Washington DC.

After examining a wide body of scientific information, the report concludes that too much is at stake ecologically, economically, and culturally to risk mine development.

Tiffany & Co. Chairman and CEO Michael Kowalski said, "There are some special places where mining clearly does not represent the best long-term use of resources. In Bristol Bay, we believe the extraordinary salmon fishery clearly provides the best opportunity to benefit Southwestern Alaskan communities in a sustainable way. For Tiffany & Co., - and we believe for many of our fellow retail jewelers - this means we must look to other places to responsibly source our gold."

“Until Macy’s ends its love affair with dirty gold, the company’s commitment to sustainability and transparency is just a bunch of hot air,” said No Dirty Gold campaign coordinator, Nick Magel.

No Dirty Gold is also urging Costco – the ninth-largest gold jewelry supplier – to commit to the Golden Rules. So far, more than 80 jewelers, including the eight other top 10 U.S. jewelry retailers, have taken steps to rid the industry of “dirty metals” by signing the Golden Rules.

The Golden Rules are a set of social, human rights, and environmental criteria for gold and other precious metals. Jewelers who have signed the Golden Rules are committed to work to sell more responsible gold jewelry. Securing jeweler commitments to end dirty gold production is crucial step because approximately 80 percent of newly mined gold is made into jewelry.

“Dirty gold must become a thing of the past,” said No Dirty Gold campaign director Payal Sampat. “No one wants their Valentine’s Day jewelry tainted with human rights abuses or toxic pollution. But this can’t happen unless companies like Macy’s commit to cleaning up their supply chains and sign the Golden Rules,” she added.

WASHINGTON, DC: Over 80 jewelry retailers from around the world, including 8 of the top 10 US retailers, have committed to cleaning up dirty metals by signing the No Dirty Gold campaign’s “Golden Rules” for more responsible metals sourcing.  This is good news for consumers, the environment, and the communities who live with metals mining – the largest toxic polluter in the U.S.  Unfortunately, two companies, Macy’s and Costco, among the top 10 US jewelry retailers, lag behind and have yet to meaningfully commit to cleaning up their gold supply chain.

“Dirty gold must become a thing of the past,” said No Dirty Gold campaign director Payal Sampat.  She continued, “No one wants their Valentine’s Day jewelry tainted with human rights abuses or toxic pollution. But this can’t happen unless companies like Macy’s commit to cleaning up their supply chains and sign the Golden Rules. ”

The Golden Rules are a set of social, human rights, and environmental criteria for gold and other precious metals.  Jewelers who have signed the Golden Rules are committed to work to sell more responsible gold jewelry. Securing jeweler commitments to end dirty gold production is a crucial step because approximately 80 percent of newly mined gold is made into jewelry.

The world’s largest jewelry retailers including Tiffany & Co., Target, Sears/Kmart and JCPenney have all committed to taking steps to clean up irresponsible gold mining, such as studying their metals supply chains, revising their supplier sourcing criteria to include the Golden Rules, increasing recycled gold content, among others. Some have even signed the Bristol Bay pledge to refuse gold from the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska.

On February 13, No Dirty Gold activists hung a balloon banner at Macys’ Washington, DC flagship store, that said “Macy’s: Don’t Break Our Hearts. Dump Dirty Gold.”

“Until Macy’s ends its love affair with dirty gold, the company’s commitment to sustainability and transparency is just a bunch of hot air,” said No Dirty Gold campaign coordinator, Nick Magel.

Macy's remains one of the last major jewelry retailers to sign the Golden Rules. The department store chain, which includes Bloomingdale's, is the fifth-largest retailer of gold jewelry in the United States. Costco, the ninth largest, headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, has also failed to take responsible action to keep dirty gold out of its supply chain.

Yesterday in the Senate and today in the House, the Pennsylvania legislature voted in favor of HB1950, a compromise gas development bill that was hammered out behind closed doors under the heavy hand of Governor Tom Corbett. Under the guise of providing “impact fees” to municipalities where gas operations occur, the legislature effectively supported a takeover of municipalities by the State and the gas industry by gutting established and effective local planning and zoning rights.

Through provisions contained in the bill, municipalities will no longer be able to play a central, critical role in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of residents and determining which uses of land are most beneficial.

The bill requires that all types of oil and gas operations (except for natural gas processing plants)—unlike any other commercial or industrial business—be allowed in all zoning districts, even in residential neighborhoods and near schools, parks, hospitals, and sensitive natural and cultural resource protection areas. As a result, people could be forced to live only 300 feet away from a gas well, open frack waste pit, or pipeline, despite growing evidence that such development causes pollution, damages health, and lowers property values.

The bill also mandates a one-size-fits-all ordinance that supersedes all existing ordinances and prevents municipalities from adopting any zoning provisions that are stricter than the weak, mandated standards. 

“The PA Legislature has let the gas industry take over, despite the terrible consequences that drilling is having in communities across the Commonwealth. This so-called impact fee bill brings no net fiscal gain to Pennsylvania residents; it robs us of the ability to protect what is most locally valuable—our health, safety, and resources—and gives gas operators the right to run all over our communities.  This is unjust and exposes the true allegiances of the Bill’s supporters—self-interested gas developers and their backers,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.

“Today, many legislators and Governor Corbett told Pennsylvania residents that protecting their health and rights matters far less to them than the gas industry’s demands,” said Nadia Steinzor, Marcellus Regional Organizer for Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project. “They and other supporters of this bill turned a blind eye on the widespread damage caused by drilling and a deaf ear to calls from citizens for change, while doing the bidding of companies that want to drill anywhere, anytime.”

“If legislators were looking to pass a proposal that will allow more gas drilling near people’s homes, and the parks, playgrounds and schools where our children play and spend their days, then ‘Mission Accomplished,’” said Erika Staaf of PennEnvironment. “Sadly, this is just one more case of powerful interests dominating the political process, and the lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle to do anything about it.”

“A poorly-regulated gas industry will be able to drill in residential neighborhoods, bringing thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals, thousands of tractor trailers, round the clock noisy, polluting drilling, all as little as a football field away from homes, day care centers, and playgrounds,” said Jeff Schmidt, Director of Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania Chapter. “The legislators who voted in favor of HB 1950 have abandoned any pretense that they are acting in the public interest. We will make sure the public knows who sided with the drillers and who sided with citizens when they go to the polls for this year’s elections.”

 “This bill represents a huge step backwards in protection for Pennsylvania towns and the environment,” said Myron Arnowitt, PA State Director for Clean Water Action. “The state override of local zoning ordinances will greatly increase the threats to communities from all aspects of gas extraction. Never before has one industry been given full rights to do as they please, without recognizing the needs of other businesses, residents, and our environment. 2012 is an election year, and we will be devoting our energy to ensuring that the voters of Pennsylvania are aware of which legislators voted to give away our control over an industry that has contaminated our air, land, and water.”

“The legislators who voted for HB 1950 made a short-sighted decision that puts the health and safety of Pennsylvania’s communities at risk,” said Josh McNeil, Executive Director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. “They voted against the interests of their constituents and should expect those constituents to return the favor in the November election.”

###

"Oil companies always say there's a mile of rock between their drilling and the aquifer, but if there's a fault, that stuff can get through. Everything likes to take the path of least resistance, teenagers included."

People in the audience laughed softly at the joke, but stayed focused on the task at hand - learning about fracking.

Martin, environmentalist Sharon Wilson, and Ramon Alvarez, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund of Austin spoke at a Neighbor to Neighbor town hall meeting on Saturday. They were there to talk about the fracking technique and what environmental risks this method of extracting oil and natural gas from brittle shale formations may pose to a community.

Wilson has been blogging about environmental concerns in the Barnett Shale, a formation lying under North Texas, since 2006. Alvarez and Martin are both advisors to the City of Dallas Task Force created to develop fracking regulations for Dallas.

All three were at the Neighbor to Neighbor meeting to discuss fracking, but they were intent on making their audience of about 30 people aware of how they need to work together now to avoid dealing with the problems those on top of the Barnett Shale have struggled with.

"I want to help the people in the Eagle Ford Shale get organized ... We have to start informing people, and pressuring our legislators to get better drilling practices in this state," Wilson said.

At the close of the meeting, Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger, the organizer of the event, urged people in the audience to ask questions and talk to local lawmakers about the drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale.

"It was Edmund Burke who said, 'Evil can only triumph when good people do nothing,' so when good people wake up and do something they'll outweigh the bad," she said. "They really do listen if we speak up. The question is, will we speak up?"

With Cuero at the center of the oil boom, Mayor Sara Post Meyer attends each of these monthly meeting. Meyer said she is working hard to learn about various pitfalls and possibilities before they happen.

"We are concerned. We want to make sure our community can withstand the boom. We're a small town and we want to keep that environment. We want to be prepared," Meyer said. "These folks have already been through it, so if we can learn from them, we don't have to reinvent the wheel."

Fracking is the process where a mix of water, sand and chemicals is flushed into a brittle shale formation, allowing the hydrocarbons trapped in it to be produced.

The Neighbor to Neighbor Town Hall meetings are designed to give people a place to hear and discuss different sides of various issues surfacing around the Eagle Ford Shale oil boom that is thundering through the Crossroads.

In this meeting, Katherine Martin, a petroleum engineer, will explain the horizontal drilling and fracking process being used to release the oil and natural gas in shale formations across the country. Martin has served as an adviser to the city of Dallas Task Force, an organization created to develop regulations for the oil and gas industry in the Barnett Shale.

Ramon Valdez, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund Texas office, specializes in air quality issues related to chemical industries. Valdez will be a co-presenter.

Sharon Wilson, representative of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, became interested in environment and health concerns related to fracking after a well was drilled near her home to frack the Barnett Shale formation. Wilson will present her views on fracking at Saturday's meeting.

The meeting is scheduled for 2 to 5 p.m. Saturday in the Cuero Municipal Park Clubhouse, 212 E. Main St., Cuero.

Obama called for public disclosure of fracking fluids while at the same time insisting the practice is safe and is key to America’s energy strategy.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy,” Obama said in the State of the Union.

He never directly mentioned hydraulic fracturing – a gas-extraction process that uses water, sand and chemicals to break rock formations – this week, but his aides made it clear that Obama believes fracking is safe.

“We have a good track record of this on our public lands. Fracking can be done safely and in environmentally responsible manner,” a senior Obama administration official told reporters Wednesday night, speaking on condition of anonymity.

At the same time, Obama told the Interior Department to require companies to reveal the chemicals they use in frack fluids.

It’s similar to a policy that Hickenlooper has been following for nearly a year.

Last summer, the Colorado governor issued an enthusiastic defense of fracking at a natural-gas industry conference, but he also called for a state rule to require companies to disclose their fluid contents.

The oil and gas commission adopted the rule in December, after the industry and its main critics agreed on a compromise.

But Obama’s new promotion of natural gas, which he continued Thursday in Colorado, has industry watchdogs concerned.

“It is alarming that he is sounding the call for national onshore and offshore drilling. We want to make it clear that we need rules of engagement,” said Gwen Lachelt, director of Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, based in Durango.

Lachelt said Earthworks wants to invite Obama to tour a community in the gas patch, in addition to seeing drilling operations from the industry’s point of view.

“It’s also important to take the people’s oil and gas tour and see what it’s like living with oil and gas development,” she said.

Industry groups had differing opinions.

Tisha Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said she found the State of the Union encouraging.

“As he pointed out, we don’t have to choose between our economy and the environment. This is nowhere more apparent than in Colorado,” Schuller said, pointing to the state’s rules on frack fluids and water-quality monitoring.

But the Western Energy Alliance nailed Obama in a news release Tuesday.

“With delays, backlogs and duplicative analysis, there are thousands of jobs and billions in investment waiting on the sideline,” the group’s president, Tim Wigley, said.

Hydraulic fracturing – also known as fracking – is the process of pumping water and chemicals underground to fracture rocks and release natural gas.

In the United States, there is a heated debate over the safety of these practices and whether they are hazardous to the environment and public health.

Activists say fracking is contaminating the ground water supply and reducing air quality. But fracking proponents, including US President Barack Obama, argue that increased natural gas exploration could reduce America’s dependence on oil while creating thousands of jobs.

Fracking has spread to other countries including Canada and others are considering the method to tap into natural gas reserves. So far, two EU countries – France and Bulgaria – have banned fracking, citing environmental and health concerns.

In this episode of The Stream, we speak to Chris Tucker, spokesman at Energy in Depth (@EnergyinDepth) and Abrahm Lustgarten (@AbrahmL) an environmental reporter from ProPublica.

What do you think? Is the growing appetite for natural gas energy putting America’s environment at risk? Send us your thoughts and comments on Facebook or Twitter using hashtag #AJStream.

From the suburbs of Fort Worth, Texas, to Pavillion, Wyo., to northeastern Pennsylvania, EPA officials have taken increasingly bold steps in drilling pollution cases, implying or even proclaiming that state officials did not do enough to protect their own residents.

A new wave of drilling, fueled by the practice some call "fracking," is promising prosperity and energy security for the country. E&E investigates whether anyone is ensuring it's done right. Click here to read the report.

It is generating friction between EPA and leaders in some of the states. One state official called EPA's understanding of the Dimock situation "rudimentary." Another called EPA's Texas move a "frontal assault" on drilling.

To the oil and gas industry, EPA's moves are a sign of the Obama administration's underlying hostility to domestic petroleum production and signal interest in increased federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing.

"EPA is thinking very creatively about hydraulic fracturing," said John Riley, a lawyer in Bracewell & Guiliani's Austin office, who is involved in the suburban Fort Worth case, but commented only on the broader trend. He said the agency is using legal authority that is "questionable or even dubious."

But some residents and activists have applauded EPA officials for taking on a powerful industry when state government was unable or unwilling.

"For some of us, they are our only hope," said Sharon Wilson, an activist with Earthworks in Texas, who is also involved in the suburban Fort Worth case.

Publicly, President Obama has tried to walk a middle path regarding the boom in domestic oil and gas drilling. In his State of the Union speech Tuesday he stressed support for production, but he stressed it must be done safely.

That middle path is not an easy one. Environmentalists are unsettled by his support for drilling, and the industry does not believe him.

Republicans in Congress have also taken notice. They have accused the administration of doublespeak and they have scheduled a hearing for next week in the House Science Committee to lambaste the agency's investigation in Wyoming. House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the Republicans' chief inquisitor, is ramping up a probe into how EPA and DOE have dealt with hydraulic fracturing and shale gas drilling. Issa says the agency is not living up to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's stated support for state-based regulation.

State officials are the primary regulators of the country's boom in onshore oil and gas drilling, and industry likes it that way. Industry officials say state officials more so than federal or local authorities, have the most local expertise.

Unlike EPA, state oil and gas agencies are not charged exclusively with protecting the environment and human health. State laws order most of them to balance regulation with promoting oil and gas development. And they frequently have close ties to the local industry (Greenwire, Dec. 19, 2011).

Environmental groups and some Democrats have criticized state regulation of drilling. Democrats in Congress, such as Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) have introduced legislation to repeal an environmental exemption and give EPA more oversight of hydraulic fracturing. But the legislation is staunchly opposed by Republicans and failed to advance even when Democrats controlled Congress.
Wyo. probe, Texas dustup

The Wyoming investigation began in 2008, before Obama won the presidency. People in Pavillion, a small community in the middle of the state, had complained for years about problems with their water, but Wyoming oil and gas officials had taken no action against drillers, said Deb Thomas, an activist with the group Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens.

After initial testing, federal officials recommended in 2010 that some well owners use alternate sources of water for drinking and cooking. But the agency's draft findings, released last month, yielded mixed results.

EPA scientists concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluid had contaminated the aquifer under Pavillion, interrupting the industry refrain that there has never been a documented case of water contamination from fracturing. But they said those chemicals had not reached the drinking water wells of people in the community. And EPA officials said contaminants did not exceed drinking water standards.

State officials have criticized EPA's findings. Gov. Matt Mead (R) called them "scientifically questionable." State Oil and Gas Supervisor Tom Doll suggested EPA might have accidentally contaminated the aquifer itself.

Mead has said the state should be in charge of the investigation. But critics say the state missed its chance when it failed to act before 2008.

"For over a decade the state failed to investigate, identify and address the contamination issues and huge human health impacts occurring in the Pavillion area," Thomas said. "Our members believe Governor Mead and the state agencies should be thankful that the EPA came to Wyoming's aid with the substantial funds and scientific expertise that is needed."

EPA officials have been less critical of Wyoming officials. The chronology in the report makes no mention of state efforts, starting only when people in Pavillion complained.

In Texas, EPA pulled no punches when it overrode state officials to issue an emergency order against Range Resources Corp. in December 2010. The agency alleged that the company contaminated at least two water wells with methane and benzene.

Dallas-based EPA Regional Director Al Armendariz acted under the emergency provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which require EPA to determine that local authorities have not done enough to protect human health. When an Armendariz aide notified then-Railroad Commission Chairman Victor Carrillo, the state's top oil and gas regulator, Carrillo replied with an email calling the federal action "premature."

Armendariz forwarded Carrillo's reply to EPA headquarters officials with a single-word message: "Stunning."

In a hearing called shortly thereafter, the Railroad Commission exonerated Range. One member of the commission called EPA's action "a frontal assault on domestic natural gas production."

Still, EPA has not backed off from its emergency order. The case is pending in federal court, awaiting a ruling from an appeals court.

EPA has also weighed in on proposed new drilling rules in New York, suggesting improvements the state Department of Environmental Conservation could make and questioning whether the state has the resources to enforce the rules it is proposing. And in Pennsylvania last year, EPA pressed state officials to do more monitoring of Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater. The pressure came after The New York Times reported wastewater was being sent to treatment plants unable to handle the radioactive material it contains. Pennsylvania officials later reported radioactivity tests came back "at or below" safe levels (Greenwire, March 8, 2011).

The agency is doing a multi-year study of the safety of hydraulic fracturing. It will supplant a 2004 study that relied largely on reports from state agencies to conclude hydraulic fracturing presented little risk. This time, EPA has said it will test on its own.
'Out on a limb'?

Dimock is the first of the interventions to take place even after a state investigated and punished a company for environmental violations.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection shut down some of Cabot Oil & Gas Co.'s wells, fined the company and negotiated a $4.1 million settlement in which all of the affected homeowners got at least two times the value of their home, and kept any mineral rights. The state's investigation began after residents in the small community began complaining of cloudy, foul-smelling water in 2008.

Cabot also delivered water to affected homeowners until November, when state regulators agreed it could stop. The residents say their aquifer is still contaminated.

Since November, EPA has flip-flopped several times about how to handle Dimock. First, it said the water posed no health risk, then that it merited more study. Earlier this month, the agency promised to deliver water but reneged within 24 hours.

Then, last week, EPA flipped again. The agency announced it would test 60 wells and deliver water to four homes.

Cabot denies contaminating the wells, saying most wells in the region were laced with methane long before the arrival of drilling. In a letter to Jackson yesterday, Cabot CEO Dan Dinges said "EPA's actions in Dimock appear to undercut the President's stated commitment to this important resource, even in light of EPA's regulatory mission."

The EPA interventions have generated some barbed comments between EPA officials and Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Michael Krancer. First, Krancer sent EPA regional officials a letter stating the agency had only a "rudimentary" understanding of the Dimock situation. He also derided EPA's Pavillion report as a "rush to conclusions." The next day, Jackson told reporters his words were "puzzling" and not helpful to people in Dimock.

John Hanger, who oversaw the Dimock case as head of the Pennsylvania DEP under Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell (D), said he is all for more testing and monitoring. But he said what EPA has found does not necessarily point at contamination from drilling.

"It's unusual for EPA to insert themselves. It does demonstrate the restraint EPA has shown in the past," Hanger said. "Perhaps it demonstrates how far out on a limb they are now."

Locker is not alone in his problems. Louis Meeks lost cattle, horses, and sheep after they drank from contaminated stock tanks.

And there are others. The sparsely populated gas field northeast of Pavillion has become a national focal point in the battle raging between the natural gas industry and  those who say they’ve suffered severe damage due to that industry, from illnesses to contaminated groundwater to loss of property value.

Until now, the gas industry has been able to deflect much of the hue and cry over its alleged poisoning of groundwater sources. Drillers have claimed that there was never any proof that hydraulic fracturing — blasting millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and dangerous chemicals thousands of feet underground to blow open shale deposits to free trapped natural gas — has ever contaminated a single well. In those cases where it’s been apparent that the industry’s actions absolutely did contaminate water supplies — including several cases in North Texas — gas companies have simply bought the properties and had the former owners sign nondisclosure agreements, meaning they can’t say they’ve been bought out because of contamination.

But the argument began to change in 2009, when the Environmental Protection Agency decided to investigate the Pavillion gas field. The EPA action came at the urging of the Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability project, people like Locker and Meeks, and the Powder River Basin Resource Council, an organization devoted to protecting Wyoming’s environment from irresponsible development.

The area was quickly designated an EPA Superfund site, meaning that it has been found to be contaminated with hazardous chemicals and that the EPA will try to determine who is responsible so that they can be legally forced to clean up the mess.

The EPA’s findings, released as a draft last month, clearly lay the blame at the feet of the gas industry and in particular, Encana Corporation, the gas field owner around Pavillion.

The agency found that natural gas and dangerous chemicals were migrating through local aquifers. More importantly the EPA discovered, via its own monitoring wells, that man-made chemicals used exclusively for hydraulic fracturing are showing up in the water.

In other words, these chemicals couldn’t have come from some sort of natural source or even another man-made source, but only from gas drilling. It was the first time that a direct scientific link has been made between gas drilling and groundwater contamination.

Not surprisingly, Encana and the industry are fighting back, arguing that the EPA’s findings are flawed on several grounds. The impact on their industry — and the worldwide natural gas supply situation — could be tremendous, if the EPA’s findings are upheld.

At stake are shale plays all around the country that have not been allowed to proceed until the gas industry proves it can drill without contaminating water supplies. Not to mention the blowback in places like Texas, where landowners across the Barnett Shale and other shale areas could conceivably use the EPA’s findings as a basis for damage suits and  actions to prevent or stop drilling activities. The Natural Resources Defense Council has a list of 36 places around the country — including nine in the Barnett Shale —  where landowners believe that gas fracking has contaminated their water wells.

One of those problem areas in North Texas, involving three homeowners in Hill County, stopped being a problem after the drillers, Williams Production–Gulf Coast Co., purchased all of the affected property. A second local case, involving possible contamination by Range Resources of water wells in Parker County is an ongoing legal battle.

Another contaminated property in North Texas is part of a broader review being conducted by the EPA to be released later this year. Drilling activist Tim Ruggiero said the land he formerly owned in Wise County is included in a review by the EPA of seven regions of the country, regarding fracking’s effects on groundwater. Ruggiero’s land was initially contaminated by a series of spills in 2009 and 2010. Eventually, his water well was poisoned with methane, and the gas also began bubbling up from other sections of his property.

“I don’t think any new science would have changed anything for my family,” he said. “We got them [the EPA] involved early on, but they didn’t even begin to do any testing until the second year of production.”

Deborah Rogers, who brought attention to drilling-related pollution on her Fort Worth-area goat farm several years ago, said she’s not surprised by the industry reaction. “Of course industry is [denying] it,” she said. “The industry stands to lose so much money now. They’ve kept this cat in the bag for so long they have nothing left to do but deny, deny, deny.”

Jerry Lobdill, a retired Fort Worth physicist who has long studied the gas drilling operations around Fort Worth, agreed. “The industry will try to ignore the EPA study and continue with the mantra that there has never been a proven contamination by a gas well. The industry is criminal.”

The groundwater contamination report could turn out to be only the first of several scientific body-blows to the industry. Scientists in Ohio have recently determined that an injection well — the industry’s main method for disposing of its toxic wastes — is the cause of 11 earthquakes there in the last year. The wells shoot the chemical-laden liquid, under extremely high pressure, into formations far below water-bearing strata.

That finding, in turn, comes on the heels of new concerns that sucking out so much gas, as well as extracting vast quantities of water from aquifers to use in drilling, could cause the ground above those aquifers and gas patches to settle. That might not matter much out in the country, but it would be devastating to urban areas that have been heavily drilled, like Fort Worth. In fact, one geologist said, the long history of oil and gas drilling and water extraction in the North Texas geologic zone that includes the Barnett Shale has already led to settling in some parts of the region.

The Powder River Basin, a high-plains region that spans northeast Wyoming and southeast Montana, is home to the largest coal reserves in the U.S. The high mountain desert is also ecologically important, providing habitat to 10 threatened or endangered species. Within the basin’s 24,000 square miles is the Wind River Indian Reservation, home to portions of the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes. The tiny town of Pavillion (population about 170) and its gas field lie within the reservation’s boundaries. Nearby reservation land, outside of the Pavillion gas patch proper, has also been heavily drilled.

The geology of the area is a complex series of sandy crusts folded back on themselves, creating pockets of water and natural gas. Because of the sand pockets, groundwater is not a continuous aquifer. Gas migrates up through the sandy formations in plumes. According to a report by Encana Corp., that occurs because there is no solid cap rock between the deep natural gas deposits and the shallower water-bearing levels. Drillers have brought in gas wells as shallow as 1,100 feet.

The first gas well was drilled in 1960. Locker, who has lived in the area his whole life and bought his current farm in 1988, said his well water was good until about 1998, when Tom Brown Inc., which owned the gas field, began replacing the casing on a well about 1,000 feet from his water source.

“One day while they were working out there, the well just went bad,” he said. “You couldn’t stand to smell it or taste it. I asked the fellow what he’d done to the water, and he denied doing anything. And it’s been a battle ever since.”

His well water “was fine for 10 years ’til it went bad, and when it went bad, it was almost overnight,” he said.

Locker and his family continued to bathe with the water, but he began hauling in drinking water — and kept hauling it for 12 years. At one point he even bought a $10,000 whole-house reverse osmosis unit to clean the contaminated water for bathing. “But I still wouldn’t drink it. Neither would my son. But my wife did. She thought the unit made it drinkable. But about six months after she started drinking it, she got very sick with extreme neuropathy.” That was more than five years ago, he said, and she’s suffered with it ever since. “Nerve damage doesn’t heal; it’s just a question of pain management.”

Encana bought the field in 2004. Between then and the end of 2007, the company drilled 44 new gas wells, bringing the total in the field to 125. The company also inherited several old production pits — large open-air pits dug to store drilling waste, much of it toxic — that Encana never used. The company discovered groundwater contamination seeping from those pits and in 2005 began trying to remediate the problem, a process that’s still going on.

But the presence of a big-name outfit like Encana didn’t put an end to the growing water well contamination in the area.

In late 2004, Meeks, a former gas and oilfield worker, said Encana “drilled a well 500 feet from my house. They completed it — fracked it — in January 2005, and in early February my water went bad.”

When Meeks complained to Encana, he said, the company immediately brought a water tank to his home and hooked it up. “They got the tank to me in March, I think, and they took care of all my house water needs. But then in October they decided it wasn’t their fault my well went bad, and they pulled the tank.”

Meeks brought in a private company to drill a new well, hoping the water would be usable. At the initial completion depth of 180 feet, the water was “horrible. It was filled with floating things, bad smell, just rotten. It was really just production water from the gas drilling.”

Meeks told the water well driller to go deeper. The well reached 540 feet and a new water pocket. “We decided to clean out the hole — we’d already dropped the casing pipe in and had it cemented — to see what kind of water we had,” he said. But when they’d cleaned out the drilling mud and old water with air pressure to about half the water well’s depth, foamy gas began coming up with the water.

“It was thick. If there was a spark, we would have died,” Meeks said. “It came up with the water, and it kept flowing, right over the top of the wellbore. ”

The escaping gas posed enough of a danger that the sheriff’s department closed three roads to keep traffic away. Three days after the gassy water began to escape, Encana plugged Meeks’ well.

“There was so much gas coming out of my water well,” Meeks said, laughing, “that when they plugged it, production on their three closest gas wells tripled.”

Even though he can laugh about it now, Meeks said the situation was terrifying at the time. He could see his home exploding at any minute — but he couldn’t get any help from either Encana or state agencies.

“They called me a troublemaker at first and then a liar,” Meeks said. “Encana actually told people I threatened to shoot the drillers. But I knew I wasn’t wrong. I worked the gas fields. They just didn’t drill this field right. The gas wells were communicating with the water wells. Gas was just flowing into the aquifers.”

Locker, Meeks, and others in the area formed the Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens group to try to get their problems taken seriously. The organization contacted the Powder River Basin Resource Council, which contacted Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project. Together they were finally able to get the attention of the EPA.

In March 2009, the EPA sampled 39 private water wells in the area and two municipal wells. The municipal wells in the town of  Pavillion several miles from the gas field were clean, but 11 of the private water wells were found to have traces of contaminants, including methane, oil, and metals. Three of the wells contained a chemical used in hydraulic fracturing. Residents in the area were told not to drink or cook with the water, and to open the windows in their bathrooms before showering to prevent explosions from a buildup of methane.

Encana, through the Wyoming Rural Water Association, began supplying drinking water to anyone in the area who requested it. Locker gets 75 gallons of drinking water every two weeks.

“Twelve years of hauling water, and the EPA shows up, and suddenly Encana can supply drinking water,” he said. “How about that?”

Shortly after the EPA’s initial report was released, Wilma Subra, the Louisiana biochemist who has been studying the health effects of gas drilling activities for years, conducted a voluntary health report in the area. What she found was an array of problems very much like what she’d already encountered in other shale gas areas, including the North Texas town of DISH and the Marcellus Shale in the northeastern United States.

“The health survey correlated the symptoms of people with the chemicals found in the drinking water and air associated with gas drilling. There were both acute and chronic symptoms, from rashes to headaches to neurological disorders and cancers,” she said. More than 90 percent of the survey participants reported symptoms that are known effects of the chemicals identified in the wells studied by the EPA.

Deb Thomas, spokesperson for the resource council, said that gas field residents were relieved and thrilled that the EPA came in.

“Some of those people had been trying for more than 10 years to get someone to pay attention to their problems, and they were continually told that there were no problems,” she said. “The fact that someone took them seriously, and that science was utilized to determine that something was indeed terribly wrong, was a vindication for them.”

The initial study of the Pavillion gas field was only the start for the EPA. In 2010 the agency declared it a Superfund site and decided to continue to keep tabs on the shallow water wells and to also drill two deep water wells of its own to monitor what was going on. Those wells were drilled to 775 feet, roughly the depth of the deepest domestic water wells in the area, but several hundred feet above the shallowest gas well.

The EPA found that several of the old production pits inherited by Encana were indeed contributing to groundwater contamination of the shallowest water wells, some of which are only about 100 feet deep. According to the EPA draft report released on Dec. 8, “high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and … hydrocarbons” were strong indications that the pits were causing part of the problem.

The shallow groundwater con-tamination from the old production pits had been expected, but there were also problems with deeper water wells not associated with the pits. In several, the EPA “identified contaminants of concern,” including low levels of hydrocarbons and high levels of methane.

While the levels of hydrocarbons and other chemicals were found to be “generally below established health and safety standards,” they were high enough to draw another agency’s concern. The Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, reviewed the EPA data and reiterated the warnings about not drinking the well water or cooking with it and ensuring there was plenty of ventilation while showering.

The EPA determined that the presence of the chemicals in the water was being caused by “migration from areas of gas production” and suggested three ways that migration might be occurring. They included compromised wellbores or poor wellbore casing, frack fluid flowing into porous sandstone formations, and the creation of new fractures or enlargement of existing fractures in the strata during the fracking process, allowing gas and frack fluids to migrate upward. The draft report did not attempt to determine which of the three mechanisms was responsible for the well contamination.

The most serious findings by the EPA came from its own deep monitoring wells. The water from those wells contained high levels of methane, benzene concentrations 50 times above Safe Drinking Water Act standards, and an array of synthetic chemicals “like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracking fluids.”

The implications of the EPA findings could be vast for the gas industry and those who live near the gas fields. While drillers can rectify poorly constructed or compromised wellbores, if fracking can be proven to open up new fractures or widen existing ones, allowing gas and other chemicals to migrate upward and contaminate aquifers, public officials could decide to ban drilling altogether in some places. (Not of course, likely to happen in Texas, where the oil and gas industry wields such power.) In places like New York state, where gas companies want to drill near aquifers that supply New York and New Jersey with drinking water, public reaction against drilling is likely to be strong.

Recognizing the risks they face, the industry is fighting back. Editorials and guest columns on television and in newspapers and hundreds of industry web sites decried the study’s findings.

The Wall Street Journal, on Dec. 20, in an editorial titled “The EPA’s Fracking Scare,” pointed out alleged errors in the study and questioned the integrity of the EPA itself. “Nothing would shut down drilling faster, and destroy billions of dollars of investment, than media interviews with mothers afraid to let their kids brush their teeth with polluted water. So the EPA study needs to be carefully reviewed,” the editorial said. It went on to warn, “The agency is dominated by anti-carbon true believers, and the Obama administration has waged a campaign to raise the price and limit the production of fossil fuels.”

Encana essentially pooh-poohed the entire study. “The EPA found no domestic water wells that have any oil or gas impact,” Encana spokesman Doug Hock told Fort Worth Weekly. “They found traces of diesel range organics. And what was found on further investigation was that none of those diesel range organics were related to oil or gas. They also found methane. But there is a lot of methane near the surface there.”

Hock also derided the deep monitoring well findings. “The EPA dug two deep wells into a gas formation and found gas, which we think is normal,” he said.

He conceded that the production pits’ contaminants might affect shallow groundwater but insisted that they are not in proximity to the gas wells Encana itself has drilled. And, he said, “We’ve been working on remediation of those [pits] for some time.”

In a December press release the company claimed that many of the EPA’s findings from the monitoring wells are “conjecture, not factual, and only serve to trigger undue alarm.” Encana went on to suggest that some of the samples could have been compromised by sloppy collection and handling by the EPA.

Kim Feil, an anti-drilling activist from Arlington, said Encana’s reaction is par for the course. “I’m not even surprised that they [Encana] went so far as to say the EPA testers themselves probably caused the contamination they were reporting.”

The Encana release noted that the EPA’s findings have not yet been scientifically peer-reviewed and suggested they won’t hold up to scrutiny. The EPA responded to that charge by reiterating that the report is a draft, subject to a period of public questioning to be followed by scientific peer-review.

EPA spokesman Larry Jackson, in response to Encana’s charges, told the Weekly that “the deeper part of the drinking water aquifer used by Pavillion residents is highly contaminated with constituents that are best explained as resulting from gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing … . The samples from the wells included not only petroleum-related compounds at very high concentrations, but also synthetic chemicals such as alcohols and glycols that do not occur naturally in groundwater, whether in proximity to a gas field or not. These chemicals are known to have been used in fracturing fluids in this field based on data provided by Encana.”

Richard Mylott, another EPA spokesman, said it’s important to note that “the draft report findings are specific to Pavillion, where … production conditions are different from those in many other parts of the country.”

Pavillion gas wells, for instance, are considerably shallower than those in the Barnett Shale, and they are vertical, not horizontal. Many in the gas industry suggest that even if the EPA findings hold up and a link is established between gas drilling and water contamination in Pavillion, it wouldn’t be applicable in areas of deeper drilling.

Officials with the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees the state’s oil and gas industry, did not respond to an e-mail request asking whether the Pavillion study could affect drilling here. However, commission chairwoman Elizabeth Ames Jones is on the record as saying, “Hydraulic fracturing does not go on close to the surface here, and it would be impossible [for gas or drilling wastes] to migrate up from miles below the earth to the water table.”

Alisa Rich, owner of Wolf Eagle Environmental, which did the air studies for DISH and elsewhere, thinks that is nonsense. “Encana suggests that methane migrates in the Pavillion gas field naturally and leaves it at that. And yes, gas can migrate,” she said. “But most gas has to be stimulated to be released, particularly if the volume of gas increases substantially.”

That stimulation could be caused by underground tremors that open fissures in shale formations. But, Rich said, when water wells have historically never had methane contamination, and suddenly there are large volumes of methane coming up with the water near hydraulic fracking, “then there is a fairly logical hypothesis that can be made that that stimulation had an effect on the geology to cause those increases.”

Even with the deeper gas wells typical in the Barnett, stimulation through fracking could produce the same result, she said. “If someone fracks below an aquifer and that aquifer doesn’t have a confined bottom — if it’s contained in sandstone, for instance — the gas set free could very well migrate up and into that aquifer.”

Rich noted that it would be almost impossible for the man-made chemicals found in the water from Pavillion’s deep monitoring wells to have gotten there except through fracking.

Dozens of cases have been reported around the country of water wells getting contaminated from deep fracking. Amy Mall, a staff member of the National Resources Defense Council, keeps an ongoing list of such contamination reports. Of the 36 cases detailed on her blog, nine are in the Barnett Shale.

“And those are only the cases where people made a public issue of it,” Mall said. “So often we don’t hear about water contamination because the gas companies responsible make a settlement with the affected well owner that includes a non-disclosure agreement.”

How many more cases are out there? A Scientific American article published last October cited a Duke University study from earlier in 2011 that found “methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer [3,280 feet] of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away.”

Calvin Tillman, the former mayor of DISH, at the epicenter of the Barnett Shale, said that he’s glad the EPA has finally gotten into the fray. “I think it’s a big step for a governmental agency to come out and show what everybody has been thinking,” he said. “No one ever had the smoking gun before, and we do. Hopefully that will help improve situations around the country where gas is being drilled.”

Sharon Wilson, coordinator for Earthworks’ Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project and author of the BlueDaze: Drilling Reform web site, said she’s glad that the EPA’s Pavillion study was done. But, she said,  “None of this stuff is new to people who live in the gas patch. We know that gas drilling is contaminating our water and our air. The problem is that ordinary people cannot afford to bear the burden of proof against the richest industry on the planet.”

Wilson sees the EPA’s Pavillion study as a first step in shifting the burden of proof from the affected citizens to the industry, “where it should be. Private citizens shouldn’t have to spend millions of dollars to prove that industry polluted their water.” If the gas industry comes in and pollution follows closely on their heels, she said, “it should be on the backs of the industry to prove that they didn’t cause it.”

She cited the Parker County case, where Range Resources is accused of polluting water wells so badly that residents’ tap water became flammable. “The EPA simply shifted the burden onto Range by issuing an ‘imminent and substantial endangerment’ order and told Range they had to prove they had not polluted those wells.

“The industry claims to have a record of clean work,” she said. “What they really have is a record of pollution and non-disclosure agreements.”

Drilling itself is far from the only source of environmental troubles posed by the shale gas industry. There are two other areas where recent developments are undercutting the industry’s denials of environmental damage — and strengthening the resolve of activists. Both concern what drilling is doing to the stability of the ground itself.

********

The quake in Youngstown, Ohio, hit on New Year’s Eve, but its effects could reverberate far longer and further than the temblor itself.

The 4.0 magnitude quake originated directly below an injection well. The next day, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources shut down the well. It was the 11th earthquake originating below the well site since March 2011 and the strongest.

Injection wells have been suspected of causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and North Texas, but the Youngstown well was the first to be outfitted with sensors to actually track that relationship.

John Armbruster, a seismologist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, was involved in interpreting the findings. “The well opened in December 2010, and the first earthquake occurred three months later,” he said. “In November 2011, after the ninth earthquake happened, Ohio officials asked the university for scientific help.”

Armbruster and his colleagues installed four seismographs in the area. “And then on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve when we recorded earthquakes, we were able to determine that their epicenters were about 3,000 feet directly below where the gas wastewater and chemicals were being injected,” he said.

His team at Columbia monitors earthquakes in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Experience, he said, has drawn his team to “understand the connection between injection wells and earthquakes. Simple reasoning makes you ask if that connection is possible. And as a scientist I have to say this link is accepted.”

Not every injection well is likely to cause quakes, Armbruster said — it depends on the geology. The Youngstown well was operating “only one kilometer from where some earthquakes were waiting to happen. It was an unlucky well.”

On the other hand, he said, every such well should be watched. “If it was up to me, I would monitor every injection well closely, and at the first sign of a [small] earthquake, I’d have them shut down before there were larger ones.

“Right now we’re in a situation where you inject into the well, and if it cries out with earthquakes, then you react,” he said.

The injection wells are more likely to cause quakes than the gas wells themselves, the seismologist said, because the waste-disposal wells are drilled so much deeper.

He also noted another potential geological danger associated with gas drilling. In areas where there has been heavy drilling or where huge quantities of water have been removed from an aquifer, the land might subside.

“Try to picture Southern California’s Imperial Valley. They’ve sucked so much water out of the aquifer there for so long that the entire valley has sunk about 30 feet,” he said. “I have not studied the Fort Worth situation, but it’s not impossible that there might one day be potential geological problems with sucking so much gas and water from beneath the city. If it settled, let’s say, 20 feet, certainly that could potentially cause serious problems. Would floors crack? Walls crack?”

The issue hasn’t gotten much coverage, but it’s not new either. More than a decade ago the U.S. Geological Survey released a paper noting that more than 17,000 square miles in 45 states had been affected by land subsidence and pinpointing water extraction as a cause of 80 percent of that. But mining for hydrocarbons was also mentioned as a reason: Subsidence in the Goose Creek oilfield near Galveston was first noted in the mid-1920s, for instance.

Fracking for gas severely affects the underground pressure of both aquifers and gas-bearing shale. On average, it takes three to five million gallons of water to frack a well in the Barnett Shale, and then huge amounts of gas are extracted, changing the pressure levels in underground geologic formations.

“It’s certainly possible that you’re going to have subsidence problems in Fort Worth,” said Lynn Highland, a geographer with the U.S.G.S. She said it is very difficult to predict where it would occur because of the time and expense needed to study the underground geology of an area. “But when you take that much water out of the ground and that much gas, you’re changing the integrity of what’s going on with the geology,” she said. “And once you do that, let’s just say that homeowners quickly find out that they’re generally not covered by homeowner’s insurance when subsidence occurs.”

Mark Engle, a research geologist with the same agency, said that subsidence is already happening in the Fort Worth Basin, a region that’s been heavily drilled for oil and gas for a long time, with fracking only the latest new twist. “So the question is how much more will occur because of hydraulic water fracturing? There is no way around the fact that we’re removing the infrastructure of the geology.”

********

In January 2011, Encana asked the EPA to suspend public comment on the draft report because the company did not get all of the data the EPA had used in compiling it. Two weeks later, the Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens wrote to the EPA urging the agency to continue its investigation in the area. That sentiment was supported by both Earthworks’ OGAP and the Powder River Basin Resource Council.

In their letter, Gwen Lachelt, director of Earthworks’ OGAP, called the accusations that the EPA is withholding data “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.”

“The people of Pavillion are living on a pool of bubbling, frothing, toxic chemicals,” said Powder River spokesman Thomas. “It’s a very dangerous situation. I strongly believe that all those affected should have the opportunity to leave if they want to leave.”

“Everybody says I should leave,” Meeks said. “I know I should leave. But where would I get the money to buy another place? Everything I’ve got is wrapped up in this place, and I couldn’t sell it because it’s worthless now. And I’m angry. I have nothing against oil and gas if it’s done right. But done the way it’s been done here, well, it’s a human-rights violation.”

Longtime Fort Worth activist Don Young, who sounded the alarm on gas drilling when it first began here, isn’t surprised by either the pollution left in the wake of the gas drilling at Pavillion or the industry’s howls.

“I’m glad the EPA is there, and I hope they keep their investigation going, but what the industry is doing, and has always done, is plant the seed of doubt in the public’s mind: ‘The water is not our problem. Air contamination is not our problem. Earthquakes are not our problem.’ And it’s been an effective campaign, even though it’s a lie.

“I’m glad to see the EPA is finally planting a seed itself, that there is a connection between the contamination and the drilling,” he said. “It’s too bad those people had to suffer like that before that connection was made.

“What I said years ago remains true today: We can’t drink natural gas.”

Statement of Earthworks' Executive Director Jennifer Krill

“In tonight’s State of the Union speech, President Obama promoted increased, environmentally safe natural gas production to meet our nation’s energy needs.  President Obama is right that we don’t have trade energy production for the environment, but only if we wait for the science necessary to make informed decisions about how, where and whether to drill. 

But his statement tonight made no mention of a growing body of evidence that drilling has serious known consequences, and much of those impacts have yet to be studied. Promoting gas production in the face of such evidence effectively prioritizes the profits of the oil and gas industry over the communities’ health, their drinking water, and the environment. 

In December, the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft study that tentatively confirms hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater and drinking water wells.  The gas industry has argued the opposite, putting communities and the environment at risk.

In November, the President’s own Shale Gas Advisory Panel advised that “…. 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…”

In November, the Scientific American – the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States and 2011 National Magazine Award winner -- editorialized that “drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe”.

The President should be putting communities first.  But by promoting increased gas drilling when his own advisors and the scientific establishment tell him that we have neither the science nor the oversight to ensure safe drilling, he is not.

We need answers before action.  The sensible path forward is not putting our fate in the hands of the drilling industry, but investing in renewables and efficiency.

While the President’s call for mandatory disclosure of drilling toxics on public lands is welcome, it is bittersweet.  The reason his call is necessary is special loopholes in the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air, and Clean Water Acts allow drillers to hide their toxics in the first place.  If the President wanted to inform all Americans, he would have required toxics disclosure nationwide by closing these loopholes.”  

-- ENDS --

“It could have an impact on jobs,” said Doug Hock, spokesman for Encana, a major natural gas and oil producer.

Construction projects can be held up for a year waiting for the state health department to start reviewing an application.

The permits cover condensate tanks, dehydrators that take the liquid out of natural gas, valves and pumps on pipelines, compressors, engines, drill rigs and other equipment. The applications detail how much the equipment will pollute, and what control equipment will keep the contamination in check.

“Every company is affected,” said Tisha Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. “If you don’t have a permit, you can’t construct.”

Encana and the industry association, however, credit Gov. John Hickenlooper’s administration for working to solve the problem. Six temporary engineers have been hired, and so far they have cut the backlog from a peak of 2,000 to 1,800, said Will Allison, director of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.

“The state has been really responsive,” Schuller said, not just adding staff but also helping companies learn the system to get the paperwork right the first time, she said.

But even those six additional engineers won’t be able to eliminate the backlog until the end of 2012, Allison said.

The backlog is the result of a 70 percent jump in applications, from 164 to 284 per month from 2008 to 2010. The division has told the Legislature it needs 20 permanent new staffers.

Meanwhile, Colorado is expecting a further surge in natural gas and oil exploration, particularly in the Niobrara shale area, which is centered on Weld County but reaches across Northern Colorado and south to Colorado Springs. Major players including Anadarko and Noble Energy have announced plans to spend billions of dollars on thousands of new wells in the Niobrara area. These plans were driven by large hits off wells that use relatively new horizontal drilling techniques to tap a thin, widespread layer of oil under Colorado.

All this new activity leads to concern that the state’s air pollution will worsen, especially ground-level ozone, which exacerbates asthma and bronchitis and can damage plant life.

Natural gas and oil operations are only one of many sources of ozone. They emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which combine in sunlight to create ozone.

Allison said Colorado has made great progress on reducing most types of air pollution, and the state is compliant on federal limits – except for ozone in Denver and Fort Collins. He said the rules will keep pollution in check despite the boom in natural gas and oil .

“We have a good handle on it,” he said.

Allison credited a Colorado law that is switching a number of power plants from coal to natural gas. That strategy will cut tens of thousands of tons of pollutants from the air – and allow a growing economy to emit smaller amounts of pollutants from other sources, including natural-gas and oil facilities, he said.

But environmentalists like Jeremy Nichols of Wild Earth Guardians say the state isn’t being tough enough.

“They’re issuing all these permits and Denver is in violation,” he said.

Greeley, Rocky Mountain National Park, Aspen Park southwest of Denver, Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs all have experienced spikes over 75 parts per billion ozone in 2011 that didn’t qualify as violations.

“The science says we need to be doing a lot better” on limiting ozone to keep humans healthy, Nichols said.

The Obama Administration was expected to lower the standard to the 60-70 ppb range but has delayed that decision until 2013, he said. The issue could be decided by the outcome of the presidential election, he added.

To keep the sudden jump in drilling and production from exacerbating the state’s air pollution, companies must submit detailed applications for air-pollution permits.

“It’s a huge amount of work,” said Schuller.

New federal regulations due in February are expected to partly mirror Colorado’s laws but also extend the reach of the permitting process to additional sources of pollution, said Bruce Baizel, a Durango attorney for Earthworks Oil and Gas Accounting Project.

And the large companies betting their necks on the success of this deep-earth natural gas drilling process know they're facing an uphill climb in the PR department. That's why certain outfits are pulling out all the stops. As representatives from two energy concerns recently boasted at an industry conference in Houston, they've decided to tap the psychological and military techniques employed by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The comments are getting a lot of circulation among fracking critics nationwide, but it just so happens both companies have footprints in Ohio.

The comments were recorded in November by an environmental activist with the Oil & Gas Accountability Project named Sharon Wilson, who subsequently leaked the tapes to various media outlets. According to Business Insider (they've also posted the actual recordings), Wilson was open about who she was and her agenda while attending.

During a forum called “Designing a Media Relations Strategy To Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing,” the communications director with Texas-based Range Resources, Matt Pitzarella, told the crowd his company had hired former military psy ops officers to further their cause in Pennsylvania, where the company has focused most of its fracking attention on the Marcellus shale deposits curving through the state's mid-section.

    We have several former psy ops folks that work for us at Range because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments. Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania.

If all Range is paying former psy ops folks for is working on local ordinances, they're not getting the right bang for their buck. Psy ops — shorthand for psychological operations — is a select section of the military specializing in mind games; one U.S. Army officer who led a team defined the practice to Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings in a February 2011 article as follows: "My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave.”

Hastings' article goes on to state that it's actually illegal for active military personnel to practice the tactics on American citizens.

    According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops — the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors — are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It’s what you learn on day one."

Private sector — guess that's another story.

Like we said above, Range apparently focuses most of its attention over the border in Pennsylvania, but up until two years ago, the company owned significant acreage in Ohio. In early 2010, Range sold more than 465,000 Buckeye acres — around 3,300 natural gas wells — to EnerVest, another Texas-based energy company. We put a call in to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to check if Range still has any permits for drilling in the Buckeye state. We'll update with more info.

But a second casual revelation caught on tape at the Houston conference does directly apply to a company currently rolling up its sleeves in Ohio. During a talk titled (take a deep breath now) “Understanding How Unconventional Oil & Gas Operators are Developing a Comprehensive Media Relations Strategy to Engage Stakeholders and Educate the Public,” Matt Carmichael, the manager of external affairs with Anadarko Petroleum Corp, suggested the following to fellow industry insiders:

    Download the U.S. Army-slash-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency. There’s a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background, I found the insight in that extremely remarkable.

The text he's talking about, known as the FM 3-24, was the General David Petraeus-penned bible of the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It memorably posits a insurgency as the “common approach used by the weak to combat the strong” — which, when you consider we're talking here about a bunch of college students waving placards pitched against massive corporations, changes the connotations a little bit.

The next site for the face-off between Anadarko and this environmentalist fifth column element is likely going to be Ohio. According to the Dow Jones Newswires, the company acquired permits from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in September 2011. The initial reports said the paperwork was for drilling sections of Utica shale in Guernsey County, laying in the central-eastern part of the state. The exact size of the companies holdings in the state were not listed.

Psy ops. Counterinsurgency — whatever you might think about fracking and other natural gas drilling techniques, this full-court press means hauling out the big guns designed specifically for war zones, not winning over the local town council vote. Seeing how the military versions of these kinds of campaigns are usually complemented with some late night black baggin', we'll see how it works out.

JOINT RELEASE: Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project * Powder River Basin Resource Council * Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens

Pavillion, Wyoming, Jan 17 – Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens (PACC) today denounced attacks from the oil and gas industry and the state of Wyoming in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding its investigation of contaminated drinking water wells in Pavillion, Wyoming. EPA test results show that hazardous chemicals, commonly used in oil and gas development, contaminated the wells. 

Powder River Basin Resource Council and Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project applauded PACC for its letter and today launched a national sign on letter campaign urging the EPA to continue with its rigorous investigation and to identify the cause of the contamination.

In December 2011 the EPA released the draft report of its scientific investigation into the connection between oil and gas development and contamination of drinking water wells. After initial testing in August 2010, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) urged residents not to drink their water or use it for cooking. If EPA’s draft is finalized with its current conclusions, it will definitively refute the oil and gas industry’s claim that hydraulic fracturing has never contaminated drinking water wells.

“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,” said John Fenton, Powder River Basin Resource Council Board Member and Chair of Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens.

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 public 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. Also last week, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming and Wyoming Water Development Commission accused the EPA of not following its own water-testing protocols by holding several water well samples two days too long before conducting tests.
 
Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, Powder River Basin Resource Council, and Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project have long fought to require the regulation of fracking and full and public disclosure of the chemicals used in drilling operations.

“These accusations are a political ploy to cover-up the results and bring a halt to the study,” said Gwen Lachelt, director of Earthworks’ OGAP. “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,” Lachelt stated.

“The EPA is conducting a scientifically sound investigation of the contamination in the Pavillion area,” said Wilma Subra, chemist, president of Subra Company, and board member of the State Review of Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER). “Holding the samples for a longer time did not compromise the results. If anything, longer hold times make the results less likely to indicate contamination,” Subra stated.
 
“The American public needs to see this for what it is, a planned assault to undermine the Pavillion study and smear the EPA.” said Deb Thomas with Powder River Basin Resource Council, “EnCana did get one thing right.  The state of Wyoming should hold their own testing events to the same standards they’re demanding from EPA.  The state’s test results should publicly release all critical information, including all the Report-related raw data. That would allow all parties and citizens to understand what regulated and non-regulated chemicals are being found in our drinking water and aquifers.  ”

The area under investigation just east of Pavillion is home to about 160 residents in the middle of the Wind River Indian Reservation, 150 miles east of Grand Teton National Park. Residents share their farming operations with over 200 oil and gas wells that surround their homes. 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 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.

"We thought it was just an exploration thing and the fracking wouldn't start until they put a line in to take the gas away," Colleyville resident, Edward Mitchell said.

Mitchell lives along Pleasant Run Road where the fracking is scheduled to begin later this month. He says he is worried about safety and possible emissions from the controversial process.

"The safety does worry me because I have a daughter."

The hydraulic fracturing process involves pumping water under high pressure into the well to crack the shale and release the trapped gas. Critics will argue the process is tied to everything from groundwater contamination to air pollution, including the release of toxic emissions.

"It is not a question of if the people in those (Colleyville) neighborhoods will be exposed, it is a question of when and how high the levels will be," Sharon Wilson, founder of Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, said.

Wilson, who writes a blog critical of the gas industry says recent fracking in Flower Mound and Arlington led to dozens of health complaints.

"People complained of burning eyes, headaches, sinus irritation and other issues. These emissions travel far out into our neighborhoods."

In reports, officials with Titan have said that if there is incinerating to remove fracking chemicals it will be done as safely as possible, but residents still hope for a pipeline. The Colleyville city council will discuss the issue Tuesday. City officials would not comment further

Mining claims for copper, gold, uranium and other minerals cover millions of those acres, and the law, now 140 years old, makes it nearly impossible to block extraction, no matter how serious the potential consequences. Soaring metal prices are now driving new mine proposals across the West.

Oregon’s Chetco River is one example. The river’s gin-clear waters teem with wild trout and salmon, including giant Chinook salmon tipping scales at more than 60 pounds. In 1988, Congress designated the Chetco a national wild and scenic river “to be protected for the benefit of present and future generations.”

But the river is now threatened by proposals to mine gold along almost half of its approximately 55-mile length. Suction dredges would vacuum up the river bottom searching for gold, muddying water and disrupting clean gravel that salmon need to spawn. Despite the Chetco’s rich fishery and status as a wild and scenic river, the United States Forest Service is virtually powerless to stop the mining because of the 1872 law.

As Michael P. Dombeck, a former chief of the Forest Service, explained to a Senate committee in 2008, “it is nearly impossible to prohibit mining under the current framework of the 1872 mining law, no matter how serious the impacts might be.”

Under the law, mining companies — not the government — decide whether and where to file their claims on public land. (National parks, monuments and wilderness areas are excluded.) Federal agencies review the plans, but they are approved as a matter of course. Mining companies pledge to protect rivers threatened by their operations. But the industry’s track record hardly inspires confidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that headwater streams in 40 percent of Western watersheds are polluted by mining. A scientific review in 2006 of 25 modern Western mines by the environmental group Earthworks found that more than three-fourths resulted in water contamination. Over all, the E.P.A. has estimated that it will cost $20 billion to $54 billion to clean up abandoned mine sites.

As fisheries scientists, we are deeply concerned about the impact mining has had on our nation’s dwindling fisheries and the inadequacy of the 1872 law to regulate modern mining. In contrast to the pick-and-shovel operations of a century ago, most modern mines are large-scale operations that use toxic chemicals to extract metals from the ore, and they generate vast amounts of mine waste. After these mines close, treating the polluted water in perpetuity is often necessary.

At Oregon’s Formosa mine, for instance, toxic metal-laden drainage from mines is contaminating 18 miles of prime salmon habitat. In Montana, the Zortman Landusky Mine has polluted a dozen streams with arsenic, selenium and other harmful metals. The acidic runoff will continue for centuries.

Last year, the Kensington mine in Alaska was permitted to dispose of toxic mine waste directly into a freshwater lake, decimating its native fish population. The Rock Creek and Montanore mines are proposing to tunnel under the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in Montana. Scientists predict that these mines will deplete flows in wilderness streams, including essential habitat for the region’s threatened bull trout.

At the request of members of the Oregon Congressional delegation, the Forest Service proposed to withdraw a portion of the Chetco River temporarily from the jurisdiction of the 1872 mining law while seeking additional protection. This type of stopgap effort highlights the need for a comprehensive overhaul of the archaic law.

In a 2010 paper published in the journal Fisheries, we recommended important mining policy changes. Federal land managers must have discretion to balance mining with other land uses, and say “no” to mine proposals when necessary. No mines should be approved that can result in perpetual water pollution. There should be clear environmental standards, requirements to restore fish and wildlife habitat to pre-mining conditions and sufficient reclamation bonds to cover the full cost of cleanup. A dedicated source of funding should be established to pay for cleanup of the thousands of abandoned mines that continue to pollute our streams.

The mining industry has powerful friends in Washington, however, and nothing has come of our proposals or of other reform efforts. Now Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, is pushing a measure that would require mining companies to pay a royalty equal to what other industries have been paying for decades, provide safeguards for clean water and give communities and agencies a say about where mining is permitted.

The bill merits broad bipartisan support. It is unwise to let this 140-year-old law continue to operate at the expense of clean water, healthy fisheries, public lands and taxpayer dollars. America’s mining law must be brought into the 21st century.

Robert M. Hughes and Carol Ann Woody are fisheries scientists based in Corvallis, Ore., and Anchorage, respectively.

"We have been entrusted to care for and protect our precious environmental and cultural resources, and we have chosen a responsible path that makes sense for this and future generations," Salazar said as he announced the Public Land Order and signed a Record of Decision Monday during a ceremony held at the National Geographic Museum in Washington, D.C.

In a news release, the Department of Interior said, "The withdrawal does not prohibit previously approved uranium mining, new projects that could be approved on claims and sites with valid existing rights."

"The withdrawal would allow other natural resource development in the area, including mineral leasing, geothermal leasing and mineral materials sales, to the extent of applicable land use plans," the agency noted.

Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey said, "The withdrawal maintains the pace of hardrock mining, particularly uranium near the Grand Canyon, but also gives the department a chance to monitor the impacts associated with the uranium mining in this area. It preserves the ability of future decision-makers to make thoughtful decisions about managing this area of national environmental and cultural significance based on the best information available."

The BLM forecasts that up to 11 uranium mines, including four that are currently approved, could still be developed based on valid pre-existing rights-"meaning the jobs supported by mining in the area would increase or remain flat as compared to the current level..."

"Without the withdrawal, there could be 30 uranium mines in the area over the next 20 years, including the four that are currently approved, with as many as six operating at one time," according to the BLM's environmental impact statement.

However, National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn countered, "The administration's announcement is not supported by the findings of its own impact analysis, which provided no evidence to justify a massive withdrawal of land outside the Grand Canyon National Park. The department's environmental impact statement concluded future mining activity is unlikely to have significant impacts on the park, the surrounding environment or on allied tourism."

"These are among the reasons the department's expert advisory council in Arizona opposed the withdrawal," Quinn observed.

U.S. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, called the decision "a misguided effort to impose ‘buffer zones' around national parks and other federal lands that effectively lock-up vast areas without Congressional approval."

"This type of unilateral extension of the borders of the park is unjustified and sets a terrible precedent," she declared.

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hasting (R-Washington State), said, "Safe and responsible mining of this land could have produced thousands of high paying, family wage mining jobs. The United States is already 90 percent dependent on foreign sources of uranium and this decision only exacerbates our foreign dependence by locking up our own clean energy resources."

Hastings observed that "studies have shown that uranium mining outside of the park's border can be done safely with negligible environmental impacts. We can responsibly mine while still protecting the environment."

"It doesn't have to be the all or nothing approach that the Administration has unfortunately decided to take," he added.

However, House National Parks Subcommittee Ranking Member Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, said, "As elected leaders of our state we should be standing shoulder to shoulder to protect the Grand Canyon, instead of shilling for outside interests and their short-term profits."

"It is not in our national security interest to jeopardize this critical ecosystem or put at risk a water supply relied on by 25 million Americans," he added. "Cities all across the Southwest, including Las Vegas, Phoenix and my hometown of Tucson, rely on the Colorado River watershed for their water supply."

Jane Danowitz, U.S. public lands director for the Pew Environmental Group, said, "Today's action to safeguard the Grand Canyon reflects overwhelming public support and input from prominent scientists, elected officials, and business community leaders."

"The nation's antiquated mining law, however, still gives this industry unfettered access to the majority of public lands in the West-putting at risk other national parks, monuments, and forests," she added. "We hope the Obama Administration will work with Congress now to reform the 1872 Mining Law so that other American treasures are also protected."

"I congratulate the Obama Administration for making the right decision and protecting this iconic area from the 30 uranium mines that could have been built without this ban," said Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks. Krill also called for reform of the "antiquated 1872 Mining Law."

"Heroic measures like Secretary Salazar's decision should not be needed to protect a place as special as the Grand Canyon," she stressed. Earthworks noted that Congress could overturn the DOI's withdrawal, but added "it is unlikely a measure to do so would receive enough bipartisan support to pass."

WASHINGTON – After a nearly four-year battle to safeguard the Grand Canyon, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that the area surrounding the National Park would be protected from new mining for 20 years. Conservation organizations across the country applauded the Obama administration for taking action, while recognizing the important leadership role Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has played in protecting this national treasure.

“I congratulate the Obama administration for making the right decision and protecting this iconic area from the 30 uranium mines that could have been built without this ban,” said Jennifer Krill, Executive Director of Earthworks. “Tourists come to Grand Canyon to see natural beauty, not polluted mine sites. Why mess with a good thing?”

The Grand Canyon is currently threatened by over 1000 uranium mining claims near its borders. This withdrawal will ban new claim staking in one million acres of National Forest land around the Grand Canyon.  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.

Despite these risks, uranium mining is ineffectively governed by a patchwork of laws, including partial regulation under the archaic 1872 Mining Law, an outdated statute that ignores modern public values and economic activities such as tourism or water in favor of mining, regarded as “the highest and best use” of federal land.

“This withdrawal demonstrates the overwhelming need to reform the antiquated 1872 Mining Law,” said Krill. “Heroic measures like Secretary Salazar’s decision should not be needed to protect a place as special as the Grand Canyon.”

After the House of Representatives passed emergency withdrawal measures to protect the area around the Canyon from mining in 2008, 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.

"This momentous decision illustrates that there are some places that are just too precious to put at risk for uranium mining pollution,” said Krill.

Though a provision exists in law that allows Congress to overturn the final decision for this withdrawal, it is unlikely a measure to do so would receive enough bipartisan support to pass.

# # #

They were outnumbered by other Flower Mound residents who favored natural gas drilling in town. They called Vajda names.

“My husband asked me why I did this,” Vajda said. After one brutal meeting in late 2009 — when some mineral owners called her a Zionist and a tree-hugging liberal — he all but stopped coming to meetings with her.

That night, in January 2010, the tables were turning.

More than 600 people filled the council chambers. The overflow room was standing room only. People stood in the foyer and the hallways. Crowds of people stood in the parking lot, waiting to get inside for their chance to speak.

“It was a watershed moment,” Vajda said.

Now residents were angry that the Town Council had rejected a moratorium on new drilling permits. Now Vajda sat in the employee break room with some of the same people who had called her names.

Now that they were outnumbered, she wanted to ask them how it felt. But she didn’t.

Vajda and her friends took a page from the same playbook that the gas industry had used to get so many people to sign leases. In late 2009, they printed out fliers and went door to door, explaining the potential impacts of shale gas production.

They convinced some people not to sign. From others who had already leased, Vajda learned that land men had enlisted at least one neighbor to cash in the trust he had in the neighborhood to help make deals. Then he moved away, Vajda said. 

Vajda and the others had tailored their message. Men wanted to talk about money. How much would leasing really bring? Would it affect their home value? Women listened to concerns about health and safety.

One woman called Vajda after finding the flier on her front door. They knew each other through their daughters’ school. Vajda spent a long time listening to the woman’s doubts. She couldn’t believe that natural gas drilling and production would be allowed anywhere in Flower Mound. She would not be convinced that it was going on right under her nose, Vajda said.

Vajda sent her links to various pages on the town’s website and blogs about gas production in Flower Mound.

“This wasn’t something that was written about in the mayor’s monthly message,” Vajda said.

Vajda was not surprised at the news that some of the shale gas companies had promoted military-style psychological operations in communities where they worked. She and other Barnett Shale area residents have seen the tactics that blur the line between information and influence in local governance.

During a November conference for public relations professionals in the shale gas industry in Houston, some practitioners encouraged their peers to adopt counterinsurgency tactics. An employee of an environmental group registered for and attended the event, and later released her personal recordings after becoming concerned about what she heard.

One company representative told peers to motivate people to come out on their behalf and give them “language that they can use to engage their neighbors.” He also told peers that his company found psy-ops veterans — soldiers who served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and trained in psychological techniques — were well-suited to “help folks develop local ordinances.”

Another representative called shale gas critics an “insurgency.” He told peers to download and follow The U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps’Counterinsurgency Field Manual and Rumsfeld’s Rules, a document filled with quotes from the former U.S. secretary of defense.

Vajda and others in Texas have seen the results that may have come from the tactics. When neighbor is pitted against neighbor, it manifests not only in heated shouting matches but also in a long-simmering distrust. As homeowners grow fearful of diminishing values, they try to hang on to their property rights, only to see the mineral rights taken away through a twist of state law. Local governance battles go in remission only to re-emerge with the next concession the industry needs to stay profitable.

Market prices for natural gas have tumbled since summer, hovering around $3 per thousand cubic feet, or MCF. Shale gas producers have often said production becomes uneconomical when gas goes below $5 to $7 per MCF. That $5 to $7 level has not been seen in years and is not anticipated in the near future. The Energy Information Administration projects an average of $4.13 per MCF in 2012.

In 2010, the nation used about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for cooking, heating and generating electricity.

About 20 percent of the state’s 3,110 billion cubic feet of shale gas produced in 2009 came from the core counties of the Barnett Shale in North Central Texas — Denton, Johnson, Tarrant and Wise — according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

By 2030, the nation could get half its natural gas from shale, according to analysts at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. Operators are drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, in the Haynesville Shale of East Texas and Louisiana, and in shale formations in more than 30 other states.

Some producers are gearing up to export natural gas to China, India and elsewhere.

Politics without principles

Martin Garza stepped to the microphone inside a crowded civic center and cleared his throat.

For more than an hour, the oil and gas industry attorney had listened to Denton residents worried about how gas drilling affected the air they breathe, the water they drink and the value of their homes and land. The city’s gas drilling task force called the meeting in August to get input from residents on the issue, and an overwhelming majority of speakers favored tougher regulations.

Garza didn’t like what he heard.

“I hope that the city welcomes all views, but in doing that it really needs to be all views … and not such narrow focus as I’ve heard this evening,” he said.

Garza, a partner with the Dallas law firm K&L Gates, said he’d helped cities write ordinances on the industry’s behalf since 2001 and believed Denton needed help from operators and industry attorneys to flesh out the issues and avoid misunderstandings.

“Misunderstandings do lead to lawsuits,” he said.

Cities frequently revise ordinances with little direct participation of those affected. Corinth, for example, spent nearly a year updating its ordinances for sexually oriented businesses without participation by that industry — one that has frequently sued cities for rules meant to protect public health, safety and property values.

However, when area residents have asked for tougher review and regulations of the natural gas industry, industry representatives offer to assist city councils or their appointees to draft such regulations, an offer many city officials seem reticent to refuse.

Ponder, for example, wanted to fast-track its updates in early 2011, after Devon began drilling next to its largest neighborhood. Devon’s representatives frequently offered their assistance during the process, including presenting the Town Council with the company’s edits to the ordinance the night the council was scheduled to adopt the new rules.

Denton started work on an ordinance overhaul in 2009 amid public anger over the City Council’s vote to let Range Resources drill inside the Rayzor Ranch development near homes, a city park and a hospital. Some council members said they opposed drilling at the location but feared the company would follow through on a threat to sue if they denied it.

It was Range Resources’ director of corporate communications and public affairs, Matt Pitzarella, who told fellow conferees of his company’s discovery that psy-ops veterans were well-suited for local community work. Pitzarella did not return a call for comment.

City leaders have treaded carefully ever since the legal threat, inviting industry-related representatives to serve alongside city staff and residents on a drilling task force to help write a new code.

Industry representatives were quick to volunteer for the panel, although not everyone who volunteered was picked, said Mark Cunningham, the city’s planning director.

“They want to be there so they can evaluate what’s being proposed so that it doesn’t amount to overkill and to ensure we understand the processes involved in their operations,” he said.

Residents involved in the push for stronger regulations said they feared the task force was tilted in the industry’s favor. Council member Kevin Roden, who campaigned last year on tougher drilling regulations, helped form a separate advisory committee to seek more public input.

“I’ve always been interested in a very robust citizen involvement in a process like this,” Roden said. “Anytime you have a town hall meeting on this, it’s not like you have a ton of citizens coming out in support of more gas drilling in Denton. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.”

Industry representatives have sat on ordinance committees from the smallest towns, such as Bartonville, to the largest cities of the shale, including Flower Mound, Fort Worth and Dallas, as they rewrote rules.

Corinth appointed three residents as voting members of a committee that rewrote its ordinance, none with ties to the industry.

Before adopting the ordinance, the Corinth City Council asked its planning director to draw a map similar to one drawn after the city adopted an ordinance forbidding a registered sex offender from residing within 2,500 feet of certain protected uses. Although the setback for gas production from protected uses was shorter — 1,000 feet in most cases — the maps were similar. They showed the activity limited to only a few areas of the city.

In the last legislative session, Texas cities saw the defeat of House Bill 3105, which would have limited what little authority cities have to regulate the industry locally. Similar legislation to limit a city’s authority has been introduced in Pennsylvania.

Wealth without work

In walking their neighborhoods around the Hilliard pad site in Flower Mound, Vajda and others convinced enough people not to lease that the operator, Titan Operating, had to ask state regulators for an exception.

Operators are supposed to make a good faith effort to secure leases from all the mineral owners where they plan to drill. In some neighborhoods, like Vajda’s, some homeowners have refused to lease to try to protect their property values.

But once operators secure enough leases in an area for a unit, they can ask the Texas Railroad Commission for a Rule 37 hearing on the unleased portions. Getting an exception to the rule, ostensibly to minimize the waste of natural resources, allows the operator to drill and not pay those mineral owners who haven’t leased. Statewide, between August 2008 and September 2011, the Railroad Commission has granted 6,683 exceptions under Rule 37. Some well sites have had more than one exception granted, according to commission spokeswoman Ramona Nye.

Flower Mound resident Eric Jellison told Vajda and other landowners around the Hilliard site that he would help them fight the exception by paying for an attorney to represent them at a Railroad Commission hearing in Austin. He wanted to learn the process “backwards and forwards,” he said, so when a Rule 37 fight came to his neighborhood, he would know what to do.

“I didn’t care why people didn’t sign, the reasons why they didn’t want it — whether it was health concerns or property values,” Jellison said. “People don’t like being bullied into it — saying, ‘Sign or we’ll steal it.’ Fine, you may win, but you’re gonna have to fight for it.”

The company did win. Vajda and her husband would never see any money, but the small amount didn’t matter to her, she said.

Jellison also heard the news that people like him had been labeled “insurgents” at the industry conference.

“I find it ironic,” Jellison said. “They are the outsiders coming in, going against the local municipality — the established government people are living with. They don’t have any permanent business here. Anyone like that is deemed, by definition, an insurgent.”

It was Matt Carmichael, manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum Corp., who recommended at the conference that public relations professionals download and read the Army’s counterinsurgency manual. Anadarko is active in the Haynesville Shale of East Texas and the Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas.

Carmichael did not return a call for comment.

Jellison’s wife, Virginia, ran for Flower Mound Town Council and lost by a narrow margin in 2008. By 2010, the political scene turned vicious, with some shale gas operators right in the thick of it, Vajda said.

Keystone Exploration wrote a letter to its royalty owners endorsing the incumbents in April 2010. The company characterized residents like Vajda and Jellison as anti-drilling activists who would do all they could to limit the industry.

“These activists will directly affect your minerals’ value and our ability to produce gas,” Keystone officials wrote.

Keystone President and CEO Tom Blanton did not return a call for comment.

In the Southeast Texas town of Cuero, the heart of the new Eagle Ford Shale boom, Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger is watching the results of the tactics in her community.

“Everybody wants the money,” said Riebschlaeger, a Catholic nun and community activist.

People didn’t know at first this boon was not the same as the oil rush of the 1950s. Tapping a pool of oil, you can be anywhere on top, Riebschlaeger said. Driving State Highway 183 from Gomez to Cuero after her prison ministry visits, she often sees four to five new wells in Eagle Ford, along with huge storage facilities because there aren’t enough pipelines. 

“Now there has to be many wells,” she said. “You get engulfed.”

Some friends and neighbors have figured out the public relations tactics, she said. They won’t be bullied, but they also see the operators hiring local cleanup crews and gravel haulers, or buying local, including buying water from ranchers.

“They [residents] know if they complain to the Railroad Commission or the EPA, they could stop doing business with them,” she said. “It’s said very quietly, ‘Don’t expect any business,’ or ‘If I talk to you, I’ll lose business with my company.’”

The Jellisons got direct threats, Eric Jellison said.

During a Town Council meeting, a sitting council member told them he would run them out of town for their stance on property rights.

The couple received two anonymous, untraceable calls; one threatened his wife’s insurance business, and the other threatened to get all the oil and gas customers to pull out of his software business, he said.

“If someone has nothing better to do than sit at a phone and call those customers I’ve had great relationships with for all these years, then they could have at it,” Jellison said.

Nothing came of it, he said.

Commerce without morality

After Chesapeake Energy began approaching property owners in Lakeside, population 1,500, on the northwest side of Lake Worth, resident Ute Mercado heard from people living elsewhere in the city that the company was difficult to deal with.

At first, she didn’t find that to be true at all. The company’s representatives were professional, well spoken and respectful, she said. Chesapeake’s materials were well written.

However, as the time came closer for the city to approve the permits to drill this spring, communication deteriorated, she said.

“I always felt like it was pulling teeth to get answers to our questions,” Mercado said. “They would barely answer our questions.”

After drilling began and various problems occurred, including promises and pledges to the community that were not kept, complaints got addressed in ways that just made people angrier, she said.

Neighbors wondered whether there was any consequence to company employees who were found trespassing, but had lied by identifying themselves as working for the city.

After trucks were left idling and one trucker knocked over a stop sign, neighbors called the community relations liaison. But they were told to call the company complaint line instead.

“We asked them to keep our streets clean,” Mercado said. “They sent in street sweepers that just threw everything into our yards.”

The first two wells inside Lakeside have been drilled, but not yet hydraulically fractured, she said. Residents have begun to wonder if they should stop complaining, since it seems to backfire.

“We’re starting to think that’s what they want — they want us to put up with whatever it is that they do,” Mercado said.

Michael Kehs, Chesapeake’s vice president of strategic affairs and public relations, told peers at the November conference that their company was “not marauders coming to despoil the landscape.”

Kehs did not return a call for comment.

The conference at the heart of the controversy, called the Media & Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011, was advertised as a way to help public relations professionals engage the public with a “positive image” of the shale gas industry. It was held Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 at a Houston hotel.

Sharon Wilson, a regional organizer for Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project, an environmental group, said she registered for and attended the event to keep an eye on the industry’s strategies.

Wilson has written on her Bluedaze blog about cases in which she believes the industry used intimidation tactics against her or other critics. Still, she wasn’t prepared to hear talk of counterinsurgency tactics, she said.

“It’s not anything that’s new to us because if you live around the gas patch you know that these things are happening, but maybe you don’t have a formal word to put to it,” Wilson said. “It was shocking just to hear them say it out in the open.”

The statements raised ethical issues that no one at the conference addressed, she said.

“They are using very extreme measures, and if they could do this right or even well they would not have to be using such extreme measures,” Wilson said. “Because most people want to be warm, and they want the lights to be on, and they want the burner to come on to warm their can of soup. They also don’t want to be exposed to these chemicals, and they want clean air and clean water.”

Industry speakers portrayed drilling opponents as unreasonable, but most people don’t start out that way, Wilson said.

“For the most part I think that most people started out not being unreasonable and not being opposed to it,” she said. “They have created this PR nightmare for themselves.”

Not all public relations professionals would agree with the tactics, according to Samra Bufkins, a public relations lecturer in the Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas. She’s worked for both sides in Galveston when issues have arisen between the petrochemical industry and the communities where they locate.

She’s been to professional conferences when audience members didn’t agree with the speaker. Many public relations professionals — who aren’t required to be specially educated or licensed in any way — are members of the Public Relations Society of America, she said. The society requires its members to pledge to a code of ethics. Some members seek accreditation, which provides even more vigorous training in ethical practices.

Some employees of some shale gas producers are members of the PRSA, but not all, Bufkins found. Fewer still are certified.

Bufkins believes that it’s still possible for companies to develop shale, but their community relations stance requires them to tread a thin line, she said.

In a way, public relations professionals serve as the company’s conscience, she said.

“As a professional value, they must serve to protect the public interest,” Bufkins said, adding that can be hard to do if the company’s lawyers are reluctant to sign agreements with communities about how they will operate.

Professionals promoting heavy-handed tactics, like counterinsurgency measures, suggests that “they don’t think residents can handle the bad news straight from the beginning,” Bufkins said.

That’s not been her experience, but “you have to do it right from the beginning,” she said.

Shale development may still be possible in a new field somewhere else, she added.

Where the public perceives that one or more shale companies have a problem, the companies probably won’t be able to change people’s minds.

“Trust is at the root of all of this,” she said. “They’re probably never going to regain trust — if they ever had it.”

PEGGY HEINKEL-WOLFE can be reached at             940-566-6881      . Her e-mail address is pheinkel-wolfe@dentonrc.com.

LOWELL BROWN can be reached at             940-566-6882      . His e-mail address is lmbrown@dentonrc.com.

WHAT THEY SAID

Community relations personnel from several major shale gas companies spoke frankly at a conference meant to deal with the public’s concerns about shale gas production. Here’s a sample of some of the comments, both during presentations and in response to questions from the audience of their peers:

On dealing with the community where they operate:

“I would say that I don’t know that the issue is transparency, maybe the issue is level of engagement. I think that we’re very transparent. It’s very clear on our blogs that there’s nowhere to leave a comment.  But our Facebook wall is open, and we will engage on Twitter and on other forums. It’s just that we decided that the climate that we’re in, especially in the Barnett, it just wasn’t going to be productive to have the people power to have that happen. But we really do engage offline.” — Nicole Nascenzi, Williams

“We have several former psy-ops folks that, for us at Range, because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments, really, all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of psy-ops in the Army and the Middle East has applied very helpfully for us here in Pennsylvania.” — Matt Pitzarella, Range Resources

“I recommend that everyone in this room download the U.S. Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Manual … [audience murmurs] ... because we are dealing with an insurgency. There’s a lot of good lessons in there and, coming from a military background, I’ve found that insight in that extremely valuable. With that said, there’s a course provided by Harvard and MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] twice a year, it’s called ‘Dealing With an Angry Public.’ Take that course and tie that to the manual. A lot of the officers in the military are attending this course. It gives you the media tools on how to deal with a lot of the controversy that we as an industry are dealing with. And thirdly, I have a copy of Rumsfeld’s Rules. That’s my Bible, by the way. That’s the way I operate.” — Matt Carmichael, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.

On dealing with political officials:

“We typically try to not have more than four or five outsiders on a [rig] tour per one Range person. I think we’ve done up to 50 people at a time, mostly whenever we take congressional staffers out. Half of them spend most of their day being hung over from whatever they did the night before, and the other half are very engaged.” — Matt Pitzarella, Range Resources

On dealing with academics:

“Seek out academics, and academic studies and champion with universities because that, again, provides tremendous credibility to the overall process. We tend to be viewed very skeptically. But we’ve aligned with the University of Buffalo. We’ve done a variety of other activities where we’ve gotten the academics to sponsor programs and bring in people for public sessions and educate them on a variety of different topics.” — Dennis Holbrook, Norse Energy

On dealing with the press:

“We would invite, in all cases — what we’re looking at for Ohio and other places — is to bring reporters in early so that they get the inoculation they need from some of the things that they hear.” — Michael Kehs, Chesapeake Energy

“If you don’t get that warm fuzzy feeling from someone, I think it’s OK to play dodge ball with them for a while. You know, everyone’s working on a deadline.” — Matt Pitzarella, Range Resources

Jan 6th, Washington, D.C. -- Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency released its complete analysis of the most recent Toxics Release Inventory data. The analysis – of data publicly released in October 2011 – indicates that, as with every year since the metal mining industry was required to report in 1997, the metal mining industry is the nation's largest toxic polluter: 41% of all reported toxics in 2010, or 1.6 billion pounds.

The metal mining industry accounts for the vast majority of toxic heavy metals and metalloids released such as

• arsenic (96% / 280 million pounds),
• mercury (92% of mercury / 4.4 million pounds) and
• lead (86% / 538 million pounds), among others.

But perhaps the most significant toxics releases are those not included – across metal mining and oil & gas production.

As the EPA analysis explains, the metal mining industry successfully sued to exclude from the TRI most toxics in waste rock. Consequently, beginning with the 2002 reporting year, more than one third of the metal mining industry's toxics –which are still released into the environment every year – go unreported. If included for the 2010 reporting year, the metal mining industry would have reported a whopping 2.1 billion pounds and accounted for almost half of all toxics reported in the United States. This is especially significant because – thanks to loopholes in the Clean Water Act and a recent Supreme Court decision – mining companies can dump toxics directly into rivers, lakes and streams.

Additionally, and unfortunately, one of the most serious threats to our nation's drinking water supply is left unknown. Unlike almost all other industries, oil & gas producers do not have to report releases for most of their operations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act (EPCRA), the legislation authorizing TRI, or under any other federal statute – including the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The damage from this omission is increasing thanks to the shale gas boom enabled by horizontal hydraulic fracturing. Drilling for oil and gas now occurs in 34 states across the country,threatening the drinking water sources of tens of millions of Americans. Yet communities are in the dark because drillers don't have to report the toxics they release from the thousands of wells and compressors.

While individual states are beginning to require disclosure, the Toxics Release Inventory exemplifies why state regulations continue to come up short: easily accessible national data allows comparison across regions, industries and chemicals. Federal reporting requirements allow communities to better judge the risks posed by toxics in their communities. And as a consequence, and as happened with mercury air pollution from gold mining, it allows those communities to exert pressure on both industries and government to require reductions in toxics releases.

The Toxic Release Inventory once again shows why effective federal environmental oversight of resource extraction is necessary to protect communities and the environment.

-- ENDS --

In the meantime, the report said, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality "must significantly step up its currently inadequate efforts to protect public health by strictly enforcing emission limits from oil and gas exploration and production equipment."

The group said the Texas Railroad Commission, the chief regulator of the state's oil and gas industry, has been its "lapdog" but "must become a watchdog." The commission "must adopt rules that provide the public with full disclosure of oil and gas drilling and fracking fluids," the group said, in reference to chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," pumps large volumes of water and sand, along with a smaller volume of chemical additives, underground under high pressure to create fractures in dense rock formations and allow trapped oil and gas to flow into a wellbore.

To protect surface and groundwater resources from oil and gas contamination, the commission "must implement rules requiring closed-loop drilling systems and water-based drilling fluids," the group said. The report, issued in conjunction with the Earthworks organization, focuses heavily on North Texas' Barnett Shale, where thousands of gas wells have been drilled in recent years.

Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, a pro-industry group, said the report makes some statements "that aren't really fact-based." As an example, he said, studies and testing by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and others have shown that Barnett Shale natural gas operations "are not a source of dangerous air emissions."

The state agency, in response to the report, said it "has committed a tremendous amount of resources to the issue of Barnett Shale air quality, and we continue to do so."

"We have increased our staff in the Dallas-Fort Worth regional office," the agency said, and are "committed to responding to complaints within 12 hours" while providing "stepped up enforcement" and a network of round-the-clock monitors, "with five more planned."

The Legislature "is also considering giving us more monitoring resources," the agency said. "We have taken enforcement action against 14 sites in the Barnett Shale. Perhaps most important, none of our six operating ... monitors have detected chemicals above levels of concern."

The Railroad Commission responded that it "has a long and proud history of more than 90 years of regulation over Texas' oil and gas industry." It said it has become a resource "for other states and nations looking for a template on how to safely and effectively regulate their own energy industries."

"Even with the recent intense hydraulic fracturing activity in the Barnett Shale of more than 14,000 gas wells, there have been no documented cases of groundwater pollution" caused by fracking in Texas, the commission said.

The Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project's report said, "Throughout the Barnett Shale, residents are concerned about air pollution from oil and gas operations and the risks of surface water contamination by fracking chemicals. Health problems have become central issues, with many residents complaining of odors, dizziness, nosebleeds, headaches, agitation, and in some cases, more severe symptoms."

Bill Walker, a communications strategist for Earthworks, said the "many" reference was to "a few dozen people" in communities such as Dish, a tiny Denton County town where there is a heavy concentration of large natural gas compressor stations.

A Texas Department of State Health Services sampling of blood and urine from 28 Dish residents in January 2010 found no pattern of contaminants higher than in the rest of the U.S. population. Higher levels of contaminants were found in several smokers, but that would be expected, the agency said.

The report erroneously implied "hundreds of millions of gallons" are used to frack a well, rather than several million gallons typically used. For example, a frack job done simultaneously on two natural gas wells in Johnson County in 2010 observed by the Star-Telegram used 61/2 million gallons.

The report recommends restrictions on emissions, new rules to contain drilling fluids and an evaluation on the amount of groundwater being pulled out of the aquifier for drilling.

“There’s things they can do and should do to protect our welfare and health, and they’re not doing it,” said Kelly Gant, a Denton resident active in pursuing restrictions on exploration in residential areas.

Gant claims that she and her family have suffered from severe asthma attacks and skin problems since moving into a home near several wells two years ago.

She said it has led to emergency room visits for she and her son. “All five doctors asked me the same question, ‘What have you been exposed to?’ And I just looked at them and said, I don’t know what I’ve been exposed to.”

The report comes just days after the drilling industry started its own website to report some of the chemicals used during the process known as fracking. A water, sand and chemical cocktail is injected into shale, creating fractures that allow gas to escape to the surface.

Since the website went online Monday, more than 50 wells in the North Texas region have been listed, including 12 in Tarrant County, 13 in Denton, 20 in Wise and 6 in Johnson.

“Most companies haven’t had a problem with the concept of transparency. “Its just maybe the mechanism, internal and external, to get that information out,” said Ed Ireland, with the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council.

According to Ireland, five state air monitors around the region have not turned up unhealthy air near wells.

Any attempt to place a moratorium on drilling he said, to wait for more data about health effects, just isn’t needed. “There’s a lot of experience with how to drill these wills and how to operate these wells and you don’t have to wait for anything,” he said. “It’s there. That information exists.”

More than 15,000 wells have been drilled, but only those that started since January are going up on the website.

At its second meeting, the commission, which was created to find ways to maximize the economic potential of the massive Marcellus Shale natural gas formation while protecting the environment, listened to several briefings on environmental impacts while demonstrators gathered in a noisy rally outside.

The commission head, Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley, later extended the half-hour public comment period by an hour and a half so that many of the demonstrators could speak.

They did so sometimes in angry, off-color terms that accused the industry of spreading pollution and illness and Corbett of being in league with money-hungry energy executives.

Afterward, Cawley said the willingness of the commission — made of up energy-sector executives, Corbett appointees and representatives of local government, business and environmental advocacy groups — to listen to the comments backed up its devotion to openness and transparency.

"Anytime I hear that people are concerned about their health and safety, as I've said often ... Tom Corbett and I firmly believe that the first, best duty of government is public safety," Cawley told reporters. "So we want to make sure the public health, the public safety and the public's welfare remain protected."

Asked whether he believes the speakers represented a majority opinion in Pennsylvania, Cawley said, "What I believe is that the people that were here today felt passionately about the issues that they presented."

Some made claims that are not backed by science or fact, but all of it will be considered by the commission, Cawley said.

One of the first speakers, Trevor Walczak, said the industry's leasing money flowing into Susquehanna County in northeastern Pennsylvania is saving cash-strapped families from having to sell of portions of their land to real-estate developers. Walczak and his family, who operate a sawmill, have several hundred acres of land under lease.

Charles Gerlach, who operates an organic farm and bed and breakfast in neighboring Bradford County close to the New York state line, said the heavy impact of drilling is driving some of his fellow farmers out and making him worry that his own business will suffer.

"All around me, I see development and I see environmental damage, and I'm very concerned about it," Gerlach said.

Mike Melnyk of Canonsburg in heavily drilled southwestern Pennsylvania posed what he described as a taste test to the commission members.

"Would you want your family members to drink the water in these places in Washington County that are highly contaminated? Because people will, and they do," Melnyk said.

The Marcellus Shale formation lies primarily beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Drilling for gas in deep shale deposits is emerging as a major source of energy that supporters say is homegrown, cheap and more environmentally friendly than coal or oil.

Such drilling requires injecting huge volumes of water underground to help shatter the rock. Some of that water returns to the surface tainted with metals, trace radioactivity and small amounts of toxic chemicals injected by the drilling companies.

Most big gas states require drillers to dump their wastewater deep into the earth to prevent it from contaminating surface water. Though it has moved to limit it, Pennsylvania still allows hundreds of millions of gallons of the partially treated drilling wastewater to be discharged into rivers from which communities draw drinking water.

Nadia Steinzor of the Washington, D.C.-based environmental advocacy group Earthworks, told the commission that it is losing public confidence because of the perceived focus on short-term gains in jobs and revenue, rather than the long-term impact on tourism, local government budgets, public health and the environment.

"The main concern that I think many people have is nobody knows what the plan here is. ... Twenty thousand wells? Fifty thousand wells? A hundred thousand wells?" she said. "No one, no state agency, has ever done a cumulative impact analysis."

The commission is to meet again in May and Corbett has asked it to report its findings by August.

"I don't think the city council has really done their job in making sure that the community and citizens are aware," says Edwards.

She believes the Argyle Town Council has not been an open book with its residents, and it has gotten her fired up about the issue.

"I want to bring up my child in a place that he's able to climb trees, and he's able to be around other children," says Edwards.

But now she’s worried these drilling sites could be affecting her family’s health. Particularly her young son, who had a tumor removed, but is now experiencing new symptoms.

"My son actually has been having headaches, which I don't know if they're associated with this or not,” she says.

Argyle Town Councilwoman, Bonny Haynes, says the community has valid concerns, but says not everybody in the community is worried.

“We have to work on what’s in the best interest of everybody, and a lot of these people here you know, stand to make quite a bit of money,” says Haynes.

Many Argyle residents have mineral ownership rights and earn royalties from the gas well drilling.

“I don’t think that their interests are superior over anybody’s health, and I think that needs to be monitored all the time,” she says.

But Texas organizer for Earth Works’ oil and gas accountability project, Sharon Wilson, says gas well drilling health reports show the same symptoms and problems time and time again. 

She gave us a statement saying, “The report flowback shows that the health consequences are widespread and serious. It’s time for the media, politicians, and industry to stop saying “alleged” health effects. The same things are happening all over the nation.”

Councilwoman Haynes isn’t buying into it and belives there are probably more health problems coming from auto transmissions.

“We have 50 suburbans sitting in front of our schools, picking up kids every day with their motors running, idoling, and that’s probably causing a lot of air quality problems,” she says.

Residents like Edwards hope to find more answers and an overall solution. But Councilwoman Haynes says they have little control over drilling decisions. She says if they did not approve the gas well drilling, then the Town of Argyle would be spending tax payer dollars in court battles with these companies.

“I don’t think that we’re hiding anything from any of the citizens. We’re really an open book and if any of the citizens want help with anything, I’m willing to help,” says Haynes.

Last week, the Commission hastily adjourned its meeting in Wilkes- Barre, after a group of citizens disrupted the meeting. The complete text of the letter follows at the bottom of this release.
The SRBC held its December 15 meeting to consider a series of natural gas drilling water withdrawal applications. In response to some outspoken members of the public, the meeting was adjourned; then, after adjourning, theCommissioners proceeded to vote off the record to approve the water withdrawal applications.

By adjourning the meeting prematurely, the SRBC prevented the testimony of non-protesting members of the public who wished to testify on the individual water withdrawals. Effectively, the SRBC’s action penalized the entire public for the actions of a few individuals and violated the SRBC’s own rules.

The SRBC has been notified that actions taken by the Commission on December 15 were done "off the record," and therefore may not be legally effective.

QUOTES FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
------------------------------------
"Commission decisions need to be made in an open, public forum. We expect the Commission to reconvene and invite the public."

Thomas Au
Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Pa
---------------------------------------
"Hydraulic fracking is a critical and divisive issue that is already affecting thousands of families, water quality and landscapes. While we respect the efforts of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission managing water resources of the Basin, we need decisions to be made properly and that didn't happen in this case."
Guy Alsentzer
Director, Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper
----------------------------------------
“SRBC meetings often don’t generate much public turnout, let alone oppositional turnout, and what happened last week may have made reality on the ground and the strength of anti-drilling views clear to the Commissioners,” said Nadia Steinzor of Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project. “Gas development is so controversial because of its many negative impacts, in particular to water resources. The SRBC must uphold comment periods and manage meetings so that the public can openly and respectfully share their views and knowledge—which will hopefully in turn encourage the Commissioners to make decisions that truly protect the Basin.”

Nadia Steinzor
Marcellus Shale Regional Organizer, Earthworks
--------------------------------------
“The Susquehanna River Basin Commission must responsibly allow for public comment on permits under review at their meetings, as stated in the public notice and agenda. It is inappropriate to approve water withdrawals without allowing the public’s concerns about large and excessive withdrawals and their impact on clean water to be formally considered by the Commission.”
Liz Garland Deardorff
Director, American Rivers Pennsylvania Clean Water Program
------------------------------------------
“It’s the public that owns the water. The SRBC is managing that water in a public trust. Decisions about who gets to use it must be made with public input and in public view.”

Myron Arnowitt
PA State Director, Clean Water Action
------------------------------------------
December 21, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Paul Swartz
Executive Director, Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Richard A. Cairo
General Counsel, Susquehanna River Basin Commission
1721 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Re: Commission Failure to Follow Procedure Resulted in Ineffective Approval of
26 Water Projects at Dec. 15, 2011 Meeting
Dear Mr. Swartz and Mr. Cairo,

The undersigned organizations send you this letter because we believe the Commission improperly approved pending docket action items and improperly curtailed public comment at its December 15, 2011 meeting in Wilkes-Barre. The Commission should reconvene at a date in the near future to appropriately reconsider the docket and allow public comment. The facts meriting this action are as follows:
On December 15, the Commission appropriately completed the majority of its action items and provided an opportunity for general public comment. The Commission later considered the last remaining action items: 26 pending water withdrawal projects primarily for shale gas operations. While the Commission solicited and listened to specific questions concerning the proposed water withdrawals during a presentation on those projects by Commission staff, the scheduled public comment period specific to those proposals had not yet begun when disruptive behavior occurred.

Prior to this meeting the Commission published a public notice in the Federal Register and Pa Bulletin stating in relevant part:
Interested parties may appear at the hearing to offer written or oral comments to the Commission on any matter on the hearing agenda, or at the business meeting to offer written or oral comments on other matters scheduled for consideration at the business meeting. The chair of the Commission reserves the right to limit oral statements in the interest of time and to otherwise control the course of the hearing and business meeting.
When disruptive behavior made the proceedings unintelligible, the Commission chair briefly attempted to control the proceedings and, failing to do so with her voice and gavel, adjourned the meeting. The Commission did not state its intent to subsequently reconvene, and some attendees in the audience left the meeting at that point. The Commissioners and Commission staff then excused themselves only to return minutes later where they voted and approved 22 of the projects at issue, off-the-record and without having formally reconvened. None of the remaining individuals wishing to provide public comment were able to exercise that right.

We commend the Commission for providing a general comment period, however, that period is not a substitute for an opportunity to comment on particular applications, consistent with the SRBC’s published notice. Indeed, Commission staff knew of at least one individual, Don Williams, who specifically noted his intent to provide particular comments on each scheduled water withdrawal project prior to - and at - the December 15th meeting but, due to the abrupt adjournment, was unable to exercise that right.
We believe the off-the-record approval of 22 water withdrawal projects may be legally ineffective due to the previous adjournment and the Commission’s failure to control the meeting and allow public comment. The Commission should reconvene in the near future to reconsider those ineffective docket approvals and allow related public comment.

Although the Commission’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 808.1 et seq. do not squarely address the instant issue, it is very clear from both eye-witness reports and video of the proceedings that there was in fact adjournment prior to approval of 22 water withdrawal projects. Because the majority of the proposed water withdrawals concerned shale gas operations that entail potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, those approvals demand the utmost transparency and accountability. In addition, the Commission’s regulations recognize the inherent importance of substantive public participation, yet the Commission inappropriately approved docket items post adjournment of the public hearing without providing for such public participation. With these facts in mind, we respectfully urge the Commission to:
1)Publish notice of a reconvened public hearing for a date in the near future;
2)Meet, properly reconsider, and vote on the off-the-record 26 water projects with appropriate standards and time for public comment at that meeting; and
3)Notify the 26 water project applicants that they in fact do not have legitimate approval, and may not withdrawal water until such approvals are granted.

The undersigned organizations did not participate in the disruptions that occurred at the meeting and believe the Commission must take the aforementioned actions and, in so doing, uphold its commitment and duty to encourage respectful public participation, transparency, and the rule of law.
We recognize the difficulty in providing clear and concise responses to all of the organizations listed below, and therefore ask that an official response to this inquiry be sent to Guy Alsentzer, Director of Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, at Guy@LowSusRiverkeeper.org, who shall disseminate communications among the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted,
Nadia Steinzor
Marcellus Regional Organizer
Earthworks

Thomas Au
Conservation Chair
Pa Sierra Club
Don Williams
Susquehanna River Sentinel

Guy Alsentzer
Director
Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna
Lower Susquehanna RIVERKEEPER®
Jan Jarrett
President
PennFuture

Jessie Thomas-Blate
Associate Director of River Protection
American Rivers

Myron Arnowitt
Pennsylvania State Director
Clean Water Action

But the origin of the “fracking” moniker is far more innocuous than its current use in certain circles, as a kind of expletive. Battlestar Galactica used “fracking” as a surrogate for the more popular F-word.

But before it made national headlines, sparked rallies or was used in television shows, it went by a different name. Or, more accurately, a different spelling:

“Fracing.” One C. No K.

A few folks, seeking to clarify the pronunciation, used “fraccing.” Two Cs. No K.

Barnett Shale-based blogger and activist Sharon Wilson recently set out to track down the founder of “fracking.” Wilson eventually fingered Lisa Sumi as the originator of the K-based spelling. In 2004, Sumi joined Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project. She took on a research report about the then-relatively unrenowned method for extracting oil and natural gas.

The documents she read about hydraulic fracturing shortened the term to “fracing.”

“In my own head, I immediately started spelling it with a K,” she said. “It rhymed with cracking. For me it was purely grammatical.”

Sumi said it took her two years to convince the folks at Earthworks to add a K to their spelling of the term. She had no idea the K would become a political powder keg.

As public awareness of hydrofracturing has gained popularity, so has that alternate spelling and the political rancor around the K.

Stalwarts cling to tradition, saying “fracking” sounds too much like a curse word and has been made into the rallying cry of environmentalist opponents. But many in the oil and gas industry have accepted linguistic authority and switched spellings.

Meanwhile, the public has developed a clear preference. A Google search for “fracking” turns up more than 8 million results, even more than “hydraulic fracturing,” which turns up 2.2 million.

Not only does “fracing” fall far behind, with just 628,000 results. Google insists you’ve misspelled your search:

“Did you mean: fracking?”

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry asked Coronado National Forest Supervisor Jim Upchurch "to address significant flaws in the current (draft environmental impact statement) DEIS and provide the public and interested parties with additional time to comment."

In an email response to the Green Valley News, Upchurch said, "We stand behind the information that we have provided in the DEIS ... during the comment period as we hear from the public and our cooperators we are evaluating the need for any additional analysis to ensure that the effects are clearly and accurately described in the final EIS ... Our job is to ensure that the selected alternative meets the required federal laws and regulations that are applicable to this project."

Upchurch has said publicly the amount of the bond will be set in a private negotiation between the Forest Service and Rosemont and that bond conditions are not subject to public hearings.

While Pima County has firmly opposed opening the mine in the Santa Rita Mountains, Huckelberry's letter takes the tack of the mine getting approved and questions the mitigation of its impact.

The letter questions the mathematical model used to predict water pollution in the DEIS, citing a study of 25 hard-rock mines by the environmental group Earthworks which found a majority of the mines caused contamination despite using an EIS model similar to the one being used for Rosemont that predicted no water pollution.

Rosemont Copper Company President and CEO Rod Pace said, "The Forest Service has done an extremely thorough job developing and analyzing water models and associated effects, the county has been involved as a cooperating agency throughout the process for four years. The county's call for a supplemental EIS is simply out of order and clearly a delay tactic."

Mine opponents have said they intend to challenge the mine's approval in court, hoping the delays will discourage investors.

So they wrote to the commission and asked. Finne, a critic of gas drilling in the Fayetteville Shale, was surprised to learn that most of the commissioners owned oil and gas drilling companies.

"I knew the cards were stacked against us, but I had no idea how badly," Finne said.

Five of the nine members of the appointed commission have their own drilling companies. Two others are officers of oil and gas companies.

Such ties are common among oil and gas officials, according to review of state records and other documents by Greenwire.

More than 40 percent of officials regulating oil and gas production in the top drilling states, records show, come from the industry they are charged with policing.

It is a degree of self-regulation enjoyed by few other industries, if any. And it heightens suspicion among critics of the nation's drilling boom that companies are allowed to damage the environment with impunity.

Supporters of the industry, and the regulators themselves, say it simply makes sense to have technical experts deciding technical issues.

"I would rather have these issues looked at by someone with technical knowledge rather than someone who doesn't," said Jim Springer, spokesman for the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, which is overseen by a seven-member board, five of whom have oil and gas backgrounds. "They certainly represent the interests of the state very well."

But people unfamiliar with oil and gas production are often surprised to learn that drilling is policed by agencies tied so closely to industry, said Bruce Baizel, staff attorney with Earthworks in Durango, Colo.

"There's still a large presumption that government is looking out for them," Baizel said.

Greenwire reviewed the backgrounds of 95 oil and gas commissioners, board members and agency heads in the top 27 oil and gas states. Of those, 39 had an oil and gas background, or 41 percent.

Among the 71 members of boards and commissions, at least 20 are actively engaged in the business they are regulating.

In most of those states, industry ties are not considered a conflict of interest, or a problematic "revolving door." Instead, they're a job requirement.

The laws creating the governing panels often require that industry be guaranteed seats on commissions, along with royalty owners, local government officials and sometimes environmentalists. Others designate that some number of the board have "substantial experience" in the industry, the environment or fields like petroleum geology.

Those requirements are part of a regulatory system started decades ago with the goal of controlling production and protecting oil from water rather than protecting the environment (Greenwire, Dec. 14).

As advances in the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing fuel the expansion of drilling across the country, these agencies are being called upon to look after the environment, protect human health and resolve disputes between companies and neighbors of their well pads. But regulators rarely seek large penalties for violations and often do not even track enforcement data (Greenwire, Nov. 14).

In addition to being populated from the world of petroleum companies, most of the state oil and gas agencies are expected to both police and promote the industry. As they weigh policies and enforcement, they must balance environmental protection with the need to efficiently develop a state's natural resources (Greenwire, Nov. 30).

Oil and gas agencies in some states, particularly east of the Mississippi River, are not governed by boards or commissions. Instead, they are part of a state department in a governor's administration. In at least eight states, the head of the state oil and gas agency comes from industry.
Setting policy, overseeing enforcement

The oil and gas agencies handle technical issues, such as well spacing and unitization. But they also oversee enforcement and set policy.
Regulators with industry ties
More than 40 percent of oil and gas commissioners, board members and division heads come from the industry they regulate. For each state, the number of commissioners and state directors is followed in parentheses with the number of those who have ties to industry. Source: State records and other documents.

State  Commissioners  Staff Directors
Alabama  3 (0)  1 (0)
Alaska  3 (3)  0 (0)
Arkansas  9 (7)  1 (0)
California  0 (0)  1 (0)
Colorado  9 (4)  1 (0)
Florida  0 (0)  1 (0)
Illinois  0 (0)  1 (0)
Indiana  0 (0)  1 (0)
Kansas  3 (0)  1 (1)
Kentucky  0 (0)  1 (0)
Louisiana  0 (0)  1 (1)
Michigan  0 (0)  1 (0)
Mississippi  5 (2)  1 (0)
Montana  7 (3)  1 (0)
Nebraska  3 (2)  1 (1)
New Mexico  2 (0)  1 (0)
New York  0 (0)  1 (1)
North Dakota  0 (0)  1 (1)
Ohio  5 (2)  1 (0)
Oklahoma  3 (1)  1 (0)
Pennsylvania  0 (0)  1 (0)
South Dakota  0 (0)  0 (0)
Texas  3 (0)  1 (0)
Utah  7 (5)  1 (1)
Virginia  6 (1)  1 (0)
West Virginia  0 (0)  1 (1)
Wyoming  2 (1)  1 (1)
   Number of regulators = 95
   Total with industry ties = 39

In recent months, commissions and agencies have taken the lead in hashing out public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals.

Arkansas was one of them. The state was among the first to order public disclosure. But activists like Finne were angered when they learned that the companies could get an exemption if the chemical was a trade secret.

The commission also handled an outbreak of earthquakes near an injection well for drilling waste, shutting down such wells in a 1,000-square-mile area. Finne met earlier this year with the commission director, Lawrence Bengal, who explained to them that the commissioners were in charge of deciding what to do about the situation. Finne said it was after that meeting that he started to wonder about the commissioners' backgrounds.

Bengal said it is a misunderstanding to think the business interests of commission members would prevent them from enforcing the law.

"They're implementing the law as written by the Legislature," Bengal said in an interview. "If they were to refuse to enforce those laws, they would be in violation of those statutes."

In Colorado, penalties have risen since 2007, when the state Legislature took away the industry's built-in majority on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Still, the panel's largest fine against an active company amounted to less than two hours' worth of profits for the company.

The results of Colorado's restructuring could be seen earlier this month when the executive director of the commission, Dave Neslin, negotiated with industry and environmentalists on a rule requiring public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals, Earthwork's Baizel said.

"It gave him more latitude in what he could negotiate in terms of public health," he said. "They probably couldn't have gotten that done before the change."

Sometimes, governors pick more commissioners with oil and gas backgrounds than law requires.

For example, in Arkansas, there are five members who own oil and gas production companies, though the law requires three. In Colorado, the small-town mayor who represents local government on the commission also used to work as a welder and fabricator for oil field equipment and trucks.

In Ohio, Robert Chase, a Marietta College petroleum engineering professor, was appointed to the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission in 2008 by Gov. Ted Strickland (D) as a representative of the public. But Chase has an extensive industry background that includes working for Halliburton and Gulf Research and Development Co., and consulting for Columbia Gas, EQT (formerly Equitable Resources) and Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.

In New York, where state officials have taken the most cautious approach to allowing shale boom (development is on hold), the director of the Division of Mineral Resources, Bradley Field, came to state government 25 years ago from Getty Oil Co. Field, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment.

The leadership of the oil and gas agencies has developed at a time when oil and gas drilling has been a back-burner issue in most states, noted Cary Coglianese, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school and director of the Penn Program on Regulation.

But with the increasing prominence of the issue many refer to as "fracking" and the surge in production across the country, he said, the ties between industry and regulators are likely to draw more scrutiny and possibly demands for change.

"When a sleepy, obscure issue suddenly becomes important," Coglianese said, "legislation tends to get rewritten."

MONTROSE, Pa.—If a cash register freshly laden with greenbacks is any measure of happiness, then Susan Griffis McNamara should be one of the most content residents of this tiny borough in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Instead, her stomach is in knots.

The 45-year-old is aware she owes part of the bump in business at her lumberyard and hardware store to an energy boom she's witnessing in her native Susquehanna County. Exploration and drilling companies have swooped into this somewhat hardscrabble locale to capitalize on what geologists have christened the "sweet spot" of natural gas entombed thousands of feet below this mountainous terrain.

McNamara fears the invasive underground extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing — fracking, for short — is causing irreparable fissures among friends, relatives and neighbors living atop the prized black band of Marcellus Shale.

"It's terribly painful," the fourth-generation entrepreneur says from her desk behind the counter of the company her great grandfather started from scratch in 1943. "This topic of gas drilling comes up at every event and every conversation, and everybody has an opinion. It's really dividing our community."

Hints of discord have even penetrated very close to home. At family dinners, she now avoids any talk about drilling with her father and mother-in-law — both of whom have signed leases with gas companies.

McNamara knows her observations aren't unique. Plenty of newcomers and longtime residents are equally aggrieved by the "us versus them" attitude that has pierced this settlement of barely 1,600 souls.

They wince at the tight-lipped smiles, hear every awkward silence. The tension is fierce and palpable enough that handfuls whisper about leaving. Several have already packed their bags.

Those staying put are voting with their feet. They refuse to spend dollars at restaurants and other businesses they see catering to drilling proponents.

No doubt, the lure of steady lease and royalty payments from gas companies is appealing in an economically starved section of the Appalachian Mountains that counts mainly on agriculture and tourism to pay the bills.

What some see as an opportunity for a financial bonanza, however, scares others who think this hunt for America's energy future is jeopardizing the air they breathe, the water they drink and a rural landscape that has long been a draw for those seeking an escape from urban chaos, and is on the verge of transforming into a haven for small-scale organic farmers.

"A lot of people say, 'Where would we be without the gas companies to carry us through this last recession?'" McNamara says. "Well I think we would have been fine. We're not so poorly off that we have to turn over all of our resources to drillers."

Make It Stop

McNamara speaks longingly about how she wishes she had been more outspoken with her anti-drilling message several years ago when companies such as Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., which also has an office in Pittsburgh, began courting Susquehanna County.

"I don't want to be seen as a person who complains, complains, complains, but I wish I’d been louder when all of the leasing was going on," she says. "Then again, how can we fight this thing that's so big and an industry that's so huge?"

That's exactly what Nadia Steinzor is trying to ferret out.

Armed with oodles of experience in communications and outreach, the grassroots organizer has spent the last couple of years traveling in Pennsylvania and the five other Appalachian Basin states — New York, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia and Virginia — where mere mention of extracting a bountiful resource from the Marcellus Shale formation can ignite a firestorm. The natural gas is being harvested from a yawning sheath of sedimentary rock formed around 400 million years ago during what scientists label the Devonian Period.

Steinzor has watched firsthand as the industry's promise of prosperity has cleaved communities and frayed the fabric that traditionally binds small towns such as Montrose together. She's not at all surprised that frazzled residents feel as if they are living at the epicenter of an energy earthquake.

"People want to feel as if they are in control of the economic fate of their community, and in places such as Montrose they don't," says Steinzor, now employed by the advocacy group Earthworks. "They feel powerless. To be told it's your patriotic duty to extract natural gas to meet the nation’s energy needs doesn’t sit very well with people."

With the "act now and plan later" mantra adopted by regulators and the industry in the Keystone State, she emphasizes, it's only natural that Pennsylvanians are so splintered.

"This is all proceeding without a plan," Steinzor continues, adding that blaming the naysayers is a cop out. "It's not that people at the local level are unwilling to accept change. It's because nobody was willing to sit still long enough to let people figure out if massive-scale industrial development could be done without public health, environmental and psychological damage."

The tremendous rush to drill meant communities never had the chance to engage in difficult but necessary conversations and debates about the effects of large-scale energy extraction.

Unlike other parts of Pennsylvania, Steinzor notes, places such as Susquehanna County are rookies when it comes to familiarity with any sort of drilling. Cabot drilled its first well there in 2006. Instead of only hearing about how their wallets would be filled, residents needed detailed A to Z lessons in hydraulic fracturing so they could rationally assess whether investing would be a boon or a boondoggle.

"It's no wonder people feel as if they are under siege," emphasizes Steinzor, who has earned an undergraduate degree in international relations and a master's in environmental policy. "I'm finding people just want it to stop so they can catch their breath. There is no end in sight and nobody knows where this is headed."

Educating From Within

Lynn Senick felt like a voice in the wilderness three years ago when she created an online natural gas forum geared for Susquehanna County. Registrants could voice their concerns, exchange information and learn what was erupting in their own backyard. Membership has blossomed to at least 240 participants since its start.

Too many county residents, she maintains, signed leases quickly without asking questions about safety and short- and long-term repercussions. 

"I don't understand why people in this community think there's nothing they can do about this," says Senick, who labels herself as an educator, not an activist. "You might as well do what you can."

"I've become obsessed with gas drilling," she adds with a sly smile, while seated on the couch in her Montrose living room. "I know way more than any layperson should know about it."

More than two decades ago, Senick and her family fled Philadelphia for the rural refuge of a 15-acre "farmette" in Susquehanna County. She and her husband knew they were moving their four young children to a conservative, somewhat insular region where outspokenness is frowned upon, but they figured the tradeoff for fresh food, clean air and water was worth it.

Senick moved to Montrose after her children grew up. Now, the 54-year-old can't bear to visit the land she left behind because the surrounding countryside is pockmarked with drilling rigs and their abundant accompanying infrastructure.

"They are talking about the possibility of hundreds, maybe even thousands of wells here," she says with grimace. "It's a nightmare."

"Even though there have been no cases of the process causing groundwater contamination in Texas the public has stated clearly that they want to know what chemicals are being used in the hydraulic fracturing process," said Rep. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), the author of House Bill 3328.

Though the bill was watered down somewhat from its original form, it's still arguably one of the broadest laws of its kind. House Bill 3328 requires companies to disclose the concentration and volume of each hazardous chemical ingredient regulated by OSHA. The information would be available at FracFocus.org, a website run by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

An amendment tacked onto the bill by Rep. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) allows the frackers to provide less information on non-regulated chemicals. The bill also exempts chemicals protected by "trade secrets," although folks living near wells can challenge that designation with the Attorney General. Perhaps most significant: All current wells are exempted from the disclosure requirements.

Given the holes in the law, environmental groups are giving the legislation mixed reviews.

"It's an improvement over present law, which is nothing" said Cyrus Reed, of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. But he said it falls short of a "model law" desperately needed as fracking woes spread.

Some activists on the frontlines are even more critical. Sharon Wilson, who keeps a popular drilling reform blog, writes that HB 3328 is "now so watered down that no one but industry will mistake it for setting any kind of national precedent."

After the vote, Keffer, whose district in the Barnett Shale is an epicenter of fracking wells, told me that only a "balanced" approach could have made it through this Legislature. He attributed its easy passage to months of work among environmental groups and industry.

"The operators want it," Keffer said. "They understand the public frustration in this. They understand the liability."

Although the frackers still claim that there are no confirmed cases of fracturing fluids contaminating groundwater, a published Duke University study released a few days ago may change things. The researchers linked methane contamination in drinking-water wells in Pennsylvania to nearby natural gas fracking.

Next up: A hearing on a similar Senate bill tomorrow morning in Senate Natural Resources.

Tillman, who saw firsthand the Barnett Shale’s own drilling explosion as the mayor of Dish, cautioned locals bracing for the drilling frenzy bubbling in South Texas’ oil- and gas-rich Eagle Ford Shale, claiming lax state regulation cleared the way for air and water contamination that plagues his small North Texas town. Tillman warned, “You’ve probably heard and you’ll probably hear again that what happened [elsewhere] will not happen here. That’s what we heard.”

To the Laredo crowd, Tillman remarked, “I’m not opposed to natural gas drilling, I’m not some wacko environmentalist … I am against being poisoned, though, and I’m certainly against my children being poisoned.”

Heralded as a game-changer for the South Texas economy, industry is flocking to the Eagle Ford, one of North America’s hottest petroleum plays. Since its discovery, permits have exploded from only 26 in 2008 to nearly 1,000 within the first four months of this year, according figures from the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the industry. A recent study claims as many as 100,000 natural gas wells could dot the South Texas landscape when all’s said and done.

Stretching across roughly 400 miles of hot, dry terrain, the Eagle Ford currently sustains roughly 12,000 jobs across a 24-county swath of South Texas and under “moderate” projections could support nearly 70,000 full-time jobs within the coming decade, according to researchers with the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute of Economic Development.

But concerns over water contamination and damaging health effects have followed the drilling process, known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, nearly everywhere industry takes it. From the Northeast to the Southwest, critics have charged the method, which injects massive amounts of chemical-infused water thousands of feet underground to break up oil- and gas-bearing shale, taints local groundwater, though industry and regulators here claim it’s a geologic impossibility. And suffering through one of Texas’ worst drought in recorded history, observers wonder how to balance scarcity with a lucrative industry that requires massive amounts of increasingly precious water to operate.

On his trip, Tillman brought with him a vial of ashy gray sediment, which he said came from a groundwater well just 500 feet from a natural gas production site in his North Texas hometown. The water, when tested, showed high levels of arsenic, lead, bentonite, and benzene, compounds common in fracking fluid, also known as drilling mud. Tillman ties the contamination of that well, and several North Texas wells like it, to nearby fracking, though regulators dispute the claim.

Sharon Wilson, an environmental activist who documents complaints of contamination across North Texas for the non profit organization Earthworks, accompanied Tillman on his trip across the Eagle Ford, and said, “What happened in the Barnett Shale? We had very rapid development. They move in and they move in fast. … This is not the same kind of drilling that your grandparents experienced in West Texas.”

For years, industry has insisted that the fracking process is safe and hasn’t been linked to any instances of contaminated groundwater.

But a laundry list of cases test that claim. In Garfield County, Colo., a three-year study detailed methane seepage into water supplies as a result of fracking. Cabot Oil & Gas, a Texas-based company, settled out of court with locals in Dimock, Pa., who complained of contaminated wells and a blowout that shot toxic chemicals into nearby waterways.

Closer to home, Wilson claims 70 percent of Dish residents surveyed complain of respiratory problems since oil and gas moved next door, and researchers have noted “astoundingly high” formaldehyde levels in the Barnett Shale area linked to natural gas exploration — levels high enough to exacerbate that area’s ground-level ozone problem.

The Environmental Protection Agency in December ordered gas company Range Resources to quickly fix methane contamination problems in North Texas’ Parker County, where residents complained of flammable and bubbling drinking water flowing from the tap. Tests showed the presence of cancer-causing benzene and “extremely high levels” of methane, posing an “imminent and substantial risk of explosion or fire.” EPA investigators linked the contamination to nearby natural gas drilling.

In March, the RRC cleared the company of all liability, saying nearby well-water drillers had simply penetrated a shallow natural gas field. “We’re still at a place [in Texas] where we’re trying to sort out what’s really going on here,” said Charles Groat, director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at UT Austin who’s leading a comprehensive nine-month study of the fracking process.

“There have been a lot of counter-claims by industry saying, ‘Well, it couldn’t possibly be fracking,’” Groat said. “There clearly are documented problems with shale-gas development. Is it the fracking process? Is it the casing? Is it disposal fluid handling? What is it? … Right now it’s too early to tell.”

Groat plans to roll out preliminary findings from the study, which will look at water and air contamination as well as claims of fracking-related earthquakes, by the end of 2011, he said.

With the recent signing of Texas’ House Bill 3328, the RRC will next year lay out requirements for companies to disclose the toxic chemicals they inject into the ground. Still, environmentalists fear the measure, arguably one of the broadest of its kind, falls short by failing to demand companies reveal all chemicals used, including proprietary recipes exempted from disclosure. Elizabeth Ames Jones, RRC chairwoman, told Bloomberg News early this month, “We won’t be knowing the recipes. That’s sacred ground as far as I’m concerned.”

Because of staffing levels and a spotty track record of enforcement, critics worry the RRC is poorly positioned to respond to the concerns that arise with increased fracking in the Eagle Ford — including the disposal of toxic fracking mud and ensuring proper well casing to prevent blowouts.

The state’s Sunset Review this session slammed the commission, saying it fails to stem industry abuses because it rarely fines or even cites violators, and both Tillman and Wilson claimed unaddressed problems in the Barnett Shale have proven the commission lacks the teeth to properly regulate the industry. “I don’t want you guys thinking the Railroad Commission will be your savior,” Tillman told the Laredo crowd. “They’re not going to come down here and protect you from this happening.”

The RRC oversees 48 employees out of its San Antonio and Corpus Christi field offices, which respond to the Eagle Ford region. In total, only 16 field inspectors cover the whole of South Texas, according to RRC records — a paltry number, Wilson said, given the expected spike in production in the coming years.

“About 10 years ago the RRC had about 730 oil and gas employees. Now we have about 320 … and the volume of activity has only increased,” said Gil Bujano, deputy director of the RRC’s oil and gas division. Acknowledging the RRC’s understaffing, Bujano said, “If we’ve got elected officials who come in and say they want to downsize government and cut our employees, well there are repercussions there.”

Toby Frederick, who lives outside Cuero in DeWitt County, another piece of the Eagle Ford buzzing with oil and gas exploration, claimed the RRC fumbled his case when his well water began to reek of diesel fuel last summer.

Frederick quickly contacted the commission for testing soon after his water took on a noxious odor. After the commission tested the water in September, 2010, found nothing wrong, and insisted a toxicologist had deemed the water safe, Frederick and his family continued cooking and bathing with water from the well. “That smell never went away,” Frederick said. “I eventually paid for a private test. … I guess I wasn’t shocked we found all this stuff in it. That smell will make you dizzy.”

Independent testing found half a dozen benzene compounds in Frederick’s water above EPA contamination levels, he said, and an RRC inspector’s report Frederick later obtained dating back to September shows benzene contamination was suspected all along. Frederick didn’t stop using the water until April, 2011.

Frederick has since spent $6,000 drilling another shallower well to supply water for his house but still can’t pinpoint what caused the initial contamination.

The well sits 60 feet away from a capped, decades-old natural gas well, which Frederick suspects could have corroded and breached. He also points to a natural gas compression station down the road, the breach of a nearby open air pit for containing used drilling fluids, and two nearby fracking wells that blew their casings in recent years. “I don’t blame gas drilling. ... I don’t know what caused it,” he said. “But I do want the Railroad Commission to figure out what happened,” he said, fearing other nearby wells could face contamination if the problem continues unabated.

Parrying claims of water contamination and a dysfunctional regulatory agency, Bujano claimed the Eagle Ford can’t be compared to other shale formations, including the Barnett. Companies in the Eagle Ford, he said, typically drill to a depth of up to 12,000 feet, deeper than the average Barnett Shale well which runs somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 feet deep. The deep drilling leaves a huge spread between the oil-bearing shale and usable groundwater wells — usually 4,000 to 6,000 feet in Karnes County, for instance. “Some folks believe that a frack, that pathway, is severe enough, powerful enough, to reach your usable quality water zone … and what I’m telling you is that it’s not,” he said.

While Wilson and others dispute that claim, another factor that separates the Eagle Ford from shale formations elsewhere is the massive amount of water needed to frack each well. Robert Mace, an administrator with the Texas Water Development Board, said fracking in the Eagle Ford is water-intensive, requiring up to 13 million gallons of water per well, compared to just 4 million in the Barnett Shale.

“It just requires more water to get it to crack,” Mace said, and, given scarce surface water in South Texas, “a lot of these companies are looking at groundwater.” Further drought conditions could push companies to rely on more water bought from irrigation districts and local farmers, he said.

The Railroad Commission, which failed to return several email and phone requests for comment, is planning to roll out a water-recycling program for companies fracking in the Eagle Ford, though details about it are not readily available.

A spokesman with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a Houston-based company that has announced plans to up its Eagle Ford presence in the coming year, said the company is installing metering devices on its wells that draw from the southwestern Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. “We have not seen any significant declines in the overall water level of the aquifer and the drought conditions have not affected our operations,” said Brian Cain.

The company, he said, also works with the Wintergarden Groundwater Conservation District, sharing pumping data to help monitor water levels and usage there.

Early this year, Karnes County residents claimed increased water demand for oil and gas drilling may have already begun to pump water tables dry there, and the nearby Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District began monitoring wells when landowners launched complaints that industry pumping had lowered water tables in the shallow “water sands.”

Next door in DeWitt County, Mark Krueger, who tests local well water for common bacteria, claimed a local man called him regarding water contamination. “He said, ‘I’ve got kidney problems,’ then he says, ‘My kids throw up after every shower.’” Krueger said he found high levels of iron bacteria that continued even after repeated treatments, and suspects other chemicals taint the water. “I mean, to me, that shows the problem isn’t isolated; this indicated that the entire aquifer stone that man was drawing from could be contaminated,” Krueger said.

Krueger said he notified Pecan Valley Groundwater Conservation District, suspecting increased water draws for nearby fracking may have caused a severe cone of depression that reversed water flow.

Pecan Valley last month commissioned a study hoping to determine how the rapid increase in groundwater pumping has impacted the local water table, said Charlotte Krause, the district’s general manager. In the past, the district would receive about two reports a year of wells running dry. “We’ve had 15 just within the last month,” Krause said.

The typical DeWitt County rancher may pull about 20 gallons a minute from the Gulf Coast aquifer, Krause said, adding, “Now you’ve got companies pulling up to 400 gallons a minute.” Krause has also been trying to gather concrete water-use figures from local companies, though not all have been forthcoming, she said.

A study set to be released later this summer by the Texas Water Development Board and the University of Texas’ Bureau of Economic Geology estimates that Texas water used in fracking was negligible in 2010, but that the demand for water to frack the Eagle Ford will likely spike ten-fold to over 6.5 billion gallons per year by 2020. Demand will then double again by 2030, the study estimates.

David Marquez, executive director of Bexar County’s economic development department, said, “The challenges here are obvious. You just have to drive through this part of the country and see there aren’t broad rivers or springs.” Industry groups, he said, have already begun to realize the same process used in other shale formations “can’t just be flopped down into the Eagle Ford,” and water-recycling programs will likely be required to keep the water flowing. •

To see the second draft of the Garfield County Health Impact Assessment Study condected by the University of Colorado School of Public Health, visit www.garfield-county.com and click on “Battlement Mesa HIA.”

Some regional environment and conservation advocates say the Health Impacts Assessment study conducted by the University of Colorado School of Public Health may hold answers to questions La Plata County residents have been facing for decades.

“Any study that’s this comprehensive is extremely informational for policymakers and citizens,” said Mike Meschke, environmental health director for the San Juan Basin Health Department. “It gives us a good example of the kinds of things we should be reviewing, what we should be sensitive to and what our discourse should revolve around.”

The study was designed to help address possible health impacts of an impending Antero Resources proposal that would put 200 wells within 500 feet of Battlement Mesa. Among its many findings, the draft report indicates that residents who live within a half mile of a well pad are more likely to experience health effects than residents farther away, with air-pollution impacts being an important concern. The researchers recommended 78 possible actions to reduce the identified impacts.

After reportedly spending about $250,000, Garfield county officials opted to end the research project on the second draft, saying they have enough information already to make decisions on the project.

Bruce Baizel, an oil and gas accountability attorney for Earthworks, said in addition to identifying several “significant public health issues related to natural-gas development,” the study revealed the lack of data available to assess impacts.

Josh Joswick, an energy issues organizer for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said, “There’s no doubt in my mind there are health concerns for people who live near oil and gas wells.”

Like some Garfield County community members, Joswick expressed disappointment that commissioners there didn’t extend the research contract to get it finished.

“It just shows how much influence the industry has,” Joswick said.

Baizel concurred, saying the industry not only worked to undermine the study, but some state agencies refused to participate in its development and then later criticized it.

The debate rages at the national and international levels, though, he said.

“The disconnect between the refusal to address the impacts and the increasing number of people simply calling for a ban on further natural-gas development seems to have escaped most decision-makers here in Colorado,” Baizel said.

Antero Resources has questioned the report’s findings in letters to Garfield County officials saying its problems are “extensive.” The company also voiced concerns to state officials, whom some news outlets have indicated might be eyeing the report as a potential model for evaluating drilling impacts.

Local industry representatives also discount the potential implications.

Christie Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council, said it “doesn’t have a lot of weight” in addressing local impacts because of the differences in geology and gas development between here and Garfield County. She said state regulations are rigorous enough, and “it’s probably time to quit spending money on studies and just ensure the enforcement of good regulations,” which she said can be the most effective way to reassure the public.

But for Joswick and other like-minded residents, studies such as this confirm health risks they suspected all along. And with La Plata County commissioners aiming to push future gas and oil well development into areas where well pads and other gas and oil infrastructure already exists, some worry their health risks will grow.

County officials said the goal is to cut down the number of new well sites in the future to prevent further surface and resident disturbances.

Baizel said further “downspacing” of wells will mean more wells near homes and schools, and it will increase the need for large-scale assessments similar to the one in Garfield County.

Meschke said the San Juan Basin Health Department could play a greater role – as the Garfield County health department did – in looking at gas development’s impacts on children, schools, homes, day care centers and water supplies.

“There’s a lot to examine from an environmental standpoint on these proposals, but we’re not currently examining them,” Meschke said.

Their move comes amid a resurgence in uranium mining to fuel the expected demand for nuclear power, particularly in China.

Advocates and a group of residents from New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming familiar with the dirty legacy of uranium mining have been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, hoping to muster support and nudge lawmakers into co-sponsoring legislation introduced last month by New Mexico Democratic Reps. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján.

Hardrock mining companies do not pay royalties for minerals they take from public lands, and they access the resources through a claim rather than competitive lease system. The Heinrich-Luján bill (H.R. 1452) would impose a 12.5 percent royalty on uranium. It also would set up a competitive leasing system for uranium mining on federal land, much like coal mining in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.

"We're focusing on the folks who have supported these type of issues in the past," Lauren Pagel, policy director for the group Earthworks, said in an interview about the lobbying efforts. "I think this could push the issue to the forefront."

Apart from visits to lawmaker offices, advocates hosted an evening reception with reporters and staffers last week. While the climate for mining reform has been cool in recent years (E&E Daily, March 16), Pagel and other like-minded boosters hope the bill's narrower scope and its focus on uranium provide some momentum.

"The uranium mining industry is the only energy fuel that doesn't take a royalty from what it takes from public lands," Pagel said. "This is a pretty common sense reform in our view."

Compared to other hardrock mining -- gold, silver and copper, for example -- uranium has left a particularly dirty legacy, especially in the Southwest, the advocates have emphasized in their meetings with legislative staffers.

"We have a lot of abandoned uranium mines and our communities keep living with contamination," Nadine Padilla, a resident of Bluewater Lake, N.M., said in an interview. "We have piles of radioactive wast in our backyards."

The industry does not dispute problems left by previous uranium mining, but leaders say current rules address problems that were unregulated during the beginning of the Cold War, when the federal government bought uranium for nuclear weapons. They say the United States, which relies on imports to help fuel its nuclear plants, should encourage domestic uranium mining.

Conservation advocates, however, say current hardrock mining rules do not do enough to address environmental concerns. And they find it particularly egregious that hardrock mining companies get preference over other public land uses. The current system is a major obstacle for environmentalists hoping to stop mining efforts on public land and, they say, an economic loss for taxpayers.

But even with the focus on uranium, advocates like Pagel are skeptical of significant action, especially in the Republican-controlled House. "I think that given the politics of this Congress, I am not sure how likely it is," she said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was a key voice in crafting a failed hardrock mining compromise in 2009. In a recent interview, he expressed skepticism about reform chances during this Congress, and it remains unclear whether he will push for the more-targeted Heinrich-Luján bill in the upper chamber.

Advocates are also focusing on lawmakers like Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who are familiar with uranium mining issues and are pushing for legislation to increase and expand payouts for people affected by radiation from uranium mining and atomic weapons tests (E&E Daily, April 14).

"I feel really hopeful. The staff people that we have met with, they seem to have an understanding of the problem," Padilla said. "Yeah, it's definitely a lot of walking. But it's an important message that we have."

There may be a great deal more walking through the halls of Congress before lawmakers approve any hardrock mining reform. A broader budget proposal by President Obama to impose a royalty and a lease system on hardrock mining has largely fallen on deaf ears. The mining industry and its supporters on Capitol Hill -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who hails from a major gold mining state -- say they are OK with reform as long as it does not punish mining
companies.

Geologic differences among those regions mean that what works in one state might not work in another, said Jack Williams, president of XTO Energy. For instance, in Arkansas and Texas, natural gas developers are finding ways to inject the water they use back into the ground — something that generally can’t be done in a different shale formation in the northeast.

From state to state, “the regulations are different, and they need to be, depending on the local circumstances,” Williams told an Energy Department advisory panel considering whether more needs to be done to protect the public and the environment from hydraulic fracturing operations. “That’s the beauty of having states playing this role. They can tailor their regulations” to unique regional conditions.

The panel is holding two days of hearings in Washington, D.C., to study hydraulic fracturing , with today’s session focused on the views of environmentalists and industry representatives. State regulators, including Texas Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones, are set to speak on Thursday .

President Barack Obama charged the group with developing its recommendations within 90 days, even as separate reviews of hydraulic fracturing are under way at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department.

Right now, states take the lead role in regulating hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting mixtures of water, sand and chemicals deep underground and at high pressures to unlock natural gas trapped in shale rock. A big question Wednesday was whether the feds need to get more involved.

Industry leaders stuck to their common argument that regulation should remain in state hands.

“Every state has a right to permit a well, and every state has a right to insist on certain practices,” said James Hackett, CEO of The Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. “We have to be careful what we do federally. I would just beg you to please consider a state organization, with multiple stakeholders, as the primary way to get your information and insist on enforcement.”

That, Hackett said, is “going to be the most responsive to the actual conditions on the ground.”

But Lauren Pagel, policy director of the environmental group Earthworks Action, argued that the patchwork of sometimes spotty state regulations leaves some landowners and local residents vulnerable when natural gas wells are drilled and stimulated nearby.

“Just because you’re in Pennsylvania doesn’t mean you’re more deserving of public health and safety than someone in Wyoming,” she said. “We need a federal standard that deals with natural gas production in this country. Without that, you’re never going to get the public confidence that is needed to move this industry forward.”

Conservationists have long been concerned about the high water demands of fracturing and about how operators dispose of wastewater. Environmentalists also have warned that natural gas can escape out of poorly designed and secured wells.

But fears about fracturing also have been stoked by the documentary “Gasland” and a series of recent studies that cast doubt on the technique’s environmental soundness.

Today, environmental advocates and industry representatives found some common ground in agreeing that natural gas developers are up against a big image problem.

Even with major technological and environmental advancements in recent years, “that story is not out there in a believable and effective way with the public,” noted John Deutch, the panel chairman.

Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon warned against assuming that there was a “rogue element” and a band of laggards in the industry who eschew best practices. “I don’t think it exists,” he said, even though “you will find weak companies making mistakes from time to time.”

Paul Gallay, executive director of Hudson Riverkeeper, urged the natural gas industry to make a full accounting of problems that have been caused by hydraulic fracturing and poorly designed or managed wells. Industry leaders need to “acknowledge the damage caused and make a firm commitment to a future that does not involve similar damage,” Gallay said. After all, he added, ” you still to this day hear industry representatives . . . say this is all vastly overblown.”

The backdrop for today’s natural gas forum is deep skepticism from the environmental community about the composition of the advisory panel, which includes members with ties to the energy sector. Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel of the Environmental Working Group, said the panel had a pro-industry bias and told Deutch he should step down.

Deutch was on the board of the oilfield services firm Schlumberger for 10 years and is currently on the board of Houston’s Cheniere Energy. According to EWG, six of the seven panel members have financial ties to oil and gas.

“We’re spending $700 thousand in taxpayer dollars to create an industry-dominated panel,” Horwitt said. “We have to have higher standards for impartiality.”

Dave Alberswerth, a senior policy adviser at The Wilderness Society, said there is skepticism about the panel’s makeup and added: “We’re not expecting much useful to come out of this panel” because of it.

Deutch laid out four areas for the panel’s analysis:

Whether there should be a national database on shale gas production. Some companies are disclosing information about the contents of their hydraulic fracturing fluids voluntarily on the website FracFocus. But Deutch noted that much of the data is “widely dispersed” and divided by states.
Whether an industry organization — with involvement from state regulators and other stakeholders — should be created to establish best engineering and environmental practices for shale gas operations and the chain of companies that supply them. Deutch raised the prospect that, over time, companies who are certified as compliant with those best practices could qualify for fast-track permitting or other incentives.
How water issues should be managed — including the composition of frac fluids, whether there should be background research on water quality in areas where shale gas operations are about to begin and the chemical composition of produced water from natural gas wells.
Technological advancements in the industry — and how to keep pace with them.
Industry representatives divided over disclosure, with Rodney Nelson of Schlumberger noting that concerns about releasing proprietary information have fed a public perception that the industry is hiding details about the ingredients in fracturing fluids. “Companies are trying to protect their investments . . . so there is some reluctance” to be open in releasing those proprietary details,” Nelson said.

If states clamp down and insist on more detailed disclosure — as envisioned in legislation just passed by the Texas legislature — Nelson said that would force Schlumberger to make tough business decisions about whether to offer some of its fracturing fluids in those regions.

But Gary Luquette, president of Chevron’s North American exploration and production business, called out service providers for hiding behind the intellectual property concerns.

“We have used this IP issue as a convenient excuse to move slow,” Luquette said. “I personally believe there is a space in the middle between protecting the IP and giving the public the information they desire. We can do that in a much more transparent way.”

Unfortunately environmentalists claim that the fracking process poses a threat to ground water, which in turn could harm agriculture and public health.

Additionally, Yahoo! News reports the Obama administration has repeatedly sided with environmentalists on issues involving the oil and gas industry, stating

The fly in the ointment to this happy scenario is that the Obama administrative, in virtually every dispute that has pitted the oil and gas industry against environmentalists, has sided with the environmentalists.

Typos notwithstanding, one might ask if Yahoo! News has apparently forgotten about the BP oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico, a man-made disaster of such proportions an entire food web has been impacted. Not so, for Yahoo! News added while the Obama administration has failed to open up ANWR in northern Alaska,

It has used the BP oil spill disaster to virtually shut down deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, despite court orders to the contrary.

A five minute search on the Internet will show how bogus such reporting, if one can call it such, truly is. Not only has the Obama administration resumed permitting for deepwater exploration and drilling in the Gulf, one of the first companies to receive such a permit was non other than BP itself.
Equally as apparent, Yahoo! News has not read, or heard of the recently-released scientific report, Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing. If so, perhaps we could have read about the pattern linking fracking, natural gas wells and methane contamination of drinking water, instead of “unfortunately” reading of the “bountiful resource” which will wean the US off foreign sources of oil and lead the country out of the bowels of a second Great Depression and onto the path of a so-far elusive economic recovery.
Another scientific report, Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations, released in April, provides information on the fugitive emissions of methane gas associated with the fracking industry. A lack of oversight of the fracking industry, thanks to the Cheney-Bush administration, has allowed it to slip under the radar, invading communities and establishing itself and doling out mega amounts of cash before local citizens even know what happened.
Digressions aside, fracking for natural gas has now led to fracking for oil in a region of Texas where the oil was once thought worthless and inaccessible, thanks to its placement in layers of shale. It was believed worthless because its existence in these “tight rock” fields, as they are known, would not allow it to flow as freely as natural gas.
All this changed when engineers determined fracking and horizontal drilling were the perfect cure for the problem of accessing the tightly situated oil, as well as having the price of oil finally move beyond its turning point of $100 per barrel.
As Americans are enjoying their fleecing at the gas pumps and oil companies are enjoying even more their insane profits, thanks to taxpayer subsidies - call it double fleeced and it all makes so much sense - these once worthless oil fields are suddenly quite valuable, with at least a dozen oil companies planning to frack their way to the tune of around 3,000 wells in the Eagle Ford within the next year.
So sophisticated has horizontal drilling become, a single frack well is now multi-directional, meaning drilling operations can be conducted from a single site going in multiple directions. Compounding this assault on the environment, these multi-directional wells are capable of producing multiple fracturing events. And yes, each drilling operation and frack event requires the use of millions of gallons of water, injected under extreme pressure to break apart the shale and rock, thereby releasing the oil.
In addition to sand which accompanies these high-pressure injections, chemicals, many of them toxic and many of them proprietary, are used while fracking the shale formations. A new Congressional report, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing, also released in April, lists many of the known carcinogenic agents being used in the fracking industry and provided information on the gutting of the Safe Water Water Act (SDWA) in 2005 (hint: the Bush years) which then, according to the report, gave a green light for unmonitored fracking.
Adding to environmentalists’ claims of detrimental effects caused by fracking are scientists and government agencies, on record in noting the detrimental effects caused by fracking, but it’s those damn environmentalists we need to be afraid of, keeping a close eye on them to ensure they don’t let us drink clean water. Or bathe in it.
Unfortunately, the Eagle Ford is intrinsic with the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. Even more unfortunate is the fact Texas is besieged with a drought of exceptional proportions. Last week it was announced the current drought, far from over, is third worst in the state’s history, trailing only the droughts of 1918 and 1956.
The Eagle Ford’s unique geology requires staggering amounts of water for the fracking process to be viable. It is estimated each frack well in the Eagle Ford will use as much as 13 million gallons of water. “This is not the drilling your grandparents knew in west Texas,” said Sharon Wilson, one of Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project organizers, Bloomberg reports. “It’s a heavy industrial activity with massive amounts of water and chemicals.”
Predictably, the oil industry is elated over the fracking possibilities in a state long known for its rugged independence and a turn-the-other-cheek attitude on adhering to environmental rules and regulations. Texas has long led, or been near the top of the list of, states in the US with the most polluted air, thanks in part to its network of oil refineries along its section of the Gulf coast.
“It’s the one thing we have seen in our adult lives that could take us away from imported oil,” said Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy’s chief executive, the New York Times reports. Chesapeake, through its aggressive desires, is one of the more prominent names in the Eagle Ford region. “What if we have found three of the world’s biggest oil fields in the last three years right here in the U.S.? How transformative could that be for the U.S. economy?” he asked. And what about those pump prices, a few Americans might be asking.
The Eagle Ford is already producing more than 100,000 barrels per day, with the first well drilled just three years ago. By 2015, the number could balloon to 420,000 barrels per day, almost equal to Ecuador’s production, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analytics company, the Times notes.
To the dismay of some and no doubt to the delight of a certain truck driver, the impact of fracking in South Texas is getting a unique spin.
Just last week a fracking truck hauling unknown quantities and qualities of frack sludge dumped its load of frack sludge on the streets of Laredo. To be specific, right in the middle of Interstate 35 near its intersection with Victoria Sreet. If there were witnesses, they’re not very forthcoming about the accident which temporarily shut down the freeway. The truck driver drove off, leaving the scene of the accident, so no one really knows where he was headed with the load and why he was hauling it through the middle of Laredo.
Apparently the city of Laredo, just across the river from Mexico’s war on drugs and right on the international border of America’s war on terror, does not have big-brother surveillance cameras at every street intersection like the rest of the country does. If it did, the issue could be easily investigated.
As this environmental disaster-in-the-making unfolds, the residents and ranchers of South Texas, consumed in all things monetary associated with fracking, will wake up one morning to find their Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer no longer potable.
Farmers, landowners, and yes, environmentalists are sounding the alarm bell over the water issue, but poverty and economic hardship, staples for many in South Texas, becomes a strange bedfellow with free-flowing greenbacks associated with oil and gas development.

   Tillman was joined by Sharon Wilson, the Texas organizer for the Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

   Tillman told residents to educate themselves before they lease their land to oil companies.

   “Everybody likes to make money, but there is another side to the coin,” said Tillman, who described problems he went through as mayor of   Dish during the Barnett Shale boom in North Texas. “When somebody knocks on your door and wants to right you a check, you should probably think about that. Do a little research and try to learn the entire picture.”

   Tillman was also critical of the Railroad Commission’s efforts to monitor the state’s air and water quality.

   “We can’t fund education, but we can fund the Railroad Commission,” Tillman said. “I know there are good people with the Railroad Commission and they have to have jobs, but I don’t agree that that is a good organization.”

   Wilson, who said she worked in the oil and gas industry, stated ordeals she went through in North Texas with the Barnett Shale.

   “I know the industry likes to say that there are no documented cases of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing,” Wilson said. “What landowners in the Barnett Shale know is that when hydraulic fracturing occurs, water contamination occurred.

   “The industry should quit denying the obvious and get busy solving the problem.”

   Tillman and Wilson were not able to make their planned Power-Point presentations due to a power outage at the clubhouse.

   Anyone with environmental concerns or questions can contact the Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project at 940-389-1622 or visit texasgoap.earthworksaction.org.

   On Thursday, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality put on a workshop for local government officials at the DeWitt County courthouse.

   About 100 people attended the vent and heard from several TECQ officials concerning hydraulic fracturing, saltwater disposal, water quality, air quality, and waste disposal.

PG&E is a partner in the massive, $3.5 billion Ruby Pipeline that will soon bring fracked natural gas to Northern California. Indeed, the Bay Area's ravenous appetite for energy promises to intensify the use of fracking in the West, thereby deepening the potential destruction of pristine groundwater supplies used for drinking or that flow to streams and rivers. There's also evidence that toxic pollutants from natural gas fracking production are poisoning the air and sickening residents.

Scheduled to open as soon as early as this month, the Ruby Pipeline is 680 miles long and will bring 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming and Colorado to southern Oregon, near the California border. PG&E then plans to send much of the natural gas throughout Northern California to feed power plants and for use in homes, businesses, and industry. Interviews and public documents show that most of the natural gas in the pipeline will have been produced from fracking.

In fact, 90 to 95 percent of natural gas now being pumped out of Wyoming and Colorado comes from wells that have been fracked, said Mike Freeman, staff attorney in the Denver offices of the environmental watchdog group Earthjustice. "The [underground shale] formations that industry is now accessing can't be accessed economically without fracking," Freeman explained, noting that getting the natural gas from traditional well-drilling would be cost prohibitive.

By contrast, hydraulic fracturing — fracking — provides natural gas companies with a cheap way to get at underground natural gas deposits that they would not otherwise be able to access. And for those who haven't seen the deeply disturbing — and Academy Award-nominated — 2010 documentary Gasland, fracking presents numerous, potentially severe environmental problems.

How severe? The question is difficult to answer because of a lack of governmental monitoring. During the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and lobbyists for the natural gas industry convinced the then-Republican-controlled Congress to exempt hydraulic fracturing from federal environmental regulations and laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption is known as the "Halliburton Rule," named for the oil and natural gas services company that Cheney used to run. As a result, there is little regulation of fracking; in many states, natural gas companies don't even have to reveal which poisonous chemicals they're shooting into the ground.

Wyoming has enacted tougher rules on fracking than most states, but they're still relatively weak. For example, natural gas companies must disclose to state regulators what chemicals they use, but can demand that those disclosures never become public in order to protect "proprietary" information. Highly toxic chemicals that have been known to be used in fracking include kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde.

But the dangers from fracking aren't limited to what's being shot into the earth. When trapped natural gas is released through the fracking process, the gas itself — methane — can pollute nearby underground aquifers, streams, rivers, and lakes. Numerous residents throughout the country whose drinking wells have been polluted by methane gas that was released through fracking have reported that they can literally light their tap water on fire because it contains so much gas. In Gasland, one homeowner puts a lighter next to water flowing from his kitchen tap, and it ignites into a fireball.

Methane also is a powerful greenhouse gas — at least twenty times more potent than CO2.

Plus, there's the problem of "flow-back." That's the soup of polluted water that flows back to the surface after being shot into a fracked well. It can include the toxics used in fracking, along with released petroleum and naturally occurring radioactive material that would otherwise remain buried underground. Typically, natural gas companies divert the flow-back to open pits or ponds, where the toxins evaporate directly into the air.

Indeed, the whole modern process of natural gas production is potentially far more destructive to the environment than industry has portrayed it to be. In recent years, many politicians, energy companies, and utilities, including PG&E, have labeled natural gas as "clean-burning" energy. "But that premise only happens when you're looking at burning it — not the whole production of it," Freeman noted. "The production of natural gas has enormous impacts to wildlife and public health."

Jennifer Krill, of the environmental group Earthworks, pointed out that a recent study from Cornell University concluded that when examining the entire process used to produce and burn natural gas, it's actually worse than coal. Other studies have concluded that there is not much difference between the two. A recent Duke University study found high concentrations of methane in 68 drinking-water wells near shale-gas drilling and fracking sites.

In addition, a new study from the environmental group, Global Community Monitor, found 22 toxic chemicals, including four known carcinogens, in air sampled in Colorado and New Mexico near natural-gas production facilities. The chemicals, including benzene and acrylonitrile, were detected at ranges three to 3,000 times higher than what is considered safe by state and federal agencies. The polluted air also is making people ill. "One family from Garfield County [Colorado] had to flee their home after developing rashes and nose bleeds," said Jessica Hendricks of Global Community Monitor. The family lived about a half-mile from six natural gas rigs.

So why does PG&E want fracked natural gas? Utility officials did not respond to phone calls for comment for this story. But it's no secret that fracked natural gas is a cheap form of energy thanks in part to the lack of environmental regulations. It's also no secret that PG&E is currently investing heavily in natural gas at a time when California regulations demand that it increase its use of solar and wind power. Utility officials have said they need natural gas power to offset the unreliability of solar and wind, which can be intermittent depending on whether the sun shines or the wind blows.

The Ruby Pipeline also could prove to be very profitable for PG&E. Texas-based El Paso Corporation is building the pipeline and is the majority partner, but PG&E has a stake in it. Moreover, six new natural gas power plants being built in Northern California, including four in the East Bay (including one in Hayward), will need plenty of fuel when they come online in the next few years. All of those plants will be supplying energy to PG&E.

There also are no regulations in California to limit the amount of fracked natural gas coming into the state. In fact, there are no regulations on fracking, period. California rules are so lax that no one, not even the state Division of Oil, Gas, and Thermal Resources, seems to know how much natural gas fracking is going on here currently, said Renee Sharp, director of the Oakland office of the Environmental Working Group. "That agency is supposed to be monitoring fracking, but it's not," she said.

The Environmental Working Group is sponsoring a bill being carried by Fremont Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski — AB591 — that would regulate fracking. The natural gas industry, at first, appeared to be amenable to the idea of regulations, but then "Halliburton arrived — that's where the whole story changed," Sharp said. Since Halliburton became involved in the state legislative process, the industry as a whole has become more resistant to regulations, she added. A version of the bill passed the assembly last month along party lines, with Democrats voting for it, and Republicans against. It's now in the state senate.

Some environmental groups, meanwhile, have been disappointed in the Obama administration's reaction to the rapid growth of fracking. In 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency embarked on a two-year study of hydraulic fracturing and its impacts on the environment and human health. But then the president announced that another panel would also study fracking. Environmentalists are concerned that this second panel might undermine the EPA's work, because Obama stacked it with oil and gas industry representatives. The president is said to support fracking because it presents a way for the country to depend less on foreign oil and natural gas. The chair of this new panel is John Deutch, a board member of Cheniere Energy, Inc., a Houston oil and gas company that paid him $882,000 from 2006 to 2009, according to Forbes magazine. Deutch also received $563,000 last decade from Schlumberger Limited, one of the three largest fracking companies in the world.

Many environmentalists in California also say that Wieckowski's bill is urgently needed, because the natural gas industry and public utilities are showing increasing interest in a massive shale deposit in Monterey County that may store natural gas that could be released through fracking. Wieckowski's bill would require natural gas producers to reveal what chemicals they use in fracking and the state oil and gas division would make sure they comply with state environmental laws. Flow-back ponds would be regulated by the California Water Quality Control Board.

However, the bill says nothing about the impending rapid growth of fracked natural gas arriving from out of state.

City Council members had long said they wanted a task force of technical experts and other residents to help them rewrite the city’s rules for natural gas drilling. City staff members have been assembling the group since at least May, according to a memo obtained by the Denton Record-Chronicle.

A full list of members was not made public until Friday afternoon, when the city released the names in response to requests from the newspaper. The task force has not met yet, and city officials say its charge and membership are subject to change.

The newspaper sought interviews with City Manager George Campbell and City Attorney Anita Burgess, who has been active in the ordinance review. Neither responded by phone, but the city’s public information office provided a written response.

The likely members are:

* Darren Groth, the city’s gas well administrator;

* Karen Moss, who works for the oil and gas engineering firm New Tech Global in Fort Worth;

* Eastern Research Group, the company performing Fort Worth’s air quality study;

* Ed Ireland, executive director of the industry-funded Barnett Shale Energy Education Council;

* Tom LaPoint, an environmental researcher; and

* Vicki Oppenheim, an urban planner.

City staff may contact task force members individually for advice throughout the ordinance review, and members may meet as a body to gather public feedback, according to the city statement.

“While such meetings may not be subject to the Open Meetings Act, they would be noticed to the public, unless members were being advised on legal issues that are of a confidential nature,” according to the statement.

The city attorney’s office initially presented some names to council members in a confidential memo in late May, according to a June 17 memo from Campbell to council members.

“Staff is moving ahead with organization of this group and we appreciate Council’s consideration and concurrence with this process,” Campbell wrote, adding that they hoped to complete draft ordinance revisions by early to late fall.

The newspaper obtained Campbell’s memo this week through an open-records request. City officials had not responded to a separate request to release the city attorney’s memo.

Asked why task force updates were sent through memos, instead of presented in public meetings, the city replied: “The City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office were simply keeping the City Council apprised of an on-going staff project, which included privileged information. The [city attorney’s] report contained attorney-client communications, and incidentally mentioned some of the potential members in that context.”

Ten days before Campbell sent his memo, council member Dalton Gregory publicly asked him to call a council meeting to discuss citizen representation on the task force. Gregory said the council needed citizen voices to balance the “technical representatives” already selected, although he did not mention names.

In the memo, Campbell proposed adding two of three candidates: LaPoint, director of the Institute of Applied Sciences at the University of North Texas, who was suggested by Gregory; John Siegmund, a former petroleum engineer suggested by the city staff; and Oppenheim, who was suggested by council member Jim Engelbrecht.

Council members agreed to all three selections during their June 21 discussion on boards and commissions, although Siegmund was not named in the list provided by the city Friday.

Gregory, who has called for stronger drilling regulations, said in an interview he was pleased with the group’s makeup. The panel includes people with diverse backgrounds, including work for the oil and gas industry.

“It’s not like it’s someone from Range [Resources],” Gregory said, referring to the company whose drilling operations at Rayzor Ranch near homes, a hospital and a city park faced public opposition. “We’ve asked for people that have done work for the industry but have also done work for cities.”

The council held closed-door meetings May 17 and June 7 to discuss “legal issues” involved with gas drilling regulations, but Gregory said he did not believe the task force was discussed in those meetings.

Denton resident Cathy McMullen was active in the fight against drilling at Rayzor Ranch and the push for stronger city regulations last year, when the council passed a first phase of ordinance changes. McMullen expressed disappointment with the task force selections, saying the citizen representatives weren’t actively involved in the Rayzor Ranch fight or the earlier ordinance review.

McMullen said she and other residents had suggested Sharon Wilson of Earthworks’ Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a drilling watchdog group, as a balance to industry apologists who might serve on the task force.

“It seems to be handpicked,” McMullen said. “They don’t want somebody that’s going to come in and stir things up.”

Research project

Residents may have another avenue to offer input.

Council member Kevin Roden said he is working with several UNT professors interested in a research project that would involve forming a separate committee of residents to serve alongside the city’s official task force. The panel, which has not been assembled, would seek public input and offer suggestions for ordinance changes, Roden said.

He said he hopes the council would somehow incorporate the committee’s work into its official deliberations.

From a research perspective, the project would explore the tension between the democratic ideal of “citizen participation” and the need for expertise in an increasingly high-tech society, said Adam Briggle, one of the professors working on the project. He planned to apply for a National Science Foundation grant to fund it.

“Citizens represent various forms of expertise that oftentimes don’t find their way onto these official [government] bodies,” said Briggle, a philosophy professor. “[To say] there are experts on one hand and Joe Blow on the other is painting with too broad of a brush. We have to have a finer analysis.”

LOWELL BROWN can be reached at 940-566-6882. His e-mail address is lmbrown@dentonrc.com.

TASK FORCE
Denton city leaders on Friday released their selections for a task force on gas drilling regulations.
The task force has not met yet, and city officials say its membership is subject to change.
The likely members are:
• Eastern Research Group, part of the AEA Group, an environmental and energy consulting firm
• Darren Groth, the city’s gas well administrator
• Ed Ireland, executive director, Barnett Shale Energy Education Council
• Tom La Point, biological sciences professor, University of North Texas
• Karen Moss, regulatory affairs manager for New Tech Global, an oil and gas consulting and engineering firm
• Vicki Oppenheim, principal, Denton-based Green Leaf Environmental Planning

The proposed six-member task force — five people and a research firm — includes two people whose jobs are industry-funded. Other members include the city’s gas well administrator, an environmental researcher and an urban planner.
Some advocates for stronger regulations said they’d hoped to see more independent experts and neighborhood-friendly voices on the panel, which will advise city leaders on the second phase of an ordinance overhaul.

“The primary makeup is oil and gas industry-related, whether they are subsidized by the oil and gas industry or whether they do testing for the oil and gas industry,” said Hatice Salih, who called for a drilling moratorium last year during an unsuccessful run for the City Council. “Obviously this group was put together to come up with ideas and ordinances and provisions that are going to be friendly to those industries.”
Key city officials were out of the office this week and unavailable to answer questions about the proposed task force, including whether the city would pay any members for their work, city spokesman John Cabrales said.

At least one member, Karen Moss of the oil and gas consulting and engineering firm New Tech Global, is under contract as a city consultant. The Denton Record-Chronicle requested all contracts between the city and task force members Tuesday, but the city had not responded by Wednesday afternoon.

In a statement last week, the city’s public information office said task force members were chosen based on their technical expertise and ability to represent neighborhood interests while acting as impartial advisers to city staff.

The selections were still subject to change, according to the statement.
The city released the names of likely task force members Friday in response to requests from the newspaper.

They include Moss, regulatory affairs manager for New Tech Global, and Ed Ireland, executive director of the industry-funded Barnett Shale Energy Education Council.

Another likely member is Eastern Research Group, a company whose ongoing air quality study for the city of Fort Worth made headlines for delays and rising costs.

Environmental researcher Tom La Point and urban planner Vicki Oppenheim were named as the panel’s citizen representatives.

Public reaction

Joyce Poole, who lives near gas wells on North Bonnie Brae Street, said the panel tilts too heavily toward the industry.

“It goes right back to [Mayor] Mark Burroughs’ comment that we select them to do our bidding,” Poole said, referring to Burroughs’ remark during a June 21 council meeting on the role of council appointees. “These people were selected for the advice that the council would get in the favor of more gas wells, which means tax money.”
Denton resident Sharon Wilson, a regional organizer for environmental group Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project, questioned whether the panel’s technical representatives would deliver the expert advice city leaders say they want.

“Karen Moss … has a vested interest in keeping the industry happy because that’s who she works for,” Wilson said. “Ed Ireland is a public relations man. He is not a technical person, and his job depends on making the industry look good.”
Moss said she is under contract as a consultant for Denton and would have to check with the city attorney’s office before being interviewed.

Ireland, who holds a doctorate in economics, said he would bring more than 20 years of experience in the natural gas industry to the panel.
Ireland said the city’s gas well administrator, Darren Groth, asked him to serve and that the city isn’t paying him for his work.

Citizen representatives

Salih also questioned La Point’s appointment, saying the city looked to La Point in 2005 after an environmental group said playground equipment at South Lakes Park was exposing children to dangerous arsenic levels.
La Point, a biological sciences professor at the University of North Texas, wrote a report saying the risk was minimal.

“It’s the same thing all over again,” Salih said. “I just don’t think they assembled the committee in any other way except to make sure they get the results they want.”

La Point defended his 2005 report, saying the calculated probability of health damage to an infant based on the properties of arsenic in the playground wood was “very, very low.” His calculations were published in the report for all to see, he said.

Oppenheim, the other citizen representative, said she would bring a perspective as a neighborhood advocate and urban planner.
“I have worked on gas drilling-related projects and did way back when some of the first plats were being issued in Denton,” she said. “Since then I’ve become involved in community groups in the area, so I have a perspective from both viewpoints. But I’m certainly very much wanting to support the community’s interests.”

Oppenheim said she started her own business, Green Leaf Environmental Planning, last year to focus exclusively on environmental projects and no longer performs work for the oil and gas industry.

Separate panel sought

Elma Walker, who has fought the placement of gas wells near homes at the Robson Ranch retirement community, said she’s glad the city is moving forward with the next phase of the ordinance review.

Walker said she hopes council member Kevin Roden follows through on a plan to form a separate committee of residents to seek more public input. Roden announced last week he was working with UNT professors interested in a research project that would involve forming a committee to serve alongside the city’s task force.
“Obviously we would like to see a certain amount of citizen involvement on that, and I think Kevin may have the answer,” Walker said.

LOWELL BROWN can be reached at 940-566-6882. His e-mail address is lmbrown@dentonrc.com .

Del. Woody Ireland, R-Ritchie, successfully proposed an amendment to the governor's bill regulating horizontal drilling during the special session. The amendment called for a study on utilizing actual impact measurements over "arbitrary" measurements such as distance. Ireland calls for the study of use of noise, light, dust and volatile organic compound exposure in determining setback distances for wells.

"My intention here is to set limits on those things that are truly important to people," Ireland told House Judiciary members when he proposed the amendment. "Whether a well is a thousand feet away or 25 feet away doesn't really make much difference if the noise levels are too high or volatile chemical levels are too high. Those are the things that really affect people's lives."

The bill asks the Department of Environmental Protection to study and possibly propose rules for setting requirements on residents near drilling operations in regard to noise, light, dust and volatile organic compounds.

Ireland's scientific approach to measuring the effects of drilling reflects his background. The delegate was a chemical engineer with more than 30 years experience at Dupont.

"The things that industry is generally concerned about is not distances, but actual pollution levels," Ireland said.

Ireland said the amendment was initially a difficult sell to lawmakers who easily identified with measurements of distance, but found lumens, decibels and total suspended solids measurements more daunting.

"It's sometimes difficult to get people to say, ‘yeah, maybe that does make sense,'" Ireland said. "The key, I think, to getting that accepted is that we didn't try to set hard and fast limits, we said, ‘Okay DEP, study this thing and then come back with some proposals that we can then try to set hard and fast limits.'"

Ireland said it was premature to set the limits in the rushed special session, but a study would be appropriate. He said there were several "intense" discussions involving the amendment prior to the bill, but ultimately, he said it was supported "across the aisles," and "across the halls."

Noise

One of the elements of the study provided by Ireland's amendment is a measure of noise experienced by those in proximity of the well. Instead of an "arbitrary" measure of distance, limits on the noise produced by an operation would be restricted.

"If I was concerned about noise, if you were to put a well fairly close and then you put in or use sound deadening technology … then why should I care if it was 100 feet or 1,000 feet away?" Ireland said.

Surface owners frequently complain about the noise generated by the large horizontal drilling operations, which can take months to complete.

According to a Colorado study of noise at natural gas operations, even hundreds of feet away some activities of natural gas drilling operation, can be as loud 62 to 68 dBA, a measure of decibels adjusted to human hearing called "A-weighted sound level."

According to the Powder River Basin Resource Council, "Depending on the wind direction, the roar of a field compressor can be heard three to four miles from the site. Near the compressor stations, people need to shout to make themselves heard over the sound of the engines."

Average conversation at a distance of three to five feet typically registers at about 60 to 70 decibels. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits eight-hour sustained exposures of over 90 decibels.

According to Earthworks Action, many residential and rural neighborhoods have environmental sounds of less than 35 decibels, so a noise restriction of 45 decibels would still mean a roughly double the perception of noise levels.

For roughly every increase of 10 decibels, loudness doubles.

A study by World Bank found that depending on existing environmental noise conditions, a limit of about 45 dBA is recommended.

Effects of excess of noise levels have been linked to variety of health issues ranging from sleeplessness to hearing loss.

Light

Light pollution is another concern with the booming gas industry, a movement some have called the "industrialization of West Virginia." In rural areas accustomed to the dark, the brightly lit operations can present new problems for an area that has historically remained incredibly dark after sundown. Workers at night need the light to safely operate, but nearby residents are not as accustomed to having to shut their blinds and face the additional lights typically associated with urban settings.

In addition to human activity, light pollution can affect wildlife and livestock whose natural day and night rhythms may be interrupted by nighttime operation of Marcellus shale drilling in West Virginia.

"Lights are required for safety on the rig and at the operation during construction and, to some extent, at the finished well, disturbing natural light and causing glare into the night sky," states a fact sheet from the Delaware Riverkeeper on natural gas drilling. "Light pollution can confuse wildlife, including migrating birds, and has human health impacts by disturbing sleep."

Light intensity is measured in lumens. The Lighting Research Center of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York says light pollution is a blanket term for things such as "sky glow," "light trespass" and glare.

"Sky glow is a brightening of the sky caused by both natural and human-made factors," the group's website explains. "The key factor of sky glow that contributes to light pollution is outdoor lighting."

Light trespass is light that is cast where it is not needed and glare is "objectionable brightness."

"The sudden bright light can be uncomfortable and make it difficult to see. Discomfort and even disability glare can also be caused by streetlights, parking lot lights, floodlights, signs, sports field lighting, and decorative and landscape lights."

Dust

Dust pollution, caused by the earth-moving activity of natural gas well operations is another factor to be considered by the DEP in the study commissioned by Ireland's amendment.

"Dust can cause or aggravate nuisances such as hay fever and allergies; stunt the growth of vegetation; and lead to decreased visibility," the Earthworks website states. Leveling land, transportation vehicles and other elements of horizontal well construction can kick up dust, polluting the surrounding air.

Several studies have linked health problems related to dust exposed to the air due to road traffic, an environmental concern affected by industrial and residential traffic, farming and other sources.

Various measures for suppressing dust pollution are available.

Volatile organic compounds

Ireland's amendment to the governor's horizontal drilling legislation also calls for the DEP to look at the possibility of needing rules establishing limits on volatile organic compound exposure.

"In the chemistry industry we were always concerned about volatile organic chemicals and suspended solids in the air, basically dust," he said. "It's not new to me or new to the industry, really."

VOCs are carbon-containing substances that easily evaporate into the atmosphere.

"They can combine with nitrogen oxides to form ground-level ozone, which can cause respiratory ailments such as asthma, and decreased lung function," Earthjustice writes. "Examples of VOCs are benzene and toluene."

According to a website operated by Chesapeake Energy, VOC emission from well completions can be reduced with cautionary methods.

"Chesapeake utilizes a voluntary procedure called reduced emissions completions, or "green completions," to control or reduce VOC emissions. A reduced emission completion can eliminate most of the VOC emissions and recover valuable natural gas during flowback and well testing."

Chesapeake further explains that not every well is equipped for reduced emission completion because of the special equipment and other special precautions required.

"VOCs may be emitted from storage tanks that vent to the atmosphere," the Chesapeake website explains. "Each state has rules that determine allowable VOC emissions, permitting requirements and emissions thresholds at which equipment, such as a flare or other emissions control device like a vapor recovery unit (VRU), must be used. When technically and economically feasible, Chesapeake prefers to control VOC emissions with a VRU in order to reduce emissions and recover valuable natural gas."

Win-win?

Ireland said both surface owners and industry would benefit from the alternative metrics for determining setback distances.

"It makes sense from a public standpoint to address the kinds of things they are concerned about," Ireland said. "It also makes sense from an industry standpoint because it then gives them the flexibility to manage those things based on their situation."

Ireland said, for example, in populated areas where setbacks would "sanitize" a considerable amount of acres for drilling, that flexibility would allow drills to be located closer with the use of pollution-mitigating technologies.

While implementation faces numerous hurdles, including complex modeling requirements and levels of pollution that frequently vary, Ireland said he foresees many of those complexities being resolved by the study.

"I don't think it's a stretch to say that kind of technology, modeling technology will be available," Ireland said. " … I'm confident that the DEP can take a look at the sort of thing and set reasonable limits that would protect the public and give industry the flexibility they needed to do what they need to do."

The fight, which pits towns and cities against energy companies and states eager for growth, has raised a fundamental question about the role of local government: How much authority should communities have over the use of their land?

The battle is playing out in Pennsylvania as the Republican-controlled legislature considers bills that would in their current form sharply limit a community’s right to control where gas companies can operate on private property. Critics say the final bill could vastly weaken local zoning powers and give industry the upper hand in exchange for a new tax, which municipalities badly need.

The legislation has struck a nerve in a state where land control has long been considered quintessentially local.

“I’m a conservative Republican, and this goes against all my principles,” said Brian Coppola, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Robinson Township, in Washington County west of Pittsburgh. The pending legislation, he said, “is an enormous land grab on the part of the industry. He added, “Our property rights are being trampled.”

Mr. Coppola noted a hillside in town that began to crack and slide under the weight of a new shale gas processing plant, which he contends was built without a permit. The town’s zoning powers allowed him, through a court, to compel the company to follow town regulations and allow town inspectors access to the site. The site was eventually stabilized. Losing those powers would leave local officials out of the equation, he said, even though they are responsible for protecting the health and safety of their citizens.

“I’m an unpaid, part-time elected official, and it’s been a nightmare,” he said. “The state is not capable of monitoring even the most basic parts of this industry.”

Local governments argue that drilling is an industrial activity, just like that of a gas station or a cement factory, that should be subject to zoning. Dozens of towns, cities and counties across the country have enacted rules on drilling noise, lighting and the distance from homes and, in some cases, outright bans. In New York State alone, there have been at least 70 such actions.

Companies say the rush to regulate has produced an overly burdensome set of demands that is denting their potential when the economy desperately needs a lift.

“It’s like having to get a different driver’s license in every town,” said Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources, a Texas drilling company that is active here.

The flurry of local rules comes as the federal government inches forward on a national study of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, the process used to extract previously inaccessible natural gas from shale deep underground.

The study is expected to shape the future of the industry, but progress has been slow. In the meantime, courts have become the next frontier.

In New York in September, a Denver exploration company sued Dryden, a town near Ithaca, over a drilling ban. In Colorado, Gunnison County, which contains a ski resort, is fighting a drilling company’s court challenge to its zoning. In Texas, a restrictive gas drilling ordinance adopted by an affluent suburb of Dallas called Flower Mound has drawn several lawsuits charging that it amounts to an unconstitutional seizure of mineral rights.

Jordan Yeager, a Pennsylvania lawyer who represents municipalities, said litigation brought by gas companies had a chilling effect, discouraging towns and cities from enacting regulations because they cannot afford to defend them in court.

Supporters of the Pennsylvania legislation argue that it would hold the industry to higher, more uniform environmental standards in addition to charging them fees.

“We substantially raised the bar of what we expect from natural gas operators,” said Representative Matthew Baker, a Republican who helped shape the legislation.

Emily A. Collins, a professor of environmental and oil and gas law at the University of Pittsburgh, said parts of the legislation would help the environment — for example, expanding the distance in which a driller could be presumed responsible for replacing a tainted water supply.

She said the legislation seemed to anticipate litigation, calling for special judges to be added to the state Commonwealth Court, presumably to handle new flows of cases against local governments.

Companies have been ramping up shale gas drilling operations during the past decade in states like Texas and Colorado, and during the past several years in Pennsylvania, where the giant Marcellus Shale formation has set off a frenzy of activity.

The industry, however, has bumped up against affluent homeowners concerned about possible health effects and their property values. The median household income in Flower Mound, for example, is more than double the national median.

“It used to be that gas development happened ‘out there,’ ” said Gwen Lachelt, the director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project for Earthworks, a national organization based in Colorado. “Now you see it in urban areas.”

That was the case in South Fayette, a bedroom community of rolling hills and upscale developments in Allegheny County for professionals from Pittsburgh. In August, Range Resources lodged a formal complaint against a zoning ordinance that established distances that drilling pads had to be kept from buildings in residential areas, charging that it went further than state law allows. On Nov. 9, the town rejected that complaint, raising the stakes.

“I spent a lot of money and invested heavily in my home,” said Keith McDonough, a resident who is an executive at a clothing company. “I don’t want to see it go up in smoke on a fracking site.”

Mr. McDonough, who described himself as a die-hard Republican, said he was finding himself doing things he had never done before, like knocking on doors and circulating petitions.

William Sray, a farmer who has signed a lease with a gas company, argued that by delaying drilling, opponents were denying his right to fulfill his contract and collect royalties. “Everybody has property rights, but they’re not respecting mine,” he said.

Mr. Pitzarella, of Range Resources, said that only a small minority of towns in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale area — about 80 of approximately 1,800 — had, or were developing, regulations and that most of them were affluent. A strong set of state standards that people agree on would protect all communities, he said.

“It’s about having predictable and enforceable regulation that works for everyone,” he said.

But local regulation of oil and gas development is very strong in Texas, Professor Collins said, and has not seemed to hamper the industry’s growth. Fort Worth, for example, issues its own permits for drilling, something that states typically do.

Mr. Coppola argued that the most immediate risk in Pennsylvania was the possibility that companies, which are not required to share infrastructure like pipelines and compressor stations, could erect multiple sets, driving away developers and affluent residents and reducing the tax base.

Mr. McDonough was hopeful. He said towns would not make the same mistake they did with the coal industry. A river in town still runs orange, even though the industry is long gone.

“We’re at a turning point,” he said. “If this is not done with common sense, we will have lost an entire way of life.”

Last week, more than a hundred activists from Pennsylvania and New York, including actor Mark Ruffalo, brought thousands of gallons of drinking water to 11 families in Dimock, Pa., who had been left dry after Cabot Oil and Gas stopped their water deliveries.

The mess Cabot created in 2009 from shale gas drilling had now been cleaned, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which meant no more water for the Dimock 11, the holdout families in a long-running feud over water contamination and cleanup.

At issue was the safety of well water symbolized by a jug filled with brown fluid taken from Dimock resident Scott Ely's well. Held aloft by Ruffalo, who was flanked by families and Gasland director Josh Fox, the crowd challenged officials to come and take a swig if the water was so safe. Paul Rubin, a hydrogeologist, painted a grim picture, laying out a future of continued water contamination. The Ely water had arsenic, manganese, aluminum, iron, and lead at several times the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for safe drinking water.

The visuals were dramatic, and the anti-frack action ended with supporters triumphantly holding a huge water line that snaked from a tanker truck on Carter Road to a family's "water buffalo" — a large storage tank. The Dimock 11 were now supplied.

Next door pro-gas families and a Cabot industry representative held a dueling press conference calling their anti-frack neighbors liars and greedy for money. They bemoaned the besmirching of Dimock by their neighbors and outside agitators.

How the water went bad, how it was tested, when it was tested, who tested it and for what are just some of the issues confronting residents of the Marcellus Shale region and lawyers around the country suing drilling companies for alleged water contamination.

Many of these legal cases have lagged on for years, leaving residents dependent on bottled drinking water and "good neighbor" gestures by drilling companies that deny blame but temporarily supply water, until they decide to stop as Cabot did in Dimock.

Missing from this debate is what many environmentalists see as an equally important issue in shale gas exploration: the air quality.

An invisible product of the huge industrialization of the Marcellus Shale region is the air pollution created not just from thousands of transport trucks used in well construction and fracking, but the added infrastructure required to bring gas to market, most significantly the compressor stations.

These stations are essential to push gas through the pipelines. They can be loud; they emit methane, and BTEX compounds, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. They have been associated with significant headaches, bloody noses, skin lesions, blisters, and rashes. They operate continuously and permanently.

"Compressor stations are not just accessories to gas production facilities — they are large-scale industrial installations. In some parts of the West, compressor engines contribute an average of nearly 60 percent of all nitrogen oxide emissions from oil and gas operations," said Nadia Steinzor, the Marcellus Shale Regional Organizer for Earthworks.

The same day activists staged the water mercy mission to Dimock, a remarkable but largely unnoticed event occurred a few miles north, in Montrose.

At the local high school, for the first time ever in Pennsylvania history, the DEP allowed a public hearing on a compressor station.

The Shields station slated for Dimock is the fifth compressor station proposed in the last four months for Susquehanna County.

That the meeting even happened was considered by activists to be a great victory, given the longstanding secrecy and industry bias, which has characterized the Pennsylvania DEP.

"Pennsylvania has a history of welcoming extractive industries, so there is definitely more of a culture of let's move forward quickly on these," said Jay Duffy, a staff attorney for the Clean Air Council in Philadelphia. Canvassing door to door the past two months generated such a large number of written comments on the Shields application to convince the DEP to hold a hearing.

Residents who had never attended a protest, who didn't see themselves in the pro-fracking or anti-fracking camp, showed up to learn and express their concerns about air quality. They left with few answers.

"They are not providing the public with full files. When we request file reviews, they have been just allowing us to see the applications. They are not allowing us to see the full permit, " Duffy said. Last month, the Clean Air Council asked the EPA to step in, charging that the Pennsylvania DEP has consistently failed to comply with public input requirements regarding Marcellus Shale permitting activity.

A culture of secrecy and industry favoritism is just one problem. The other is that the Pennsylvania DEP refuses to acknowledge any kind of cumulative impact that occurs when one compressor station is followed by another and then another.

In Southwestern Pennsylvania, for example, there are now 10 compressor stations and a processing plant in a 13-mile radius.

"The DEP says these are all small sources, but when you have a house that is in the middle of it all, sucking in 900 tons a year of pollutants. Only the DEP is looking at them individually, the community is breathing them in cumulatively," Duffy said. The Clean Air Council is suing the DEP on the cumulative impact issue.

"They have a lot of exemptions for the industry. They have the failure to do inventory, the failure to do long-term monitoring. These are all things that are fairly unique in Pennsylvania — kind of kowtowing to the natural gas industry here," Duffy said.

Organic farmers Mary and Adron Delarosa and their young daughter sat through half of the hearing before leaving. Matt Walker, a Clean Air Council organizer had visited their one-room home earlier in the evening to urge them to attend. For more than a year, they had experienced the anxiety of living within a mile of four wells and not knowing if their water was safe. A compressor station is planned nearby. Already, farmers they know have been told their products are no longer wanted, because they are grown in Susquehanna County. The Delarosas left the meeting knowing one thing for certain. They won't be living by the new compressor station. In February, they're giving up their farm, putting their house on a trailer and leaving Pennsylvania.

In invited testimony before the New York Senate Standing Committee on Conversation in Canandaigua, New York today, biologist, author and cancer survivor Sandra Steingraber highlighted the report’s conclusion that:

Viewed in light of human rights standards, that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing may raise liability concerns for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as the state considers whether and how to move ahead with large scale natural gas development.

The report, prepared by Environment and Human Rights Advisory, looks at a number of recent United Nations declarations and documents. One of these informs the UN Human Rights Council that the environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas poses “a new threat to human rights.” And a recent United Nations Resolution states that "environmental damage can have negative implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of human rights."

Despite claims of economic benefit, the report notes that hydraulic fracturing presents significant risks to local air quality, to ground and surface waters, to soils and ecosystems and to several dimensions of human health.

The report’s author, Dr. Thomas Kerns, finds that, although the current state of knowledge about potential human health and environmental impacts of these airborne and waterborne contaminants, as well as of their mixtures and interactions, is poor, some fracking chemicals even now are known to be endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins and some have been designated by the EPA as probable or known carcinogens.

The report suggests that this points to a need for caution and for gathering further information before proceeding with licensing, especially since vulnerable and disadvantaged populations would be at even greater risk.

-- ENDS --

Cathy Carlson has been an advocate for mineral policy reform since 1987 in both Washington, D.C and in Colorado, and has been advising Earthworks since its founding as the Mineral Policy Center. Besides her expertise in mineral development, Ms. Carlson has extensive expertise in natural resources issues on public lands in the Western U.S. including oil and gas leasing and development, livestock grazing, and fisheries and wildlife habitat conservation.

Paula Hawthorn, Ph.D., is a retired high-tech start-up executive who now occasionally works as a management consultant. Dr. Hawthorn’s technical expertise is in database management systems. She earned her doctorate in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley. She has held management positions at various start-ups as well as with Informix and Hewlett-Packard. She has been an activist all her life, beginning with volunteering for John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign, then in movements for civil rights, for peace, and for environmental responsibility. She has served on both the Association for Computing Machinery’s and National Academy of Science’s panels on improving statewide voter registration databases.

Anthony Ingraffea, Ph.D., P.E., is the Dwight C. Baum Professor and Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow in the College of Engineering at Cornell University, where he has taught since 1977. He is also director of the Cornell Fracture Group and co-editor-in-chief of Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Dr. Ingraffea performed R&D for the oil & gas industry from 1984 through 2001 and is one of the most prominent national experts on the risks to water supplies from hydraulic fracturing for shale gas. He has been outspoken about the need for sound independent science on the impacts of oil and gas development, and for stronger protections for people and the environment.

“We’re proud to welcome Dr. Hawthorn, Dr. Ingraffea and Ms. Carlson to the Earthworks board,” said board Co-Chairs Kerry K. Anderson and Michael E. Conroy. “As we are seeing enormous expansion of hardrock mining and ‘fracking’ for natural gas, along with growing awareness of their devastating impacts, Earthworks is excited to grow our board’s expertise and counsel. All three new board members will strengthen our ability to protect communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions.”

“I grew up with Earthworks since its inception, and I am excited about the opportunity to continue to work with the organization as a board member” said Cathy Carlson.  “Earthworks is able to move quickly and decisively to address impacts from energy and mineral development around the country and throughout the world.”

"Earthworks, with its projects such as No Dirty Gold and the Oil & Gas Accountability Project, is highly effective in fighting for a healthy environment for our and future generations,” said Paula Hawthorn. “I am thrilled to be able to lend my time and talent to support such a nimble, grassroots group as Earthworks."

"At a time when citizens are fighting for their livelihoods and their health against extractive industries and rising in unprecedented numbers to combat corporate power and climate change, I am excited to join Earthworks’ mission to protect communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible extraction,” said Anthony Ingraffea. “I hope that Earthworks can make good use of my engineering knowledge and experience with the threats of shale gas extraction."

Earlier this month, Earthworks issued a statement calling out the department store chain for being one of the last major retailers that has yet to sign the No Dirty Gold campaign’s “Golden Rules,” a set of social, human rights and environmental criteria for mining gold and other precious metals.

Earthworks launched No Dirty Gold to educate and motivate consumers and jewelers to push the mining industry toward more responsible practices. More than 80 jewelry companies have signed the rules, including Tiffany & Co., Helzberg Diamonds, Zale Corp. and Signet Group, parent company of Sterling Jewelers.

Together with Change.org, Earthworks has launched a petition drive asking consumers to tell Macy’s they want the company to submit to using only ethically sourced gold. A similar petition conducted earlier this year convinced Target to sign the rules, Earthworks said.

Earthworks is the same organization that last month pressed Sterling Jewelers to sign the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge, a vow to boycott gold from the proposed open-pit mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

“Macy’s has a very clear choice,” said Nick Magel, international campaigns coordinator for Earthworks. “They can listen to their customers who want to know that their gold comes from ethical sources, or continue to hold out, sending the message that they don’t know value sustainability and transparency.”

Macy’s did not respond to request for comment on Earthworks’ statement.

In addition to Macy’s, Earthworks also issued a statement last week welcoming the decision of Newmont Mining Co. to suspend development of its Conga mine in northern Peru at the request of Peruvian President Ollanta Humala. Community members and elected officials have protested against the mine out of concern for its potential impact on the environment, the water and the health and livelihoods of the local people.

Called shale gas, these deposits represent a new and enormous source of fossil fuel.

"Fracking is driving exploration and drilling all over the United States," said Gwen Lachelt of the non-governmental organization Earthworks' Oil & Gas Accountability Project.

"The oil and gas industry is marching across America from Texas to North Dakota and from the east coast to California," Lachelt told Tierramérica.

There may be as much as 23,427 billion cubic metres (bcm) in recoverable gas from U.S. shale formations, according to the Annual Energy Outlook 2011, released in April by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The United States will consume 650 bcm of natural gas this year, the EIA projected. Globally, it estimates reserves of "unconventional gas" - the oil and gas industry term for shale gas and coal bed methane - at 915,000 bcm, with 100,000 bcm in Latin America.

However, that estimate is already out of date due to developments in fracking technology and exploration. The EIA estimate of shale gas in the United States in 2009 was less than half the 2011 estimate.

Fracking uses horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing with high pressure water and chemicals to fracture gas-bearing shale rock.

Holes are drilled vertically as little as 100 metres and as much as 3,000 metres into the shale, and then horizontally 1,000 metres along the shale formation. Chemicals and large amounts of water are pumped underground at high enough pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas into the pipeline.

The "dash for gas" as the industry pundits like to say is being driven by potential exports to Asia and the mistaken belief that natural gas is the "transition fuel" from coal to a low-carbon economy.

It is true that natural gas is "cleaner" in that it releases about 40 to 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal does to produce the same amount of energy.

However, gas from fracking has a higher carbon footprint because more energy is needed to get the gas and because methane leaks out. Methane has 25 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide.

Switching from coal to gas as an energy source could result in increased global warming, not less, according to the study "Coal to Gas: The Influence of Methane Leakage", released in September by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

This is mainly due to the methane leakage problem, which is common but unregulated.

Natural gas is mainly methane, so even if leaks are limited to one to two percent, it would only be slightly better than continuing to burn coal.

"Relying more on natural gas would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but it would do little to help solve the climate problem," said study author Tom Wigley, a researcher at NCAR, in a press release.

In a report published Nov. 18, the U.S. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finally regulate fracking emissions of methane and other air pollutants.

While industry began fracking for gas in the late 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in 2005, after the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009) exempted fracking from regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act. In recent years shale gas production has grown 48 percent annually, according to the EIA.

"Fracking has never been regulated. There is no real oversight of what they are doing," said Lachelt, who is from the central U.S. state of Colorado, one of the fracking hotspots.

People living near wells have long complained about contamination of their drinking water with chemicals and shown pictures of flames coming from their taps. But contamination is hard to prove because the fracking companies are not required to disclose the contents of the "fracking fluids" they use to keep the gas flowing, said Lachelt.

Fracking fluids are a mix of water, sand and a wide range of chemicals, some toxic like diesel fuel, she said.

With the public outcry growing, the oil and gas industry continues to claim fracking has never contaminated an underground aquifer. However, the industry has settled a number of claims with landowners over the years, but all of these have been sealed from the public and government officials.

Surprisingly, after more than 20 years of fracking, the EPA is conducting its first in-depth study of the risks to drinking water.

The results won't be known until the end of next year. However, preliminary results have shown that drinking water in some communities is contaminated by benzene, a known carcinogen, and that fracking was responsible, said Lachelt.

Meanwhile, some of Canada's most pristine wilderness in northeastern British Columbia is the home to a new shale gas industry that sends its gas across the Rocky Mountains to the Alberta tar sands to boil oil out the sands.

Almost all of the gas produced in British Columbia is for export to Alberta or the United States. Now there is a massive expansion underway with the recent approval to build a liquefied natural gas plant on the West coast to ship gas to lucrative Asian markets, said Tria Donaldson of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, an environmental NGO based in Vancouver.

"Fracking is using huge amounts of fresh water in a region that suffers water shortages," Donaldson told Tierramérica. Millions of liters of water are needed for each well and the industry has obtained rights to take 275 million liters from local rivers, lakes and streams every day.

Sixteen companies were fined in October for failing to account for how much water they were taking. According to media reports the fines were less than 1,000 dollars.

"Northeastern British Columbia is a key habitat for grizzly bears, caribou and others. Fracking operations are moving into untouched areas, building roads, drill pads and wastewater ponds," said Donaldson

"There is nothing clean or green about shale gas as an energy source."

*The writer is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Program, United Nations Environment Program and the World Bank.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is considering forcing companies to use the FracFocus.org website to disclose which chemicals they use to frack wells. Critics said the commission’s plan is too weak because it would allow companies to exclude their fluids from the website’s list by calling them a trade secret.

David Neslin, director of the COGCC’s staff, said it’s important that companies be transparent about the fluids they use to extract gas and oil out of tight-rock formations.

“But it’s important to remember that it’s only one tool,” Neslin said.

Regulators and drillers have several lines of defense against pollution, Neslin said, including requirements for tight casings around well bores, supervision by the COGCC staff and tests that monitor water quality before and after drilling.

Mike Watts, a fracking expert for Halliburton, said his company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop its fracking technology.

If Colorado requires Halliburton to disclose both the ingredients and concentrations of its chemicals, the company effectively would have to reveal its recipe and would lose its investment in technology.

“The hydraulic fracturing process itself is safe,” Watts said. “If it weren’t for hydraulic fracturing, there would be little or no oil and gas activity here in the state.”

Gas industry watchdogs recognize the need for limited use of trade secrets, said Michael Freeman, an Earthjustice lawyer who represented several groups, including the San Juan Citizens Alliance and the Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

“We feel the approach to trade secrets in the draft rule is deeply flawed, and in essence what it does is allow what amounts to an honor system,” Freeman said.

Other states, such as Wyoming and Arkansas, allow trade secret claims only if they are reviewed by state regulators. Colorado’s proposed rule would allow companies to get an exemption without review or appeal.

The hearing room was packed with more than 70 people, and at least 35 more crowded into the hallway outside.

Commissioners will meet next Monday in Greeley to deliberate the rule.

While both sides supported the basics in proposal from the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, each sought changes to the rule.

The commission is slated to make its final decision on the rule Monday at its monthly hearing in Greeley. The proposed rule requires drillers to file fracking fluid ingredients on FracFocus.org — a public-access Internet database.

Fracking fluids are pumped into wells under pressure to fracture rock and release more oil and gas. Water and sand make up about 99 percent of the fluid, but the other 1 percent is composed of as many as 40 other chemicals to make the fracturing more effective.

Changes that environmental groups, such as the Colorado Environmental Coalition and the High County Citizens Alliance, want include:

• Tightening of the trade-secret provision, which allows a company to not disclose a chemical by declaring it proprietary.

About 6 percent of the chemicals used in Colorado wells this year were identified as propriety, according to an oil and gas commission review.

• A shortening in the reporting deadline for filing disclosure from the 60 days in the proposal to 30 days, as required in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

"Disclosure isn't for the industry, they know what they are using," Gwen Lachelt, head of the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, told the commission. "Disclosure is for the public."

Testimony by oil and gas industry representatives identified several areas in the rule that they thought should be changed, including:

• Dropping a requirement that the data can be searched by chemical. The industry says the rule is unnecessary.

• Changing a requirement that all chemicals and their concentrations — including ones that do not have detailed safety information — be disclosed. An industry proposal would disclose the chemicals in that group, but not the concentrations to protect individual industry products.

Mike Watts, an executive with the oil service company Halliburton, said the proposed rule would reveal enough information to allow competitors to figure out their products.

The chemicals that are added to the fracking fluid are there to improve the efficiency of the process and get larger volumes of oil and gas out of the well.

But Mike Freeman, an attorney with the environmental law group Earthjustice, counted: "You can't assess the risk without knowing the concentration."

Publicly listed Tiffany & Co. traces its roots back to 1837, when Charles Lewis Tiffany and John Young set up a "stationery and fancy goods emporium" in New York City. Today, with $3.1 billion in sales last year, the storied jeweler has a very big appetite for gold, diamonds, and similar earth-borne treasures. Yet Tiffany CEO and chairman Michael J. Kowalski sees the near-term costs of squelching a new gold supply as far outweighed by Pebble Mine's potential risk to the environmental, and in turn, to Tiffany's brand.

The proposed mine lies within a 40,000-square-mile watershed, filigreed by dozens of pristine rivers and tributaries, that is home to beavers, moose, and caribou, which feed off summertime plant growth. A huge population of bears, as well as the native Yupik people, relies on the annual return of spawning sockeye salmon, a flood of wild fish that ranks among of the world's largest such runs. Opponents argue the fishery -- worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- and the broader ecosystem could be imperiled by mine construction and runoff of acids and dissolved metals. "I can't think of a mine that threatens more ecological value in North America than Pebble," Kowalski said.

Tiffany's take on mining issues has evolved over a two-decade span that roughly coincides with Kowalski's tenure, during which time the company has faced the overlapping crises of blood diamonds and conflict gold. Mining practices in strife- and famine-torn regions have led to grievous human rights abuses, as warring factions fight for access to mineral wealth, as well as environmental damage, such as mercury pollution from small-scale gold-mining operations. Today, the company states flatly that, with respect to mining: "We recognize that some public lands are simply not suitable for mining, and that their value for recreation and conservation is far greater than their value as a source of minerals."

Tiffany's increasingly visible commitment to sustainability is documented in its first corporate sustainability report, released last month. In addition to advocating for responsible mining, the company has also focused on its retail operations -- manufacturing its iconic blue boxes and bags, for instance, exclusively from materials certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Efficiency upgrades and solar panels in its stores have lowered greenhouse gas emissions by more than nine percent per square foot since 2006.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently discussed Tiffany's evolving approach to sustainability with Kowalski at his office -- decorated with photographs of family travels to national parks in the United States and overseas -- at the company's Fifth Avenue headquarters in midtown Manhattan.

Tiffany & Co. depends on mining, yet mining is destructive by nature. How do you decide one proposed project is promising, but another, like Pebble, is not?

It's difficult for us to make definitive statements about what constitutes responsible mining today. But in a simplistic sense, we're clear that it's better to extract minerals from a legacy mine than to threaten a pristine ecosystem. That led us to Rio Tinto's Bingham Canyon Mine outside of Salt Lake City. The precious metals used in our U.S. manufacturing come from there as well as from recycled sources.

The mine has been there for 100 years. There are legacy issues, certainly, but today the mine is being managed responsibly. I know Mr. Redford would disagree [Ed. note: Writing for OnEarth's Community Blog, NRDC Trustee Robert Redford has compared the threat of the proposed Pebble Mine to the environmental damage done by Bingham Canyon Mine]. But it is a worthwhile debate.

Look, we all may not be pleased with the standard of U.S. environmental regulations for mining, but they are pretty good in a global context. The greater concern is mines in less-regulated areas. Isn't the more positive thing to source from a nearby mine that is monitored than from one that is far away, where we have no influence, and regulations are practically nonexistent, such as in, say, Papua New Guinea?

Truth Squad

Checking industry claims with NRDC's sustainability experts

The prestige of Tiffany's brand means there is real force behind the company's efforts to reshape the way jewelry retailers and the broader mining industry are approaching sustainability, says Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who directs its urban west program and the marine mammal protection and Southern California ecosystem projects. He also leads the Save Bristol Bay campaign, bringing together a broad coalition of interests opposing the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. In particular, he says, "Tiffany has a unique ability to draw attention to [Pebble Mine]."

As Tiffany turned up the volume on the issue, other major retailers such as Walmart and Target -- which sell high volumes of lower-cost gems, gold and other jewelry -- have taken notice, says Reynolds. This is leading to a process that he believes will improve industry practices and lead other major jewelry retailers to sign on to the The Bristol Bay Protection pledge, as Tiffany has done. At the core of the issue, Reynolds said, is the question of whether the mine can be built and operated without significant risk. "Under comparable hydrological circumstances, 93 percent of similar mines in the U.S. have failed to meet the standards they commit to in their original environmental impact assessments," he notes, pointing to a 2006 study of water-quality problems at hard-rock mines.

Key state and federal deadlines for Pebble's developers to submit permit applications for the mine were originally set for this year, but have been pushed back to 2012 and 2013. This suggests opposition to the project is getting traction, Reynolds says. Outside Alaska, the mining reform organization EarthWorks has successfully lobbied more than 60 jewelers to take the "No Dirty Gold" pledge, which would apply to the Pebble Mine. Tiffany & Co. is a long-time signatory. Target is the most recent retailer to sign on, in March of this year.

By taking this voluntary pledge, jewelers agree to abide by The Golden Rules of responsible mining: to ensure that toxins, such as sulfuric acid, don't contaminate the land, water, and air, and that workers rights and labor standards are respected. Still, critics charge that until a third-party certification system for gold mining exists, efforts to clean up the industry will remain piecemeal and difficult to verify. -- Adam Aston

For those reasons, some have suggested that Pebble Mine would operate using the world's best practices, including regulation and monitoring.

The argument has been made: "Well, if you really care about responsible mining, you should be a supporter of Pebble because it will be the most responsibly built and managed mine in the history of mining, and it is unfair to tar Pebble with the abuses of past mining practices." In fairness to the Pebble Partnership (a joint venture between a subsidiary of Anglo American and Northern Dynasty Minerals), I want to make this clear: We have no doubt that they would do everything possible to develop that mine as responsibly as they possibly can. And I'm going to presume that the state of Alaska will do everything possible to make certain that happens if the mine goes forward.

That said, we have reached the conclusion -- as have many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local Alaska residents -- that the risk is simply too great. Despite the best of intentions, the location of this mine is so inherently problematic that it is simply not worth the risk of a catastrophic event. Other jewelers have come to the same conclusion and, like us, signed The Bristol Bay Protection pledge.

Is this is first such position you've taken on gold mining?

No. Starting back around 1994, we began receiving a fair amount of unsolicited mail asking us to oppose the New World gold mine that was planned right outside of Yellowstone National Park. At that point, we didn't have the ability to see into our gold or silver supply chain, nor had our company policy on these issues been developed.

We began making inquiries, and as we learned more we thought, "If the New World mine is built, and there's a catastrophic failure of the tailings dam, the flood would destroy a good part of Yellowstone National Park. That's not a good thing for the jewelry industry." It was that simple. We drew the conclusion that, as leaders of the jewelry industry -- not necessarily by size but certainly by reputation -- it was appropriate for us to speak out in opposition.

When did you begin to formalize your mining policies?

About 10 years ago, we began to see concerns about gold mining enter the mainstream media. So around 2001, we started making inquiries to the NGO community, saying, "We're very interested in responsibly mined metals, but what should we do?" The response shocked us because, back then, a lot of NGOs said, "There are no standards of responsible mining yet. We really can't tell you where to go."

In 2002, we began working with NGOs like Earthworks to move forward on this issue. Today we abide by a set of core principles around responsible development and operation of large-scale mines.

Tiffany is synonymous with diamonds. How did the crisis of blood diamonds influence your position on mining?

Our experience with blood diamonds certainly raised our awareness about the environmental and human rights risks connected to metal mining. They weren't remotely on our radar screen when the stories first surfaced. That's because, back in in the early '80s, we did not manufacture the majority of our jewelry. We bought it from manufacturers around the world, primarily from Europe, and some from the U.S. We would also buy polished diamonds -- not rough unfinished diamonds -- from diamantaires* in historic diamond centers such as New York, Tel Aviv, or Antwerp. Because of this arrangement, we had little insight into the supply chain beyond those levels, and quite frankly, little incentive to make needed improvements to our supply practices. [*Ed. note: Diamantaire is an industry term, describing buyers, traders, and artisans who work in the middle layer of the supply chain. Diamantaires buy, cut and polish raw diamonds before they're set into jewelry to sell to larger wholesalers or retail jewelers.]

So dependency on diamantaires left you with little control over the origin of the gems?

Yes. Then, in essence, we became our own diamantaires. We had also undertaken a separate effort to vertically integrate our supply chain, beginning some years before the blood diamond problem first surfaced. The company was growing rapidly, and we needed to assure the flow of supply of manufactured goods, and later raw materials. We committed to cutting and polishing our own diamonds so that we could buy rough diamonds at the mine head. That gave us better knowledge of where a particular diamond came from.

The horrors of Sierra Leone crystallized this part of the strategy. We knew we absolutely had to be able to identify the country of origin and, ultimately, the mine of origin of as much of our raw materials as we could.

It's an ongoing process. We're not all the way there, even today. But we're confident that over time, for diamonds, we can identify the mine of origin, and attest to the social and environmental conditions at those mine sites.

Many industries have abandoned such vertical integration, arguing that high-volume specialists can be more efficient. How has taking control over your manufacturing process affected your bottom line?

By streamlining the supply chain, we have been able to capture a greater share of the profits typically taken at each step, from mine to trader, from trader to polisher, and so on. The vertical integration has been a strong profit-driver, and it's also allowed us to try to exercise some leadership on corporate social responsibility issues around the supply chain. For example, we have invested heavily in places like Botswana and Namibia to train diamond setters and polishers. By investing in those communities, we've helped create industries that deliver more income than the simple extraction of gems could alone.

We're probably rather unique, I think, for a retailer. We are without a doubt the most vertically integrated retail jeweler in the world. We make about 65 percent of all our jewelry at facilities here in the U.S., at a site in Westchester County, New York, and another in Providence, Rhode Island. This includes the jewelry we sell around the world -- in fact, we're a net exporter, even to China.

Other industries have established standards -- I'm thinking of industry-created definitions of "organic" in the food business. Tiffany has been outspoken about the need for third-party standards for responsible mining. What progress are you making?

We very much believe that if there are to be standards for human rights and environmental practices in the jewelry industry, there must be genuine third-party certification, where NGOs and other stakeholders participate in the establishment of those standards. You saw this with blood diamonds. I think the industry rallied dramatically to correct the problem by creating the Kimberley Process [to certify rough diamonds as conflict-free], which I think has largely been a success.

We have every control in place to be certain that diamonds from Tiffany only have Kimberley certificates. Can I make a 100 percent affirmative claim that nothing here has every come through? No one can. And that is, I think, where some of the biggest challenges are, in trying to assure supply chain integrity.

Does this position create tension with the mining industry?

We take great umbrage at criticisms we've faced. Some of the pro-mining folks have said of our efforts, "This is all about public relations." In response, I say, "Hold on. We've been concerned about this for almost 20 years. This is not about greenwashing. This is something we've been committed to. It's what our customers want. It's about the business imperative."

In fact, we're pro-responsible mining because we think that's what is essential for the growth and long-term economic health of the jewelry industry.

Earthworks said 80 retailers, including Target, Tiffany & Co., Sears and Helzberg Diamonds, have committed to the “Golden Rules,” and noted that Macy’s, as  eighth-largest retailer of gold jewelry in the United States, was “one of the last major jewelry retailers” to fail to adhere to those  standards.

Nick Magel, international campaigns coordinator for Earthworks said that  “Macy’s has a very clear choice. They can listen to their customers who want to know that their gold comes from ethical sources, or continue to hold out, sending the message that they don’t value sustainability and transparency.”

North Carolina, which is believed to be sitting on enough natural gas to power the state for 40 years, still prohibits fracking -- and environmental advocates are fighting to keep it that way. They mobilized in advance of this week's brief special legislative session to prevent the Republican-controlled General Assembly from overriding Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue's veto of the Energy Jobs Act (SB 709), which would have required the state to take steps toward allowing fracking as well as offshore drilling, also banned by law.

The groups spent the days leading up to the session asking supporters to contact their representatives and speak out against overriding the drilling bill veto. And when lawmakers arrived at the legislature on Sunday evening, they were greeted by activists including members of Croatan Earth First! carrying anti-fracking signs and chanting, "What do we want? Clean water! When do we want it? Always!" Fracking involves the use of toxic chemicals and has been linked to hundreds of water contamination cases nationwide.

In the end, the legislative leadership decided not take up the pro-fracking bill. The Greensboro News & Record took a close look at the numbers and concluded that the leadership simply did not have the votes it needed for an override.

"It is interesting how strong the pushback has been on the fracking issue," N.C. Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Democrat who's one of the legislature's leading environmental advocates, tells Facing South. "The citizen involvement has been critical to stalling the override of Gov. Perdue's veto of SB 709."

Anti-fracking activists have also enjoyed political victories recently in states atop the Marcellus Shale, which stretches along the Appalachians Mountains from New York and northern New Jersey through Pennsylvania and much of Ohio, and south into Maryland, West Virginia and the western edge of Virginia:

* The New Jersey-based Delaware River Basin Commission postponed a vote on gas drilling regulations last month following an outpouring of concern from citizens. Activists went ahead with a planned rally anyway, celebrating with what one newspaper described as a "victory lap."

* Big crowds attended the first hearings on New York's draft regulations for shale gas development, with people speaking out about fracking's risks to public health, water and air.

* In Pennsylvania, an online petition protesting the legislature's attempt to restrict local communities from using zoning ordinances to regulate gas drilling collected over 11,000 signatures from the public in just a few days. Meanwhile, officials from 12 counties across the state submitted a letter to the state legislature urging lawmakers to protect local zoning rights.

* And in West Virginia, where legislators are reportedly close to passing a bill that would regulate fracking, citizens groups organized a call-in day to Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) on Dec. 1 asking him to convene a special legislative session to take up the measure.

"Here's to more weeks like this one in many more places -- providing the 'strength in numbers' needed to keep pushing the movement against dirty drilling forward," Nadia Steinzor wrote last week on the blog of the environmental advocacy group Earthworks.

But just as opponents of fracking are making political gains, the gas industry is turning to harsh tactics for dealing with them -- including the admitted use of counterinsurgency strategies and psychological operations borrowed from the U.S. military.

'We're Dealing With an Insurgency Here'

The disturbing revelations came during an oil industry conference held last month in Houston, in remarks recorded by attendee Sharon Wilson, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project at Earthworks. Wilson shared the recordings with CNBC, which posted sound clips with its report. The name of the conference? "Working Together as an Industry to Leverage Mass Media, Social Media & Community Support to Overcome Public Concern Over Hydraulic Fracturing."

During a session titled "Understanding How Unconventional Oil and Gas Operators Are Developing a Comprehensive Media Relations Strategy to Engage Stakeholders and Educate the Public," Matt Carmichael, manager of external affairs for Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum, said:

If you're a P.R. representative in this industry in this room today, I recommend you do three things. … Download the U.S. Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual. Because we are dealing with an insurgency. There's a lot of good lessons in there, and coming from a military background I've found the insight in that extremely remarkable.

Updated in 2006, the military's counterinsurgency field manual establishes U.S. doctrine in dealing with an insurgency, which it defines as "an organized, protracted, politico-military struggle designed to weaken the control and legitimacy of an established government, occupying power, or other political authority while increasing insurgent control." The manual uses recent examples of counterinsurgency campaigns from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as historic examples from Vietnam, the Philippines and South America, and has chapters devoted to collecting intelligence and designing and executing counterinsurgency campaigns.

In another session at the same conference titled "Designing a Media Relations Strategy to Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing," Matt Pitzarella (in photo above), communications director for Fort Worth, Texas-based fracking giant Range Resources (and former communications manager for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root), said:

I think we have to get out ahead of all these issues. Everybody knows this. We've talked a lot about it. One thing that we've worked a lot on at Range is just getting more proactive in the community. It's not something that we've done before. In other parts of the nation it makes no sense for us to do that. In other parts, in Pennsylvania for instance, we have several -- 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're very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments. Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that, but very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army, and in the Middle East, does apply very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania.

Short for "psychological operations," psy ops is a form of warfare that the U.S. Department of Defense describes as intended to "convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups and individuals." In a publication issued last year updating the U.S. doctrine on such operations, the DoD stated that U.S. psy op forces "will not target US citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances." However, it also stated that, when authorized, psy op forces "may be used domestically to assist lead federal agencies during disaster relief and crisis management by informing the domestic population."

Both Anadarko Petroleum and Range Resources are major players in the fracking industry. Range Resources was one of the first companies to successfully tap gas from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale, and it currently has an estimated $1 billion invested there as well as smaller holdings elsewhere across the Appalachian Basin and in Texas. The company is a major political donor, with most of its contributions going to Republicans. It is also a major lobbying force and has worked with the influential lobbying firm headed by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

Range Resources has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for numerous alleged health and safety violations, including working without permits, spilling fracking fluids into waterways, and contaminating residential drinking water wells.  A recent New York Times investigation reported on numerous animal deaths and human illnesses that resulted after the company began drilling in one rural Pennsylvania community.

As DeSmogBlog reported, Range Resources' local government relations manager in Pennsylvania is James Cannon, a former Marine and Army reservist whose unit conducted psy ops during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- dropping some 36 million leaflets, distributing radios with instructions for tuning into broadcasts that urge cooperation with U.S. troops, and broadcasting messages by loudspeakers.

The radio show This American Life documented how Range sent threatening letters to residents of one Pennsylvania community where local officials sought to retain the power to regulate the company's operations through local ordinances. While one letter sent to all residents pointed positively to the company's local investments, a second letter sent at the same time to property owners with gas leases threatened to pull out of town unless local officials cooperated:

Throughout the state, Range is held up as the model for the natural gas drilling industry; everywhere, that is, except Mt. Pleasant. While we have made every effort to establish a positive and robust working relationship with your elected officials, our attempts continue to be rejected. As a result, we are sending this communication to inform you that we have revised our future long-term plans in the Township due to continuing difficulties with your Township supervisors and their unwillingness to work with us. As it stands, those revisions may provide detrimental to leaseholders.

Ultimately, we may be forced to shift to other, more cooperative townships. The shifting of operational activities will inevitably result in the shift of related activities, including the purchase of goods, services and food to other, more cooperative communities.

This American Life described what happened in Mt. Pleasant as a "full scale PR war -- a war in which the town was seriously outgunned."

It's a battle that could be coming soon to a fracking site near you.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1  – This holiday season, Macy’s could give its customers a gift: the assurance that the jewelry they buy comes from responsible gold mining. Instead, Macy’s remains one of the last major retailers that has yet to sign the No Dirty Gold Campaign’s Golden Rules, a set of social, human rights and environmental criteria for mining gold and other precious metals.

The No Dirty Gold Campaign, led by Earthworks, an international mining reform group, says Macy’s is turning a blind eye toward the abuses associated with irresponsible gold mining, while potentially selling gold tainted with those abuses. The department store chain, which includes Bloomingdale’s, is the eighth-largest retailer of gold jewelry in the United States, and one of the last major jewelry retailers to fail to sign the Golden Rules. Thus far, 80 retailers, including Target, Tiffany, Sears and Helzberg, have committed to these criteria.

“Macy’s stores and holiday catalogs are filled with glittering displays of jewelry, but they’re tarnished by the fact that shoppers can’t be sure where the gold comes from,” said Payal Sampat, international campaigns director for Earthworks. “Macy’s customers deserve to know their holiday gifts don’t come with a legacy of water pollution or human rights abuses, and right now Macy’s can’t say that.”

Gold mining is one of the most polluting industries on earth. Mining and producing one gold ring leaves, on average, 20 tons of often-toxic waste. Gold mining is also rife with human rights and labor abuses. On the Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor, gold is the most frequently named commodity.

This week, Earthworks and Change.org, an online social action platform, site, will begin a petition drive, asking consumers to tell Macy’s they want the company to commit to using only ethically sourced gold. Earlier this year, a similar petition to Target gathered over 22,000 signatures and helped convince the chain to sign the Golden Rules.

“Macy’s has a very clear choice,” said Nick Magel, international campaigns coordinator for Earthworks. “They can listen to their customers who want to know that their gold comes from ethical sources, or continue to hold out, sending the message that they don’t value sustainability and transparency.”

###

EARTHWORKS "No Dirty Gold" campaign works to educate and motivate consumers and jewelry retailers to push the mining industry towards more responsible practices. Over 80 jewelry companies have committed to switching to cleaner gold sources when available, and more than 100,000 consumers have joined the effort. For more information, see www.nodirtygold.org.

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. In 2007, a shareholder resolution spurred the company to undertake a review of its community relationships at existing global operations. The Conga mine provides the company with an opportunity for improving its controversial track record of community relationships and demonstrating its commitment to meaningful consultation.

In August 2011, Peru passed a new right to consultation law, which will require all mining, oil and gas companies to acquire the consent of Indigenous communities that will be impacted by these projects. That same month, the IFC, a partner in the Conga project, revised its Performance Standards to require the free, prior and informed consent of communities to be affected by projects it finances. Earthworks calls on Newmont, Buenaventura, and the IFC to work to implement these recommendations with respect to the Conga project.

Earthworks does not condone the use of violence or weapons by any parties. We support the right to peaceful and non-violent protest.”

I got a chance to tour a portion of the basin on a small plane run by EcoFlight two weeks ago as part of a fellowship organized by the Institutes of Journalism & Natural Resources (IJNR). While most people have a vague idea of how energy is produced, the quick trip brought to life the footprint of large-scale energy production.

The Four Corners area in northern New Mexico is one of the country's most productive energy regions, featuring two very large coal power plants and about 30,000 natural gas wells.

From the air, you can quickly see what huge operations coal plants are, just from the giant plumes of steam in the air and the impact of coal mining done on site.

Individually, the natural-gas well pads dotted along the ground are far less dramatic. But the density of the drilling and the proximity to agriculture and residential areas was remarkable to me. There are an estimated 30 well pads per mile in the area, linked by many roads that crisscross the desert habitat.

At a local level, coal and natural gas are controversial for environmental and health reasons, including worries over the impact on water from hydraulic fracturing--known as "fracking"--and horizontal drilling. But as mainstays of the global energy system, coal and natural gas are deeply entrenched in the U.S.

Burning coal is the cheapest way to produce electricity, and the increased use of fracking here and other parts of the country has led to surge in domestic natural-gas production and lower gas prices. Those low fossil fuel prices continues to make it difficult for renewable sources such as solar and wind to compete without subsidies and gain market momentum.

Decades of fracking

Getting natural gas from so-called unconventional sources, such as shale rock or coal seams, has dramatically changed the energy picture for the U.S. in just the last few years. Hearing the local opposition to drilling practices, though, is a reminder of how all energy sources have strings attached.

The source for natural gas in the San Juan basin is coal bed methane, or gas trapped in coal seams rather than an underground reservoir. Drillers have been using fracking and horizontal drilling in coal for years, the same technique that's being used on shale rock in other parts of the country. These techniques have allowed the region to remain productive years after many wells were expected to dry up, according to Wally Drangmeister, the director of communications for the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association.

"The basin has been productive for decades and the technology continues to improve in very significant ways," he said. "Just when you're at the point where you think the basin will begin to taper off, new technologies and processes take off."

In addition to being domestic, natural gas emits about half the carbon dioxide coal does when burned, and it emits far less conventional air pollution. But for Gwen Lachelt, the executive director of EarthWorks Oil & Gas Accountability Project, natural gas is a dirty fuel, not a cleaner "bridge" fossil fuel to renewable sources.

One of the biggest areas of contention is the impact on water from fracking and horizontal drilling, Lachelt said, adding that her group regularly gets calls from people whose water supplies have been affected by nearby drilling.

In hydraulic fracturing, drillers pump water and a mix of chemicals into wells at high pressure to create fissures in underground rock that then release methane. Some of that pumped solution can be retrieved and, in the San Juan basin area, reinjected in other wells or trucked out, explained Drangmeister. Such drilling also produces brackish underground water that has to be disposed of.

In a desert area that sees less than ten inches of rain a year, water disposal and the fluids used during fracking are both big concerns. The EarthWorks Oil & Gas Accountability Project is pushing for mandatory disclosure of fracking chemicals, regulations on disposal of water from drilling, and requirements for drillers to capture methane gas, rather than flaring it.

There are also questions over how public lands are leased for minerals extraction and what rights communities have in an area of intensive energy exploitation. Local groups are organizing over concern to their local environment, but it's really part of a larger discussion on national energy use, Lachelt said, who advocates federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing.

"We have to have a serious discussion about the role of natural gas in this country--we can't take it for granted," she said. "If it's going to continue being part of the energy mix, we need to deal with it responsibly and have that conversation."

Energy companies exploring for natural gas locked in shale deposits use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to get gas out of the ground. Critics complain the process releases methane into the atmosphere and leaves groundwater supplies vulnerable to harmful chemicals in fracking fluid.

Gwen Lachelt, director of Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project, said regulations proposed by the Energy Department were welcome but weren't strong enough to be effective.

"While today's report outlines several helpful steps to reduce the environmental costs of natural gas drilling, it is unfortunate that the subcommittee stopped short of calling for the closure of a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act and other environmental laws, leaving communities living amidst the shale gas boom at risk," she said in a statement.

An advisory board on natural gas released an interim report on fracking Thursday, calling for stronger regulation and effective enforcement to make sure onshore exploration is done safely.

Energy companies involved in fracking, and some U.S. states with rich shale deposits, say the process doesn't pose much of a threat to the environment if done correctly.

The Energy Department proposals call on energy companies to conduct testing before and after fracking campaigns to address concerns about the practice.

A coast-to-coast shale gas boom has raised concerns about the risks to underground water supplies from hydraulic fracturing, which involves mixing sand, water and chemicals and injecting them into shale formations at high pressure to unlock the gas. Environmental groups and local residents and politicians in areas rich with shale gas have said that hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," could lead to contamination of the water table. The energy industry insists that fracking is safe.

The report, issued by an expert panel appointed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, is the first effort by the Obama administration to cut through the acrimonious debate about tapping vast natural gas reservoirs held inside shale. It remains unclear whether the report, pulled together in 90 days at Chu's behest, will calm the debate. It's also uncertain if and how its recommendations would be implemented. The administration has not seen it yet. And given the political battles over the environment, little may go forward.

Still, the panel's chairman, John Deutch, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Bill Clinton, said he was optimistic about the report's potential impact.

"Given the report's tone and common-sense advice, it could influence industry and regulators' attitudes," Deutch said. It offered something for almost every side, said some environmental groups and industry representatives. "The report urges industry to come clean and for scientists and regulators to do their jobs," said Benjamin Grumbles, president of the Clean Water America Alliance, an association of municipal water districts and private industry.

The report won over some industry observers by eschewing the view common among environmental groups that shale gas production is inherently dangerous.

"On the whole, this is another example of a group of experts that has essentially concluded that environmental risk exists in shale gas production but that those risks are well-managed," said Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade association.

Still, the report noted that there was an urgency to addressing environmental issues. The four main concerns the report identified were possible pollution of water by chemicals used in fracking and from methane gas underground being released by the fracturing process; air pollution from methane and emissions from equipment and vehicles used in gas production; the potential disruption to communities and the accumulative adverse effects on their ecology.

The report recommended that companies measure and disclose what's in the water throughout the production process. It also called for them to reveal the chemicals they inject into the ground, unless the mix is "genuinely proprietary." The report called for the monitoring and reduction of air emissions at gas production sites, and for the preservation of some areas as off-limits to gas extraction.

"Quite frankly, this is better than we expected." said Jennifer Krill, executive director for Earthworks, an environmental group. "This report challenges the Department of Interior, the EPA and other federal agencies to hold the natural gas industry to the highest standards and move forward with a comprehensive plan to protect clean air, water and sensitive areas from drilling impacts."

Another report is due out in three months, and will be based in large part upon the reaction to this one, Deutch said.

Even here in green-topian California, fracking has been going on since the 1960s. Yet the process — in which pressurized water and chemicals are injected into the earth, potentially contaminating water supplies — has gone completely unregulated and untracked.

A new bill introduced by Assemblymember Bob Weickowski (D – Fremont) would change that. The bill, AB 591, would require oil and gas producers to list the chemicals and identify the source and volume of water they use.

“The public has a right to know what chemicals are being injected into our environment,” said Jennifer Krill, executive Director of Earthworks, which co-sponsored the legislation with the Environmental Working Group. “In fact, this was exactly the conclusion reached by a federal advisory committee studying hydraulic fracturing just last week.”

A Senate vote on Wieckowski’s bill is expected by August 26.

To increase the public's confidence in the shale "revolution" that has sent US gas production to record levels, the Natural Gas Subcommittee to the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board recommended that drillers fully disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and suggested the federal government investigate the impact of air emissions from shale plays.

The recommendations -- the first from any federal level body on the high-volume, high-intensity process of shale gas extraction -- stopped short of calling for any direct federal regulation of horizontal drilling and fracking but called for increased supervision at the state and regional level.

The committee agreed with what it called "the prevailing view" that the risk of fracking fluids leaking into drinking water was "remote," given the wide separation between shale formations deep underground and fresh water aquifers near the surface.

Nevertheless, "the subcommittee believes there is no economic or technical reason to prevent public disclosure of all chemicals in fracturing fluids, with an exception for genuinely proprietary information," the report said. "While companies and regulators are moving in this direction, progress needs to be accelerated in light of public concern."

Environmental groups liked the call for disclosure of fracking compounds but were disappointed that the seven-member panel did not go further and recommend that fracking's exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act be axed.

"Americans will not be fully protected until the natural gas industry's exemptions from key federal environmental laws are removed," Gwen Lachelt, director of Earthworks' Oil & Gas Accountability Project, said.

"While today's report outlines several helpful steps to reduce the environmental costs of natural gas drilling, it is unfortunate that the subcommittee stopped short of calling for the closure of a key loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act and other environmental laws, leaving communities living amidst the shale boom at risk," Lachelt said.

Republican lawmakers blasted the report as a back-door attempt to introduce new regulations on an already regulated industry.

Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, the ranking member on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report confirmed "what we have known all along."

"Natural gas is a cornerstone of the US economy and that it has brought lower prices, domestic jobs, and the prospect of enhanced national security," Inhofe said.

"However, as expected, any advisory panel coming out of Washington inevitably pushes for an increased regulatory agenda -- this report is no different," Inhofe added.

"We have seen the results of Washington's regulation on federal lands: it leads to less development, less jobs, and less economic growth. America became the largest producer of natural gas precisely because our immense shale deposits are located predominantly in areas of the country where states primarily regulate oil and gas development, not the federal government," Inhofe said.

Industry reaction was lukewarm. Independent Petroleum Association of America CEO Barry Russell praised the report for supporting state-based regulatory changes, but said its recommendations were "largely directed at improving public knowledge about development and enhancing the effectiveness of current management of shale gas development environmental risks."

"The report stands in stark contrast to the strident, hysterical demands for moratoria on hydraulic fracturing," Russell said.

America's Natural Gas Alliance chief spokesman Dan Whitten said the group was "particularly pleased with the recommendation to bolster the role of the multi-stakeholder group STRONGER and the Groundwater Protection Council to work within the state regulatory framework."

Subcommittee member Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund and the lone environmentalist on the panel, said the report was balanced and marked an important step towards finding common ground, rare in Washington, where "so much of the debate is characterized by discord and paralysis."

"The subcommittee's recommendations won't solve every problem overnight. But if implemented, they would make real progress toward developing this abundant energy source in ways that safeguard public health and the environment," he said, adding: "Rigorous, well-designed standards and improved transparency and disclosure can help ensure that shale gas is developed responsibly now and in the future."

Appointed by Secretary Stephen Chu early in the spring, the committee, headed by former CIA Director and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor John Deutch included former energy regulators, Krupp and a petroleum engineer who helped pioneer current fracking techniques, said the US will not be able to reap the tangible rewards of the "shale gale" unless public confidence in the gas drilling process is rejuvenated.

"Public concern and debate about the production of shale gas has grown as shale gas output has expanded," the report, released early Thursday, said.

The committee made nearly 100 recommendations in four areas of public concern: pollution of drinking water from gas migration or fracking chemicals; air pollution; community disruption by the trucks, wells and pipes constructed to get gas to market; and the unexamined cumulative impacts shale gas production can have on communities and the environment.

The advisors' recommendations are sure to disappoint all sides in arguments over shale gas extraction as the committee trod a fine line between calling for more oversight while leaving much of that role in the hands of states and industry-sponsored organizations.

Industry -- already leery of any increased federal role in the process -- will not be comforted by a call for a federal investigation of such areas as air emission and the banning of diesel fluid from the fracking process.

The committee recommended a national database be established for all shale gas data, collecting both information on the chemicals being used for fracking and well design data and production results -- essentially collating data collected by states and industry organizations.

It called for greater federal funding for interstate alliances such as STRONGER -- the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Regulation, which conducts audits on individual state regulatory regimes -- and the Ground Water Protection Council, which maintains FracFocus, a voluntary well-by-well database of fracking fluids, as well risk management software for designing shale gas wells.

The federal government should immediately launch an interagency effort to gather and analyze air emissions data to gauge the overall greenhouse gas footprint of shale operations and determine the lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts of natural gas versus other fuels, the committee recommended.

--Bill Holland, bill_holland@platts.com

The report, which we wrote about here, was called for by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu in May as a 90-day look at hydraulic fracturing and ways to lessen its environmental impact.

The Environmental Defense Fund, whose President Fred Krupp sat on the panel, stressed that the report called for “strong regulation and effective enforcement” in order to ensure the safe and sustainable development of America’s onshore natural gas resources.

“The subcommittee’s recommendations won’t solve every problem overnight,” Krupp said. “But if implemented, they would make real progress toward developing this abundant energy source in ways that safeguard public health and the environment. Rigorous, well-designed standards and improved transparency and disclosure can help ensure that shale gas is developed responsibly now and in the future.”

Earthworks, a grassroots environmental group, said “the subcommittee’s report was stronger than expected” in its call for immediate actions to measure, monitor and reduce air and water pollution.

But Gwen Lachelt, director of Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project, said Americans “will not be fully protected until the natural gas industry’s exemptions from key federal environmental laws are removed.”

“While today’s report outlines several helpful steps to reduce the environmental costs of natural gas drilling, it is unfortunate that the subcommittee stopped short of calling for the closure of a key loophole  in the Safe Drinking Water Act and other environmental laws, leaving communities living amidst the shale gas boom at risk.” said Lachelt. “The subcommittee’s recommendations offer an historic opportunity for the President and our federal agencies to hold the natural gas industry to the highest standards.”

Dan Whitten, vice president of strategic communications for America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), said the group was particularly pleased that the study called for a stronger role for the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), a partnership between the EPA and industry to improve oversight at the state level.

“The report also reinforces ANGA’s prior commitment to disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids through the state-based GWPC registry, FracFocus.org,” Whitten said.

Barry Russell, CEO of The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents the companies that drill most of the country’ oil and natural gas wells, said the report reaffirms the industry view that the current state and federal regulatory system is effective in protecting the public.

“While the Report makes a number of recommendations, these recommendations are largely directed at improving public knowledge about development and enhancing the effectiveness of the current management of shale gas development environmental risks,” he said.

“IPAA hopes that the Subcommittee’s efforts will help shift shale gas development discussions toward real issues that need to be addressed.”

The American Petroleum Institute, however, was quite a bit more critical of the report. In an interview this morning, API’s Erik Milito said the report didn’t give the industry enough credit for what it is already doing to ensure safe operations, and it didn’t stress the success of the current regulatory regime.

He noted that API has already developed best practices for well integrity, for example. Milito also notes the report is incorrect when it says proposed EPA regulations for drilling air quality controls aren’t aimed at a broad enough range of emissions.

A panel recommendation to reduce well site emissions by using natural gas-fueled trucks and drilling rigs is also unrealistic and misinformed, Milito says.

“If the panel had an industry representative on it might have avoided those kinds of errors,” he said.

Milito said claims from environmental groups that the panel had too many ties to industry was “a bit ridiculous.”

“You have to recognize that the environmental NGOs had a representative on the panel (NDF’s Fred Krupp),” Milito said. “And you could say anyone has strong ties to the industry if they have a 401(k) or pension plan.”

Media coverage of the report was far from identical, likely due to the many recommendations, facets and caveats of the report.

E2 Wire’s headline touts the recommendation for disclosing fracking fluids, and even calls the recommendation “likely more controversial” than other calls in the report for more monitoring and sharing of a wide range of data on shale gas development.

The Associated Press also led with the idea of frac fluid disclosure but quickly got to the point that there were other more pressing environmental concerns that needed to be addressed.

Bloomberg’s story on the report stressed the potential environmental hazards part of the report.

The Financial Times focused on a message that the gas industry will continue to face opposition unless it does a better job of addressing the public’s concerns.

The committee warned that these “serious environmental impacts … need to be prevented, reduced and, where possible, eliminated as soon as possible”. It added: “Absent effective control, public opposition will grow, thus putting continued production at risk.”

And the New York Times’ piece stresses the call for more regulations on the process, while being sure to credit itself for the creation of the panel in the first place.

My story on the report was shaped in large part on the two interviews I was able to do with panel members, John Deutch and Stephen Holditch. My conversation with them affirmed an initial impression I had from reading the report: 1. that the recommendations had less to do with hydraulic fracturing itself and more to do with the general procedures of drilling and completions and, 2. that the emissions issues around drilling and production were much greater than industry (and likely regulators) realized.

The focus that some news outlets put on frac fluid disclosure recommendation struck me as somewhat irrelevant. It’s been known for years there can be hazardous chemicals in the frac mixes, companies have started to disclose them voluntarily and more states (starting with Texas) are requiring disclosure. When Texas lawmakers require something of the oil and gas industry, it’s pretty safe to say the controversy is nearly over.

Hickenlooper, a former petroleum geologist, courted the gas industry during his campaign for governor last year. He also said in the closing days of the campaign that he would like to work with the industry in crafting a “voluntary” tax increase to help fund college scholarships.

“We are confident this group will help serve the industry, land owners and the environment well as it navigates through issues that are important to both the state’s economy and protection of Colorado’s beautiful landscapes,” Hickenlooper said in a news release.

Gwen Lachelt, director of the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, said the appointments make the commission feel more industry-dominated than the previous panel.

“I just hope that those folks are willing to listen to the concerns of Coloradans who live with oil and gas development and make fair and balanced decisions,” Lachelt said.

Fort Lupton Mayor Tommy E. Holton, a Republican, will fill the seat reserved for local governments. Holton previously worked as a machinist in an oil field services business, and his home county of Weld has about half the state’s oil and gas wells.

In 2007, former Gov. Bill Ritter gave the local government seat to Garfield County Commissioner Tresi Houpt, a Democrat and vocal critic of the industry.

Compton served on the commission since 2007, when Ritter overhauled it and commissioners adopted a lengthy set of environmental rules.

“I think they’re a pretty good set of rules, and I’d like to be involved in seeing them play out for another couple of years,” Compton said.

The rules touched off a political war between Ritter and the gas industry, but the two sides had moved toward a truce by the time Ritter left office.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, an industry group, dropped its lawsuit over the rules after Hickenlooper took office this year, and the commission has been free of major political battles for at least a year, Compton said.

jhanel@durangoherald.com

Hickenlooper, speaking at the Colorado Oil and Gas Association annual conference, said the goal was to have a rule in place by year's end for disclosing hydrofracturing fluids. The regulation would help "restore public confidence" in the industry, he said.

Eight states — from Pennsylvania to California — have adopted disclosure rules or are considering proposals.

The key issue will be whether Colorado ends up with a strong rule, like Wyoming's, or a weaker one, like Texas', said Gwen Lachelt, director of the Durango-based Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

"We will have to see how it plays out in Colorado," said David Neslin, the director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, which will be responsible for drafting the rule.

State agencies and the Oil and Gas Association announced on Tuesday a voluntary program to test water quality before and after drilling and fracking.

The program is another response to the criticism that fracking may contaminate water, said Tisha Schuller, president of the association.

Under the program, water wells of two neighboring property owners will be tested before and after drilling and fracking.

Twenty of the largest drillers in the state — who have accounted for 90 percent of the wells drilled this year — have agreed to participate.

Tests will be paid for by oil companies, and results will be kept in a database by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission.

The program will start in the fall, and the commission's Neslin estimated that it will add about 4,000 wells to the state's groundwater monitoring efforts — almost doubling the number of wells.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which millions of gallons of water and sand, laced with trace chemicals, is pumped into a well under pressure to create small fissures that release more oil or gas.

Companies, such as Halliburton, have refused to disclose the ingredients used, saying it is proprietary information.

Critics contend fracking fluids — which can contain potentially toxic chemicals — are a risk to groundwater.

In Pennsylvania, a blowout in a well being fracked has been linked to well pollution by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Colorado oil and gas officials say there is no documented case of fracking-caused pollution in the state.

Hickenlooper, a Democrat and former geologist, said disclosing the fluids' components will help make the process more transparent.

"The most valuable recipe in the world is for Coca-Cola, and they put it on the bottle," he said.

Hickenlooper said the concerns over fracking were overblown and not based on science.

"But the industry needs to be transparent," Hickenlooper said. "It needs to demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that this doesn't happen."
In initial talks with the industry, the governor said some companies, particularly smaller ones, saw the proposed rule as "an intrusion in their businesses."

"We've gone a long way to convincing them," he said. "More and more of the industry sees this as a good thing."
Industry representatives and environmental advocates cautiously endorsed the Hickenlooper administration move.

"We are willing to work with the governor on disclosure," said the oil and gas association's Schuller.

The accountability project's Lachelt said: "This is something we want to work on. We need a strong disclosure rule."

A key element will be deciding what constitutes a proprietary chemical — one that doesn't have to be disclosed, said Amy Mall, an energy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Some companies already are disclosing what is in their fracking fluids through FracFocus — an online database managed by Ground

Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

In Colorado, 11 companies have filed the fracking fluids they used on 500 wells so far this year.

"If the Colorado disclosure rule is similar to FracFocus, it would be like our present practice," said A. Scott Moore, vice president of marketing for Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a major operator on the Front Range.

John Dill, a spokesman for Chesapeake Energy, another operator active in the state, said, "We supported the Wyoming, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas rules, and we'll support Colorado's."

Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912 or mjaffe@denverpost.com

All but a dozen of the 108 speakers who signed up to speak at the hearing in the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Downtown, voiced support for the new regulations that use proven technology and existing best practices within the drilling industry to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds by 95 percent from hydraulically fractured, or "fracked," wells and 25 percent industrywide.

The few drilling industry speakers asked for an additional two months to comment.

The proposed rules would also reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, by 3.4 million tons and air toxics, such as benzene, a human carcinogen, by 38,000 tons, or almost 30 percent.

"The EPA recognizes what many citizens living near oil and gas facilities have known for a long time: Fossil fuel production is dirty and harmful to health," said Nadia Steinzor of Earthworks, an national environmental organization. "The new rules would require companies to take measures to reduce emissions and require that they be held accountable for damage, while equally protecting all Americans from pollution."

Janet McIntyre, a resident of rural Butler County, testified that air emissions from 10 Marcellus Shale wells within a mile and a half of her home, plus a compressor station and three fracking waste holding ponds, have put into the air a bad smell that has affected 30 people in her neighborhood.

"If I go outside for more than five minutes, I get a severe headache and burning eyes and skin and a metallic taste on my lips," she said. "The air is chocking me and my neighbors, too. I feel it's coming from those fracking waste ponds around me."

Deborah Nardone, director of the Sierra Club's Natural Gas Reform Campaign, handed the three EPA hearing officials printed sets of 23,560 comments she said express concern about pollution from fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale play and other shale gas plays across the country.

"Areas of the country that have more fully developed shale plays are experiencing significant effects from the cumulative impacts of oil and gas production," Ms. Nardone said. "Here in Pennsylvania, as development and production grows at a rapid rate, air contaminants and their effect on human health are a grave concern. Action by the EPA is long overdue to help regulate and monitor the rogue natural gas industry."

David McCabe, an atmospheric scientist with the Clean Air Task Force, and Kevin Stewart, director of environmental health for the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic, were among a chorus of speakers who said the EPA should strengthen the proposed rules by expanding its scope to new and existing well and compressor operations, target controls for methane capture and eliminate open-pit wastewater storage.

According to the EPA, the proposed rules would apply to emissions from more than 11,400 new oil and gas wells that are fracked annually and another 14,000 that are refracked, plus storage tanks and other equipment.

The EPA must finalize the rules, mandated by a court-ordered consent decree, by Feb. 28, 2012.

The proposed rules -- the first changes in air emissions regulations governing oil and gas well operations in decades -- would use existing technologies to reduce pollution from well drilling, leaking pipes, storage tanks and gas compressor stations that contributes to smog and can cause respiratory problems and cancer.

Those emissions control technologies, including capture of volatile organic compounds, benzene -- a known carcinogen -- and other gases now routinely vented into the atmosphere, are already employed by some companies and are required by some states, but not Pennsylvania.

Drilling industry speakers questioned the math for EPA projections that show implementation of the rules would not only reduce air pollution but result in a net savings for the industry of $30 million annually from selling the captured emissions.

Kathryn Klaber, president and executive director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group representing more than 250 companies operating in the Marcellus Shale play, emphasized the energy production and environmental benefits of cleaner-burning natural gas.

She also questioned the economic benefits the EPA's proposals would have on the industry, especially in Eastern Pennsylvania, where "dryer" Marcellus gas contains fewer volatile organic compounds.

Ms. Klaber also requested a delay or phase-in of required compliance with the proposed New Source Performance Standards.

"Considering the myriad of regulation changes and additions proposed with this rule-making," she said, "sufficient equipment, manpower and contractors likely will not be available to handle the inevitable rush."

Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, said the EPA proposals are a "reasonable start" but require some changes to make them workable. He suggested that the final rules be delayed for a full year.

Pittsburgh city Councilman Doug Shields testified that the new federal rules are needed because local, state and federal governments have so far failed to exercise appropriate control of the industry, resulting in environmental pollution and health problems for some people living near gas wells.

"This proposed rule represents only a start in efforts to preserve our rights as citizens, to preserve our health, welfare and safety," Mr. Shields said. "I endorse it. I do want to inform you that you are a decade late in doing so and there is so much more to be done. The horse is already out of the barn."

The last two hearings on the EPA proposals are scheduled for Denver on Wednesday and Arlington, Texas, on Thursday.

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11271/1178075-113-0.stm#ixzz1eNp7x4bW

“We think this is a solid step in the right direction,” said Bruce Baizel, an attorney with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project in Durango.

Hydraulic fracturing, a technique that uses millions of gallons of water alongside sand and chemical additives to unlock natural gas in deep formations, is being used in Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and other states. The practice has increased dramatically in recent years, raising concerns about the potential impact on water quality.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it will draft standards for fracking wastewater that drillers would have to meet before sending it to treatment plants.

Baizel said the regulatory move will set national standards for coal-bed methane wastewater pretreatment and discharge in 2013 and for shale gas wastewater in 2014.

“In many states, both standards and enforcement have been lacking,” Baizel said.

It has created a need for national rules that rely on “economically achievable technologies,” he said.

An industry advocate, meanwhile, condemned the plan to regulate.

“It is perplexing that the EPA has chosen to assert new layers of regulation in an area where the states have shown strong regulatory oversight,” said Christi Zeller, executive director for the La Plata County Energy Council. “There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, making local and state authorities the most appropriate regulators.”

In La Plata County, fracking waste is reused at other sites or inserted into injection wells, Zeller said. It is not sent to treatment plants.

Still, Mike Eisenfeld, energy issues organizer for San Juan Citizens Alliance. said the federal rules are necessary.

“Some agency needs to regulate this process,” Eisenfeld said, adding that a state-by-state approach may not be adequate without more intervention from the federal government. “I think we should have a standard.”

Baizel said the rules could create economic opportunity for fracking companies that see the importance in treating the wastewater in a way that extends finite water resources in water-constrained areas such as the Four Corners.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Alaska Natives, commercial fishermen, and mining reform group Earthworks have turned the spotlight on to the world's largest jeweler: Signet, parent company of the retail chains Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria, with a full-page ad (PDF) in the Western edition of The New York Times.

The groups want Signet Jewelers (NYSE, LSE: SIG) to sign the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge. More than 50 leading jewelers worldwide, representing over $5.5 billion in sales and including Tiffany & Co., Zales and Boucheron, have gone on record that they will not use gold from the Pebble Mine, proposed by Anglo American plc (LSE: AAL, JSE: ANGLO) in partnership with Canadian miner Northern Dynasty.

The vast open-pit mine would sit at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, the most valuable wild salmon fishery in the world and the basis of the region's economy and culture. Up to 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste would be dumped in the Bristol Bay watershed, endangering both the salmon and a way of life. A 2010 ecological risk assessment concluded that large-scale mining in Bristol Bay is cause for "significant concern regarding the long- term abundance and sustainability of salmon in the region."

"Bristol Bay feeds our families and millions the world over," said Kim Williams, executive director of Nunamta Aululestai ("Caretakers of the Land" in Yu'pik.) "We're asking Kay and Jared Jewellers to support Bristol Bay protection because gold jewelry should be a symbol of love, not destruction."

"Alaska's Bristol Bay supplies half the world's wild sockeye salmon, and it sustains thousands of hardworking fishermen," said Bob Waldrop of the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, representing roughly 2,000 Bristol Bay commercial fishermen. "We're very grateful for the support we've gotten from jewelers all over the world, and we're asking Signet to support us, too," he continued. "It's the responsible thing to do and it shows their customers that they are serious about ethical gold sourcing."

Since 2009, the groups have attempted on numerous occasions to engage with Signet through letters and phone calls and have invited Signet to meet with native Alaskan leaders, technical experts and others regarding the project.

The jewelry retail sector is an important voice on the issue because jewelry accounts for roughly 80% of newly mined gold globally, according to the World Gold Council. The proposed Pebble mine is the largest gold porphyry deposit in the world, according to the mining company.

"This is an opportunity for Kay and Jared Jewellers to shine. There's no better way to demonstrate that 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 fishery," said Bonnie Gestring of Earthworks.

The ad was signed by Nunamta Aulukestai, the association of nine Native villages in the area; the Alaska Independent Fishermen's Association; the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association; and the mining reform group Earthworks.

For a full list of jewelers who have signed the pledge, go to: http://www.ourbristolbay.com/pledge-signee.html

Jeweler statements are available here: http://www.ourbristolbay.com/pledge-statement.html

It was a gathering of professionals to discuss “media and stakeholder relations” in the hydraulic fracturing industry — companies using the often-controversial oil and gas extraction technique known as “fracking.”

But things took an unexpected twist.

CNBC has obtained audiotapes of the event, on which one presenter can be heard recommending that his colleagues download a copy of the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual. (Click below to hear the audio.) That’s because, he said, the opposition facing the industry is an “insurgency.”

Another told attendees that his company has several former military psychological operations, or “psy ops” specialists on staff, applying their skills in Pennsylvania. (Click below to hear.)

The comments were recorded by an environmental activist, who passed along audio files to CNBC. The activist, Sharon Wilson, is the director of the Oil & Gas Accountability Project for the nonprofit environmental group Earthworks. She said she paid full price to attend the two day event, and wore a nametag identifying her organization as she recorded the conference.

In a session entitled “Designing a Media Relations Strategy To Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing,” Range Resources communications director Matt Pitzarella spoke about “overcoming stakeholder concerns” about the fracking process.

“We have several former psy ops folks that work for us at Range because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments,” Pitzarella said. “Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania.”

At another session, Matt Carmichael, the manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum [APC  75.41     -1.29  (-1.68%)    ], spoke on the topic of “Understanding How Unconventional Oil & Gas Operators are Developing a Comprehensive Media Relations Strategy to Engage Stakeholders and Educate the Public.”

“Download the U.S. Army-slash-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency,” Carmichael said. “There’s a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background, I found the insight in that extremely remarkable.”

Reached by CNBC to provide context to his remarks about psychological operations, Range Resources’ Matt Pitzarella explained that he was referring to one employee of the firm, whose military background makes him particularly good at handling emotional meetings with local representatives.

“Range employs dozens of veterans and active service men and women,” Pitzarella said. “One employee who works with municipal governments in Pennsylvania has a background in psychological operations in the Army. Since the majority of his work is spent in local hearings and developing local regulations for drilling, we’ve found that his service in the Middle East is a real asset.”

Pitzarella explained that Range operates transparently with local communities, and pointed out that it was the first company in the United States to fully disclose all the fracking fluids that it uses. He also took issue with Carmichael’s comments about using Marine Corps tactics on opponents in an “insurgency.”

“That’s not something I think that we would do,” Pitzarella said. “You’re not dealing with insurgents, you’re dealing with regular people who live in towns and want to know what you’re doing.”

Carmichael emailed a comment to CNBC, explaining his remarks. “The comment was simply suggesting industry embracing a broader move toward more active community engagement and increased transparency, as it’s very important to build fact-based knowledge to maintain public trust amidst special interests that often use misinformation to create fear,” he said.

Wilson, who recorded the remarks, said the comments reveal what the fracking industry thinks about people in the communities that are impacted by the industry.

“What’s clear to me is that are having to use some very extreme measures in out neighborhoods,” she said. “And it seems like they view it as an occupation.”

She said she was surprised such military-style techniques would be discussed in an open forum.

“This was crossing a line — they considered it was on the American people, sort of like they are going in and occupying our land — which is what they are doing,” Wilson said.

But another attendee saw the remarks differently.

Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the industry group Energy in Depth, said Carmichael’s comments about facing an “insurgency,” were simply meant as a joke.

“There are no black helicopters here,” Tucker said. “No one’s rappelling down from a helicopter at three a.m. looking through people’s trash. We go to township meetings, and we hear what people have to say.”

“It had this long name,” she said, ‘The Media and Stakeholder Relations Hydrolic Fracturing Initiative, 2011′ and it was going to be about the use of new social media, so I thought I should attend.”

But what she heard–and videod–in the two days of the event that she attended, made her skin crawl.

“At one of the talks, a fellow named Matt Carmichael from Anadarko told people to download the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual because what the gas industry was facing was an insurgency. When he said that I got very scared,” said Wilson. “I perceived it as being very sinister.”

Another presenter, Range Resources communications director Matt Pitzarella told attendees that Range had several former “psy ops folks” working for them because they knew how to deal with local issues and governments. Pitzarella was quoted in a CNBC story as saying they spend “most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But…having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and the Middle East has applied very helpfully for us here in Pennsylvania.”

The CNBC story, which was sparked by audiotapes Wilson supplied, followed up with Pitzarella who said that Range had only one employee who had worked in psychological operations who is “particularly good at handling emotional meetings with local representatives.”

“At first I was afraid but then I got angry,” Wilson told the Fort Worth Weekly. “This is really how the gas companies see us, as insurgents. They’ve been using these tactics against us from the beginning but if you suggested that people just called you paranoid. Now we have proof.”

The worst part, Wilson said, was how such things were talked about as if they were just par for the course. “It’s like it’s one of their bullet points for working with the new social media: Put out some Tweets, post something on Facebook, employ psy-ops.”

Matt Pitzarella, the director of corporate communications and public affairs for Range Resources, then chimed in: "We have several former PSYOPs folks that work for us at Range because they're very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments."

He continued: "Really, all they do is spend most of their time helping folks 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 Pennsylvania." But Pitzarella was hardly the only one touting the benefits of such strategies in dealing with ongoing public controversy over fracking.

As it turns out, these recordings were made by someone familiar to the Friends of Unfair Park who've been following the debate over gas drilling in Dallas city limits: Sharon Wilson, better known as "TXSharon," who maintains the Bluedaze website.

Wilson, the Collin County-based organizer of the Oil & Gas Accountability Project for Earthworks, a non-profit focused on the environment, tells Unfair Park today she paid full price for her ticket to the Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 conference -- and even wore a name-tag identifying her organization. She had no intention of outing anyone, she insists.

"I didn't expect to hear anything this insidious," she says. "I did not expect that. The reason I took the recorder, the main reason, is I'm a horrible note-taker."

Unfair Park attempted to reach Carmichael of Anadarko Petroleum about his "insurgency" remarks. But it was another Anadarko spokesperson, John Christiansen, who responded to our email.

"The reference was not reflective of our core values," he wrote. "Our community efforts are based upon open communication, active engagement and transparency, which are all essential in building fact-based knowledge and earning public trust."

We also reached out to Pitzarella, and will update if we get a response.

When asked whether these comments were just moments taken out of context, Wilson insists: Definitely not.

"It was absolutely a theme throughout the whole thing of enlist neighbors who have an incentive and get them to deliver your message to their neighbors," she says. "Words like 'enlist' and 'engage' ... 'battle' and 'war.' More than just the two Matts referred to the American public as insurgents."

Wilson says she knows people who have received letters from gas companies encouraging mineral rights owners to advocate for drilling in their neighborhoods. She says energy companies often seem to target people who will benefit financially from drilling in an attempt for them to rally the support of others around them. As evidenced by the mere existence of last week's conference, strategy can be of key importance in such matters.

"So they have to use these extreme measures to get what they want," she says. "I think a lot of people wouldn't object if they could do it safely and if it didn't harm them. But it does and it has, and that's why they're having to do these very drastic extreme measures."

She didn't intend on taping the entire conference, she says, but ran out to buy extra batteries after the first lecture: "I've got almost 16 hours of tape."

Sharon Wilson, who directs Earthworks' Oil & Gas Accountability Project, provided the recordings to CNBC. They're from an oil industry conference held last week in Houston.

In the recordings, one communications director says that his company has "several former psy ops folks that work for us." He goes to say that "having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania."

Another company representative suggested that his colleagues "download the U.S. Army-slash-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency … There's a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background, I found the insight in that extremely remarkable."

The reps walked back their comments to CNBC, saying they were promoting "active community engagement" and "fact-based knowledge to maintain public trust." That's all well and good, but, um, there are fields besides military counterinsurgency tactics that teach those techniques.

At least, that’s the advice that was delivered to oil and gas company representatives at a conference in Houston last week.

In separate panels focused on media and public relations, presenters from Anadarko and Range Resources advised attendees to adopt military-style tactics for soothing concerns about hydraulic fracturing and other industry practices.

The advice was recorded by an environmental activist who directs Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project and turned over the tapes to Fuel Fix. CNBC, who also received the tapes, has a full writeup of the unexpected advice — with excerpts of the audio — from Washington, D.C. correspondent Eamon Javers.

One presenter from Range Resources told conference attendees that the company has hired psychological operations experts whose background in the military “has applied very helpfully” in soothing local concerns about hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania.

Separately, Matt Carmichael, Anadarko’s external affairs manager — and a former Marine — recommended conference attendees borrow lessons from the Army and Marine Corps’ counterinsurgency manual, “because we are dealing with an insurgency.”

Anadarko spokesman John Christiansen said in statement the company recognizes “that building trust in our communities is essential” and that the comment reflected an interest in being more transparent with the public:

“The comment was suggesting industry’s need to embrace a broader move toward more active community engagement and transparency, as we believe it is very important to build fact-based knowledge to maintain public trust amidst special interests that often use misinformation to create fear.”

Range Matt Pitzarella, the director of Range Communications, responded to his comments at the conference to CNBC. He said he was refering to one employee of the firm.

“Range employs dozens of veterans and active service men and women,” Pitzarella said. “One employee who works with municipal governments in Pennsylvania has a background in psychological operations in the Army. Since the majority of his work is spent in local hearings and developing local regulations for drilling, we’ve found that his service in the Middle East is a real asset.”

In recent years, industry leaders have openly acknowledged their shortcomings in explaining drilling techniques and safety methods to the public, particularly in Pennsylvania and other areas where energy companies are using hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from dense shale rock formations.

In an interview, activist Sharon Wilson said she paid $1,300 to attend the conference and wore a badge with her name and affiliation while taping more than 60 hours of presentations.

“When Matt Carmichael made the comment about insurgency, I had a moment of sheer terror,” Wilson said. “It was so dark and so secret that it couldn’t possibly be said in the open. For the moment, I was afraid of what they’d do if they found me out.”

While she reacted in horror to some comments, Wilson said some giggled and others acted surprised.

“I don’t know if they were shocked that he (Carmichael) said it or that they hadn’t thought about it themselves,” she said.

But Wilson said she didn’t find anything funny about the advice. There’s no way these were jokes that fell flat, she said, adding: “It wasn’t said in a joking manner at all.”

Homeowners concerned for the safety of their well water, and environmentalists, who believe the drilling even caused the Oklahoma earthquake, have formed movements against the practice, and it was these efforts that came up for discussion at last week's oil industry conference in Houston.

Filled with industry insiders all facing the same challenges and concerns, speakers lectured openly on how they handled the American public in communities where they drilled.

There, recording it all, was environmental activist Sharon Wilson, director of the Oil & Gas Accountability Project.
In the following recording, given to CNBC, one presenter tells the crowd to download a copy of the Army's counterinsurgency manual. "Because," he said, the movement opposing the industry is an "insurgency."

In this next recording (also given to CNBC) the speaker tells listeners that his organization maintains several military veterans who served as psychological warfare specialists. These former "psy ops" soldiers, he explains, are using their skills in Pennsylvania.

Wilson paid full price for attendance to the conference and wore a nametag identifying herself and her organization.
In his forum called “Designing a Media Relations Strategy To Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing,”  Range Resources communications director Matt Pitzarella explains how to "overcome stakeholder concerns" surrounding fracking.

“We have several former psy ops folks that work for us at Range because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments,” Pitzarella said. “Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania.”

It was during Anadarko Petroleum's manager of external affairs, Matt Carmichael's, session on “Understanding How Unconventional Oil & Gas Operators are Developing a Comprehensive Media Relations Strategy to Engage Stakeholders and Educate the Public" that he suggested his colleagues:

“Download the U.S. Army-slash-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency,” Carmichael said. “There’s a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background, I found the insight in that extremely remarkable.”

To be clear on exactly what Carmichael meant when he said they're "dealing with an insurgency" we obtained a copy of the FM 3-24 — the final edition of the 2006 Counterinsurgency manual provided to psy ops soldiers. We substituted the word government with corporation.

" ... insurgency has been a common approach used by the weak to combat the strong. At the beginning of a conflict, insurgents have the strategic initiative ... the insurgents generally initiate the war. They may strive to disguise their intentions, and the potential counter-insurgent will be at a great disadvantage until [corporate] leaders recognize that an insurgency exists and are able to determine its makeup and characteristics to facilitate a coordinated reaction.

While the [corporation] prepares to respond, the insurgent is gaining strength and creating increasing disruptions throughout the state. The existing [corporation] normally has an initial advantage in resources, but that edge is counterbalanced by the requirement to maintain order. The insurgent succeeds by sowing chaos and disorder anywhere; the [corporation] fails unless it maintains order everywhere.
Check out FM 3-24 below, section 1-1 provides the overview of an "insurgency." It provides an interesting insight into how corporations impacting the daily lives of US citizens conduct policy.

In a session entitled “Designing a Media Relations Strategy To Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing,” Range Resources communications director Matt Pitzarella spoke about “overcoming stakeholder concerns” about the fracking process.

“We have several former psy ops folks that work for us at Range because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments,” Pitzarella said. “Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania.”

At another session, Matt Carmichael, the manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum, spoke on the topic of “Understanding How Unconventional Oil & Gas Operators are Developing a Comprehensive Media Relations Strategy to Engage Stakeholders and Educate the Public.”

He said he had several recommendations for the oil industry media professionals at the event, one of which, he said, involved the military.

“Download the U.S. Army-slash-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency,” Carmichael said.

“There’s a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background, I found the insight in that extremely remarkable.”

Dairy farmers in Pennsylvania have grown concerned by the unregulated boom in fracking, with problems including “questionable leases favoring gas companies, liens on property, mortgage conflicts, heavy truck traffic, social disintegration, loss of agricultural land, ground water contamination, increased community and farming costs, loss of tourism.” Families in Dimock, PA, are still dealing with contaminated water from fracking damages two years ago.

While it is a very good thing that drilling companies are hiring U.S. veterans, they need to remember that Pennsylvania is not actually a battlefield. Even though he is using “psy ops,” Range’s Pitzarella does seem to understand that. “You’re not dealing with insurgents, you’re dealing with regular people who live in towns and want to know what you’re doing,” he told CNBC.

Matt Pitzarella, a Range Resources spokesman speaking to other oil and gas industry spokespeople at the conference last week, said the company hires former military psyops specialists who use those skills in Pennsylvania.

"We have several former psyops folks that work for us at Range because they're very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments," Mr. Pitzarella said during the last half of a 23-minute presentation in a conference session. The session was titled "Designing a Media Relations Strategy to Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing."

"Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that," he continued. "But very much having that understanding of psyops in the Army and the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania."

Matt Carmichael, manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum, which has nearly 300,000 acres of Marcellus Shale gas holdings under lease in Central Pennsylvania, gave a speech urging industry media spokesmen to read a military counterinsurgency manual for tips in dealing with opponents to shale gas development.

"There's a lot of good lessons in there," he said, "and coming from a military background, I found the insight extremely remarkable."

The remarks of both Mr. Pitzarella and Mr. Carmichael were recorded at the conference by Sharon Wilson, an activist and member of the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a national environmental nonprofit focused on the impacts of mineral and energy development.

She said the term "insurgent" shows what the industry thinks about the communities where it is drilling.

"What's clear to me is that they are having to use some very extreme measures in our neighborhoods. And it seems like they view it as an occupation," Ms. Wilson said.

Psychological operations is a term used in the military and intelligence agencies and involves use of selective communications and sometimes misinformation and deception to manipulate public perception. According to a U.S. Army careers website, psyops specialists "assess the information needs of a target population and develop and deliver the right message at the right time and place to create the intended result."

Environmental groups and residents of communities where Marcellus drilling has been controversial and sometimes contentious were quick to seize on the comments. They said they reflected the industry's battlefield mentality and disinformation strategy when dealing with communities and individuals.

"This is the level of disdain, deception and belligerence that we are dealing with," said Arthur Clark, an Oil & Gas Committee co-chair and member of the executive committee of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club.

"On tape and in print, for once, an industry literally at war with local residents, even labeling them 'insurgents.' I don't recall seeing anyone toting an AK-47 at any of the public meetings or rallies regarding frack gas development."

"It sounds like the gas companies are utilizing military 'psyops' in gas patch communities," said Bill Walker, a spokesman for Earthworks.

Mr. Carmichael did not return calls requesting comment, but John Christiansen, director of external communications for Anadarko, issued a statement, addressing Mr. Carmichael's use of the term insurgency.

"The reference was not reflective of our core values. Our community efforts are based upon open communication, active engagement and transparency, which are all essential in building fact-based knowledge and earning public trust."

Mr. Pitzarella explained his remarks by saying the industry employs large numbers of veterans, including an attorney with a psyops background who "spent time in the Middle East," with temperaments "well suited" to handling the sometimes "emotional situations" at community meetings the company holds to explain its well drilling and fracking operations.

"To suggest that the two comments made at unrelated [conference sessions] are a strategy is dishonest," Mr. Pitzarella said. "[Range has] been transparent and accountable, and that's not something we would do if we were trying to mislead people."

But despite repeated questions, Mr. Pitzarella would not name the Range attorney with a psyops background. The company does employ James Cannon, whose LinkIn page lists him as a "public affairs specialist" for Range and a member of the U.S. Army's "303 Psyop Co.," a reserve unit in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Cannon could not be reached for comment.

Dencil Backus of Mount Pleasant, a California University of Pennsylvania communications professor who teaches public relations, once had Mr. Pitzarella in his class. Mr. Backus said it's "obvious we have all been targeted" with a communications strategy that employs misinformation and intimidation, and includes homespun radio and television ads touting "My drilling company? Range Resources"; community "informational" meetings that emphasize the positive and ignore potential problems caused by drilling and fracking; and recent lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and commercial boycotts.

"There's just been a number of ways in which they've sought to intimidate us," said Mr. Backus, who has been a coordinator of a citizens committee that advised Mount Pleasant on a proposed Marcellus ordinance. "It's one of the most unethical things I have ever seen."

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.

Energy industry officials were caught on tape at a conference in Houston using military terms to describe their opposition. One company says it uses ex-military psychological operations experts in its community plans.

The comments came as companies were meeting to talk about strategies for overcoming concern over practices like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

But industry activist Sharon Wilson, who recorded the comments, said it may have just created more concern.

“I had just a moment of sheer terror,” Wilson said.

The first line came in a presentation from a representative of Anadarko Petroleum.

“Download the US Army/Marine Corp counter insurgency manual. Because we are dealing with an insurgency,” he said.

Matt Carmichael went on to recommend attendees read Rumsfeld’s Rules, from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

In another session, referring to those comments about the military, Range Resources Matt Pitzarella said, “We have several former psy-ops (psychic-operations) folks that work for us at Range, because they’re very comfortable dealing with localized issues and local governments.”

“Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances.”

Some energy and business experts who spoke to CBS11 said there is no conspiracy by energy companies in using military psy-ops experts. Experiences in a war zone, they said, can go a long way to dealing with emotional issues here at home.

The Army’s website classifies psy-ops and public relations as different specialties. It describes psy-ops as influencing reasoning and, ultimately, the behavior of governments, groups and individuals.

Calvin Tillman, the former mayor of the Denton County town of Dish who had difficulties with the industry, said he wasn’t surprised to find the industry turning to military psychological experts to deal with government.

“If you have a certain problem, or if you have a certain concern, they know how to make you feel at ease with what’s going on,” Tillman said.

Wilson says the recordings prove activists aren’t just paranoid about industry tactics.

“If they would drill better, if they could do this right, then they wouldn’t have to employ such extreme measures,” he said.

In a response to using the term “insurgency,” The Woodlands-based Anadarko Petroleum released this statement to CBS 11:

“The reference was not reflective of our core values. Our community efforts are based upon open communication, active engagement and transparency, which are all essential in building fact-based knowledge and earning public trust.”

Range Resources did not respond to calls or emails requesting comment.

Sharon Wilson, director of an oil and natural gas accountability project at environmental advocacy group Earthworks, handed over audio recordings to CNBC from an oil industry conference in Houston last week.

During a session dealing with media relations strategies for dealing with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, Matt Pitzarella, a communications director for energy company Range Resources, was recorded as saying his company had former military psychological operations specialists on the payroll.

"Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that," he was recorded as saying. "But very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in (shale-rich) Pennsylvania."

The United States has some of the richest deposits of shale gas, mostly in territory east of the Mississippi River. The chemicals used in fracking fluid have raised concerns of environmentalists because of possible water contamination. Energy companies involved in fracking, and some U.S. states with rich shale deposits, say the process doesn't pose a threat to the environment if done correctly.

Other corporate officials made comments similar to Pitzarella's during the Houston conference. He told CNBC, however, the comments were taken out of context.

"One employee who works with municipal governments in Pennsylvania has a background in psychological operations in the Army," he said. "Since the majority of his work is spent in local hearings and developing local regulations for drilling, we've found that his service in the Middle East is a real asset."

The 46 officials argue that the bills unfairly exempt oil and gas operations from local land use regulations or standardize limits on local control.

"Local governments must be able to ensure protections through ordinances that reflect specific concerns," the officials wrote. "We oppose any legislation and reject all attempts to take away municipal zoning rights, to weaken or standardize a municipality's ability to protect itself, or to punish communities that choose to exercise their rights."

A bill that would make the state attorney general's office the initial referee in disputes involving municipal drilling ordinances was approved 17-9 Monday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Gov. Tom Corbett supports efforts to exempt gas drilling from local land use control, but Republican legislators have not uniformly embraced the idea.

Senate leaders have said that strict preemption language in the House bill is unlikely to be adopted in their chamber.

Corbett previously wrote to all members of the General Assembly that local gas drilling ordinances threaten jobs and investment in the state.

"The enactment of a reasonable, consistent and uniform set of rules across the commonwealth as it relates to oil and gas drilling boils down to advancing our number one shared focus ... jobs," he wrote.

Also this week, six state organizations of municipal officials, including the state Association of Township Supervisors and the state Association of Boroughs, sent a letter to members of the House more narrowly criticizing their bill for "sweeping and unprecedented preemption language" that would prohibit "virtually any local regulatory interaction with the industry."

Unlike the officials who signed the broader letter to both chambers on Monday, the associations support an "appropriate level of uniformity" through "some common set of zoning standards."

State law already exempts most aspects of oil and gas drilling from local control, but the state Supreme Court has found that municipalities can regulate aspects of the operations that fall under traditional land use ordinances, like road impacts, noise limits and the location of wells.

In a conference call, signatories to the General Assembly letter and environmental groups said the pre-emption clauses in the bills amount to a "power grab" by the state.

"The proposed legislation is, in effect, stating that the development of natural gas is so paramount that industry should have the option to pursue it anywhere at any time ...," Earthworks Marcellus region representative Nadia Steinzor said."

llegere@timesshamrock.com

Read more: http://standardspeaker.com/news/officials-seek-local-control-on-gas-drilling-1.1234577#ixzz1eMzU5ZEW

It's a moment few CEOs could resist repeating. Kowalski mentioned it not just to remind me of Tiffany's enduring image, but to make a point about sustainability. "That's certainly the spirit our brand promises," Kowalski said. "We believe in acting in a responsible manner across a range of issues."

That Tiffany's has not only survived but thrived in the 50 years since the movie was made was never a sure thing. In recent decades Tiffany and the broader jewelry industry have had to navigate through a series of environmental and human rights challenges that could have easily have proven fatal to their brands' reputations.

Over the past 20 years -- a period roughly coinciding with Kowalski's career at Tiffany -- the industry has faced blood diamonds, conflict gems and dirty gold. The scope of these challenges has been, arguably, tougher than at any time in the industry's history.

And few, if any, were at first prepared to respond these crises, Kowalski reflected. Indeed, jewelry's allure has almost always been unconnected to its origins: "For a long time, neither jewelers nor their customers knew or cared very much where or how these things came from," Kowalski said.

That's no longer the case, of course. Just how much this reality has been turned on its head in the 15 years since Kowalski was appointed president (he was promoted to CEO three years later) was evident when we caught up recently to discuss one the latest of the environmental challenges facing big jewelers: The simmering controversy over a proposal to extract copper, gold and other precious metals from an undeveloped site in coastal Alaska.

Even in resource-rich Alaska, the Pebble Mine, as the project is known, has become a lighting rod, pitting developers against local and far-off environmentalists. The site sits at the headwaters of Bristol Bay (Ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who regularly fishes in the bay with her family, named her eldest daughter after the area), and is part of the watershed that supports the world's largest run of sockeye salmon, a renewable resource critics of the project say would be imperiled by mine runoff. The mine could potentially become North America's largest open pit operation, given how big the find looks.

Mine developer the Pebble Partnership and other proponents of the project point to the financial gains and jobs growth promised by the venture. The Pebble site is estimated to hold many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold and other precious metals. The Pebble Partnership is a 50:50 joint venture between a subsidiary of Anglo American and Northern Dynasty Minerals.

While project approval is still being hotly contested, Tiffany is steering clear. Along with a growing roster of its peers, the company has signed the Bristol Bay pledge, vowing not to buy gold from the mine, were it built, and expressing "their opposition to the proposed mine, and [recognizing] the Bristol Bay watershed as an ecosystem of international significance."

"We're not geologists, but in our experience with mining over the past 20 years, we have reached the conclusion -- as have many NGOs and local Alaska residents -- that the risk is simply too great," Kowalski told me. "Despite the best of intentions, the location of this mine is so inherently problematic that it is simply not worth the risk of a catastrophic event."

Tiffany is also a signatory to the No Dirty Gold campaign, a broader industry-wide commitment requiring, among other things, that gold be mined with the consent of nearby communities, with humane labor practices, while protecting the environment.

The roots of Tiffany's engagement on theses issues, stretches back to the early '80s when, for purely commercial reasons, Tiffany broke with long-standing sourcing practice. At the time, most companies bought finished jewelry, polished gems and refined metals from middlemen, Kowalski explained.

Tiffany began to shift towards directly owning and managing more stages of its manufacturing process. The motivation wasn't green, though. The company was growing quickly and faced challenges assuring the flow of top quality raw materials. "Our goal was to improve quality, manage the budget better, and capture more profits in the middle stages of the production chain," said Kowalski.
The focus soon proved invaluable in other areas, as well, as concerns about blood diamonds, or conflict diamonds, began to flare in the early 1990s.

"Blood diamonds weren't remotely on our radar screen -- or the industry's -- when the stories first surfaced," Kowalski recalled. "Starting in 1992, as we committed to cutting and polishing our own diamonds, we were buying directly at the mine head," explained Kowalski, "So we could identify exactly where more of our diamonds were coming from, at a time when the public was rightly horrified by the atrocities going on in Sierra Leona and elsewhere."

Today, quality and cost control remain top priorities for Tiffany's supply chain operations. "We are without a doubt the most vertically integrated jeweler in the world," said Kowalski. "That's been a strong profit driver, but it's also allowed us to exercise leadership on CSR issues."

Reaching complete, 100 percent control over all the metal and gems moving through its factories and store is an elusive goal though. Even as the share of goods it can track back to raw materials grows every year, "There is never perfect certainty," Kowalski said.
"We're not all the way there, " he said, "but we're confident that over time, with respect to diamonds in particular, we can identify the mine of origin, and obviously therefore attest to the social and environmental conditions at those mine sites." Tiffany abides by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a multilateral agreement to curtail the trade in conflict gems.

Soon after the blood diamonds crisis, precious metals became the next hot spot on the company's radar, and the next focus of supply chain improvements.

"Around 1995, we began receiving a fair amount of unsolicited mail asking us to take a position, to oppose the New World gold mine that was planned right outside of Yellowstone National Park," said Kowalski. "As with diamonds before, at that point, we didn't have any visibility to our gold or silver supply chain."

Tiffany came out publicly in opposition of the New World bid, while also overhauling its supply chain for gold and other precious metals. In 2004, it opposed another proposed project, a gold mine in the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness in Montana.

Today, all of the gold and silver used in Tiffany's U.S. operations come from a single mine: Bingham Canyon, owned by Rio Tinto, at a site not far from Salt Lake City. Ore from the mine is refined in New England, under Tiffany's supervision.

For all the changes in environmental practice that Kowalski has overseen, Tiffany remains publicly shy about its green agenda. "We've been very cautious in this respect," said Kowalski. "We believe it's something that our customers expect of us: the knowledge that Tiffany has acted in a responsible way in the sourcing, in the processing, of what you buy from us."

It's an approach that, Kowalski hopes, means Tiffany's signature robin-egg blue brand will never be tainted with charges of greenwashing.

Westport, CT - infoZine - E/The Environmental Magazine - Although “cyanidation”—the use of a sodium cyanide compound to separate a precious metal from finely ground rock—has become less common in other forms of mining, it is still the dominant practice in gold mining. Some 90 percent of gold mines around the world employ cyanidation to harvest their loot.

“In gold mining, a diluted cyanide solution is sprayed on crushed ore that is placed in piles or mixed with ore in enclosed vats,” reports the State Environmental Resource Center (SERC), a project of the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife. “The cyanide attaches to minute particles of gold to form a water-soluble, gold-cyanide compound from which the gold can be recovered.”

But of course not all the cyanide gets recovered. Some of it gets spilled, and some is left within mine waste that is often buried underground woefully close to groundwater, leaving neighbors and public health officials worried about its effects on drinking water and on surrounding ecosystems and local wildlife.

“Mining and regulatory documents often state that cyanide in water rapidly breaks down in the presence of sunlight into largely harmless substances, such as carbon dioxide and nitrate or ammonia,” reports Earthworks, a Washington, DC-based non-profit. “However, cyanide also tends to react readily with many other chemical elements and is known to form, at a minimum, hundreds of different compounds.” While many of these compounds are less toxic than the original cyanide, says Earthworks, they can still persist in the environment and accumulate in fish and plant tissues, wreaking havoc on up the food chain.

In 2000, a breach in a tailings (mining waste) dam at a gold mine in Baia Mare, Romania resulted in the release of 100,000 cubic meters of cyanide-rich waste into the surrounding watershed. Nearly all aquatic life in nearby waters died, while drinking water supplies were cut off for some 2.5 million people.

In the wake of this accident, gold miners around the world have been taking steps to deal with tailings in a safer manner, through the use of special systems designed to prevent cyanide or its breakdown compounds from escaping into the environment. But such precautions at present are only voluntary. Regulators in the U.S.—the third largest gold producer after South Africa and Australia—don’t require mine operators to monitor cyanide and its breakdown compounds in nearby groundwater and water bodies, so no one knows just how big a problem might be.

One promising alternative to using cyanide in gold mines is the Haber Gold Process, a non-toxic extraction system that tests have shown can result in more gold recovery over a shorter period than cyanidation. Another alternative is YES Technologies’ biocatalyzed leaching process which proponents say is 200 times less toxic than cyanide. But with cyanidation well-entrenched in the industry and regulators looking the other way, these alternatives face an uphill battle in gaining widespread adoption.

Send your environmental questions to: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com - www.emagazine.com/ link

Voters in southwest Alaska's Lake and Peninsula Borough are deciding whether to ban large-scale resource extraction activity, including mining, that would destroy or degrade salmon habitat. The measure is aimed squarely at Pebble Mine, the massive gold-and-copper prospect near the headwaters of Bristol Bay.

The debate surrounding Pebble has attracted the attention of chefs, Robert Redford and big-name jewelers who have vowed not to sell any gold coming from the project

But Tuesday's vote will almost certainly not be the last word on how -- or whether -- the mine is built.

"Among other things, the question in front of the Lake and Peninsula voters is about changes to land use that the Alaska attorney general says is unenforceable as a matter of law," said Mike Heatwole, a spokesman for Pebble Limited Partnership, the group promoting the mine project.

Pebble Partnership sued to keep the "Save the Salmon" initiative off the ballot, arguing in part that the measure would improperly bypass the role of the local planning commission. State court Judge John Suddock denied that request, noting Alaska's Supreme Court has given deference to initiatives absent proof they would do something unlawful. He put the case on hold until Nov. 7, to allow for the vote and challenges.

The vote is the latest skirmish in the fight over a project that supporters say could create up to 1,000 long-term jobs in economically-depressed rural Alaska but that opponents fear could fundamentally change the landscape and disrupt, if not destroy, a way of life.

The mine is a joint venture of Canada-based Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. and Anglo American plc of the United Kingdom.

The companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars scoping out the deposit, which Northern Dynasty has described as the largest undeveloped deposit of its type in the world, with the potential of producing 53 billion pounds of copper, 50 million ounces of gold and 2.8 billion pounds of molybdenum over nearly 80 years.

The mine would be directly above Iliamna Lake, the largest producer of sockeye salmon in the world.

This year, the commercial harvest of salmon was valued at nearly $138 million, which doesn't include fish caught by Alaska Natives for subsistence. The Bristol Bay Native Corp., which has more than 8,000 shareholders with ties to the region, is opposed to the mine.

Jason Metrokin, Bristol Bay Native corp.'s chief executive, recently said in a statement that Pebble presents an "unacceptable risk to Bristol Bay salmon, which have supported our communities for thousands of years" while providing an important commercial, food and cultural resource.

Pebble Mine would be located 200 miles southwest of Anchorage and has been described as the potentially the world's largest man-made excavation. Though Heatwole said Pebble hasn't completed a pre-feasibility study or formally submitted a mine plan, critics say the potential footprint of the project could cover 15 square miles, with an open pit and network of roads and power lines.

"It's not a NIMBY thing so much as a survival thing," said Scott Kendall, an Anchorage attorney for the Save Our Salmon ballot group. He likened it to putting a nuclear plant next to an elementary school. "To these people, it's completely inappropriate and incompatible with the life they want to live."

The region around Bristol Bay is sparsely populated, dotted by small communities mostly cut off from the road system and generally accessible only by plane. About 1,600 people live in Lake and Peninsula Borough, which is roughly the size of West Virginia, covering about 23,780 square miles.

The landscape is pristine, stark, rugged, boasting wildlife like walrus, moose, bears and caribou. For a short period each summer, the area bustles with fishing activity, a leading sector of the local economy.

Over the last several years, there's been lobbying surrounding the project both sides. Ads, alternately touting the mine's economic potential or casting it as dangerous and wrong for Alaska, frequently appear on statewide TV.

For Greg Anelon, the vote is less about Pebble Mine than it is about land-use rights.

Anelon, a fisherman who works at the Iliamna Development Corp., a subsidiary of another Alaska Native corporation that is involved in a number of businesses, said he hasn't made his mind up about the proposed mine, and wants to first see a plan of development. Nevertheless, Anelon is working to defeat the initiative. He worries the measure is the wrong tack to take in fighting the mine, arguing that it could affect other activities, like gravel extraction, a claim that Kendall denies.

The initiative would ban any work covering more than one-square mile and impacting waters significant for salmon. Kendall said there's never been another project of that size in the borough.

Lisa Reimers, chief executive of the Iliamna Development Corp., said the measure is poorly worded. If it passes, she said people will read it how they want to read it, leading to possible litigation over housing and other projects.

"They make it sound like all fish will die if you don't support the initiative," she said. Reimers' group has contracts with Pebble Partnership but she said that is not the reason that it got involved.

The ballot group claims polling it has done has shown an overwhelming majority in favor of the initiative but elections depend on turnout. About 380 of the 1,190 registered voters in the borough voted in the last municipal election. Elections are conducted by mail. They must be postmarked by Tuesday but results aren't expected until the canvass board meets Oct. 17.

Heatwole declined to speculate on what impact the vote may have on Pebble's plans.

Save Our Salmon spokesman Art Hackney said the measure "is clearly aimed at making Pebble Mine confront what they've promised: that they won't kill salmon streams. If they can engineer it so it does not destroy salmon streams, by all means they can develop it." He added: "Our contention is simply that this is trying to cast in concrete what Pebble Partnership has been saying all along, they won't hurt salmon."

The proposed mine has attracted worldwide attention. Actor and director Robert Redford has blogged about it, and spoke out against the mine in an ad in the New York Times.

More than 200 chefs from around the county have sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency protesting the mine.

And some of the nation's leading jewelers, including Zale Corp., Tiffany & Co., Helzberg Diamonds and Ben Bridge, have pledged to support the "No Dirty Gold" campaign and not purchase precious minerals from Pebble Mine.

He tilted the pan gently. He squinted into the black silt, as if reading tea leaves. "Look," he said. And then they appeared: a constellation of glowing flecks, none larger than the head of a pin.

It's hard to believe that crumbs like these have obsessed humankind through the ages, but such is the history of gold - indeed, the price of gold, which has become a parallel global power of sorts. Treasure hunters have sought the rare yellow metal since the dawn of civilization. In 3600 BC, gold was first smelted by the Egyptians, who believed it was the flesh of the gods. The Greek poet Pindar called gold "a child of Zeus," adding that "neither moth or rust devoureth it, but the mind of man is devoured by this supreme possession."

Empires have risen and fallen on tides of gold. Driven by gold lust, Spanish conquistadors razed the civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas, who believed gold came from the sun. Tempted by the promise of gold, explorers embarked on some of the most epic and dangerous wild-goose chases in recorded history. (Though El Dorado has since been confined to the dustbin with Atlantis and Shangri-La, the mythic city endures as a metaphor for the pursuit of impossible wealth.)

Today, investors herald a new golden age. On April 21, the metal's market value surpassed $1,500 per troy ounce for the first time.
Gold prices have climbed steeply since the turn of the millennium, following two decades of gradual decline after the precious metal's last peak in 1980.

Gold's worth has increased fivefold in the past decade and more than tripled since 2005. And as prices soar, bolstered by private investment and central banks, which started stockpiling gold last year after two decades of selling it off, the metal is poised to remake the world all over again.

"We are at one of these transit points in the history of gold. And I've got a long view: My perspective goes back 6,000 years, not just the past six hours," British historian Timothy Green says with a chuckle. Mr. Green, has studied the yellow metal for more than 45 years and is the author, most recently, of the book "Ages of Gold," published by GFMS, a precious-metals consultancy in London.

"The grass-roots demand for gold - having gold coins under the bed or buried in the garden or wherever you want to hide them - that's coming back," he notes. It has also grown easier to own "paper gold." Gold exchange-traded funds allow investors to bet on gold without actually owning it and have proliferated in markets worldwide since they first appeared in 2003 on the Australian Securities Exchange.

These are a far cry from ancient times, when, Green adds, "only the wealthy rulers, the princes, the Tutankhamens, could afford to have gold. It was a symbol of wealth and power."

In any era, understanding gold's worth as a commodity requires some magical thinking. You can't eat it. You can't put it in your gas tank. It won't keep you warm at night. It's not as immediately useful as, say, cattle, which preceded gold as a widely accepted unit of wealth. (Gold's value was originally pegged to the worth of cows. The Latin word for money, "pecunia," comes from "pecus," which means cattle, while the Indian "rupee" is derived from "rupa," or cattle in Sanskrit.)

Gold does have industrial applications - from shielding sensitive instruments against solar radiation in space to dental crowns and the bonding wire in your iPhone - but these accounted for less than one-ninth of the 3,812-ton global demand for gold last year, according to the World Gold Council, an industry trade group. Gold's primary uses, jewelry and investment, are built on abstractions: beauty, symbolism, and scarcity.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett addressed the fundamental strangeness of gold during a 1998 talk at Harvard University. "It gets dug out of the ground ... then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again, and pay people to stand around guarding it," he said. "It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

Here on Earth, folks keep scratching for pay dirt. That's what drew the Mace family, along with more than 100 members of the Gold Prospectors Association of America, to gather last month at Italian Bar Camp, a gold claim in the foothills east of Sacramento. Miners have made pilgrimages to this region since 1848, when flakes of gold turned up in a ditch dug for John Augustus Sutter's sawmill on the American River.

"A couple of years ago we had the gold rush start again," remarked "Klondike Mike" LaBox, one of the organizers at the California outing. His baseball cap was studded with pins made from gold harvested on his 40-acre claim in the Alaskan Panhandle.

"We had people literally selling their farms and their cows and showing up at our camp," Mr. LaBox added. "I told them to go get a job. You can't support a family out here panning for gold."

But "gold fever," as miners call it, can be a powerful contagion.

"Gold has performed exceptionally well over the last decade, and people have a natural tendency to buy into a success story," says Philip Klapwijk, the chairman of GFMS.

While it's true that success creates its own momentum, why does gold do so well to begin with? Traditionally, investors approach gold as a reliable storehouse of value in unreliable times. The events of 9/11 kicked off an era of geopolitical instability. "People are looking for a means to protect themselves," Mr. Klapwijk adds.

Since 2008, international affairs have grown even more tenuous. The financial crisis shook public faith in big banks and governments. The world's three major currencies - the dollar, euro, and yen - have been weakened by a massive housing crash, Greek debt, and a nuclear catastrophe, respectively. When currencies falter, buyers habitually retreat to gold as a hedge against inflation. Against this bleak backdrop, the price of gold is a global anxiety index.

For doomsayers, gold has become a particularly potent talisman: a bulwark against the coming apocalypse. (Nevermind the inconvenience of hauling your hoard around in a Mad Max-style dystopia, let alone defending it from brigands and making small change.)

"We tell people, 'Invest in gold, tangible gold. Put it in your hand. Put it in your safe,' " urged Richard Campbell, a retired deputy sheriff from Tulare, Calif., who wore a 1.72-ounce nugget on a chain around his neck during the prospecting weekend. Should the market collapse, he added, you'll need that gold close at hand, not in a safety deposit box.

"Miners, we're independent people," he said flatly. "We know that's the way it's gonna go."

From dowries to ATMs

Sanat Kumar still remembers the large iron safe set in the floor of his grandfather's home in India.

"The day my sister was born, my mom started collecting gold for her wedding," he recalls. Each year, his parents piled jewelry higher into that safe, growing a future dowry in accordance with national tradition. "They never got to use it, because my sister refused to have an arranged wedding," he adds, laughing. "But it's still in the family."

Decades later, Mr. Kumar is a chemical engineer at Columbia University in New York, and his perspective on gold is more scientific than nostalgic. It's no coincidence that gold is the king of metals, he explains. If history were to unfold all over again, humans would probably still prize the lustrous, sun-colored substance above other elements.

"Gold is totally nonreactive," he explains. "If you take iron and leave it out over time, you get rust, a chemical transformation of iron with oxygen to form something else that's useless. Gold never does that. It's basically inert."

That makes gold virtually indestructible. As a result, nearly all of the 165,000 tons of gold ever mined remains intact. It's no wonder that, starting in ancient times, the dense metal has symbolized eternity. Since gold holds up through repeated recycling, the band on your finger could be made from treasure looted from Egyptian tombs, centuries-old dental work, or nuggets found by forty-niners.

Gold is scarce enough to accrue value, but common enough to circulate, and has been discovered on every continent. It's also tremendously malleable, with a melting point of 1,947 degrees F. Ancient artisans could soften and process it over charcoal fires.
These qualities helped gold evolve into a commodity that is universally prized. And because the metal has such a broad reach today, the past decade's price explosion is causing wide ripples across the globe.

India has changed since Kumar's childhood. Now, some families save face by renting imitation gold jewelry sets for their daughters' weddings. Jewelers have also been pushing "chit funds," encouraging consumers to drop off a pile of rupees each month until they have amassed enough money to buy real gold.

"Here, you will see all jewelry stores packed with people," says Kavita Krishnan, a housewife in Chennai. "I wonder how these people have money to buy jewelry. But then I realize that people have these chit funds. That's what's bringing them into the market."
Gold is to Indians as gasoline is to Americans: the lifeblood of traditional consumer culture. In the past decade, India's appetite for gold - the largest in the world - has risen 25 percent, despite a 400 percent rise in the metal's rupee price.

Demand for gold has also increased in China, where the growing middle class is snapping up jewelry. Inflation fears helped drive bullion investments in China to $4.1 billion in the first quarter of 2011, double the year before. Like many cultures, the Chinese have long associated gold - both the color and the metal - with wealth, lavish celebrations, and power. Gold was the color of emperors and remains a favorite New Year's gift. And since the Chinese government liberalized bullion trading in 2001, coins and ingots - anonymous, discreet, and expected to hold their value - have become the preferred currency for buying favors from officials, to judge by the large number of such officials who have been tried in recent years for accepting bullion as a bribe.

Around the globe, sharp-eyed entrepreneurs are watching for opportunities to profit as gold quickens the public pulse.

German businessman Thomas Geissler unveiled what he says is the world's first "gold ATM" - a bulletproof bullion vending machine called "Gold to Go"- last year in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Since then, he's installed more than a dozen of the contraptions around Germany and the United Arab Emirates. In Las Vegas, there's one at the Golden Nugget Casino. Another arrived July 1 at the Westfield shopping center in London, where it stands alongside a cash ATM and a soft-drink machine, to the bemusement of shoppers.
Mr. Geissler hopes small amounts of gold will replace chocolate or flowers as commonplace tokens of affection. Two-thirds of his buyers are gift-givers, he estimates.

"When you watch the people buying gold at the machine, they're smiling, laughing," he says.

In the United States and Britain, the newest spin on Tupperware parties has a golden hue. Dozens of businesses, bearing such names as "Party of Gold" and "Golden Opportunities," encourage consumers to host "gold parties," where friends sell their old jewelry to a broker while making small talk over drinks and snacks. (Canny guests may realize they're being asked to part with gold for far less than its market value. That margin goes mostly to the company but also to the host, who typically pockets a 10 percent commission.)

Goldline International, the US-based bullion vendor known for retaining the former Fox News talk show host as its enthusiastic pitchman Glenn Beck, has seen its fortunes rise along with the global appetite for gold. At the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008, the company had more than 300 employees and boasted $525 million in annual revenues. Now it has more than 400 employees and expects revenues to reach $800 million for the fiscal year ending later this month, says chief executive Mark Albarian.

"People are worried about paper, and gold is the opposite of paper," Mr. Albarian says.

(He's not alone in that view. Back in California gold country, Mace's wife, Kathy, offered a similar lesson in value to her 7-year-old daughter, who won a boot-shaped gold nugget in a contest but looked longingly at the other prizes, which included hats, pins, and patches. "What is money? Paper," Ms. Mace told her. "What is gold? Gold.")

As prices rise, so does the worldwide interest in gold recovery and recycling. In Iraq, jewelers have long worked with salvagers' help to recover "tayeh," or missing gold.

"Salvaging gold dust or very small pieces of gold that might be lost during manufacturing at the goldsmith's workshop is an ancient practice," says Mousa El Aradhi, a Baghdad jeweler. "There are people specialized in recovering gold from the dust on the floors, on the workshop tools."

Recently, salvagers have been striking out on their own, scouring Baghdad sewers for trace amounts of gold that has escaped down jewelers' drains.

Recycling is big in Japan, where workers extract growing quantities of gold from "urban mines": dumps of old electronic equipment and industrial waste. (Each year, the Japanese replace some 20 million mobile phones, making these discards a particularly rich source.) At one waste facility in Nagano, near a cluster of electronics factories, workers recover 70 ounces of gold each year from industrial sludge emitted by neighboring electronics factories. Experts believe that, if all the opportunities to salvage and recycle gold were exploited, natural resource-poor Japan would be among the world's top five gold-producing nations.

The high human cost of gold

In 1511, King Ferdinand of Spain famously declared, "Get gold, humanely if possible – but at all costs, get gold!"
His conquistadors glutted themselves with gold in the New World, but at a heavy cost that included, in the words of 19th-century American historian William H. Prescott, "the most atrocious acts of perfidy on the record of history."

For all its luster, gold's past is paved with bones. In the 1st century BC, Greek scholar Diodorus Siculus described the suffering of Nubian miners under the Egyptians. "[T]hough by their labor they enriched their masters to an almost incredible extent, [they] did it by toiling night and day in their golden prisons," he wrote. "They were compelled by the lash to work so incessantly that they died of the hardships in the caverns themselves had dug."

Gold's glimmer still lights a trail of devastation. Extracting a single ounce from the earth generates an estimated 30 tons of waste, more than any other metal. Cyanide and mercury are often used to leach gold from ore, a process with toxic consequences. In 1995, hundreds of thousands of gallons of cyanide-laced waste water broke through a dam at a gold mine in Guyana, tainting the Essequibo River, the nation's main water source. Five years later, a gold mine in Romania leaked cyanide into a Danube River tributary. The poison flowed all the way to the Black Sea. It killed 1,000 tons of fish.

In March, three men were burned alive by a vigilante mob in La Rinconada, a mining town in southeast Peru. The victims were accused of stealing gold from a local storage facility, police told the EFE news agency. Gold is the nation's top export, but it's also led to no shortage of problems, as illegal miners blast away tons of earth with high-pressure hoses, creating brown gashes visible in satellite photographs.
Victor Zambrano, who heads a nonprofit group supporting Peru's Tambopata Reserve, said the high price of gold and failure of Peruvian authorities to crack down on illegal mining in the southeastern Amazon is causing massive and irreversible destruction there.

"We are losing forested areas at an alarming rate, which has not slowed despite moves by the government," Mr. Zambrano says. "The people involved in illegal mining know that the government may act, but that any action will be shortlived and things go back to normal quickly."

Illegal mining is inching toward the Tambopata Reserve, which was created in 2000 and famed for its biodiversity. Covering 678,484 acres, it is home to 7 percent of the world's bird species and 4 percent of mammals, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

There's growing pressure to make gold greener and more humane. The environmental advocacy group Earthworks is stepping up efforts in its "No Dirty Gold" campaign. In June, the World Gold Council released a draft of production and refining standards for "conflict-free gold" in an effort to keep gold from financing war, particularly in the Congo.

The global economy, however, isn't cooperating: The higher gold's price, the more extreme measures people will take to get it.
Gold's standard-bearers

"I think, within the next five years, the dollar will be relinked to gold," says Steve Forbes, publisher of the magazine that bears his family name. "In this imperfect world, gold is the thing that has the most stable, intrinsic value."

But going back to the gold standard, Mr. Forbes acknowledges, is a somewhat heretical notion. "You don't want to be seen as a kook, so it's still in the closet," he adds.

The gold standard acts like a financial straitjacket. It restricts a nation's economic flexibility by limiting regulation of the money supply. Keynes called it a "barbarous relic." Most modern economists agree.

In recent months, however, returning the dollar - the keystone currency of the global economy - to a gold standard has become a cause célèbre for tea partyers and others disaffected by American government. They envision gold as a harsh disciplinarian, a schoolmarm menacing the Federal Reserve with a paddle. Binding the currency to the rare metal, they argue, would curtail spending, restore fiscal responsibility, and ward off inflation.

In a gesture of support, legislators of more than a dozen states have pushed to make gold an alternative currency for a variety of transactions. In Utah, US-minted gold and silver coins became legal tender in May, though it's commonly understood that their market worth greatly outstrips their face value, which means no one will actually use them to buy anything. That seems almost fitting, since gold's value has always been more symbolic than tangible.

Though it's hard to picture gold as the future economic compass, the metal readily points to past lessons: When people lose faith in their fellows, they reinvest it in gold.

Back in California, Philip Mike Murphy was prepared for that new world order. Four weeks after the entrepreneur and former mine foreman from Tehachapi, Calif., brought to market his invention - the Mine-Tech Ultra Gold Processor, a dry washer that strains gold from dirt – he said he'd already sold two for $1,495 apiece and had at least a dozen potential customers lining up for more. Two of the battery-operated contraptions juddered and chugged beside his RV during the prospectors' outing, where he said five miners had approached him to buy. When asked why people like gold, Mr. Murphy paused. Then he said, "I don't know, to be honest.

"If I were around during the gold rush I'd probably be the storekeeper or the bar owner," he added. "Those guys made the money."
Note: Ben Arnoldy in New Delhi; Lucien Chauvin in Lima, Peru; Peter Ford in Beijing; Sahar Issa in Baghdad; and Gavin Blair in Tokyo contributed to this article.

Let's begin with a jewellery parable from a report by Lifeworth Consulting on making over the jewellery business. The report, Uplifting the Earth, reveals that Greenlanders once had the right to gather and sell indigenous diamonds, sapphires and rubies which rival the famous rubies of Burma (now under embargo but frequently used by exclusive high-end jewellery brands). In 2006 this egalitarian arrangement was revoked when Greenland's Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum gave a large private enterprise, True North Gems, rights to "deposits with significant value".

Sadly these pernicious trends – indigenous communities driven off their mineral deposits while power and access is consolidated into the hands of restricted to a few powerful players – are visible throughout the globe's jewellery box. There are the environmental abuses of "dirty gold" (as laid bare in last year's study by Earthworks) and the fact that reporters in 2008 found that gold mined by children using mercury was entering the supply chain.

The mainstream industry claimed it was solving the problem of lack of transparency because 80% of gold in UK jewellery is recycled. Nice try, but while preferable to untraced gold (for which neither the designer nor the retailer has any idea of the supply chain, including mine, refinery and fabricator), recycled gold lacks certification or ethical backbone. We need to know in which workshops this recycled gold was fashioned, with which chemicals and in what conditions. It also misses a big trick: namely the opportunity to support responsible mining. "Newly mined gold is critically important to countries such as Ghana, Mali and Peru," says Vivien Johnston, a jeweller and activist heading up the Ethics Committee for the National Association of Goldsmiths and the British Jewellers' Association. "Artisanal miners' lives depend on the sale of the gold they mine."

Giant jewellery corporations could provide traceability, as they own their own mines (whether or not they choose to do this is a different matter entirely). But it's still the boutique brands which prioritise traceability and are "pro-poor" (Fifibijoux.com and Credjewellery.com, for example, both source ethical gold from the Oro Verde co-operative in Latin America). Here we also see small-scale batch refining, which ensures that green gold doesn't get mixed with non-ethical gold during the refining process , and the creation of co-operatives to cut, set and polish stones. Fairtrade and Fairmined gold recently arrived here, albeit in tiny quantities. But smaller UK companies struggle to get access to Fairtrade gold. Many have spent years painstakingly uncovering their own supply chain – have the conversation with them, too.

Do you want to be a consumer who pioneers and helps shift the industry or one that waits until it is clean enough to buy with peace of mind (the Responsible Jewellery Council will have developed its Chain of Custody standards by 2013, which should mean more certified ethical pieces on the high street)? Probably best not to wait too long, though. "If you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it," as Beyoncé says.

Regulators point to proposed standards that companies would have to meet to safely drill oil and gas wells. The plan covers everything from which steel pipes would have to be used to construct the wells to what to do if a drill bores into an old mine shaft.

“Any company that’s coming into Ohio and hasn’t had a permit from us before, they can look at this and know what they have to do,” said Rick Simmers, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ oil and gas enforcement supervisor.

But it’s what the proposed standards don’t address that has environmental advocates complaining that the state is clearing a path for drilling at the expense of other safeguards.

For example, the state won’t ask drilling companies to disclose all the toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking,” or subject them to mandatory water-pollution tests.

“The public needs the certainty of knowing that they will be protected,” said Jack Shaner, lobbyist with the Ohio Environmental Council. “That ought to be the first concern here.”

Concern isn’t limited to the environment.

County and township officials across Ohio worry that increased truck traffic from drilling will damage rural roads and that they won’t have enough money to make repairs.

“Some of our township roads weren’t built to handle this kind of truck traffic and the volume of this traffic,” said Matthew DeTemple, director of the Ohio Township Association.

Many of the questions center on fracking, a process in which millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are injected deep underground to shatter the shale and free buried oil and gas.

The process has been used in more than 3,800 natural-gas wells drilled into Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale since 2005. Officials hope Ohio’s Utica shale will host a similar boom and create thousands of jobs.

But advocates fear fracking chemicals will pollute the soil, groundwater and drinking water.

Ohio is among a handful of states, including Wyoming and Pennsylvania, that make hydraulic-fracturing contractors file documents showing the chemicals they use.

But a review of documents posted on the agency’s website shows that not every chemical is listed. Of the 84 fracturing products listed, 11 contained at least one ingredient that was kept secret by the companies as a “proprietary compound.”

Identified chemicals include napthalene, which destroys red blood cells, and ethylene glycol, which can damage the kidneys, nervous system, lungs and heart.

Nadia Steinzor, regional organizer for the Washington, D.C.-based Earthworks advocacy group, said everything that’s sent underground should be reported. She said the documents that are provided don’t show how much of these compounds are injected into the ground.

“Altogether, they are very limited,” she said.

Shaner said the state also should require routine groundwater and well testing around drill sites. Ohio requires tests within a 300 feet of wells drilled in urban areas, but there is no such requirement for wells in rural areas.

Heather Cantino, chairwoman of the Buckeye Forest Council, said the state also should bar companies from using open pits as storage areas for drilling wastes. The practice threatens groundwater, she said.

Where roads are concerned, DeTemple said many township and county officials already are signing road-use maintenance agreements with large drilling companies. Under the terms of these agreements, the companies agree to upgrade and maintain the roads and bridges that lead to their wells.

He and Lloyd MacAdams, deputy director of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s Region 11, said they hope to create a regulation in which Natural Resources officials will require road-repair plans before granting permits to drill shale wells.

Tom Tugend, a deputy chief at Natural Resources, and Simmers said the agency is weighing these issues and might propose more changes to its rules.

Tom Stewart, vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, said energy companies likely would oppose any plan that ties road maintenance to drilling permits.

“It’s regulatory overreach,” Stewart said.

As for chemical reporting, Simmers said Natural Resources might have to ask lawmakers to change state law before the agency could require more complete reporting and water-pollution monitoring. In the meantime, Tugend said many energy companies already test groundwater and drinking-water wells and recycle drilling fluids instead of using pits.

“Right now in Ohio, these companies are doing that,” he said.

Ron Whitmire, spokesman for Houston-based EnerVest, said the company recycles drilling fluids and tests water within 1,500 feet of its shale wells.

Stewart said his organization wouldn’t object to full disclosure of fracking chemicals but said drillers might have a different view.

Some state lawmakers, including state Rep. Dave Hall, R-Millersburg, say Ohio’s standards already are tough.

Hall, chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, said many rules were contained in a 2010 oil and gas law he helped pass.

“Ohio has some of the strongest standards in the country,” Hall told a Holmes County landowners group on Tuesday. “We’re making sure we’ll protect land and water for future generations.”

Dispatch managing editor Alan Miller contributed to this report.

shunt@dispatch.com

SUMMIT COUNTY — If federal lawmakers are serious about shrinking the budget deficit, they should be looking seriously at a proposal by U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would make sure the oil, gas and mining industries pay their fare share.

Markey introduced his proposed legislation in the House Natural Resources Committee last week.

A key component of this comprehensive legislation would overhaul the General Mining Law of 1872, which allows mining of gold, copper, uranium and other metals virtually anywhere on Western public lands, with few environmental safeguards and no return to the taxpayers. Hardrock mining is the only industry that extracts resources from public lands that does not pay federal royalties.

Prices for precious metals are soaring, but the hardrock mining industry remains exempt from paying royalties for the riches it extracts from U.S. public lands, and from paying to cleanup the pollution from abandoned mines. Markey’s legislation to make the mining industry pay its share and clean up its messes was welcomed today by Western communities who live daily with the impacts of mining.

“With record-high metals prices and skyrocketing industry profits, it’s time for mining companies to pay their fair share,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks. “Reform of America’s antiquated mining laws to protect water resources, fund cleanup of abandoned mines, put special places off-limits to mining and make the industry pay taxpayers what we are owed is long overdue.”

Precious metals prices are higher than they have been in decades, and mining companies are enjoying astounding profits. Newmont Mining of Denver – the largest producer in the United States and operator of three mines that are among the nation’s ten biggest sources of toxic pollution – saw profits double from 2008 to 2010, to $1.8 billion last year. At Barrick Gold Co. of Toronto – the world’s largest gold producer, profits for the second quarter of 2011 were $1.2 billion, up 35 percent over 2010.

As mining companies rake in profits, they continue to be the nation’s largest source of toxic pollution – releasing 1.7 billion pounds of toxic materials in 2009, the most recent data available from the EPA.

The 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 tailings piles and pit lakes. According to the EPA, hardrock mining has contaminated the headwaters of 40 percent of watershed in the West, and cleaning up the nation’s hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines will cost over $50 billion.

“Water is scarce in Nevada and other Western states, but the outdated mining law lets mining companies get away with polluting our most valuable resource,” said John Hadder, of Great Basin Resource Watch. He cited Newmont’s Lone Tree Mine and Mule Canyon Mine. Both have created pit lakes in Nevada contaminated with acidic water, that will require long-term treatment.

In Montana, the proposed Rock Creek mine, a copper-silver mine that would tunnel underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, is expected to generate water pollution in perpetuity.

“It’s completely irresponsible for this industry to operate under a 139-year-old law that leaves communities to deal with lasting pollution,” said Jim Costello of the Rock Creek Alliance, a group of businesses and concerned citizens near the proposed Montana mine.

Throughout the West, Native American communities have long felt the destructive effects of uranium mining. In the last decade, uranium prices have risen from $10 per pound to around $50, leading to renewed interest from mining companies.

Several companies have proposed new uranium mining projects that threaten Mt. Taylor, N.M., a mountain that is sacred to a number of New Mexico and Arizona tribes. Because the 1872 Mining Law gives mining the highest priority for use of public lands, mines are permitted regardless of conflicts with other uses and values.

“There are some places, sacred places such as Mt. Taylor, that just shouldn’t be mined,” said Nadine Padilla, who is Navajo and an organizer with the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment in Albuquerque, N.M. “We need a modern mining law that can balance mining with other uses of public land and protect us from the potentially deadly impacts of uranium mining.”

These legislative changes will bring mining on public lands into the 21st century by:

• Setting strong standards to protect precious water resources from toxic mine waste;
• Imposing a federal royalty to compensate U.S. taxpayers for extracting valuable minerals from public lands; and
• Protecting special places by allowing officials to deny mines that threaten clean water, important wildlife and fisheries, recreation and other values.
• Require hardrock mining companies to pay reclamation fees into a fund to cleanup abandoned mines, similar to the fees already required of coal mining companies.

The commission made a unanimous decision to support the disclosure rule during a hearing in Santa Fe after taking testimony from industry experts and watchdog groups.

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association submitted the proposal in an effort to address public concerns about the practice, which involves pumping water, sand and other chemical compounds underground to free oil and gas trapped in the rock.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has been used for decades to enhance well production, but federal regulators have been investigating whether the practice is contaminating drinking water supplies.

Industry officials in New Mexico contend the process is well regulated and that there have been no documented cases of contamination in the state that stem from fracking.

"We felt like it was appropriate to step out and advance a rule that would create a registry that would be accessible so people could view that and understand what is being injected deep underground to stimulate these wells," said Steve Henke, president of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

Some companies operating in the state already voluntarily disclose details about their fracking fluids, but Henke said the practice should be mandatory.

The commission made some changes before adopting the rule. The final language is expected to be issued in January.

Instead of posting the ingredients of fracking fluids to an online registry called FracFocus, commissioners want companies to list the chemicals and their volumes on a form that will be submitted to the state Oil Conservation Division.

Gwen Lachelt with Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project was disappointed with the commission's decision.

"They went through all the motions to put in place a rule that requires nothing more than what's already required on material safety data sheets," she said.

Lachelt accused the commission of being "cozy" with industry and ignoring a recent recommendation by a U.S. Department of Energy panel that called for full disclosure. She said several other states are also considering adopting stronger disclosure rules.

"New Mexico is going to be the laughing stock of the rest of the states looking at these rules," she said, explaining that a recent law in Texas allows land owners there to challenge whether companies can keep secret their formulas for competitive reasons.

Oil and gas developers have worked with regulators and environmentalists in other states to develop disclosure rules, but Henke said he believes the association's proposal represented the first time industry had proposed such a rule on its own.

The oil and gas association said it was pleased with the commission's decision because it offers certainty for operators and provides the public an opportunity to know what is involved in fracking operations.

While the association touted its willingness to embrace transparency and accountability, environmentalists argued that more needs to be done to ensure groundwater safeguards.

Lachelt pushed unsuccessfully for advance public notice for fracking activities and more disclosure details, such as the type and volume of the base fluid used as well as each additive and the chemical ingredients in those additives.

"These disclosure rules are not for the industry, they're for the public," she said. "The industry knows it has lost the public trust around fracking. They're trying to show that states have it handled with these disclosure rules, but that's not our opinion."

While unlikely to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled House, environmental advocates are welcoming the bill, describing it as a way for companies to pay their fair share for public resources. The main sponsors -- Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the Natural Resources ranking member, and Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) -- see it as a push against GOP pressure to increase mining and drilling.

Efforts to reform the 1872 mining law are among the legislation's most notable elements. It institutes a first-ever 12.5 percent royalty on hardrock mining for materials like gold, silver and uranium. In his budget blueprint, President Obama proposed a royalty rate of not less than 5 percent of gross proceeds. The industry prefers a net proceeds calculation.

"Rep. Markey and his colleagues have taken an important first step to modernize the 1872 Mining Law, one of the most outmoded statutes on the books today," Jane Danowitz, Pew Environment Group public lands director, said in a statement.

Mining industry leaders have said they are not against reform, but they want to make sure to protect the industry's health. They also want lawmakers to understand the difficulties inherent in mineral exploration and extraction.

"We are concerned about having policies that promote domestic mining, and the mining law has been one of those policies," said National Mining Association general counsel Katie Sweeney at a hearing yesterday. "But there are a lot of barriers and hurdles to mining. Obviously there are many contributions that mining does beyond the royalties."

The Markey-Holt bill, which is also backed by public lands advocate Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), would make it easier to block mining on public lands and would impose a 7-cent-per-ton fee for all materials displaced during hardrock mining. The money would pay for reclamation of hardrock mines. The mining industry and many backers on Capitol Hill have balked at the proposal.

"This new tax threatens thousands of high-paying American mining jobs and has the potential to seriously harm the economic competitiveness of American mining by driving investments -- and much needed to jobs -- to other mineral producing countries," the NMA said on a web site urging people to oppose the measure, calling it a "dirt tax."

"Our initial reading is it would be highly detrimental to U.S. minerals mining," the group said in a statement about the bill, "making the U.S. even more unattractive to investments needed to create jobs and ensure a reliable supply of minerals needed by U.S. manufacturers."

Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, said, the measure is necessary.

"Reform of America's antiquated mining laws to protect water resources, fund cleanup of abandoned mines, put special places off-limits to mining and make the industry pay taxpayers what we are owed is long overdue," she said.

Another controversial aspect of the bill, also touted by Obama, stops money collected from coal companies from going to states that have finished cleaning up abandoned coal mines. Many states and tribes say the dollars belong to them and are a means of cleaning up abandoned mine sites where materials other than coal were extracted.

Apart from mining, the legislation would increase inspection fees for offshore drilling, repeal revenue sharing with Gulf states and punish energy companies from keeping oil and gas leases idle, a proposal industry has called overly punitive and impractical.

The lawmakers have called on the deficit-slashing supercommittee to implement their proposals (E&E Daily, Nov. 1). In a statement Markey said, "At a time when American families are having a tough time putting food on the table, there is no excuse to continue the free lunch policies for oil, gas and mining companies."

Click here to read the legislation.

The 46 officials, including five supervisors from Exeter Twp. in Luzerne County, argue that the bills unfairly exempt oil and gas operations from local land use regulations or standardize limits on local control.

"Local governments must be able to ensure protections through ordinances that reflect specific concerns," the officials wrote. "We oppose any legislation and reject all attempts to take away municipal zoning rights, to weaken or standardize a municipality's ability to protect itself, or to punish communities that choose to exercise their rights."

A bill that would make the state attorney general's office the initial referee in disputes involving municipal drilling ordinances was approved 17-9 Monday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The Senate is expected to start floor debate on the bill today.

Gov. Tom Corbett supports efforts to exempt gas drilling from local land use control, but Republican legislators have not uniformly embraced the idea.

State Senate leaders have said that strict pre-emption language in the House bill is unlikely to be adopted in their chamber.

Mr. Corbett wrote Friday to all members of the General Assembly that local gas drilling ordinances threaten jobs and investment in the state.

"The enactment of a reasonable, consistent and uniform set of rules across the commonwealth as it relates to oil and gas drilling boils down to advancing our number one shared focus ... jobs," he wrote.

Also Monday, six state organizations of municipal officials, including the state Association of Township Supervisors and the state Association of Boroughs, sent a letter to members of the House more narrowly criticizing their bill for "sweeping and unprecedented preemption language" that would prohibit "virtually any local regulatory interaction with the industry."

Unlike the officials who signed the broader letter to both chambers on Monday, the associations support an "appropriate level of uniformity" through "some common set of zoning standards."

State law already exempts most aspects of oil and gas drilling from local control, but the state Supreme Court has found that municipalities can regulate aspects of the operations that fall under traditional land use ordinances, like road impacts, noise limits and the location of wells.

Benton, Greenfield, Newton and Roaring Brook townships in Lackawanna County have either attempted to apply their zoning ordinances to natural gas drilling or amended ordinances to prepare for possible impacts.

In a conference call Monday, signatories to the General Assembly letter and environmental groups said the pre-emption clauses in the bills amount to a "power grab" by the state.

"The proposed legislation is, in effect, stating that the development of natural gas is so paramount that industry should have the option to pursue it anywhere at any time," Earthworks Marcellus region representative Nadia Steinzor said, "even if it's at the expense of the other uses of the land and priorities such as quality of life and public health and what communities want."

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

They’re con­cerned about SB 1100’s “model ordi­nance” lan­guage, which would bar munic­i­pal­i­ties from receiv­ing fee money, if they past strict reg­u­la­tions on drilling.  The groups also want to see stronger envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions and setbacks.

Octo­ber 28, 2011

Dear Mem­bers of the Penn­syl­va­nia State Senate:

We are writ­ing con­cern­ing Sen­a­tor Scarnati’s bill to address Mar­cel­lus Shale issues, SB 1100, which was recently amended and voted out of Appro­pri­a­tions Com­mit­tee.  Our orga­ni­za­tions have two con­cerns we would like to draw to your attention.

First, the signed orga­ni­za­tions of the attached let­ter (sent to all mem­bers of the leg­is­la­ture on June 3, 2011) are writ­ing you to reaf­firm our posi­tion that we strongly OPPOSE any efforts to limit a municipality’s abil­ity to pro­tect itself, to weaken or stan­dard­ize munic­i­pal zon­ing author­ity, to pun­ish com­mu­ni­ties that choose to exer­cise their rights, or to give the Attor­ney Gen­eral the power to cir­cum­vent a tra­di­tional court process and deter­mine the fate of munic­i­pal zon­ing laws.

Munic­i­pal­i­ties all across Penn­syl­va­nia are work­ing to enact or have enacted mea­sures designed to pro­tect the envi­ron­ment and health, safety, and wel­fare of their com­mu­ni­ties and its res­i­dents in light of the rush to drill for nat­ural gas in the Mar­cel­lus Shale. In addi­tion, Penn­syl­va­nia Supreme Court rul­ings have made it clear that the state Oil and Gas Act does not pre­vent munic­i­pal­i­ties from apply­ing zon­ing codes to gas wells.

Our pre­vi­ous let­ter referred specif­i­cally to a pro­vi­sion in the orig­i­nal ver­sion where the receipt of rev­enue from an impact fee was tied to adop­tion of a model zon­ing ordi­nance. Recently, efforts have begun to amend this leg­is­la­tion. Whether nego­ti­a­tions result in the preser­va­tion of this “one size fits all” pro­vi­sion or pro­duces new lan­guage that would attempt to weaken a municipality’s abil­ity to pro­tect its res­i­dents, the result is still the under­min­ing of the cen­tral pur­pose of local ordi­nances: to address the par­tic­u­lar needs and con­cerns of munic­i­pal­i­ties, which vary greatly with regard to nat­ural resources, pop­u­la­tion loca­tion and den­sity, com­mer­cial sec­tors, and other aspects.

We request that you stand with us and your munic­i­pal­ity in this cause and encour­age your lead­er­ship to do the same. It is essen­tial that we pre­serve a municipality’s abil­ity to deter­mine what is best for their com­mu­nity and its’ res­i­dents and we hope you will call for the strongest decision-making pow­ers pos­si­ble for local communities.

Sec­ond, we are con­cerned that the cur­rent lan­guage in the amended ver­sion of SB 1100 does not pro­vide enough pro­tec­tion for Pennsylvania’s drink­ing water sup­plies. Both the recently released Cen­ter for Rural Penn­syl­va­nia study and the pre­vi­ously pub­lished Duke Uni­ver­sity study found that drink­ing water wells had increased con­t­a­m­i­na­tion when Mar­cel­lus Shale gas wells were drilled within 3,000 feet of the water sup­ply.  Unfor­tu­nately, the cur­rent lan­guage only increases pri­vate well set­backs to 500 feet and pub­lic water sup­ply set­backs to 1,000 feet.

While SB 1100 does increase the zone of pre­sumed con­t­a­m­i­na­tion to 3,000 feet, a set­back of at least that dis­tance, and ide­ally 5,000 feet, would pro­vide real pro­tec­tion to res­i­dents.  Increas­ing the zone of pre­sumed con­t­a­m­i­na­tion pro­vides landown­ers with greater legal rights; how­ever, in prac­tice many res­i­dents are unaware of their rights and as a result can­not ben­e­fit from this change.  While it is pos­i­tive that more res­i­dents would receive replace­ment water sup­plies under this change, it would be far more ben­e­fi­cial to sim­ply pre­vent the con­t­a­m­i­na­tion from tak­ing place through a set­back pro­vi­sion.  Replace­ment water sup­plies are a bur­den on res­i­dents and often result in a loss of prop­erty value.

We would urge you to sup­port a greater set­back for pri­vate and pub­lic drink­ing water sup­plies, with 3,000 feet being a min­i­mum dis­tance that is sci­en­tif­i­cally backed and 5,000 feet as an even more pro­tec­tive setback.

Thank you for your atten­tion to this issue.

CNBC, which obtained the audio from the event, has the report. In the audio files, recorded by an environmental campaigner from Earthworks, one industry insider suggests that those who oppose gas drilling constitute an "insurgency." Another advocates hiring former military psychological operations specialists to handle local populations.

Here's the direct quote from Range Resources communications director Matt Pitzarella, from a from session titled "Designing a Media Relations Strategy To Overcome Concerns Surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing":

"We have several former psy ops folks that work for us at Range because they're very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments," Pitzarella said. "Really all they do is spend most of their time helping folks develop local ordinances and things like that. But very much having that understanding of psy ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania."

And here's Matt Carmichael, the manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum:

"Download the U.S. Army-slash-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency," Carmichael said. "There's a lot of good lessons in there and coming from a military background, I found the insight in that extremely remarkable."
Of course, the industry folks aren't fighting a hostile foreign enemy. They're talking about the people—Americans in fact—who live in these communities.

Of course, the industry folks aren't fighting a hostile foreign enemy. They're talking about the people—Americans in fact—who live in these communities.

The groups took out a full-page advertisement in the western edition of The New York Times on Monday asking why Signet, the parent company of Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, hasn’t signed the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge. Earthworks Bonnie Gestring told National Jeweler that the groups expect to run the ad again but haven’t decided on a media outlet.

Signed by more than 50 jewelers from around the world, including Tiffany & Co. and Signet competitor Zale Corp., the pledge vows to boycott gold from the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, a project of Anglo American plc and Canadian miner Northern Dynasty.

“Fifty leading jewelers vow to protect the world’s richest salmon fishery. Why doesn’t the world’s largest jeweler join them?” the ad states.

The organizations said they have attempted numerous times to engage Signet on the issue via phone calls and letters and have invited Signet to meet with native Alaskan leaders and technical experts about the project.

David Bouffard, a spokesman for Sterling Jewelers Inc., Signet’s U.S. subsidiary, said it hasn’t signed the pledge because it doesn’t get involved in single-mine issues.

“Signet is extremely supportive of responsible mining as evidenced by our signing onto Earthworks’ ‘Golden Rules’ in 2006,” he said. “We were one of the first to do so and our continuing high-profile work in the responsible jewelry practices area is evidence of our leadership role over the years. For example, in 2005 we were a founding, and are now a certified, member of the Responsible Jewellery Council, actively serving on its board and committees. We remain an ally with Earthworks in its fundamental goals for responsible mining initiatives but do not engage on single-mine issues because we are not qualified to do so.”

Located in the Bristol Bay watershed in southwest Alaska, the proposed Pebble Mine has been a source of controversy for the last four years. Those opposed to the mine, which would be the largest open-pit copper and gold mine in North America, say it would pollute the watershed, thereby deteriorating the quality of life for area residents and harming the wild salmon fishery downstream.

In August 2008, Tiffany & Co. held a screening of the Pebble Mine documentary Red Gold in New York.

Mine proponents claim the project will bring a much-needed economic boost to the area and that the Pebble site can be mined without negatively impacting the surrounding environment.

Those groups that are against Pebble scored a victory last month when voters in southwest Alaska narrowly approved an anti-mine ballot initiative. The legality of the ballot measure, however, is still being debated in Alaska Superior Court.

The industry has been exempt from divulging the release of H2S to the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for 17 years. The removal of the exemption was first published in the Federal Registry in October and finalized last week. Conservation groups praised the decision.

“[H2S] may leak from drill rigs and refineries, but is often also deliberately burned off, exposing nearby communities to its harmful effects,” the environmental group Earthworks stated in a press release.
Hydrogen sulfide, which occurs naturally in oil and gas drilling, can sicken workers and community members who are exposed to high enough concentrations of the gas.

“Common symptoms of exposure to long-term, low levels of hydrogen sulfide include headache, skin complications, respiratory and mucous membrane irritation, respiratory soft tissue damage and degeneration, confusion, impairment of verbal recall, memory loss, and prolonged reaction time,” Earthworks warns. “Exposure to high concentrations can cause unconsciousness and can be fatal.”

The gas was a hot topic on Colorado’s Western Slope this summer when state regulators were accused of misleading the public concerning the release of H2S at several Noble Energy natural gas wells on the Roan Plateau in 2009.

Regulators for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) were accused of not being totally forthright on the issue of H2S release at Noble wells in 2009 until a whistleblower came forward.

Silt Mesa resident Carl McWilliams was a contractor for Noble when he became sick – an incident that led to a U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fine. Another contractor died of what the coroner determined was a heart attack unrelated to H2S emissions, but McWilliams disputes that conclusion and now says he’s been ostracized by the industry.

The COGCC found that four Noble wells had H2S levels greater than 100 parts per million (PPM) in 2009, and the agency in September posted its findings on the COGCC website (pdf). In a separate fact sheet (pdf), the COGCC states that levels of between 200 and 300 PPM can lead to “marked conjunctivitis and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hour of exposure.” Levels higher than 500 PPM can lead to loss of consciousness and possibly death in 30 minutes to 1 hour.”

“Our initial priority, obviously, was to look at current circumstances and to ensure that there were not significant risks to public health, safety or welfare, and I think we satisfied ourselves that there is not,” COGCC director David Neslin told the Colorado Independent in September.

The EPA is engaged in a rulemaking process on hydraulic fracturing emissions, which has prompted threats of litigation from states such as North Dakota, where a major drilling boom is going on in the Bakken Shale.

Community activists in Colorado and elsewhere in the nation say the EPA must do more to regulate the industry as domestic oil and gas production steadily increases in areas with more dense populations than the Western Slope of Colorado. Groups around Colorado accuse local and state regulators of dropping the ball on issues ranging from air emissions to water quality to setbacks for rigs near homes, businesses and public buildings.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 – Prices for precious metals are soaring, but the hardrock mining industry remains exempt from paying royalties for the riches it extracts from U.S. public lands, and from paying to cleanup the pollution from abandoned mines. Legislation to make the mining industry pay its share and clean up its messes was welcomed today by Western communities who live daily with the impacts of mining.

"With record-high metals prices and skyrocketing industry profits, it’s time for mining companies to pay their fair share,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks. “Reform of America’s antiquated mining laws to protect water resources, fund cleanup of abandoned mines, put special places off-limits to mining and make the industry pay taxpayers what we are owed is long overdue.”

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced a large package of bills today to make sure the oil, gas and mining industries pay their fare share. A key component of this comprehensive legislation would overhaul the General Mining Law of 1872, which allows mining of gold, copper, uranium and other metals virtually anywhere on Western public lands, with few environmental safeguards and no return to the taxpayers. Hardrock mining is the only industry that extracts resources from public lands that does not pay federal royalties.

With precious metals prices higher than they have been in decades, big mining companies are enjoying astounding profits. Newmont Mining of Denver – the largest producer in the United States and operator of three mines that are among the nation’s ten biggest sources of toxic pollution – saw profits double from 2008 to 2010, to $1.8 billion last year. At Barrick Gold Co. of Toronto – the world’s largest gold producer, profits for the second quarter of 2011 were $1.2 billion, up 35 percent over 2010.

While mining companies are raking in profits they continue to be the nation’s largest source of toxic pollution – releasing 1.7 billion pounds of toxic materials in 2009, the most recent data available from the EPA. The 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 tailings piles and pit lakes. According to the EPA, hardrock mining has contaminated the headwaters of 40 percent of watershed in the West, and cleaning up the nation’s hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines will cost over $50 billion.

“Water is scarce in Nevada and other Western states, but the outdated mining law lets mining companies get away with polluting our most valuable resource,” said John Hadder of Great Basin Resource Watch. He cited Newmont’s Lone Tree Mine and Mule Canyon Mine, which have created pit lakes in Nevada contaminated with acidic water, that will require long-term treatment.

In Montana, the proposed Rock Creek mine, a copper-silver mine that would tunnel underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, is expected to generate water pollution in perpetuity.  Said Jim Costello of the Rock Creek Alliance, a group of businesses and concerned citizens near the proposed mine: ““It’s completely irresponsible for this industry to operate under a 139-year-old law that leaves communities to deal with lasting pollution.”

Throughout the West, Native communities have long borne the brunt of the destructive effects of uranium mining. In the last decade, uranium prices have risen from $10 a pound to around $50 a day, leading to renewed interest from mining companies. Several companies have proposed new uranium mining projects that threaten Mt. Taylor, N.M., a mountain that is sacred to a number of New Mexico and Arizona tribes. Because the 1872 Mining Law gives mining the highest priority for use of public lands, mines are permitted regardless of conflicts with other uses and values.

"There are some places, sacred places such as Mt. Taylor, that just shouldn’t be mined,” said Nadine Padilla, who is Navajo and an organizer with the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment in Albuquerque, N.M. "We need a modern mining law that can balance mining with other uses of public land and protect us from the potentially deadly impacts of uranium mining."

These legislative changes will bring mining on public lands into the 21st century by:

• Setting strong standards to protect precious water resources from toxic mine waste;
• Imposing a federal royalty to compensate U.S. taxpayers for extracting valuable minerals from public lands; and
• Protecting special places by allowing officials to deny mines that threaten clean water, important wildlife and fisheries, recreation and other values.
• Require hardrock mining companies to pay reclamation fees into a fund to cleanup abandoned mines, similar to the fees already required of coal mining companies.

#     #     #