Kris Hefton, COO of Vane Minerals, told the subcommittee that mining companies are currently required to pay claim maintenance fees annually even if those areas have been withdrawn from mining activity by the BLM.

Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, said he’s concerned about individuals having to pay claim maintenance fees but can’t further develop their claims if they didn’t have a discovery on those claims prior to federal withdrawal of those lands from mining.

The claim maintenance fee is currently $140 per claim for lode claims, mills sites, and tunnel sites, and $140 per 20 acres for placer claims. The one-time claim location fee is currently $34 per claim. Jamie Connell, Acting Deputy Director of the BLM, said the fees generated $65.8 million in combined revenues in fiscal year 2012. The BLM received $39.7 million from those fees to offset the costs of the Mining Law Administration program.

Connell noted that the President’s Budget for 2014 also includes a new royalty of not less than 5 percent of gross proceeds.

Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, told the subcommittee that the environmental organization “believes the claim maintenance fee is an important tool to protect the nation’s interest in our public lands. In addition to being the only federal government revenue received from mining the public’s minerals, the claim maintenance fee helps protect the public against land fraud and speculation.”

Harold Roberts, COO for uranium miner Energy Fuels, spoke in support of “Good Samaritan” programs to clean up abandoned mine lands. “Energy Fuels Resources and the rest of the industry continue to strongly support the enactment of Good Samaritan legislation that would allow mining companies to voluntarily reclaim abandoned mine sites without incurring liability under federal and state environmental laws,” he said. “Thoughtful legislation is a winning proposition for the environment, the communities and our nation.”

Steve Moyer, vice president for government affairs at Trout Unlimited, observed, “There are numerous citizen groups that have formed in this country for the purpose of protecting, conserving and enhancing the natural resources of their local communities. …These ‘Good Samaritans’ need liability protection to voluntarily clean up the abandoned mine sites that directly affect the quality of water that serves their communities.”

In her testimony, Pagel asserted that lack of funding is “the single largest obstacle to the restoration of abandoned hardrock mines.”

“A steady-stream of long-term funding for hardrock AML cleanup, similar to the coal abandoned mine fee and program is essential to dealing with the scope of the problems western states face from abandoned mines,” she stressed, adding that Earthworks support comprehensive reform of the 1872 Mining Law that includes both a royalty and a reclamation fee.

"It doesn't keep the weight off, it doesn't feed you. It doesn't keep you cool in the summer or warm in the winter," he says. "It is beautiful and finely crafted, but really people buy jewellery because of what it represents – the best of human emotion."

However, "human emotion" has created a dilemma for jewellery companies, as high-profile campaigns against conflict minerals and dirty gold have raised public concern about the ethical footprints of supply chains.

No fiancée wants to fear that the cost of her engagement ring was an environment destroyed, a community damaged or a worker mistreated. As Rae, who spent 17 years working with WWF, puts it, "If you are trying to sell a product that represents the height of human emotion, you do not want that associated with collateral damage."

Weak standards?

The RJC was formed in 2005 by some of the biggest brands in mining and retail, such as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Tiffany & Co and Cartier, as well as trade associations such as Jewelers of America.

Since then, its initial membership of 14 has swelled to around 450 to include not only conglomerates but also smaller enterprises. Ask at Tiffany & Co today whether its products are responsibly sourced and you will be told that, just as its iconic blue boxes are made by Forest Stewardship Council accredited suppliers, so is its jewellery certified by the RJC.

Almost since it was formed, however, a debate has raged over whether the RJC can be trusted to run a code of practices covering human and labour rights, environmental impacts and product disclosure.

This debate boiled over a fortnight ago when an international coalition of unions and environmental NGOs – including Earthworks, Mining Watch Canada and United Steelworkers – called for a major overhaul, accusing Rae's organisation of presiding over poor governance and weak standards.

In a 124-page report titled More Shine Than Substance, the group alleged the RJC's certification system is flawed, saying it fails to consider the source of products, certifying companies as a whole, not individual sites or facilities. It branded the organisation a poor imitation of the FSC and cited various loopholes – including an apparent failure to ban developments in conflict zones, to demand limits on air or water pollution or to require members to obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

The civil society gap

At the heart of the attack was the claim that the RJC fails to consult other stakeholders, leading to a weak standards-setting process. While civil society representatives have sat on its standards committee since early 2012, the board is wholly composed of companies and trade associations.

"The best practices in industry around certification have always been multi-stakeholder processes where civil society and companies jointly govern and create certification systems," explains Payal Sampat, one of the report's authors, who heads up Earthworks' No Dirty Gold campaign.

"Instead what RJC has is a board that is industry controlled. It is jewellery supply chains from mining to retail, and civil society is set at arms length." In this respect, she says it is engaged in "greenwashing" and the idea that it is either independent or has teeth is laughable.

"If they exist, these teeth are set so wide apart that you can drive a dump truck of toxic waste through them. [The] RJC needs to be a force that drives improvements in social and environmental practices for mining, rather than rubber stamping business-as-usual. Otherwise, what's the point?"

Challenge of developing supply chain standards

In response, the RJC vigorously rejected the report's findings, insisting that it follows international best practice. It added that the report was premature given that a consultation on its code of practices and standards guidance – featuring new proposals on conflict areas, human rights and free prior-informed consent – remains open.

"One of the criticisms is that our auditor accreditation process isn't rigorous," says Rae. "Well, it is predicated on the same process used by the FSC. We look for our auditors to belong to professional auditing associations with requisite governance checks on probity."

Rae concedes that developing standards for the whole supply chain is a challenge. "I don't know anyone else who has possibly been foolish enough as us to do it." But he rejects that they are somehow too diluted: "The jewellery industry is seeing the value of the RJC, but this is not an easy ride. No company is saying this is too easy."

"Does the system have teeth? Yes it does. Do we bite people in public? No, we have not had cause to do that yet. We're not in the business – and neither is the FSC – to name and shame."

Proof of its credibility, says Rae, came in June 2012 when it was accepted as a full member of ISEAL Alliance, which accredits certification bodies. "If this was some form of scam the implication is that ISEAL is somewhat derelict in its duty in assessing the RJC. I would strongly contest that."

He also points to a 2010 benchmarking study by Dutch NGO Solidaridad, which ranked the RJC's code of practices above those of seven other organisations, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, EITI and OECD, when it came to precious metals mining.

Transparency and multi-stakeholder approach

"The RJC code of practices is one of the strongest out there in terms of breadth and depth of criteria, at least on paper," explains Jennifer Horning, international programme coordinator for gold at Solidaridad, who also sits on the RJC's standards committee. "I would say that no certification system is perfect now. However, RJC is perhaps the system with the most potential to be effective in leading change now."

She adds, however, that "if consumer confidence is the goal, RJC would benefit by opening all of its decision-making bodies, in particular its board."

Matthew Wenban-Smith, managing director of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, which is in the process of developing its own certification standards for mining, warns though that adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, although necessary, can be a "slow and painful path".

"It takes a long time to build trust in the conversation," he explains. Trust, however, seems to be a commodity in short supply. Both Earthworks and the RJC have decided to correspond with each other by publishing on their own websites.

Whether or not the RJC's primary concern is fostering responsible business practices or burnishing the industry's reputation, Wenban-Smith suggests the end result may still be positive. "If the motivation for doing good is wanting to be seen to be doing good, well I don't have a problem with that.

"Part of what makes us honest people is wanting to be seen to be honest."

Tucked in a Washington, D.C., steakhouse in the shadow of the Capitol dome, Tisha Schuller peppers a conversation with words like "de-escalation," "polarization" and "high-octane."

Her tone is familiar in the clashes over energy development in Colorado, pitting the U.S. oil and gas industry against communities that don't trust it. As president of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, Schuller has seen tensions boil over, making it hard for drillers, communities and conservationists to find common ground.

"If we're talking about 'Ban fracking' or 'Drill, baby, drill,' they're both extremes," Schuller told EnergyWire last month. "So my focus for the next couple of years is de-escalating the conversation, spending all our time on this, doing the hard work in the middle."

Tisha Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association. Photo courtesy of Colorado Oil & Gas Association.

That was also her goal when she started at the industry group in 2009.

Since then, Colorado has started to look like other booming oil and gas-producing states, with oil and gas companies moving toward urban areas. For decades, Coloradans have navigated oil booms and busts in the western half of the state, and they associated energy development with bobbing pumpjacks spread out across open spaces. In recent years, however, encroachment in the Front Range around Denver has pulled quiet communities into disputes with powerful drilling interests.

A tumultuous year

Things can't get much worse than in 2012. Liberal enclaves in a handful of Colorado cities pushed to shut out the industry altogether, public hearings turned to emotional pressure cookers, and the Colorado Oil & Gas Association was at the center of it all.

After the city of Longmont, about 40 miles north of Denver, moved to ban hydraulic fracturing -- the industrial process of blasting chemical-laced water and sand underground to crack shale and release gas -- the association joined other industry players in an expensive campaign to protect their drilling interests. The ban passed anyway, and COGA sued the city.

That was in December, the same month commissioners in Boulder County (where Longmont is located) had to revise security measures after a representative from Encana Oil and Gas Inc. was harassed by anti-drilling activists during a public hearing.

Schuller has also been targeted. Extreme anti-drilling activists posted Schuller's home address online, along with information about her family, encouraging residents to "hold them accountable for their crimes."

Schuller is married, with two children, but she doesn't dwell on the threats. She said the mess last year was disheartening but that it helped her better understand the nature of oil and gas critics: There are some who will always oppose fossil fuel development, she said, and there are others who genuinely fear drilling.

With that realization, Schuller said, the industry needs a new approach to its conversation with critics. It should not be, "How can I convince you that oil and gas is OK?" Rather, she suggested, "OK, your concerns are legitimate. What do we need to do to address them?"

"How do we change this from a reactive, aggressive, defensive conversation?" she asked.

It was with that question that Schuller headed to Washington, D.C., last month with the Western Energy Alliance. She met with Colorado's congressional delegation to recruit partners in her mission of "bringing the conversation to the middle."

Making an effort

But not everyone is buying it.

If the Colorado Oil & Gas Association meant for 2013 to pass more peacefully than 2012, the "midyear returns are not as favorable as we would have hoped for," said Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado.

Maysmith said COGA has fought tightened regulations "vociferously" and has done plenty on its own to agitate the drilling debate. Besides the controversy over municipal fracking bans, the industry group was also deeply involved in negotiations of new state regulations, a process that left few stakeholders satisfied.

"There was opportunity for agreement and compromise, and they chose not to seize that opportunity," Maysmith said.

The rules, proposed in 2012 and finalized early this year, addressed groundwater monitoring and setbacks, the distance of oil and gas operations from homes and other places. COGA partnered with oil and gas companies that pushed for an alternative setback proposal that would provide more flexibility for drillers, but a stricter measure ultimately passed.

The association has also taken heat for its suit against Longmont. In March, a coalition of environmental groups filed to intervene in the case, calling COGA's suit an "attack" on community rights.

"Rather than sue communities acting to protect their public health, industry and the state should be addressing legitimate community concerns by putting the public's health before industry profits," said Bruce Baizel of Earthworks, part of the coalition.

The association also got into trouble when it opposed proposed fracking limits in Fort Collins earlier this year. The group submitted a petition to the City Council that included names of businesses that had not signed it, a controversy that prompted COGA to pull the petition. Local police are investigating the matter.

Still, environmentalists in Colorado acknowledge that COGA has tried to be more collaborative. The association meets with conservation groups monthly and hired a full-time staffer to work with communities. It's also working to form partnerships with national groups like the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental organizaton with a history of crafting compromises with industries.

"The issue isn't that somebody doesn't know how to pick up the phone," Maysmith said. "We have open channels of dialogue."

Is dialogue enough?

With Schuller's background, the dialogue should come naturally. The COGA leader joined the association after a career in environmental consulting for oil and gas projects and a position on the board of a Colorado environmental organization.

She served for three years on the board of the Center for Native Ecosystems, a Colorado-based conservation group focused on protecting biodiversity. On the finance committee, Schuller was responsible for handling budget issues for the nonprofit.

"Tisha clearly has a strong stewardship ethic and a conservationist mindset," said Josh Pollock, who was conservation director for the group while Schuller was on the board.

She stepped down to take the position at COGA in December 2009 and said she planned to change the tone of the fossil fuel debate in Colorado.

"I was really passionate that if someone spoke out for the industry in sort of a reasonable way that wasn't so aggressive and defensive, that people would understand," she said.

The industry group's mission of keeping an open dialogue with critics will be on full display later this summer when the group hosts its annual energy conference. Straying from the standard lineup of industry people, Schuller has invited a couple of high-profile environmental leaders.

The Nature Conservancy's Peter Kareiva, a scientist known for challenging other environmentalists to arm their views with data, will talk about his optimistic views on nature's resiliency. And Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank, will have a moderated discussion with Martin Durbin, the new head of America's Natural Gas Alliance.

"If we're having these conversations, they're not easy," Schuller said. "They're still messy and challenging, and they take a long time. Those are the right conversations to be having."

Pollock, now senior program adviser for Rocky Mountain Wild, a group that formed when the Center for Native Ecosystems merged with Colorado Wild in 2011, said Schuller has succeeded in setting "more direction" for the industry as head of COGA.

"The challenge is about balancing the need for growth on the side of the industry with those conservation values," Pollock said, "and I think those things are very often not in direct conflict."

Still, Conservation Colorado wants COGA's attempt at balance to go a step further.

"[The conversation] ultimately has to translate into positions that are strongly protective of the spectacular environment in Colorado. We haven't seen enough of that," Maysmith said. "The challenge is, when push comes to shove, is COGA going to step forward?"

After more than a year of deliberations on the so-called "pit rule," the New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission on Thursday issued a 51-page order, relaxing some provisions of the Rule 17, adopted in 2009 under former Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat.

Industry groups had opposed the rule, claiming it was too costly and restrictive, and blamed it for driving producers out of the state. New Mexico's current governor, Republican Susana Martinez, agreed, and in her successful 2010 bid to succeed Richardson she campaigned on a platform to revise the rule.

In the fall of 2011, the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association joined with the Independent Petroleum Producers Association to file a proposal calling for changes to Rule 17.

Among the changes the commission made to the rule are allowing the use of multi-well fluid- management pits at well sites and allowing operators to bury drilling cuttings on site in locations where it can be done in an environmentally safe manner, rather than have to haul the drilling waste to a remote disposal site.

In addition, under the changes, drillers will not be required to report on the impacts to soil, surface water and groundwater from waste pits or below-grade tanks.

In a statement, NMOGA President Steve Henke praised the OCC for the thoroughness of its deliberative process.

"Based on the testimony of many expert witnesses during the rulemaking and extensive deliberations by the commission, protections for the environment, groundwater and human health have been painstakingly addressed," he said.

But Henke said it is too early to gauge what impact the changes would have on New Mexico's exploration-and-production industry.

"Due to the extremely technical nature of the rule, the industry is now analyzing the rule in its final form to determine what impact the changes will have on operating methods," he said.

"We know they addressed our concerns. The biggest level of relief that we got was on the ability to bury on site and to use line drilling and reserve pits instead of closed-loop drilling," Wally Drangmeister, NMOGA spokesman, said in an interview Monday.

Drangmeister said NMOGA would be able to comment more extensively on the impact of the rule changes after conducting some technical analysis of the commission's order. "Hopefully it won't be a matter of weeks or months," he said.

But Bruce Baizel, project director for Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project, said Monday he was "extremely disappointed' in OCC's decision to review the rule, a decision he charged was driven by the governor's office.

Despite the months of hearings during which time the OCC took testimony and reviewed evidence on the need to change the rule, "there was nothing new. It was all a repeat of what was presented in 2007," Baizel said.

"They wanted a different outcome so they were told to redo the rule. It wasn't a science-based decision. It was a politics-based decision," he said.

Baizel said that OGAP expects to see an increase in the number of groundwater contamination incidents in the state as a result of the rule change.

"They've allowed much greater levels of waste to be buried on site and left there, and there will be an increased number of mini-dumps all over the state with lots of chlorides in them," he said.

He also decried the changes the rule made to reporting requirements for the handling and disposal of drilling wastes.

"It's essentially going back to an honor system," he said.

Baizel added that it is too early to say whether OGAP would challenge the rule changes in court.

"We haven't made a final decision yet, but we think the fact that there was no new evidence will give us a fairly strong claim if we go that route," he said.

“The House Energy and Minerals Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee is shining a welcome spotlight on the 1872 Mining Law. It’s outrageous that the 1872 Mining Law gives mining companies all the power while taxpayers have none.

500,000 abandoned hardrock mines litter the American landscape. Unlike coal mining, hardrock mining companies pay no mine reclamation fee,.

The one fee they do pay, a $140 to hold a mining claim on federal public lands, funds the enforcement of mining oversight on public lands.

So if this hearing is about directing extra mining claim holding fee revenue to help pay America’s $50 billion abandoned mine cleanup bill, we heartily approve.

But we didn't elect this Congress to make it easier for mining companies to pollute special places like the Grand Canyon. Enough is enough. It's time to make this 140-year-old law history."

Neither Colorado nor Pennsylvania has penalized companies for missing the deadlines, though they mandated disclosure of fracturing fluid chemicals more than a year ago.

"That's lousy. You're not enforcing," said Bruce Baizel, an environmentalist and lawyer with Earthworks who helped hammer out Colorado's disclosure provisions.

Colorado and Pennsylvania are two of about a dozen states that require or allow disclosure through the privately run FracFocus website, and they were chosen by EnergyWire as representative. FracFocus has come under increased scrutiny after a study by Harvard Law School's Environmental Law and Policy Program said it "fails as a regulatory compliance tool" and said states shouldn't use it (EnergyWire, April 23).

Industry officials defend their record of disclosure.

"Our companies are committed to using FracFocus as the database on which natural gas producers report the contents of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process," said Dan Whitten, spokesman for America's Natural Gas Alliance, a trade group. "We have taken these disclosures and reporting to the database itself very seriously."

Spokesmen for oil and gas agencies in both states said they hope to see reporting and timeliness improve now that the mandatory reporting provisions have passed the one-year mark.

Fracturing is a part of drilling a well and producing oil and gas. In the shale drilling that has revolutionized the U.S. oil and gas industry, fracking crews pump millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand to crack open the rock and release gas.

The only state known to have penalized a company for failure to file is North Dakota, which fined Slawson Exploration Co. $300,000. After a December blowout near the banks of Lake Sakakawea, officials at the state's Department of Mineral Resources found the company hadn't filed with FracFocus and demanded $12,500 for each day it was delinquent.

"We felt it was important that we set an example that reporting to FracFocus is important," department Director Lynn Helms explained in a brief interview.

Slawson Exploration is contesting the charges and fines, which also include $75,000 for the accident itself. Slawson has since filed a report disclosing the chemicals used, but the report omits information on six ingredients as trade secrets.

That's the only company Helms' agency has fined. But he said his staff regularly sends out late notices to companies. The agency recently set up its database to compare dates from electronic frack notices sent by operators and FracFocus filing dates. It then flags delinquent wells by API number, each well's unique number.

"That API better be in there in 60 days," Helms said.

Pa. is 'working with operators'

Colorado and Pennsylvania require reports to be filed to FracFocus within 60 days of a frack job. But spokesmen for agencies in both states said they have not taken enforcement action against late filers.

"We expect world-class performance from operators in all aspects, from proper casing and cementing to timely submissions of reports," said Kevin Sunday, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. "We are working with operators to make sure they are filing these reports on time."

Pennsylvania's disclosure requirement is part of the revisions to drilling laws called "Act 13." Sunday said it is "one of the most progressive fracturing fluid disclosure statutes in the nation."

Colorado officials are expecting to see compliance improve, said Todd Hartman, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which includes the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

"With operators now having had a year to fine-tune their reporting process," Hartman said, "we will expect more diligent compliance with filing deadlines going forward."

Industry hailed Colorado's rules as some of the toughest in the nation when they were adopted in December 2011 by the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

"These new rules give Colorado the fairest and most transparent set of fracking regulations in the country and will likely serve as a model for other states," Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) said at the time. "We believe oil and gas development can thrive while also meeting our high standards for protection of public health, water and the environment."

But Earthworks' Baizel said 80 percent compliance isn't meeting "high standards."

"If you stood up and said, 'We think this regulation will get 80 percent compliance,' the commissioners would laugh at you," Baizel said.

The well-by-well records made available to the public on the FracFocus website do not include the date they were filed. So it can't be determined from the FracFocus site itself whether a report was filed on time.

But the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC), which runs the site, regularly sends Excel spreadsheets of the data to state oil and gas agencies with filing dates and other data.

EnergyWire obtained the spreadsheets for 2012 through open records requests to the state agencies in Colorado and Pennsylvania.

Disclosure became mandatory April 1, 2012, in Colorado and April 16, 2012, in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, there were 684 reports filed between May 1 and Dec. 31 for wells fracked after May 1. Of those, 165 were late, or 24 percent. In Colorado, there were 1,440 filings between April 1 and the end of 2012, and 305 were late, or 21 percent.

Harvard's critique stirs debate

The 2-year-old FracFocus website is funded by two industry trade groups and run by GWPC, a private nonprofit, in conjunction with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

The Obama administration has endorsed the site for disclosure of the fracturing chemicals used on federal public lands.

It was originally designed for voluntary disclosure, providing people who live near a well with information about the chemicals poured into it. But as states have started ordering disclosure of chemical information, it has evolved into a tool to comply with those state rules.

It fails in that function, the Harvard report states, because it gives drilling companies too much leeway to miss deadlines. The report said FracFocus doesn't notify states when disclosures are filed. GWPC responded that it regularly provides updates to state agencies on what reports have been filed to FracFocus. Those are the records obtained by EnergyWire.

"We merely provide the means by which a state receives the information so that they may review it for regulatory compliance," GWPC said in a statement.

Industry advocates faulted the researchers for not interviewing the creators of FracFocus. But the author of the Harvard report, Kate Konschnik, said her study reflected what could be found on the site, in law and regulation, not the inner workings of the system.

Konschnik, policy director of the school's Environmental Law and Policy Program, said it's troubling that companies are filing late and that members of the public can't see that for themselves on the FracFocus site.

"Taken together," she said, "it would lead a company not to spend a lot of time or resources to report on time, or accurately."

Amos’ complaint and the existence, though not details, of a settlement and non-disclosure pact were disclosed in filings with the oil and gas commission. In December, the agency subpoenaed Amos to testify about a rule it was considering to require water tests. Matt Sura, an environmental attorney in Boulder, Colorado, who represented conservation groups that were seeking Amos’ testimony, said an Encana attorney told him the company would sue Amos if she talked. She didn’t want to face a lawsuit from Encana and Sura said he asked the commission to withdraw the subpoena.
‘Relevant Testimony’
“She had really relevant testimony,” Sura said in an interview. “Because they’ve bought everyone’s silence, they often state that they haven’t damaged anyone.”
In filings with the commission, Amos said gas drilling on a neighbor’s property in 2001 caused her water well to blow out “like a geyser at Yellowstone.” Two years later she said she developed health problems that her doctors could not explain and she believes were related to the drilling.
The commission had concluded that Encana was responsible for methane in Amos’s well, though it said it found no evidence of fracking fluids in her water. Encana disputed the finding yet agreed to a $99,400 fine and to monitor the well until methane levels dropped.
“Encana settled the Amos case as it had been an issue a predecessor company had been working with since 2001 and rather than continue with a lengthy and costly process, Encana decided to settle,” said Jay Averill, a spokesman for Encana, in an e-mail. He didn’t respond to a question about why the company sought to keep Amos from testifying to the commission.
Amos declined to comment on any aspect of the case when contacted by telephone.
Horizontal Drilling
“Why are they settling all these cases?” Deborah Goldberg, managing attorney with the environment group Earthjustice, said in an interview. “There’s obviously information that they don’t want to get out there.”
Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said corporations often insist on confidentiality.
“Companies don’t want other potential plaintiffs to know how much money the companies were willing to pay for a settlement,” he said in an e-mail.
Advances in fracking and horizontal drilling have lowered energy prices, created thousands of jobs and helped reduce emissions blamed for global warming. President Barack Obama has highlighted the benefits of natural gas, including jobs created in the industry, in major speeches.
The technology, in which millions of gallons of water and chemicals are forced underground to free trapped gas, has brought drilling operations to within hundreds of feet of schools, homes and farms. With that has come complaints of drinking water contamination -- which the industry has forcefully denied.
No Contamination
“There has never been a case of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, said in an April 23 interview with Bloomberg Radio.
Such claims rest in part on viewing fracking in isolation from the drilling that precedes it and the disposal of wastewater that follows. Defined narrowly, fracking is the step in the middle in which water and chemicals are forced underground to break up rock and free gas and oil.
Regulators in Pennsylvania, however, have linked gas and oil drilling with about 120 cases of water contamination from 2009 to 2012, according to documents obtained through a state right-to-know request. The documents don’t say if it was the fracking stage that was to blame, as opposed to faulty drilling or waste disposal.
Public Concern
“At the end of the day the public is less concerned with the niceties of whether it’s coming from the fracturing of the shale or whether it is coming from the failure of the well casing because as far as they’re concerned, it’s all hydraulic fracturing,” Mark Brownstein, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund in New York, said in an interview.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a long-term study of the potential impact of fracking on water.
Settlement terms in the Hallowich case were unsealed over the objections of the driller, Range Resources, by Washington County Common Pleas Court Judge Debbie O’Dell-Seneca who said companies failed to show they’d suffer harm to trade secrets or reputations if the records were open.
Hallowich Case
MarkWest Energy Partners LP (MWE) and Williams Cos.’s (WMB) Williams Gas unit joined in the June 2011 agreement, which included the transfer of the Hallowich home in Hickory, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) southwest of Pittsburgh. The family received $594,820, including $10,000 for each of their two children. The rest of the $750,000 went to attorneys’ fees, according to court documents.
Unlike most settlements, the deal required court approval because minor children were parties to the case. That put the settlement in court, where newspapers and public interest groups challenged an order sealing the case.
“We support the judge’s decision to release the file, which now clearly shows that the state’s extensive investigations clearly proved that there were no environmental or health impacts,” Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range, which is based in Fort Worth, Texas, said in an e-mail. The problems the Hallowiches experienced were from the nuisance of drilling and related activities nearby, he said.
‘Can’t Talk’
As part of the settlement, the Hallowiches signed an affidavit stating there is no medical evidence that their symptoms are related to gas drilling. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had said it “cannot conclude” that drilling contaminated the water, a finding the family disputed in its lawsuit. They alleged the agency refused to adequately investigate and outsourced some of the testing to Range Resources itself.
The Hallowiches declined, through their attorney, to discuss the case.
“My clients signed a confidentiality agreement,” Peter Villari, their lawyer, said in an interview. “They can’t talk to you.”
In the end, settlements undermine the industry’s credibility, Robert Kennedy Jr., president of the environment group Waterkeeper Alliance, said.
“The industry is asking us to trust it on the one hand, at the same time it’s gagging people who get sick so that they’re not allowed to talk,” Kennedy said in an interview. “Local doctors, the medical community and citizens who are in these areas need to know.”
Ruggiero Case
The outcome of Tim and Christine Ruggiero’s case remains secret -- though it didn’t start out that way. For a time, they detailed their travails on a timeline posted online.
The Wise County, Texas, couple had their well water tested in September 2009 before Aruba Petroleum drilled on their property, according to the timeline. The water was found safe to drink. In October, Christine Ruggiero saw a black liquid shooting from the drilling rig and had their water tested again. Those tests showed chemicals linked to gas exploration and fracking such as benzene and acetone, according to the consultant’s report, which was posted online by the anti-fracking website Earthworks.
Tim Ruggiero wrote a blog post on Earthworks in January, 2012, saying: “Our ordeal living in Gasland has ended,” a reference to the 2010 film that documents alleged environmental damage from fracking.
In an interview, he would only say, “The matter has been resolved.” Public records show Aruba, which is based in Plano, Texas, in late 2011 bought his home in Decatur, about 44 miles (71 kilometers) north of Fort Worth. The recorded sale price was $10 “and other considerations,” according to the deed.
Safety Limits
The EPA tested the Ruggieros’ water and found no evidence of contaminants above the safe-water drinking limits, Jim Lovett, an Aruba executive, said in an interview. An EPA spokeswoman declined to release the results.
“All I’m allowed to say is the dispute has been settled,” Lovett said.
After Jeff and Tina Richardson complained that gas drilling ruined the well water at their home in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) northwest of Scranton, Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) gave them bottled water and paid for a hotel room to shower in. The couple is asking for much more.
Water tests conducted after East Resources Inc. drilled the well revealed methane levels as high as 31 milligrams per liter. The U.S. Interior Department recommends monitoring when levels rise to 10 milligrams, and immediate action at 28.
Shell Purchase
In a May 16, 2012, letter, Pennsylvania regulators said gas drilling had impacted Richardson’s water. Shell provided replacement water even though regulators never directly linked the company to issues with the family’s drinking water, according to Kelly op de Weegh, a spokeswoman for Shell, which is based in The Hague and bought the gas well from East Resources in 2010.
The couple lives in an area where methane naturally seeps into aquifers, op de Weegh said.
Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) provided a similar explanation after agreeing to pay $1.6 million to buy three families out of their homes in Terry Township, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) northwest of Scranton. The settlement included payment for the properties plus other compensation.
Chesapeake, which is based in Oklahoma City, settled even though there were no water tests at the affected homes before drilling, the company said in a statement.
‘Bring Closure’
“The pre-drill testing that we do have in the area shows that a significant percentage of the residential wells had measurable methane levels prior to any Chesapeake drilling activity in the area,” according to the statement. Chesapeake “has entered into the settlement so the families and the company could bring closure to the matter.”
Richardson declined Shell’s offer of a water filtration system, which he said doesn’t guarantee chemicals used in fracking will be removed. When the couple turned down the offer, Shell stopped paying for hotel showers.
The Richardsons are now seeking a way out of the “dream” house they built in 1993 where today, they only use tap water to flush the toilets.
“We thought we did everything right to protect ourselves,” Richardson, who is 60 and works for a financial services company, said in an interview. “We’re asking for a settlement. At this point they’re refusing to buy us out. I don’t know if I’m ever going to feel safe drinking the water.”

Meanwhile, another important environmental dispute is occurring largely under the radar in southwestern Alaska.

Two mining companies, Northern Dynasty and Anglo American, want to build a gold and copper mine on the state’s Bristol Bay, an area that’s home to several Alaskan native tribes and has the largest wild sockeye salmon fishery in the world.

“The mining companies will tell you that they don’t know what all these environmental communities are so upset about because they haven’t yet issued a formal mine proposal,” says Alan Septoff, the Strategic Communications Director of the environmental nonprofit Earthworks.

He tells TakePart, “But there is an intention to mine, there are discussions about mining, and there are SEC filings where there’s concrete information about how they plan to mine.”

Despite the fact that the surrounding local community is overwhelmingly opposed to the project, Septoff notes that they didn’t want this to become a national issue. “They wanted it to be stopped based on the fact that it would seriously impact the native fishing industry and that the people impacted by the mine didn’t want it,” he says.

“But as this has gone on and on and it’s become clear that just the fact that the local communities are opposed has not been determinative, it’s become a broader issue and that’s why we’re hearing about it now.”

“We’re also at a juncture where there’s a national decision pending since the EPA is at the point where it’s deciding whether or not to use its Clean Water Act authority to prevent the dumping of mining waste into the Bristol Bay watershed,” says Septoff.

“It’s become a political football and there is a well-funded lobby effort on the part of the mining lobby to try and make it impossible for the Obama administration and the EPA to follow up on its assessment of the potential impact of the mine on the watershed,” he says. “Basically the assessment is that it would be hugely damaging and if it were not for the mining lobby it would be a no brainer for the EPA to say that this is no place to dump mining waste.”

“So my understanding is that the local community didn’t call in outsiders to try and counter the mining companies,” says Septoff. “What happened is that with a federal decision pending, environmentalists couldn’t just stand idly by, so outside organizations got involved because this is too big a deal.”

Septoff adds that one huge concern is that the mining companies would construct “an earthen dam that would hold back a lagoon of toxic mine waste,” he explains.

“This earthen dam would be built in a seismically active area and the history of this type of dam, called a tailings dam, is that many of them fail whether they’re in seismically active areas or not. This is a serious enough problem that the United Nations actually did a report on tailings dam failures.”

In terms of the mine’s potential economic impact, The Washington Post reported that the Pebble Limited Partnership—a joint venture of the two mining firms behind the project—released an economic analysis estimating that the project would generate 2,500 construction jobs during the five years that it would take to build the facility.

“The report by IHS Global Insight predicted that the companies would spend approximately $1.2 billion per year on direct capital investment and wages during the construction phase and that the mine would eventually generate up to $180 million in annual taxes and royalties.”

But Septoff says, “The facts of the matter are you’ve got a mine with a limited life and so limited economic benefits versus a sustainable fishery. When anyone in the U.S eats wild Alaskan salmon, this is where it comes from.”

“If you multiply it out over time, it’s just a matter of short-term economic benefits, where they say that the benefits would be more than the fishery” he adds. “But the guaranteed economic benefits of the fishery over time exceed the benefits of the mine.”

The EPA has extended the time for public comments on the impact of the project until the end of this month. So while you shouldn’t take your eyes off the XL Pipeline, it’s probably wise that environmentalists are also attempting to place the Bristol Bay project above the radar.

Entitled More Shine Than Substance: How RJC certification fails to create responsible jewellery, the report criticises the RJC, claiming that numerous loopholes exist in relation to the auditing and accountability of its membership and that its standards violate widely accepted social and environmental principles.

"RJC can’t polish the image of gold and diamonds while keeping worker and community representatives off the table," said Jyrki Raina, general secretary of trade union federation IndustriALL, which contributed to the report.

"Having the industry set its own standards and certify compliance is rather like having the fox guard the henhouse. How can the public have faith in such a process?"

Other groups that contributed to the report included the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and United Steelworkers, as well as environmental advocacy groups, Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada.

"If RJC is going to let its member companies claim 'responsible business practices' for the corporation as a whole then all their operations should adhere to RJC standards," said Ken Neumann, national director of the United Steelworkers in Canada.

"Companies like Rio Tinto can’t be RJC-certified as a whole, while remaining a principal investor in mines like Grasberg in Indonesia that don’t meet RJC standards," he added.

"Communities living near mines are fighting to protect their health, livelihoods, social and cultural values that are threatened by mining," commented Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada.

"Their efforts are undermined by the RJC system that certifies the continuation of the status quo," she added. "The RJC system does not drive the fundamental change that is needed."

The report is published today ahead of the RJC's annual meeting, which is taking place in Milan on May 23.

The suit, between Longmont and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, seeks to determine whether the city went too far in creating its new drilling regulations last July. Among other things, the rules forbid drilling in a residential area unless the city grants an exception.

Judge D.D. Mallard already had allowed the state's largest industry group, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, to join or "intervene" in the suit. But for both COGA and the two environmental groups, the rulings carried the same condition -- stick to the existing issues in the case and don't bring in new ones.

"The court will not permit intervention by any party to unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties," Mallard wrote in her ruling. Given that, she asked, "Do the citizen groups still wish to intervene if participation is limited to the issues as pled by the Commission and Longmont?"

The original request to intervene by the two environmental groups had stated that "the citizen groups also may raise defenses and arguments that the city may not raise."

In Monday's rulings, Mallard also denied two motions to dismiss some of Longmont's counterclaims. The city had asked the court to find that it had

the right to regulate oil and gas operations in Longmont as part of its home rule and land-use authority, while COGA insisted that the ordinance be struck down as illegal on its face. Mallard noted that the heart of the case was whether the state or city had the right of regulation, and that it would be premature to resolve all the issues in favor of one side or the other before hearing evidence.
The law itself, she said, did not prohibit Longmont from having any regulatory authority at all. "The court cannot find, as a matter of law, that the ordinance materially impedes or destroys the state interest," she said.

Longmont had also asked the court to rule that its "special exception" procedures were valid, a counterclaim that the COGCC asked to have dismissed. Under the city's ordinance, if the local rules "materially impede or destroy" the state's interest in developing oil and gas resources, an operator can apply for a waiver.

The COGCC argued that under law, the city didn't have the power to decide if there was a conflict. Again, Mallard ruled that it was too early to decide that question.

"The Court is quite sure it will be asked to determine whether the city has the authority to adjudicate operational conflicts in the course of this litigation," Mallard wrote. "However, that time has not yet come."

Mallard did dismiss one counterclaim at the request of COGA and the COGCC. Longmont had asked the court to find that anyone engaging in oil or gas operations in the city was subject to the ordinance. The commission and COGA argued, and the judge agreed, that no one was arguing about compliance, but about whether the ordinance was valid in the first place.

The judge also said she would wait until later to decide whether to empanel a jury in the case.

None of the rulings affect a separate lawsuit between COGA and Longmont over the city's anti-fracking charter amendment, approved by voters last November.

Hosted by Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Earthworks, Energy Policy Forum, Environmental Advocates of New York, Frack Action, and the Post Carbon Institute, the briefing focused on two groundbreaking reports released this spring. In sum, scientific and financial analyses show that the medium- to long-term benefits of shale fracking may be illusory and more similar to the housing bubble than the economic silver bullet promised by the gas industry. 

The reports, “Drill Baby Drill” by veteran coal and gas geologist David Hughes and “Shale and Wall Street” by financial analyst Deborah Rogers, assess the economic sustainability of the tight oil and shale gas booms that are sweeping America—and could come to New York through fracking in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations. They comprise a thorough and up-to-date analysis of data on more than 60,000 oil and gas wells and a comprehensive review of the financial status of the companies leading the charge to expand domestic fossil fuel development.

Together, the authors conclude that rather than offering the nation a century of cheap energy and economic prosperity, fracking will provide only a decade of gas and oil abundance, at most, and is creating a fragile new financial bubble that is already starting to deflate. Additional research conclusions discussed at the briefing included:

1. The shale gas and tight oil booms have been oversold. According to actual well production data filed in many states, shale gas and shale oil reserves have been overestimated by operators by as much as 400-500%.
2. Wall Street has played a key behind-the-scenes role in hyping the fracking boom through mergers and acquisitions and transactional fees, similar to the pattern seen in the housing boom that led to the financial crisis.
3. High productivity shale plays are not common. Just five gas plays and two oil plays account for 80% of production of those energy sources, while the most productive areas constitute relatively small “sweet spots” within those plays.
4. Production rates are already in decline in many shale plays. The high rates of per-well investment required to maintain production mean U.S. shale gas production may have already peaked and maintaining production will require high rates of potentially unsustainable, high-cost drilling.

“The fracking debate in New York and nationwide has been consistently framed as way to generate economic benefits and job creation, with limited risk of environmental and public health impacts,” says Deborah Rogers. “But data don’t lie. In every region where shale gas development occurs, economic stability has proven elusive—yet environmental degradation and peripheral costs have proved very real.”

“Based on our research and what is increasingly evident in gas and oil fields, a new energy dialogue is clearly needed nationally and in states like New York,” says David Hughes. “Given the true potential, limitations, and both financial and environmental costs of the energy panaceas being touted by industry and government proponents, it will simply not be possible to drill and frack our way to ‘energy independence.’”

Interviews with the issue experts and report authors arranged upon request
David Hughes is an internationally known geoscientist who has studied energy resources for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada. While there, he served as team leader for unconventional gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee that published a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s natural gas reserves.  Over the past decade he has researched, published, and lectured widely on issues related global energy supply. He also serves on the board of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas - Canada and is a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute.

Deborah Rogers began her financial career in London working in investment banking. Upon her return to the U.S., she worked as a financial consultant for several major Wall Street firms, including Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. She served on the Advisory Council for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas from 2008-2011. In June of 2012, she was invited to speak in Rio de Janeiro at the International Society for Ecological Economics in conjunction with the United Nations Rio+20 world summit. In addition, she lectures on shale gas economics throughout the U.S. and abroad at Universities, business venues, and public forums and has appeared on MSNBC and NPR. In 2012, she was appointed to the President’s Advisory Commission on the US Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.  

For more information and the reports, visit www.shalebubble.org.

For 25 years, Earthworks (www.earthworksaction.org) has been dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions.

The Energy Policy Forum (www.energypolicyforum.org) addresses the serious long-term implications for U.S. energy consumers as America chooses course at the crossroads of potential energy futures.

The Post Carbon Institute (www.postcarbon.org) provides individuals, communities, businesses, and governments with the resources needed to understand and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, environmental, and equity crises that define the 21st century. We envision a world of resilient communities and re-localized economies that thrive within ecological bounds.

###

Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Geneva, Sydney, May 22, 2013 – In a new report, More Shine Than Substance: How RJC certification fails to create responsible jewelry, an international coalition of labor and environmental groups indict the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC)’s certification system as misleading jewelry consumers. The RJC holds its annual meeting in Milan on May 23.

“Jewelry is meant to lift our spirits.  But it loses its value if it’s made with gold or diamonds that are tarnished by human rights abuses or environmental destruction,” said Earthworks’ No Dirty Gold campaign director Payal Sampat. She continued, “Unfortunately, RJC’s certification cannot reassure consumers that the gems and precious metals that pass through its system did not come at the cost of community health or clean water.”  

The groups releasing More Shine Than Substance include the trade union federation, IndustriALL, which represents 50 million workers globally, CFMEU Australia, United Steelworkers, and environmental advocacy groups Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada.

More Shine Than Substance documents how the RJC’s certification system offers little in the way of real solutions to the serious human rights, labor and environmental problems that caused RJC’s formation. The RJC Board of Directors consists exclusively of industry representatives, with no representatives from impacted communities, labor, or  environmental organizations. This exclusion is in sharp contrast to other, more robust, certification systems such as the Forest Stewardship Council.

“RJC can’t polish the image of gold and diamonds while keeping worker and community representatives off the table,” said Jyrki Raina, General Secretary of IndustriALL in Geneva. “Having the industry set its own standards and certify compliance is rather like having the fox guard the henhouse. How can the public have faith in such a process?”

In the wake of campaigns targeting dirty gold and conflict diamonds, and media exposés of the true environmental and social costs of these minerals, jewelry companies recognized that their brands and reputations were at risk.  In response a coalition of jewelry trade associations, retailers, and their suppliers, including mining companies, formed the Responsible Jewellery Council. 

“If RJC is going to let its member companies claim “responsible business practices” for the corporation as a whole then all their operations should adhere to RJC standards," said Ken Neumann, National Director of the United Steelworkers in Canada.  "Companies like Rio Tinto can’t be RJC-certified as a whole, while remaining a principal investor in mines like Grasberg in Indonesia that don’t meet RJC standards.”   The Steelworkers represent workers at several Rio Tinto operations in the U.S. and Canada. In 2012, Rio Tinto locked out 780 Steelworker members in Canada for six months.

The RJC system is riddled with loopholes relating to membership, auditing, and accountability, allowing, for example, member companies as a whole to be certified as RJC compliant even when some of their gold, platinum and diamond-producing facilities -- or projects they are invested in -- are excluded from RJC audits. The system lacks transparency. Auditors’ reports are not made public, and equally troubling, the RJC itself doesn’t receive evidence or detailed auditors’ reports about operations that it certifies.

Several RJC standards are weak and violate widely accepted social and environmental principles. Under the RJC Code, mining companies can operate in conflict zones, fail to protect workers’ rights to join unions, and allow children as young as 14 to work. It also fails to place limits on water and air pollution and allows toxic waste disposal into lakes and ocean environments.

“Communities living near mines are fighting to protect their health, livelihoods, social and cultural values that are threatened by mining,” said Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada. “Their efforts are undermined by the RJC system that certifies the continuation of the status quo,” she added. “The RJC system does not drive the fundamental change that is needed.”

The report compares RJC’s flaws to that of industry-defined and controlled certification systems in other sectors, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which has come under heavy criticism from green groups. In contrast, the Forest Stewardship Council, which embraces multi-stakeholder governance and strong standards, is widely considered a more robust and credible system for certifying sustainable wood products.

“Without significant improvements, the RJC system risks tarnishing, rather than burnishing, the reputations of its member companies,” added Payal Sampat of Earthworks.

###

"Today the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released new draft rules governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on federal public lands and some private lands where the federal government owns the sub-surface mineral rights. With this rulemaking, the BLM and the Obama administration had the opportunity to improve public oversight by incorporating emerging science and the hard-won experience of communities living with oil and gas development across the country.

But they did not.

Instead, the BLM released an irresponsibly feeble updated draft rule – even weaker than last year’s draft. If this draft is not improved, then the BLM will allow pits full of toxic oil and gas waste on our public lands, wait until after drilling has occurred to require disclosure of fracking chemicals, authorize weak cementing standards, refuse to require baseline water testing prior to fracking, omit setbacks from homes or other buildings, and continue the use of diesel fuel in fracking.

After a public comment period where thousands of concerned citizens voiced all of these shortcomings, the BLM has instead acquiesced to nearly all the demands of the oil and gas industry.  Not only will the oil and gas industry have weak standards for drilling on public lands, they will also have expedited permit review. Adding insult to injury, the rule sets a dangerous precedent for other states updating their oversight.

The Obama Administration claims they will extract domestic fossil fuels only if they can protect air, water, and public health. And the President even convened a subcommittee of his Department of Energy’s Scientific Advisory Board to accomplish this objective.  While that report recommended a series of reasonable precautions, few of its substantive recommendations are part of today’s rule.  

President Obama and Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell need to recognize that the explosion of oil and gas drilling on the public’s lands must not come at the expense of the public’s health and environment.  This latest draft rule should go back to the drawing board."

Already this year, 59 spills and “releases” have been reported at well sites and oil and gas operations throughout the county, representing more than half of the spills statewide. Of course, 90 percent of the drilling throughout the state is occurring in Weld.

Easily more than 1,300 barrels of oil, 115 barrels of drilling mud, and 3,000 barrels of produced well water have hit the ground at various well sites throughout Weld since the beginning of this year, according to spill release reports to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

The most notable spill occurred west of Windsor in February, when more than 2,000 barrels of fracking water spewed for 30 hours after equipment broke down on a workover rig.

But officials say though those attention-grabbing spills do happen, they’re not indicative of business as usual.

Most spills and releases are caused by equipment failure and human error. And some are just freak accidents. When they happen, clean up begins immediately.

“A lot of them are smaller spills, they don’t amount to much,” said Tommy Holton , a member of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the mayor of Fort Lupton, which is benefitting greatly from the oil and gas industry. “Most take care of it immediately. They don’t want confrontations with the oil and gas commission. The other ones that don’t, we need to hammer them hard.”

He added, “Then we have the odd accident regardless. I think they’re diligent on safety, they’re all well aware of anti-fracking groups, anti-oil groups,” at the ready to hold their feet to the fire for any kind of environmental damage.

Weld’s oil spills this year have run the gamut of a half barrel at the low end to 318 barrels at the top. Most spills are less than 50 barrels, but there are other “releases” that have gone on so long, the amount of oil lost is a big unknown. Fracking water spills are more common and also range between extremes of 2 barrels on up to the Windsor well’s 2,350-barrel loss.

State law requires oil and gas companies to report spills of any kind over 5 barrels within 24 hours, and begin clean up immediately. Many spills are contained within lined berms or drilling pads, which prevent soil and groundwater contamination to begin with.

Seldom are companies fined.

“For the most part, companies take it very seriously. They don’t want spills,” said Thom Kerr , permitting manager at the COGCC in Denver. “It doesn’t help them; it doesn’t do any good. But that’s not necessarily all companies. A lot will just try to throw some dirt over it and hide it. When we find those, those guys are the ones we do fine.”

The spill in Windsor, in which equipment broke during operations, is not the kind of headline those companies want. The COGCC didn’t find PDC did anything egregious in the spill, and levied no fines.

But those keeping watch of the environment say not all companies are focused on safety, and there needs to be a keen watch.

“Some of the bigger companies do take it fairly seriously, and others get by with as little as possible,” said Bruce Baizel, with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project in Durango, which monitors oil and gas activity in a variety of states. “On the whole, they’re in the business of producing — not in the business of environmental compliance. There’s always pressure to get it done fast and cut corners. There’s a lot of room for improvement.”

So far this year, Noble Energy, the largest driller in Weld County, has reported 21 spills at its sites; Anadarko, the No. 2 driller, had 17 spills; PDC reported eight; Bonanza Creek reported six; Encana has reported two and EOG Resources has reported one.

Of the 59 reported so far, 28 percent involved human error; 61 percent involved equipment failure, and 10 percent were called “historical release,” which occurs when crews find leaks and spills during routine maintenance of tank batteries or wellheads.

Company officials say they work hard to contain all the failures, but not all can be avoided. When spills and releases do occur, crews are sent to vacuum up anything released, dredge and remove impacted soil, and remove impacted water.

Batteries and drilling sites are lined and bermed to contain any possible spills as much as possible. Companies are taking their measures a step further by installing remote sensors to detect when equipment fails, and metal fencing to help contain any potential problems.

“Some examples of our efforts to continuously improve include the installation of synthetic geotextile/bentonite barrier liners under all of our new tank batteries,” reported Robin Olsen , a spokeswoman for Anadarko in an email response to questions.

She said the company is adding 24/7 remote monitoring, flowline-testing and facility-inspection programs, and conducts ongoing spill prevention, reporting and response training for all field employees.

The human error part of it is the big unknown.

Of Bonanza Creek’s six spills this year, for example, five were labeled human error, mostly employees forgetting to turn off valves.

“We’ve done some retraining of folks, we have reassigned some folks, and a couple were terminations,” Ryan Zorn, vice president of finance for Bonanza, said of this year’s spills. “We take a pretty hard line on it.

“Really, you are very reliant on human capital out there,” he said. “We have a lot of guys in the field and we’re constantly driving processes with them, to be diligent. … The whole area is short on personnel, so we’re having to bring a lot of new folks in and get them trained as best we can.”

With the oil field in Weld being 40 years old, equipment is aging and old wells could become problematic.

Baizel of the Accountability Project said age will indeed start catching up, and potentially showing up in water well testing nearby near drilling sites, which is a new requirement by the state.

“In some of the old wells that were vertical, not the new ones that are horizontal, there is old cement, if they’ve been plugged,” Baizel said. “Cement breaks down over time, and you’ll start to see deterioration. You figure they’re getting to their life span, so you will see more frequent breakdowns.”

He said he’d like to see companies being required to check for abandoned and plugged wells before they begin drilling.

“And test those and make sure they’re maintaining their integrity,” Baizel said. “We’ll have a couple of bad situations that will force the state to require that.”

Oil and gas is a risky business, Zorn of Bonanza Creek said. And as long as it booms — and face it, it will, given America’s and the world’s need for energy — continual improvement has to be a part of any operation.

Tisha Schuller , president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, agrees.

“In any area where there’s a 100-year history of oil and gas, there’s this continual process of upgrading, so equipment tanks, lines are always having to be replaced. … We do want to see the upgrades happening, and want to see they’re addressed appropriately,” Schuller said. “The real story is, are we upgrading equipment? Are we improving practices? And when incidents do happen, are we responding in the most effective and proactive way? You’ll see continued improvement forever because it’s something inherent to the industry.”

I don't like cut flowers. I'm not sure who came up with the idea of killing a beautiful, vibrant plant and presenting this bundle of death as a gift, but I find the whole idea a bit repulsive. When they are in my house, I become a little more depressed each day, watching these dead posies evolve into rotted and decayed flora. The only good part is when I put them in the compost bin so their death will not be in vain.

I also tend to be picky about chocolate. Was it grown organically? Were the workers treated well and payed a living wage? Was the final product fairly traded, allowing the producer to make a living?

Chocolate is primarily grown in Africa and South America. According to the Food Empowerment Project, Ghana and the Ivory Coast supply 75 percent of the world’s cocoa market. The project also says that "a handful of organizations and journalists have exposed the widespread use of child labor, and in some cases slavery, on West African cocoa farms."

Obviously, it's difficult for me to enjoy my truffle when I know there's a chance that a child was sold in order to harvest the cocoa beans that made my treat.

Jewelry isn't much better. According to the No Dirty Gold campaign, "The production of one gold ring generates 20 tons of wastes. Gold mining is without doubt one of the world's dirtiest industries: it uses cyanide, generates heaps of wastes, and leaves a long-lasting scar on landscapes and communities." And "80 percent of all gold is used to make jewelry."

Unless the metal has been recycled or the jewelry is an estate piece, I have made it clear to my husband that it is not a gift option. Plus, I rarely change my jewelry. I have been wearing the same earrings for over 10 years, the same rings for nearly 15, and the same necklace for more then five years. Occasionally, I do switch to something I acquired before I learned about the massive environmental and social impact of strip mining. But for the most part, it's the same thing, day in and day out.

I have been told that my feelings on these issues make it somewhat difficult to buy me a gift. I started to object, insisting that I like all sorts of things. Yet, I found that, though I think of myself as rather practical, in reality, I am a pain in the arse. It turns out that I am quite particular. If I do want something, I usually research it to death (where does it come from? How reliable is it? How much does it cost? Do I really need this item?) and if I deem it worthy (and can find it cheap enough), I buy it myself.

With Mother's Day upon us, I decided to help out those who are lucky enough to have a practical woman (or man) in their lives. I came up with some gift giving suggestions. I hope this helps you to enjoy the giving occasions you encounter each year.

My favorite gift of all, bar none, is a handwritten letter. A heartfelt note not only allows one the opportunity to say things that don't often come up in everyday conversation, but is a gift that can be treasured for years to come. This option horrifies my husband. He does not enjoy writing, especially since I have deemed that things like "Happy Mother's Day, you're the best," or "Hope you have a happy birthday," don't count as letters. If it comes pre-printed, it is disqualified. But trust me, most people will love receiving a gift that requires little money and lots of thought.

If the idea of penning a love letter makes you break out in a cold sweat, you can always resort to manual labor. Clean the house. Do some laundry. Shop for, prepare and cook a meal, and then clean up after said meal. Do all the dishes, INCLUDING pots and pans (I'm not sure why these seem invisible to some). Change the sheets and then make the bed, correctly, no matter how many pillows there may be, daring you to forget their proper placement.

Knock a few items off the honey-do list. Have you been putting off fixing the squeaky door? How about cleaning out the basement? Did you forget about those weeds that need pulling? I assure you that these efforts will be greatly appreciated.

OK, so I'm starting to see the problem. It's not that I'm difficult to select a gift for, there are so many things that will bring me joy. The truth is that nothing I want is easy. I require a little effort. Anyone can buy a gift, not everyone is willing to do the work.

I concede that sometimes you do just need to get a gift quickly. I suspect that's why, according to the National Restaurant Association, Mother’s Day is the most popular day of the year to eat in a restaurant.

How about avoiding the flower massacre and instead giving a live plant? Most potted plants are beautiful and will have the added bonus of not being dead! If you choose a perennial, the recipient will enjoy your thoughtfulness for many years to come. If you choose an edible, you will be providing a multi-faceted gift that will bring you to mind each time the person enjoys the fruit of the plant. Even a non-gardener can (usually) keep a small basil plant alive in a kitchen window.

And when mom has more basil then she knows what to do with, you can go over and make her a nice pesto. Just be sure to clean up afterwards.

Lidia Bastianich, one of my favorite PBS chefs, has this great recipe using walnuts instead of the traditional pine nut .

Ingredients:

1½ cups fresh basil
1 cup Italian parsley
4 garlic cloves, peeled
2 cups walnut pieces, toasted
1 teaspoon kosher salt
½ cup extra-virgin olive oil
1 cup Pecorino Romano, grated

To make the pesto, heap the basil, parsley, garlic, walnuts, and salt into a food processor. Pulse several times, to chop everything together coarsely, then, with the machine running, pour in the 1/2 cup olive oil in a slow, steady stream. Stop and scrape down the sides of the work bowl, and process to a uniformly fine bright-green pesto. Put all the pesto into a large, deep bowl, big enough to toss all the pasta in.

Meanwhile, start cooking the pasta. Shortly before it is done, ladle 1/2 cup or so of the boiling pasta water into the bowl, and stir to warm and loosen the pesto-use only as much water as needed to bring the pesto to tossing consistency. When the pasta is perfectly al dente, lift it from the pot with tongs and a spider, (a wide shallow wire-mesh basket with a long handle) drain for an instant, then drop it into the bowl. Toss pasta and sauce together thoroughly. Sprinkle a cup or so of grated cheese over it, then toss again. Serve immediately in warm bowls, with more cheese at the table.

“Another 13 mines are likely to generate water pollution in perpetuity, accounting for an additional 3.4 billion to 4 billion gallons of polluted water per year,” said report authors, Earthworks chief Bonnie Gestring and environmental research and science consultant, Lisa Sumi.

The proposed Pebble Mine Project—opposition of which has become a cause célèbre for environmentalists and sportsmen’s group-- is among new mining projects Earthworks suggests will generate substantial water pollution.

“The primary cause of this lasting pollution—acid mine drainage—is well understood,” said the report. Acid rock drainage is mostly associated with sulfide ore deposits.

“Yet, no hard rock open pit mines exist today that can demonstrate that acid mine drainage can be stopped once it occurs on a large scale,” according to Earthworks’ research.

“The long-term public liability is enormous;” the report contends, “taxpayers are expected to pay for centuries of water treatment—long beyond expected life of any mining corporation.”

“Equally alarming is the growing number of mine pits containing large volumes of water, which will persist forever,” Earthworks suggests, declaring that pit lake water “persists as a permanent hazard to health and wildlife.”

“The problem is at its worst in Nevada, where a University of Nevada scientist [Dr. Glenn Miller] has determined that mine pits from gold mines will contain more water than all of the fresh water reservoirs in the state, excluding Lake Mead,” the report advises.

Earthworks called on Congress to reform federal law to “require hard rock mines to demonstrate, up front, that the mine can meet water quality standards without perpetual treatment.”

“It is fundamentally bad public policy to permit mines that will require water treatment forever,” says the report. “New regulations are needed in federal and many state laws that make it clear that the risks of such long-term water treatment are an unacceptable risk”

Earthworks urges Congress to “restore regulations to prohibit mine waste disposal in water of the U.S.” The NGO claims “there are two loopholes in the [Clean Water Act] regulations, approved in 2002, which allow the industry to dispose of mine waste directly in our nation’s waters.”

“New regulations should be initiated to give the EPA authority to require financial assurance to better ensure that funds are in place for long term water treatment,” says the report. “Apply Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act  (CERCLA) at high risk active mines instead of waiting for closure has the advantages that an operating facility generally has a positive cash flow and can obtain financial assurance required under a CERCLA order.”

Although mining companies are currently mandated to provide financial assurances to state agencies, Earthworks would add federal financial assurance requirements for hardrock mining.

The report names a number of U.S. mines that Earthworks suggests will generate water pollution in perpetuity including the Freeport-McMoRan’s Climax molybdenum mine in Colorado, Newmont’s Phoenix operation in Nevada, Veris Gold’s Jerritt Canyon gold mine in Nevada, and Rio Tinto’s Bingham Canyon mine in Utah.

Among the proposed mines Earthworks claims will generate perpetual pollution, or are at high risk of perpetual pollution are NovaGold’s Donlin Creek project and the Pebble Project, both in Alaska; Polymet Mining’s Northmet Project in Minnesota; and Revett Silver’s Rock Creek Project in Montana.

How bad are gold, copper and uranium—the so-called “hard rock”—mines? Try the despoiling of 17 to 27 billion gallons of fresh water per year in the U.S. alone.

The annual cost of water treatment by the hard-rock mining industry is a mind-numbing $57 to $67 billion per year. Just 40 mines, most in the American West, cause most of that damage and expense.

The problem is caused by the fact that virtually all mining operations involve exposing sulfide-bearing ore, which generates sulfuric acid, which then washes into the water supplies.

In Polluting the Future: How Mining Companies are Polluting Our Nation’s Water in Perpetuity, environmental researcher Lisa Sumi and scientist Bonnie Gestring detail the specifics of where and how bad the problem is.

In the simplest terms, the authors suggest if the water polluted by mines were bottled, it would fill 2 trillion water bottles and stretch back and forth to the moon 54 times.

The report also suggests that four new proposed mines could pollute an additional 16 billion gallons a year.

Talking about water supplies can be a slippery subject. There’s something like 326 million trillion gallons of water on the planet, which is constantly being cycled and recycled: It evaporates from the ocean, travels through the air, rains down on the land and eventually makes its way back to the ocean.

Since roughly 72 percent of planet Earth is covered by ocean, that means that 98 percent of those 326 million trillion gallons are salt water, thus undrinkable.

That leaves just 2 percent of the planet’s water as fresh—and 80 percent of that is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers. Which means in relative terms there is very little clean, fresh water on the planet and when you muck it up, as the mining industry is doing to aquifers, rivers and fisheries, it’s ruined forever. Dirty water is never again truly pure, no matter the filtration systems.

The authors of the report make specific suggestions on how the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers could close legal loopholes that would force mines to pollute less.

Since the EPA has already identified 156 hard-rock mining sites across the country that have the potential to cost between $7 billion to $24 billion to clean up, a key solution would seem to be to prohibit new mines coming online to add to the problem.

If any of these four proposed mines are in your backyard, you should speak up now, and let them know if they’re going to spoil more fresh water, we don’t need them:

1. Donlin Creek gold mine in southwest Alaska. Estimated annual volume of polluted water: 1.7 billion gallons.
2. Pebble Mine, Bristol, Alaska. Estimated annual volume of polluted water: 13.8 billion gallons.
3. Northmet copper and nickel, Minnesota’s Iron Range. Estimated annual volume of polluted water: 93 to 256 million gallons.
4. Rock Creek mine, near Noxon, Montana. Estimated annual volume of polluted water: 1.2 billion gallons.

When Canada stands before the UN to have its "darkest corners" examined, the international community must not turn a blind eye to its complicity with a global mining industry whose corporations are among the worst human rights and environmental offenders in the world.

The abuses by Canadian mining companies are a systemic part of an economic development policy that disregards human rights and disdains the environment. It is no coincidence that Canada is now home to 75% of the world's mining companies, the majority operating overseas. The Canadian government has accelerated its pursuit of investment treaties in the global south to serve the interests of the extractive industry. These treaties allow companies to challenge environmental, public health or other resource-related policies that affect mining profits.

At the same time, Canada allows its corporations to benefit from a climate of impunity, offering no legal recourse for adversely impacted communities and demanding no accountability in exchange for generous public subsidies, as the EU and other jurisdictions do. These conditions have made Canada a haven for the global mining industry.

Canadian mining companies are operating at the heart of violent conflicts around the world. Although the industry often claims the violence is localised and specific, there is an unmistakable pattern of social conflict surrounding mining projects. Anti-mining activists are being brutally attacked and killed for voicing their opposition to mega-mining project in communities throughout the global south. Yet impacted communities have been unsuccessful in bringing their cases to Canadian courts.

Last year, a Québec court of appeal rejected a suit by citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo against Montreal-based Anvil Mining Limited for allegedly providing logistical support to the DRC army as it carried out a massacre, killing as many as 100 people in the town of Kilwa near the company's silver and copper mine. The supreme court of Canada later confirmed that Canadian courts had no jurisdiction over the company's actions in the DRC when it rejected the plaintiffs' request to appeal. Kairos Canada, a faith-based organisation, concluded that the supreme court's ruling would "have broader implications for other victims of human rights abuses committed by Canadian companies and their chances of bringing similar cases to our courts".

In an increasingly water-hungry world, much of the community resistance to Canadian mining has been in defence of local water supplies. Mining projects require tremendous amounts of water and employ methods that contaminate precious water resources. A recent report by Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada (pdf) found that 180 million tonnes of hazardous mine waste was being dumped every year into lakes, rivers and oceans worldwide.

In El Salvador, where more than 60% of the population relies on a single source of water, this means choosing between drinking water and mining. In 2009, after immense public pressure, the country chose water. It established a moratorium on metal mining permits. Polls show that a strong majority of Salvadorans would now like a permanent ban.

In Chile, after community resistance to a massive silver-gold project by Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold, an appeals court recently ordered a suspension of operations due to concerns that the project was polluting surface and groundwater in the Atacama desert, one of the driest regions in the world.

Yet, in a globalised world, these victories are precarious. Even when corporations are found in violation of domestic laws, or when communities reject destructive resource projects, mining companies are able to use bilateral investment treaties to plough ahead, or to demand compensation for "lost" profit.

Vancouver-based Pacific Rim – which describes itself on its website as "an environmentally and socially responsible exploration company whose business plans and management talent focus on high grade, environmentally clean gold deposits in the Americas" – is suing El Salvador through a World Bank trade tribunal for $315m (£207m) for refusing permits for a gold mine in the Department of Cabanas.

Canada is pursuing a trade agreement with El Salvador that would further entrench the rights of mining corporations and make a mining ban virtually impossible.

A similar battle is being played out in neighbouring Costa Rica where Calgary-based Infinito Gold is threatening to sue for $1bn if two supreme court rulings affirming the country's ban on opencast mining are not overturned. And in Chile, the battle continues as Barrick Gold evaluates its legal options.

As noted in a recent briefing note (pdf) by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes warned in its 2012 ruling of a dispute between French multinational water company SAUR and the government of Argentina, that human rights must not undermine investor protection.

It is time that international human rights bodies challenged this logic. The example of Canadian mining underscores the urgent need for the Human Rights Council to defend the primacy of human rights. If global human rights mechanisms do not confront the logic of international corporate rights championed by states like Canada, they risk becoming irrelevant.

• The penultimate paragraph of this article was amended on 29 April 2013. Originally, the article said the UN Conference on Trade and Development had declared in a briefing note that enforcement of human rights must not undermine investor rights. This has now been changed.

The bill would require that oil and gas producers return the land to its original condition after drilling according to testimony hears in during a hearing with the House Committee on Energy Resources Wednesday evening.

HB 3600 by Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) would also prohibit the release of a security or bond until six years after an oil and gas developer has filed a statement certified by the Railroad Commission saying the developer does not hold permits for oil and gas operations in the state.

Within the notice to surface owners, the oil and gas developer must include the surface owner’s rights and a schedule of operations to take place on the land. Developers would be required to provide a description of the land to be affected by operations and any changes to drainage of surface water and the use and impoundment of water on the surface of the land.

Bill Stevens, representing Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, testified against the bill saying, “It has been my experience that in fact these things should be and most often are addressed, between the operator and the surface owner, and when it comes down to the surface damage.”

“These are much larger, larger endeavors,” Stevens said. “It’s been a much more efficient operation and it should be lighter on the land, but I guess in every case it may not be. I believe for the most part it’s already being done. And if it’s not, it should be. With this I think you’re overturning a process of decades of legal precedent that just are not warranted at this juncture.”

According to HB 630 passed in 2007, by Rep. Phil King requires a 15 day notice of receipt or reentry of permit.

“Let’s enforce that,” said Stevens.

Burnam said the Legislature is all about setting new precedent.

“Long established precedence is for a judiciary body,” Burnam said. “What we’re talking about now is the population is much denser everywhere in the state and we’re having many more complications due to needing to have overlaying land uses, and that’s the reason we’re going to have to have new laws.”

Calvin Tillman made the headlines back in 2011 when he stepped down as mayor of Dish, Texas, after fracking close to his home led him to believe it was causing health problems for his family. He joined the testimony Wednesday evening to remind the committee that disclosure is the most important thing to the surface owner when “wondering why your realtor didn’t describe what could really happen — but if she had told you, you’d run.”

Tillman told the committee that what he experienced happened in Rep. King’s district.

“There’s no penalty for not complying with this rule (HB 630),” Tillman testified. “We need to have the discussion regarding surface owner protection in Texas. We have to start the discussion regarding surface owner protection here in Texas. With the vast mineral production history we should not be catching up with other states to protect our citizens. We should be leading.”

Sharon Wilson of Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability testified in support of the bill.

“If you don’t own the minerals you don’t get to negotiate the lease,” Wilson said.

“My real estate agent told me the minerals on my property were worthless, so I shouldn’t even bother trying to buy the minerals,” Wilson continued. “If Realtors fully informed buyers that not owning your minerals means your land can be taken, your property value ruined, your health and safety threatened, there wouldn’t be very many real estate transactions in Texas. You’d better have a top-notch attorney when oil and gas shows up. Even if you can find such an attorney who’s willing to take on the industry, who can afford that? And why should they have to?”

The group, which includes the Powder River Basin Resource Council and the Wyoming Outdoor Council, appealed the decision by Natrona County District Judge Catherine Wilking to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

“Groundwater belongs to the people of Wyoming,” Outdoor Council attorney Bruce Pendery said in a prepared statement. “While water rights can be granted for its use, we all have an interest — and a responsibility — to ensure that groundwater is protected and kept clean not only for those of us living here today but for the people who might need it after we’re gone.”

Bob King, the interim supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which determined the ingredients are not subject to public disclosure, didn’t return a call seeking comment Wednesday. A similar request to Halliburton, an oil field services company that intervened in the case, also went unreturned.

The case centers on whether individual ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing can be considered trade secrets. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process wherein water, chemicals and sand are pumped below ground to break rock and free trapped oil and natural gas.

Wyoming in 2010 became the first state to mandate disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking, and organizations took advantage of the new law by submitting records requests pertaining to projects using fracking.

But the law contained a provision allowing the oil and gas commission to shield certain ingredients from the public if they were deemed trade secrets.

The groups sued after the commission declined to release information about several fracking operations.

Arguments in the suit were heard in January in Casper.

Attorneys for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm working for the coalition, argued that publicly disclosing individual ingredients does not constitute revealing trade secrets. They also argued that lists of ingredients would help nearby landowners establish baseline water-quality data.

Intervening industry attorneys argued that reverse engineering and industry competition make proprietary information worth protecting.

Wilking in March ruled in favor of the commission and the industry.

Members of the appealing group held firm Wednesday on their stance that fracking ingredients should be public information.

“We appreciate Wyoming’s leadership in making more of this information available,” said Bruce Baizel, a representative of Earthworks. “But by then allowing the identity of these chemicals to be withheld as trade secrets, this forward-looking law is defeated.”

A date for arguments before the Supreme Court has not been set.

The report by the mining watchdog group Earthworks, reveals that an estimated 17 to 27 billion gallons of polluted water will be generated by 40 existing hardrock mines (e.g. gold, copper, uranium mines) in the US each year, every year, in perpetuity. It says water treatment for these mines will cost as much as $67 billion per year.

Perpetual management of mines is a rapidly escalating national dilemma as several new mining projects are being planned across the United States. Yet, the enormous and increasing water use at mines has gone almost unnoticed, says the report titled, “Polluting the Future: How Mining Companies are Contaminating Our Nation's Waters in Perpetuity.” The report, also reveals that four proposed mines could additionally pollute for perpetuity, another 16 billion gallons of water a year.

“The scale of the problem is enormous, and growing,” says Bonnie Gestring, Earthworks northwest organizer and author of the report. “Every year, mines will pollute enough water to fill 2 trillion water bottles — enough bottles to reach to the moon and back 54 times.”

The report uses analysis of government data to show, for the first time, the staggering amount of US water supplies that are perpetually polluted by mining. Gestring defines “in perpetuity” as water pollution that will continue for hundreds or thousands of years, or for which government agencies can’t predict a point at which water quality standards will be met without treatment.

“Agriculture, energy development, municipalities and fish and wildlife are already competing for increasingly scarce water resources,” says Gestring. “The difference is, when these mines ‘use’ water, they pollute it forever.”

The primary cause of this lasting pollution is acid mine drainage. Mining exposes sulfide-bearing ore that generates sulfuric acid and mixes with water. This outflow of acidic water, otherwise known as acid mine drainage, contaminates drinking water aquifers, lakes, and streams, agricultural lands, and prime fish and wildlife habitat. Because acid mine drainage can’t be stopped, once started it must be treated until the acid generating material runs out. As acknowledged in government mining permits, this can take hundreds or thousands of years.

“No hard rock open pit mines exist today that can demonstrate that acid mine drainage can be stopped once it occurs on a large scale,” says Dr. Glenn Miller, professor of environmental science at the University of Nevada.

Equally alarming is the growing number of mine pits, containing large volumes of contaminated water. Although they are often referred to as pit “lakes,” these mine pits generally contain polluted water that presents a permanent hazard to public health and wildlife. The problem is at its worst in Nevada, where it has been determined that mine pits from gold mines will contain more water than all of the fresh water reservoirs in the state, excluding Lake Mead.

To top it off, record high metal prices are driving proposals for new mines across the country. Both mining companies and government agencies consider at least four mines that are currently proposed at high risk of causing perpetual pollution. These include the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, which threatens the nation’s largest wild salmon fishery, the Donlin Creek mine in Alaska, the Northmet Project in northeastern Minnesota, and the Rock Creek mine northwestern Montana.

“We simply shouldn’t permit a mine at high risk for perpetual pollution, when it’s proposed in the midst of the nation’s most valuable wild salmon fishery,” says Gestring. “It’s simply unfair and irresponsible to pass that legacy along to the many communities and businesses that rely on the fishery for their livelihoods.”

At a whopping $57-67 billion per year, the cost of water treatment is considerable, and will be shouldered by the American taxpayer if the mining company is unable or unwilling to pay to clean up the toxic mess. The long-term public liability is enormous, as taxpayers are expected to pay for centuries of water treatment – long beyond the expected life of any mining corporation. At least 62 percent of the mines (25 out 40) causing perpetual pollution in the US are located partly on public lands.

As state and federal mining regulations are simply not equipped to address the lasting consequences to our water resources, Gestring said new policies are needed to ensure the responsible development of our mineral resources, and to protect against decisions that result in permanent harm to our nation’s waters.

Now, a new generation of downwinders is getting sick as an emerging  industry pushes the next wonder technology -- in this case, high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Whether they live in Texas, Colorado, or Pennsylvania, their symptoms are the same: rashes, nosebleeds, severe headaches, difficulty breathing, joint pain, intestinal illnesses, memory loss, and more. “In my opinion,” says Yuri Gorby of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, “what we see unfolding is a serious health crisis, one that is just beginning.”

The process of “fracking” starts by drilling a mile or more vertically, then outward laterally into 500-million-year-old shale formations, the remains of oceans that once flowed over parts of North America. Millions of gallons of chemical and sand-laced water are then propelled into the ground at high pressures, fracturing the shale and forcing the methane it contains out. With the release of that gas come thousands of gallons of contaminated water. This “flowback” fluid contains the original fracking chemicals, plus heavy metals and radioactive material that also lay safely buried in the shale.

The industry that uses this technology calls its product “natural gas,” but there’s nothing natural about up-ending half a billion years of safe storage of methane and everything that surrounds it. It is, in fact, an act of ecological violence around which alien infrastructures -- compressor stations that compact the gas for pipeline transport, ponds of contaminated flowback, flare stacks that burn off gas impurities, diesel trucks in quantity, thousands of miles of pipelines, and more -- have metastasized across rural America, pumping carcinogens and toxins into water, air, and soil.

Sixty percent of Pennsylvania lies over a huge shale sprawl called the Marcellus, and that has been in the fracking industry’s sights since 2008.  The corporations that are exploiting the shale come to the state with lavish federal entitlements: exemptions from the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Clean Drinking Water Acts, as well as the Superfund Act, which requires cleanup of hazardous substances. The industry doesn’t have to call its trillions of gallons of annual waste “hazardous.” Instead, it uses euphemisms like “residual waste.” In addition, fracking companies are allowed to keep secret many of the chemicals they use.

Pennsylvania, in turn, adds its own privileges. A revolving door shuttles former legislators, governors, and officials from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) into gas industry positions. The DEP itself is now the object of a lawsuit that charges the agency with producing deceptive lab reports, and then using them to dismiss homeowners’ complaints that shale gas corporations have contaminated their water, making them sick. The people I interviewed have their own nickname for the DEP: “Don’t Expect Protection.”

The Downwinders

Randy Moyer is a pleasant-faced, bearded 49-year-old whose drawl reminds you that Portage, his hardscrabble hometown in southwestern Pennsylvania, is part of Appalachia. He worked 18 years -- until gasoline prices got too steep -- driving his own rigs to haul waste in New York and New Jersey. Then what looked like a great opportunity presented itself: $25 an hour working for a hydraulic-fracturing subcontractor in northeastern Pennsylvania.

In addition to hauling fracking liquid, water, and waste, Randy also did what’s called, with no irony, “environmental.” He climbed into large vats to squeegee out the remains of fracking fluid. He also cleaned the huge mats laid down around the wells to even the ground out for truck traffic. Those mats get saturated with “drilling mud,” a viscous, chemical-laden fluid that eases the passage of the drills into the shale. What his employer never told him was that the drilling mud, as well as the wastewater from fracking, is not only highly toxic, but radioactive.

In the wee hours of a very cold day in November 2011, he stood in a huge basin at a well site, washing 1,000 mats with high-pressure hoses, taking breaks every so often to warm his feet in his truck. “I took off my shoes and my feet were as red as a tomato,” he told me. When the air from the heater hit them, he “nearly went through the roof.”

Once at home, he scrubbed his feet, but the excruciating pain didn’t abate. A “rash” that covered his feet soon spread up to his torso. A year and a half later, the skin inflammation still recurs. His upper lip repeatedly swells. A couple of times his tongue swelled so large that he had press it down with a spoon to be able to breathe. “I’ve been fried for over 13 months with this stuff,” he told me in late January. “I can just imagine what hell is like. It feels like I’m absolutely on fire.”

Family and friends have taken Moyer to emergency rooms at least four times. He has consulted more than 40 doctors. No one can say what caused the rashes, or his headaches, migraines, chest pain, and irregular heartbeat, or the shooting pains down his back and legs, his blurred vision, vertigo, memory loss, the constant white noise in his ears, and the breathing troubles that require him to stash inhalers throughout his small apartment.

In an earlier era, workers’ illnesses fell into the realm of “industrial medicine.” But these days, when it comes to the U.S. fracking industry, the canaries aren’t restricted to the coalmines. People like Randy seem to be the harbingers of what happens when a toxic environment is no longer buried miles beneath the earth. The gas fields that evidently poisoned him are located near thriving communities. “For just about every other industry I can imagine,” says Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, coauthor of a landmark study that established fracking’s colossal greenhouse-gas footprint, “from making paint, building a toaster, building an automobile, those traditional kinds of industry occur in a zoned industrial area, inside of buildings, separated from home and farm, separated from schools.” By contrast, natural gas corporations, he says, “are imposing on us the requirement to locate our homes, hospitals and schools inside their industrial space.”

The Death and Life of Little Rose

Little Rose was Angel Smith’s favorite horse. When the vet shod her, Angel told me proudly, she obligingly lifted the next hoof as soon as the previous one was done. “Wanna eat, Rosie?” Angel would ask, and Rosie would nod her head. “Are you sure?” Angel would tease, and Rosie would raise one foreleg, clicking her teeth together.  In Clearville, just south of Portage, Angel rode Little Rose in parades, carrying the family’s American flag.

In 2002, a “landman” knocked on the door and asked Angel and her husband Wayne to lease the gas rights of their 115-acre farm to the San Francisco-based energy corporation PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric.) At first, he was polite, but then he started bullying. “All your neighbors have signed. If you don’t, we’ll just suck the gas from under your land.” Perhaps from weariness and a lack of information (almost no one outside the industry then knew anything about high-volume hydraulic fracturing), they agreed. Drilling began in 2002 on neighbors’ land and in 2005 on the Smith’s.

On January 30, 2007, Little Rose staggered, fell, and couldn’t get up. Her legs moved spasmodically. When Wayne and Angel dragged her to a sitting position, she’d just collapse again. “I called every vet in the phone book,” says Angel. “They all said, ‘Shoot her.’” The couple couldn’t bear to do it. After two days, a neighbor shot her. “It was our choice,” says Angel, her voice breaking. “She was my best friend.”

Soon, the Smiths’ cows began showing similar symptoms. Those that didn’t die began aborting or giving birth to dead calves. All the chickens died, too. So did the barn cats. And so did three beloved dogs, none of them old, all previously healthy. A 2012 study by Michelle Bamberger and Cornell University pharmacology professor Robert Oswald indicates that, in the gas fields, these are typical symptoms in animals and often serve as early warning signs for their owners’ subsequent illnesses.

The Smiths asked the DEP to test their water.  The agency told them that it was safe to drink, but Angel Smith says that subsequent testing by Pennsylvania State University investigators revealed high levels of arsenic.

Meanwhile, the couple began suffering from headaches, nosebleeds, fatigue, throat and eye irritation, and shortness of breath. Wayne’s belly began swelling oddly, even though, says Angel, he isn’t heavy. X-rays of his lungs showed scarring and calcium deposits. A blood analysis revealed cirrhosis of the liver. “Get him to stop drinking,” said the doctor who drew Angel aside after the results came in. “Wayne doesn’t drink,” she replied. Neither does Angel, who at 42 now has liver disease.

By the time the animals began dying, five high-volume wells had been drilled on neighbors’ land. Soon, water started bubbling up under their barn floor and an oily sheen and foam appeared on their pond. In 2008, a compressor station was built half a mile away.  These facilities, which compress natural gas for pipeline transport, emit known carcinogens and toxins like benzene and toluene.

The Smiths say people they know elsewhere in Clearville have had similar health problems, as have their animals. For a while they thought their own animals’ troubles were over, but just this past February several cows aborted. The couple would like to move away, but can’t. No one will buy their land.

The Museum of Fracking

Unlike the Smiths, David and Linda Headley didn’t lease their land. In 2005, when they bought their farm in Smithfield, they opted not to pay for the gas rights under their land.  The shallow gas drilling their parents had known seemed part of a bygone era and the expense hardly seemed worth the bother.

With its hills and valleys, the creek running through their land, and a spring that supplied them with water, the land seemed perfect for hiking, swimming, and raising their son Grant. Adam was born after all the trouble started.

Just as the couple had completed the purchase, the bulldozers moved in. The previous owner had leased the gas rights without telling them. And so they found themselves, as they would later put it, mere “caretakers” on a corporate estate.

Today, the Headleys’ property is a kind of museum of fracking. There are five wells, all with attendant tanks that separate liquids from the gas, and a brine tank where flowback is stored. Four of the wells are low-volume vertical ones, which use a fracking technology that predates today’s high-volume method. A couple minutes’ walk from the Headleys’ front door stands a high-volume well. A pipeline was drilled under their creek.

“Accidents” have been a constant. When the well closest to the house was fracked, their spring, which had abounded in vegetation, crawfish, and insects, went bad. The DEP told the Headleys, as it did the Smiths, that the water was still safe to drink. But, says David, “everything in the spring died and turned white.” Adam had just been born. “No way was I exposing my kids to that.” For two years he hauled water to the house from the homes of family and friends and then he had it connected to a city water line.

All the brine tanks have leaked toxic waste onto the Headley’s land. Contaminated soil from around the high-volume tank has been alternately stored in dumpsters and in an open pit next to the well. The Headleys begged the DEP to have it removed. David says an agency representative told them the waste would have to be tested for radioactivity first. Eventually, some of it was hauled away; the rest was buried under the Headleys’ land. The test for radioactivity is still pending, though David has his own Geiger counter which has measured high levels at the site of the well.

An independent environmental organization, Earthworks, included the Headleys among 55 households it surveyed in a recent study of health problems near gas facilities. Testing showed high levels of contaminants in the Headleys’ air, including chloromethane, a neurotoxin, and trichloroethene, a known carcinogen.

Perhaps more telling is the simple fact that everyone in the family is sick. Seventeen-year-old Grant has rashes that, like Randy Moyer’s, periodically appear on different parts of his body. Four-year-old Adam suffers from stomach cramps that make him scream. David says he and Linda have both had “terrible joint pain. It’s weird stuff, your left elbow, your right hip, then you’ll feel good for three days, and it’ll be your back.” At 42, with no previous family history of either arthritis or asthma, Linda has been diagnosed with both. Everyone has had nosebleeds -- including the horses.

Five years into the Marcellus gas rush in this part of Pennsylvania, symptoms like Randy Moyer’s, the Smiths', and the Headleys' are increasingly common. Children are experiencing problems the young almost never have, like joint pain and forgetfulness. Animal disorders and deaths are widespread. The Earthworks study suggests that living closer to gas-field infrastructure increases the severity of 25 common symptoms, including skin rashes, difficulty breathing, and nausea.

Don’t Expect Protection

DEP whistleblowers have disclosed that the agency purposely restricts its chemical testing so as to reduce evidence of harm to landowners. A resident in southwestern Pennsylvania’s Washington County is suing the agency for failing fully to investigate the drilling-related air and water contamination that she says has made her sick. In connection with the lawsuit, Democratic state representative Jesse White has demanded that state and federal agencies investigate the DEP for “alleged misconduct and fraud.”

In the absence of any genuine state protection, independent scientists have been left to fill the gap. But as the industry careens forward, matching symptoms with potential causes is a constant catch-up effort. A 2011 study by Theo Colborn, founder of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange and recipient the National Council for Science and Environment’s Lifetime Achievement Award, identified 353 industry chemicals that could damage the skin, the brain, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, immune, cardiovascular, and endocrine (hormone production) systems. Twenty-five percent of the chemicals found by the study could cause cancers.

David Brown is a veteran toxicologist and consultant for an independent environmental health organization, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. According to him, there are four routes of exposure to gas-field chemicals: water, air, soil, and food. In other words, virtually everything that surrounds us.

Exposure to water comes from drinking, but showering and bathing makes possible water exposure through the skin and inhaling water vapor. “Air exposure is even more complicated,” says Brown. The impacts of contaminated air, for example, are greater during heavy activity. “Children running around,” he says, “are more apt to be exposed than older people.” What further complicates the emerging toxicology is that chemicals act not as single agents but synergistically. “The presence of one agent,” says Brown, “can increase the toxicity of another by several-fold.”

Brown deplores the government’s failures to heed citizens’ cries for help. “No one is asking, ‘What happened to you? Are there other people who have been affected in your area?’ I teach ethics. There’s a level of moral responsibility that we should have nationally. We seem to have decided that we need energy so badly... that we have in almost a passive sense identified individuals and areas to sacrifice.”

Circles of Trust

No one I interviewed in communities impacted by fracking in southwestern Pennsylvania drinks their water anymore. In fact, I came to think of a case of Poland Spring as a better house gift than any wine (and I wasn’t alone in that). Breathing the air is in a different universe of risk. You can’t bottle clean air, but you can donate air purifiers, as one interviewee, who prefers to be unnamed, has been doing.

Think of her as a creator of what a new Pennsylvania friend of mine calls “circles of trust.” The energy industry splits communities and families into warring factions. Such hostilities are easy to find, but in the midst of catastrophe I also found mutual assistance and a resurgence of the human drive for connection.

Ron Gulla, a John Deere heavy equipment salesman, is driven by fury at the corporation that ruined his soil -- his was the second farm in Pennsylvania to be fracked -- but also by deep feeling for the land: “A farm is just like raising a child. You take care of it, you nurture it, and you know when there are problems.”

Gulla credits Barbara Arindell, founder of the country’s first anti-fracking organization, Pennsylvania’s Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, with teaching him about the dangers of the industry’s efforts. Now, he is a central figure in an ever-widening network of people who are becoming their own documentarians. Everyone I interviewed brought out files of evidence to show me: photographs, videos, news reports, and their own written records of events.

Moreover, in the midst of ongoing stress, many have become activists. Linda Headley and Ron Gulla, for instance, traveled with other Pennsylvanians to Albany this past February to warn New York State officials not to endorse fracking. “A lot of people have said, ‘Why don’t you just walk away from this?’” says Gulla. “[But] I was raised to think that if there was something wrong, you would bring it to people’s attention.’”

“You have to believe things happen for a reason,” says David Headley. “It’s drawn so many people together we didn’t know before.  You have these meetings, and you’re fighting [for] a common cause and you feel so close to the people you’re working with. Including you guys, the reporters. It’s made us like a big family. Really. You think you’re all alone, and somebody pops up. God always sends angels.”

Still, make no mistake: this is an alarming and growing public health emergency. “Short of relocating entire communities or banning fracking, ending airborne exposures cannot be done,” David Brown said in a recent address in New York State. “Our only option in Washington County... has been to try to find ways for residents to reduce their exposures and warn them when the air is especially dangerous to breathe.”

In the vacuum left by the state’s failure to offer protection to those living in fracking zones, volunteers, experts like Brown, and fledgling organizations like the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project have become the new protectors of citizens’ health. Growing numbers of fracking victims, including Angel and Wayne Smith, are also suing gas corporations. “If I could go back to 2000, I’d show them the end of the road and say, ‘Don’t come back,’” Angel told me. “But we’re in the situation now. Fight and go forward.”

Ellen Cantarow first wrote from Israel and the West Bank in 1979. A TomDispatch regular, her writing has been published in the Village Voice, Grand Street, Mother Jones, Alternet, Counterpunch, and ZNet, and anthologized by the South End Press. She is also lead author and general editor of an oral history trilogy, Moving the Mountain: Women Working for Social Change.

And now we have a no less than a heavy-duty Harvard study weighing in on the matter and saying that the industry-backed registry is unreliable and “not an acceptable regulatory compliance method for chemical disclosures.” The study says the registry fails to satisfy the public’s right to information and that state governments shouldn’t be relying on it as a regulatory tool.

The study by Harvard Law School's Environmental Law Program, released on April 23, cites three key reasons why the database "fails as a regulatory compliance tool":

— It is hard to figure out when companies make disclosures (FracFocus does not notify a state when it receives a disclosure from a company operating in that state)

— The information disclosed isn’t reviewed and “that may encourage some companies to under-value careful reporting.”

— The companies get to decide what comprises a “trade secret.” Which means they can exempt themselves from disclosing critical information such as the exact proportions of the chemicals used in the drilling process.

"The Harvard study confirms what the public has been saying for some time now:  that FracFocus continues to reflect its origin as an industry-generated attempt to avoid full disclosure of fracking chemicals,” says Bruce Baizle, energy program director at Earthworks, an extractive industry watchdog group. “As any of us who have tried to use FracFocus know, the data is difficult to retrieve, it is not checked for accuracy or timeliness and industry claims of exemption are not evaluated at all.  In short, FracFocus lacks any accountability; it is not an appropriate tool for oil and gas fracking chemical disclosure."

FracFocus — which is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council, a nonprofit organization, and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission — was created in 2011 to, as its website says, “provide the public access to reported chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing within their area.” It was not really meant to be a repository for state-mandated disclosure data. But in the past two years at least 10 of the 18 US states that require drillers to report fracking chemicals have begun using it as their official disclosure site.

Baizle says the registry is a convenient way for companies and states to receive the political benefit of fracking disclosure without actually requiring disclosure in a way that would benefit the public or impacted communities.

Fracking involves pumping a cocktail of chemicals, water, and sand under high pressure into shale formations to spilt or fracture the rock and extract the hydrocarbons trapped deep underground. Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground. A number of these fluids, such as diesel fuel, qualify as hazardous materials and carcinogens, and can potentially contaminate groundwater resources, putting at risk of the environment and health of people living nearby.

The timing of the Harvard study is fortuitous since it appears the Obama administration might soon allow companies drilling on federal public lands to report their fracking chemicals on FracFocus.

"It was only when I woke the next morning that I realized something had changed," says Matsko. "I had unexplained muscle spasms and terrible neck pain. I saw three doctors, and spent four months recovering. Then a neighbor told me about the 3 a.m. hydrogen sulfide gas leak from a nearby fracking operation that sent her whole family to the emergency room with aches and pains the same day I got sick in 2006."

Now heading a grassroots group called The People's Oil and Gas Collaborative of Ohio, Matsko is among the growing number of women who are fighting health problems associated with hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," a drilling process that harvests natural gas from rock.

"When I found out why I fell ill, I thought 'How could residents not be notified there was fracking nearby? How could this even be legal?'" says Matsko. "Because oversight is lax and studies are sparse, I'm still asking the same questions today."

Loosely regulated, recently spread to 34 states and generating a reported $76 billion in annual revenues, fracking is linked to health problems that are of particular concern to women. Female activists are lobbying for congressional legislation that could help protect their neighborhood environments and their health.

During fracking, engineers drill horizontal wells along vertical shafts in shale, limestone, and sandstone. As they pump chemically treated water into these wells, pressure builds up and opens fractures that contain natural gas formed millennia ago by organic matter decomposing in the rock. Now ready to escape, the natural gas whooshes to the surface, where it can be harvested for energy.

Massive Energy Potential
Since 2007, reports the U.S. Energy Administration, the rapid spread of fracking has quadrupled the extraction of natural gas from shale wells, and boosted U.S. natural gas production by 26 percent. Geologists estimate that just one source (the Marcellus Shale formation, below Matsko's residence and stretching from western Ohio to western New York) contains enough gas to power U.S. households for 50 years.

Since natural gas emits a quarter to half as much carbon dioxide as coal, it is cleaner fuel than other fossil-fuel alternatives. It is cheaper to harvest and creates much-needed jobs.

Even so, it brings pollution. The fluid used (between 1 and 7 million gallons per well) contains synthetic chemicals that dissolve minerals and prop open fractures so natural gas can escape. But up to 85 percent of this fluid can remain below ground after drilling, or can return to the surface along with radioactive elements, high concentrations of subterranean salt or brine, and natural but toxic gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane, which is combustible and contributes to global warming.

Since fracking introduces more than 600 chemicals into the soil, air and water--and since "flowback" fluid contains toxic substances from underground--this procedure can trigger health woes, especially in cases of accidents, leaks or sustained exposure.

"When fracking came to our area years ago, we were thrilled because we thought our community could help make energy use sustainable," says Lisa Beck of Claysburg, Pa. "My husband worked for the industry until he fell ill with joint pain and breathing trouble. Now, I have the same problems, plus headaches, fatigue, dizziness, burning eyes, and a 'frack rash' that covers half my body."

These ailments, along with asthma, loss of appetite, neuropathy, immune disorders, and unexplained cancer, have been on Theo Colborn's radar during the decade plus that she has studied the health impacts of fracking.

Studying Toxic Cocktail
"A mixture of chemicals is causing these problems," says Colborn, founder of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange in Paonia, Colo. "Scientists are working to pinpoint the cocktail's effects at different exposure levels over time."

Industry groups claim synthetic chemicals are just 0.5 to 2 percent of fracturing fluid's volume. Scientists counter that these substances are used in undisclosed amounts that harm human health even at low doses. And a 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study found fracking chemicals can be injected at up to 13,000 times the acceptable concentrations in drinking water.

In 2011, Colborn published a study examining 353 chemicals used in natural gas operations. She found that half can affect the kidneys or the cardiovascular, nervous or immune systems; 37 percent can affect hormones; and 25 percent are carcinogenic.

Other research is exploring individual chemicals' effects. An October 2012 study by the D.C. nonprofit Earthworks tied benzene in fracking to headaches, dizziness and eye irritation; perchlorethylene to rashes and trembling; and carbon tetrachlorine to nausea and kidney disease. "Overall, we found a 60 percent correlation between exposure to chemicals and health problems," says co-author Nadia Steinzor.

Symptoms differ depending on whether people handle chemicals directly, live near drilling (which can be 150 feet from homes) or are downwind and miles away.

Health problems can also vary within households. "My husband, son and I all live in a house a mile away from 50 fracking wells operating since 2006," says Kim Feil of Arlington, Texas. "I've had aching joints and ringing ears, while my son has had headaches and my husband was just diagnosed with cancer in his lymph nodes."

Feil also links her irregular periods (and possible early menopause) to the exposure.

Multiple Hazards at Drilling Sites
Feil is convinced these problems are associated with fracking and what happens before and after it. "Fracking is only one of several activities at drilling sites that can affect human health," says Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. "Trucks and machines are powered by diesel fuel that releases particular matter and can cause breathing and heart problems. Silica, used in 'proppants' [materials that hold the cracks open], can be transported without being properly enclosed and can cause lung disease when inhaled."

Other women living near drilling sites also worry about medical dangers.

"Females are more prone than males to the allergies, immune disorders and neurological problems associated with this practice," says Colborn.

Scientists have identified 130 "endocrine disruptors" in drilling operations. These chemicals can wreak havoc with hormones and trigger reproductive problems like those already reported in animals. Near fracking sites in Pennsylvania, calves were stillborn, while in North Dakota, cows quit producing milk for their calves.

A 2012 Cornell University study found that a mother's exposure to fracking before birth boosts the incidence of low birth weight by 25 percent.

Steinzor notes that fracking may be linked to miscarriages and breast cancer in Texas, though studies on this have been inconclusive.

Forthcoming research by the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., is slated to examine pregnancy outcomes along with asthma and other common problems.

"Cause and effect are the big questions," says Madelon Finkel, a public health professor at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. "The fracking boom is rather recent, but related health conditions can take years to develop. We need better-designed, more comprehensive studies to assess long-term problems using statistical means."

Research Funding Needed
Finkel has designed a fracking health survey and hopes to distribute it in Pennsylvania. But like other researchers studying natural gas drilling, she needs more funding. Fracking studies are rarely supported by the government, but instead by a patchwork of foundations, academic institutions and private donors.

Activists from Mothers for Sustainable Energy in New Jersey, the Mothers Project in Pennsylvania, and other groups say the medical implications of fracking are understudied because authorities have been swayed by big business--and by the energy and savings potential of natural gas--to turn a blind eye to health problems.

During congressional hearings in 2005, a spokesman for the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC, based in Oklahoma City) assured legislators that fracking is "adequately regulated by the states and needs no further study."

Shortly afterward, then-Vice President Dick Cheney (former CEO of Halliburton, the energy company that popularized the high-volume fracking process) pushed an energy bill through Congress that exempted the natural-gas industry from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA or the "superfund" bill).

Fracking oversight was consigned to individual states, where laws are mixed. In Pennsylvania, for instance, 2011 regulations require drillers to recycle 90 percent of briny water by using it to frack more shale. But when drillers are done with "frack water," they are allowed to dispose of it by dumping it into Pennsylvania's rivers.

Nationwide, more than 250 communities have passed fracking bans and 35 states have created fracking regulations.

Even so, just seven states have audited their rules. And a 2011 investigation by the D.C.-based Greenwire found 40 percent of state regulators have ties to industry.

"State laws give us incomplete information about what pollutants are being emitted and whether water, soil and air have been contaminated," says Rotkin-Ellman. "In many cases, we aren't even sure what we should be testing for."

New York State is bucking this trend. It has held a five-year moratorium on fracking while officials weigh proposed health safeguards.

On the federal level, there are also signs of change.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency issued rules in April 2012 that require fracking's gaseous byproducts to be stored in tanks instead of released into air.

The U.S. Department of the Interior has pledged to revise its rules on natural gas drilling, 20 percent of which is done on public land. In May 2012, it unveiled preliminary rules requiring disclosure of chemicals. Industry lobbyists balked. And fracking opponents condemned DOI's recommendation that disclosure come after and not before fracking. A DOI official told Women's eNews that at some point in 2013, the DOI will issue a final rule that ensures "cost-effective safety and environmental protection."

In February 2013, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) introduced the Climate Protection Act, which would heighten chemical disclosure and end fracking's exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act.

In March 2013, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced two bills that would require fracking to be regulated the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts: the "Bringing Reductions to Energy's Airborne Toxic Health Effect (BREATHE) Act," and the "Focused Reduction of Effluence and Stormwater runoff through Hydraulic Environmental Regulation (FRESHER) Act."

Researchers say stronger legislation is essential. "It only takes 30 or 40 hours to complete fracking," says Colborn. "But when you open that hole, you can have health problems for the next 30 to 40 years."

Washington D.C., May 1st – A new report released today shows existing U.S. hardrock mines (e.g. gold, copper, uranium) will pollute up to 27 billion gallons of fresh water per year, and cost as much as $67 billion per year to clean, in perpetuity. Based on government data, the report also reveals that four proposed mines could annually pollute an additional 16 billion gallons.

“The scale of the problem is enormous, and growing,” said Bonnie Gestring, report author and Earthworks' Northwest Organizer. She continued, “Every year, mines will pollute enough water to fill 2 trillion water bottles -- enough bottles to reach to the moon and back 54 times.”

“Agriculture, energy development, municipalities and fish and wildlife are already competing for increasingly scarce water resources,” said Gestring. She continued, “The difference is, when these mines ‘use’ water, they pollute it forever.”

The primary cause of this lasting pollution is well understood. Mines that expose sulfide-bearing ore generate sulfuric acid – otherwise known as acid mine drainage. “No hard rock open pit mines exist today that can demonstrate that acid mine drainage can be stopped once it occurs on a large scale,” said Dr. Glenn Miller, professor of environmental science at the University of Nevada.

Because acid mine drainage can’t be stopped, once started it must be treated until the acid generating material runs out. As acknowledged in government mine permitting documents, this can take hundreds or thousands of years.

Four new mines are currently proposed at which perpetual water pollution is predicted or considered at high risk by mining companies or government agencies. These mines could generate an estimated 16 billion gallons of contaminated water per year. One is the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, which threatens the nation’s largest wild salmon fishery.

“We simply shouldn’t permit a mine at high risk for perpetual pollution, when it’s proposed in the midst of the nation’s most valuable wild salmon fishery,” said Bonnie Gestring. “It’s simply unfair and irresponsible to pass that legacy along to the many communities and businesses that rely on the fishery for their livelihoods.”

April 25th -Washington, DC: At Newmont Mining Co.’s annual general meeting yesterday, faith-based shareholders and DC-based NGO Earthworks urged the company to improve the way it engages with communities, and to provide greater transparency to shareholders and the public. The groups noted that the company’s failure to adequately inform and consult with local communities has resulted in strong community opposition and the suspension of the Conga mine project in northern Peru, costing the company – by its own estimation – hundreds of millions dollars in losses so far.

At the Wilmington, Delaware meeting, the groups urged Newmont to seek the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of local communities in which it operates, to publish reports and updates more frequently, and to conduct human rights impact assessments of its operations.

“The costs of doing ‘business as usual’ are unacceptable to communities - and hurt Newmont’s bottom line and reputation as well,” said Earthworks’ No Dirty Gold campaign director, Payal Sampat. “Newmont simply cannot afford to mine without the consent of local communities impacted by its projects.”  

“As one of the world’s largest gold mining companies. Newmont must demonstrate its leadership by adopting a free, prior and informed consent process that is implemented through independent and credible means,” she added.

At the Minas Conga mine in the northern Cajamarca region of Peru, community groups have voiced opposition to the project due to the quantity of water used and the potential for water pollution in the fragile watershed area. Construction has been halted since November 2011 in response to ongoing protests and conflicts, including a shooting incident by the Peruvian National Police that led to a national state of emergency. Newmont announced it will spend approximately $150 million at Conga in 2013, including on reservoirs to replace water supplies that the mine would destroy.

In December 2012, Newmont released an independent study it had commissioned from Queensland University’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining to gauge community attitudes and perceptions of the company in Cajamarca province, Peru. The study concluded that stakeholders in the region felt that the company “suffers from an inability to listen effectively to the community.” Newmont made those findings public, stating: “We are not proud of the current state of our relationship with the people of Cajamarca. We want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes we have made in how we have conducted ourselves and conducted business.”

This is not the first time Newmont’s community relationships and engagement have been called into question. In 2007, in response to a shareholder proposal filed by members of The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), Newmont agreed to conduct a global review of its policies and practices related to community opposition to its mining operations. In May 2009, the “Community Relationships Summary Report” was released that included an extensive review of recommendations to improve Newmont’s policies and practices relating to its relationships with local communities. According to the company’s website, the findings revealed that Newmont “must improve its relationships with local communities; build its capacity to resolve conflict and address grievances; and develop global policies, standards and programs that better guide its behaviors.”

Earthworks’ Payal Sampat attended the shareholders’ meeting representing Newmont stockholder Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Also in attendance were representatives of other faith-based Newmont stockholders, including Christian Brothers Investment Services, Maryknoll Sisters, Mercy Investment Services, Inc., and Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment.

###

Earthworks is dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions.

The analysis, done by the school's environmental policy initiative, found reporting errors and gaps in the independent database FracFocus. Colorado and 10 other states, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Oklahoma, require operators to post chemical disclosures on FracFocus.

The online database was developed by the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of state water agencies, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

"FracFocus was a serious voluntary reporting effort," said Kate Konschnik, policy director of the Harvard Environmental Law Program. "As a regulatory mechanism, the states haven't thought out its use."

In reviewing Texas filings, the researchers found that almost a third of the chemicals listed didn't exist.

In Colorado, there is a requirement that by February 2013, the database would be "searchable" for regulators and the public.

Nevertheless, FracFocus permits the viewing of only one well report at a time.

"It is like putting blinders on so you only get a snapshot," Konschnik said.

Colorado adopted a rule in 2012 requiring the disclosure of fracking fluid components — a mixture of water, sand and trace chemicals, some potentially toxic — that are pumped into wells under pressure to crack rock and release oil and gas.

Colorado oil and gas regulators said Tuesday that improvements being made to the database will meet state requirements by June.

"We believe quality control and data integrity will be much improved," said Todd Hartman, a spokesman for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

The study also questioned whether Colorado and other states can effectively track filings.

The Harvard study said the database made it hard for states to track whether reports were being filed on time and that using one form even though states had different requirements created the risk of some data not being reported.

"We always felt that having a third party do it created accountability issues," said Bruce Baizel, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

"If someone doesn't file or files bad information, where is the enforcement?" Baizel said.

Reporting times are being monitored in Colorado, and regulators are "communicating" with operators who are lagging, Hartman said. No fines for late reporting have been levied.

Most states permit some ingredients to be withheld because of trade secrets, but FracFocus does not check those, the Harvard study said.

In Colorado, a company must file a "claim of entitlement" if it wants to claim a trade secret.

The number of claims could not be obtained from the commission Tuesday.

"There are still significant gaps in reporting in Colorado," Baizel said.

The Harvard study misunderstands FracFocus' role, Stan Belieu, president of the Ground Water Protection Council, said in a statement.

"FracFocus is not a regulatory program; it is a tool for collecting the disclosures required by regulatory programs," Belieu said. "The research done by the Harvard team fails to reflect the true capabilities of the FracFocus system."

Cheyenne, Wyo. — Several public interest and government watchdog groups have appealed to Wyoming’s highest court, asking it to compel the state’s oil and gas permitting agency to disclose the chemicals that are injected underground during the oil and gas production process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Represented by the public interest environmental law firm Earthjustice, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks and the Center for Effective Government filed the appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court today.

The groups argue that the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission should be required to reveal the identities of the chemicals that are pumped underground during fracking because Wyoming citizens and landowners have a right to know what chemicals are transported across, stored on, and disposed of on and below their properties. Public disclosure is required by the Wyoming Public Records Act and the Commission’s fracking chemical disclosure rule, the groups say, and it would help protect the people of Wyoming by allowing them to know what chemicals to test for in baseline water tests prior to fracking. However, since disclosure of chemical identities was first required in 2010, the Commission has granted trade secret protection to hundreds of chemicals used in fracking.

In Wyoming, nearly all new and ongoing oil and gas production involves fracking. Transport, use and disposal of fracking chemicals could potentially affect ground and surface water, which is — or could be — used for drinking water, livestock, irrigation or other important uses.

“As a landowner living near hydraulically fracked oil wells, I have the right to know what’s going down the well,” said Marilyn Ham, a Cheyenne area landowner and member of the Powder River Basin Resource Council. “We don’t want to know the fracking formula recipe, but landowners like me have a right to know the ingredients — in this case the specific chemicals that are being transported, stored, and injected underground during fracking.”

Under regulations approved in 2010, Wyoming became the first state in the nation to require well operators to disclose the identities of chemicals that are mixed with water and sand and injected into the ground to break up rock during fracking.

But since the regulations were adopted, the Commission has approved more than 50 secrecy requests, shielding identifying information for more than 190 different chemicals that are being used by Halliburton and other oil and gas service companies in fracking. A centerpiece of the groups’ appeal is the lax level of review the Commission exercises when granting trade secrets exemptions to the oil and gas industry.

“Wyoming’s groundbreaking fracking chemical disclosure rule amounts to very little if companies can shield information as ‘trade secrets’ nearly at will,” said Earthjustice attorney Laura Beaton. “We are asking the Wyoming Supreme Court to enforce the broad public disclosure mandate of the Public Records Act and the fracking chemical disclosure rule.”

The groups argue that when it comes to fracking chemicals and the potential harm to landowners and residents, the interests of public health and the public good far outweigh the interests of protecting companies’ so-called trade secrets.

“Groundwater belongs to the people of Wyoming,” said Bruce Pendery, staff attorney with the Wyoming Outdoor Council. “While water rights can be granted for its use, we all have an interest — and a responsibility — to ensure that groundwater is protected and kept clean not only for those of us living here today but for the people who might need it after we're gone.”

The result of this appeal could help establish broad legal precedent — as the states of Texas, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Montana, and Michigan all have fracking chemical disclosure regulations similar to Wyoming’s on the books.
 
With this appeal, the groups are asking the Wyoming Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision, which allowed the commission to withold from disclosure many of the chemicals despite the fact that companies often provided scant or no explanation of why the chemical ingredients should be held confidential.The groups are arguing that only in rare, extensively justified circumstances can individual chemicals themselves be witheld from public disclosure.

“The recipe for Coca-Cola is a trade secret, but the ingredients are not, and they’re all listed on the back of the can,” said Sofia Plagakis with the Center for Effective Government.

“Some of these fracking chemicals can cause cancer, nerve damage, and other public health concerns,” said Bruce Baizel with Earthworks. “We appreciate Wyoming’s leadership in making more of this information available. But by then allowing the identity of these chemicals to be withheld as trade secrets, this forward looking law is defeated. Without a complete list of fracking chemicals — a simple list of ingredients — it’s much more difficult for residents to determine whether their drinking water has been contaminated by oil and gas development.”

“We are arguing that protecting public health by requiring broad disclosure of fracking chemicals should be the state’s priority,” said Beaton. “And we will make the case that a policy of fracking chemical secrecy is decidedly not in the public’s best interest.”      

###

In a regulatory setback for hydraulic fracturing on public lands, a federal magistrate judge in San Jose, California, on Monday ruled that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to analyze its impact on 2,500 acres in Monterey County.

While energy lawyers were skeptical about the ruling's long-term impact, it was hailed as a victory for environmentalists trying to stop fracking in the state due to concerns about its groundwater impact and the potential for increased fossil fuels output contributing to climate change.

The ruling could even inspire environmental groups to sue the BLM in other states as oil companies accelerate their leasing of federal lands for fracking, said Brendan Cummings, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity.

"While the ruling has most direct impact on public lands in California, it also sets an important legal and policy precedent that federal and state agencies around the country would be wise to heed," said Cummings, whose group brought the suit with the Sierra Club.

Celia Boddington, a spokeswoman for the BLM, said: "We are evaluating the ruling."

Monterey county captures just part of the vast Monterey shale formation, estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration to hold 15 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, or four times that of the Bakken formation centered on North Dakota.

Most of that oil is not economically retrievable except by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a production-boosting technique in which large amounts of water, sand and chemicals are injected into shale formations to force hydrocarbon fuels to the surface.

Cummings believed the San Jose ruling would likely have implications for a more recent and much larger lease sale of 18,000 acres for oil and gas development in the same general region.

Judge Paul Grewal did not hand down a remedy, instead asking the BLM and the environmental groups to confer and submit an agreed upon path forward by next week.

Jack Luellen, a Denver-based managing partner at energy law firm Burleson LLP, said the potential for a time-consuming BLM environmental impact statement would put the burden on the BLM to "prove a negative," or that fracking would not cause damage.

"If you're anti-fracking, delaying is almost as good as barring it," Luellen said.

But James Pardo, a partner at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, believed a full separate study of the Monterey shale was unlikely to be necessary even though the geology is different from other U.S. shale plays. But a "harder look" at the issue would be necessary.

"The court's telling them to square those corners," he said. "Note this judge did not void the leases ... This judge is looking at a reasonable solution."

Bill Allayaud, California director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said the court decision could cause the BLM to rethink how it leases land.

Oil and gas drilling on BLM lands has shot up in recent years as advances in horizontal drilling and fracking have made hard-to-reach deposits recoverable.

As a share of overall U.S. production, oil from federal onshore land accounted for about 5 percent of the total last year, and 12 percent for natural gas, according to federal data.

About 98 percent of the land under BLM control is in the western United States, including Alaska. California accounts for 6 percent of the 247 million acres under BLM control, according to the most recent statistics available on the agency's website.

California regulators are in the process of devising rules for fracking.

It is already the subject of a state-level court battle. That lawsuit, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, Environmental Working Group and Sierra Club, accuses the state regulator with failing to evaluate the risks.

The state case is Center for Biological Diversity et al v California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Case no. RG12652054, in Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, CA.

The federal case is Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club v Bureau of Land Management, Case no. 11-06174 PSG in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, CA.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gardner in Washington; Editing by Grant McCool)

In accepting the position, Matthew Wenban-Smith said, “We all depend on the products of mining – but we need to make sure that our enjoyment of these benefits does not come at an unacceptable cost to people or the environment.” He added: “I am looking forward to joining IRMA’s team at this critical point in its development and to working with all its partners, supporters and stakeholders to make its vision of responsible mining a reality.”

IRMA is developing a set of best practice standards that will ensure high environmental and social performance at IRMA certified mining operations. Applying projects will be subject to independent third-party verification. IRMA envisions a world where the mining industry is respectful of the human rights and aspirations of affected communities; provide­s safe, healthy and respectful workplaces; avoids or minimizes harm to the environment; and leaves positive legacies.  More information about IRMA can be found at www.responsiblemining.net.

IRMA focuses on medium-to-large scale mines, but seeks to collaborate with other schemes forwarding more responsible practices at the smaller and artisanal scale. IRMA is governed by five key sectors with a stake in the environmental and social performance of mining, namely: 1) mining companies, 2) downstream users of mined products (businesses who purchase those products to manufacture their own products), 3) organizations representing communities affected by mining, 4) labor unions, and 5) environmental and human rights non-profit organizations.

Matthew Wenban-Smith, who has previously served as a consultant to IRMA, will formally start his new role as Managing Director today, April 2, 2013. He comes to IRMA as Director of the consulting firm OneWorldStandards Ltd, which he founded.  Matthew has worked on standards and certification programs in a number of sectors since 1994, when he was hired by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) to set up its accreditation program. He has also served on the Technical Advisory Board of the Marine Stewardship Council. His expertise covers standards development, assurance, product traceability, ethical claims & labeling, business development and governance.  He has lived and worked in Mexico, Germany, Brazil, Guyana and the UK, and has worked on projects around the world.
Anisa Kamadoli Costa, Vice President for Global Sustainability at Tiffany & Co., who serves on IRMA’s Steering Committee stated, "We are pleased that Matthew will lead IRMA at this critical moment as it prepares for the pilot certification phase in 2014.  His expertise in globally-recognized standards will assure that IRMA benefits all stakeholders and brings a new level of consumer confidence to mining operations." 

Fellow IRMA Steering Committee member Glen Mpufane, based in Geneva for IndustriALL, a global union federation representing 50 million workers in 140 countries in the mining, energy and manufacturing sectors, offered his perspective, “Organized labor leaders are working for a new economic and social model that puts people first, based on democracy and social justice. It is exciting to bring on a new leader to IRMA who can help us realize that goal.”

Jon Samuel, of mining company Anglo American, also on IRMA’s Steering Committee, noted: “Matthew has worked with other certification programs that have successfully traveled the same paths currently in front of IRMA. He is therefore extremely well placed to help IRMA develop an effective approach that meets the expectations of the key stakeholder groups participating in IRMA.”

Payal Sampat of the Washington, DC-based NGO, Earthworks, who is also on IRMA’s Steering Committee, added, “We appreciate the experience Matthew brings to IRMA in ensuring the authentic engagement of both corporate and civil society stakeholders, to which IRMA has been committed since its founding.”

IRMA Steering Committee member Larson Bill of the Western Shoshone Defense Project in Nevada, USA, shared the following, "Indigenous communities around the globe face many threats to our lands, people and cultures. We welcome Matthew's leadership in this cooperative effort and are hopeful that IRMA will reduce these impacts in the mining sector."

IRMA expects to pilot-test its standards program in early 2014 and will begin certifying mine sites in 2015.

IRMA’s current team includes Aimee Boulanger and Meredith Emmett, who will continue serving IRMA. Aimee will focus on testing and refining the content of the social and environmental standard. Meredith will continue to facilitate the cooperative leadership of the five diverse stakeholders represented in the IRMA process.

But from the moment they walked through the doors, Myra and Mike Cerny began to curse and mutter under their breath. They rolled their eyes at the Marathon freebies, like a water bottle emblazoned with the company logo, and leafed through handouts cheering the oil and gas development that now encircles their rural South Texas home.

Later, while chatting with Marathon representatives, I heard Mike across the room raising his deep, gruff voice.

“I am right in the middle of this stuff,” he told a Marathon worker. “I get three or four migraines a day now. … I never had migraines before in my life.” The headaches grew so persistent in recent months, Mike told the worker, that he shelled out $2,000 for a CT scan. About a year ago, to their surprise, the Cernys became a family of asthmatics, regularly sucking down albuterol inhalers just to breathe. Myra and Mike began to spot mysterious rashes on their arms and legs. Their teenage son suffered unexplained, gushing nosebleeds.

When I found Kirk Spilman, Marathon’s asset manager for the region, he talked me through the company’s commitment to corporate responsibility: how Marathon recently paid to boost law enforcement patrols in the area (an attempt to make the roads safer) and how that evening the company announced a $25,000 donation to local education efforts.

Eventually he got around to the Cernys’ troubles.

“Well, you have to understand their house is very close to the road,” Spilman remarked, before saying Marathon reps would look into the complaints.

In fact, they already had.

The Cernys contacted state environmental regulators nearly five months before Marathon’s community meeting, complaining of “odors described as sulfur and petroleum-like,” according to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality records. The Cernys worried the air around their house was being fouled by flares from storage sites leaving trails of black smoke. A TCEQ investigation would eventually show that at a nearby Marathon site, emissions of benzene, a known carcinogen, and other irritants far surpassed permitted levels.

In December, though, the Cernys weren’t aware of any of this. They just knew they felt sick, while Marathon officials at the meeting insisted they didn’t know of any problems. When the Cernys pressed, complaining about a flare roughly a mile from them that continued to spew smoke, Marathon reps denied the site even belonged to the company. “I just took a picture of the sign. It says Marathon,” Myra groused.

She was telling the truth, she pointed out the sign to me earlier in the day as we drove around the area.

The Cernys grew more agitated as Marathon reps nodded their heads, dutifully expressing their concern.

“Just follow the smoke, man,” Mike sighed. “Follow the smell. You’ll see what I’m talking about. You’ll see where we live.”

**

As you drive into Karnes County at night, the sky begins to glow a bright, flickering orange with industrial flares, sign of the shale gas revolution beneath the South Texas dirt.

Many in the industry call the Eagle Ford Shale, a vast oil- and gas-rich geological formation stretching some 400 miles, the crown jewel of U.S. shale plays. Oil and gas companies use a drilling method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which they pump millions of gallons of water — mixed with sand and some 500 chemicals — thousands of feet below ground to crack the shale and release the goods.

Mike and Myra Cerny moved from the San Antonio suburbs to Karnes County nine years ago wanting a calm country life. Over the past two years, the trappings of oil and gas development have encroached on their small rural home. Drilling for wells in a field across the road from their house shook their walls so hard the ceilings cracked; more wells are now being drilled behind them. Big rigs speed down their rural farm-to-market road at all times of the day and night. Pallets flying off the backs of trucks have twice flattened their mailbox. Mike says he’s reluctant to buy another one.

“That would’ve killed me if I was standing in my yard,” he said.

What irritates the Cernys most, though, is the smell wafting in from nearby facilities.

The activity won’t stop any time soon.

South Texas is now the focal point of Marathon’s business strategy. The day before its Karnes County meeting in December, Marathon executives announced the company would pump $1.9 billion into the Eagle Ford region this year alone, more than a third of its 2013 capital budget.

“Much of that is going to be here in Karnes County,” Spilman, Marathon’s regional asset manager, told me. “This is going to continue for the foreseeable future, quite honestly, because in our opinion this is the best place for our company to invest.”

This month, when the Eagle Ford Shale Consortium gathered at the Grand Hyatt downtown, Marathon CEO Clarence Cazalot called the Eagle Ford the most promising oil and gas find in North America, maybe even the world.

“The fact that I stand here and say that is really sort of amazing,” he said.

Fracking the Eagle Ford, Cazalot told the 800-plus crowd, will not only provide a cheap, steady domestic energy supply, but a greener one, weaning us off coal and cutting down on climate-destabilizing carbon emissions.

As Cazalot and others noted throughout the conference, the boom is green in more ways than one.

The tax windfall from fracking flooded Texas’ now $12 billion Rainy Day Fund, which many hope lawmakers will tap to help pay for our pitifully under-funded State Water Plan. University of Texas at San Antonio’s most recent assessment says that in 2011 alone, the boom generated more than $25 billion in revenue, supported nearly 50,000 full-time jobs, and padded local governments with more than $250 million.

Consortium speakers acknowledged that once-sleepy rural towns have seen unnerving increases in deadly car wrecks, that housing and infrastructure can’t keep up with boom, and that truck traffic has torn county roads to ribbons. But, the consensus went, these are all fixable problems.

At the conference government officials, business leaders, and academics largely sidestepped what environmentalists consider the dark side of the play, ignoring nagging concerns over water contamination, aquifer depletion, and air quality.

That wasn’t the case at last year’s gathering. Back then, Alamo Area Council of Governments natural resources director Peter Bella warned of how drilling in the Haynesville Shale, near the Texas-Louisiana border, made regional ozone levels spike. The message: If we don’t understand, catalogue, and attempt to lower emissions from drilling in the Eagle Ford, our regional air quality could suffer, possibly knocking San Antonio from its tenuous standing as the largest U.S. city still within Clean Air Act compliance.

Bella wasn’t invited back to speak at this year’s consortium. Last August, two Bexar County ozone monitors for the first time picked up readings that violated federal air standards.

Researchers increasingly contend that fracking may release sizable amounts of harmful contaminants into the air, like methane and volatile organic compounds (or VOCs) like benzene, contrary to the drilling industry’s (and, seemingly, Texas regulators’) belief that there is little, if any, public health threat caused by fracking-related air contamination.

Last year the Colorado School of Public Health published a study indicating higher risks for cancer and other health problems because of air quality near fracked wells. About a mile out from fracking sites, researchers found elevated levels of benzene and other chemicals that can irritate eyes and cause headaches, sore throats, or breathing difficulties.

A follow-up study, published earlier this year in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, found dozens of so-called non-methane hydrocarbons in the air near Colorado drilling sites, including some chemicals known to harm the brain and nervous system.

Other studies, such as one co-authored by Anthony Ingraffea, argue that one of the “green” benefits of natural gas, that it burns twice as “clean” as coal, may actually be hot air itself. In 2011, Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and his colleagues published a study claiming the best (though admittedly incomplete) estimates indicate that shale gas may emit as much as 20 percent more greenhouse gases than coal throughout its lifecycle. Industry-backed groups have attempted to discredit the Cornell study, like the American Clean Skies Foundation, chaired by Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon, which funded a major MIT study that criticized the Cornell researchers and their findings.

Depending on where you drill, wells in the Eagle Ford pump out a combination of oil, gas, or condensate. Companies can store and ship the gases for treatment. If the pipeline infrastructure isn’t there or if those “economically irrelevant” reserves aren’t worth the hassle, companies can get a permit from state regulators to burn, or “flare”, the gases.

It’s roughly a mile from Mike and Myra Cernys’ front door to Marathon’s Sugarhorn Central Facility, home to multiple crude oil, condensate, and wastewater tanks, as well as two flares.

TCEQ records show an inspector first investigated the Sugarhorn facility on August 15, 2012 to follow up on the Cernys’ complaints.

An inspector spotted emissions coming from the storage tanks using an infrared camera. TCEQ records note that during a 12-hour period, the facility emitted 42 pounds of benzene, over four times what they permitted for that specific site. Hydrogen sulfide, a natural gas that can cause serious injury when inhaled even at minimal concentrations, leaked from the facility at over 100 times the permitted amount. Nearly 3,000 pounds of methane went into the air, records show.

When the TCEQ returned on September 5, emissions at the site still exceeded permitted levels. It wasn’t until October 24, records indicate, that regulators sat down with company officials to discuss “ongoing issues with Marathon’s facilities located in Karnes County.” When a TCEQ investigator returned on December 18, infrared video still showed emissions spewing from the facility’s storage tanks.

While TCEQ mandates companies report such “emissions events” within 24 hours, Marathon didn’t report the August and September incidents until December 20, well after two TCEQ investigations and a company meeting with regulators.

“It’s disconcerting to say the least,” said Wilma Subra, a Louisiana-based environmental scientist and MacArthur Genius Grant recipient who reviewed the TCEQ records.

Subra was troubled that when Marathon finally reported the problems — at TCEQ’s prodding — the company only did so as two isolated 12-hour events. “It’s hard to believe this was only happening the two days that TCEQ just happened to go out and investigate,” Subra said.

“For some of these compounds, it’s a huge quantity that got reported,” Subra insisted. For the August incident, benzene was at levels you’d expect to find near an oil refinery, she said.

“When, say, an oil refinery releases more than 10 pounds of benzene within that period, it’s a big deal,” Subra said. “Here we had 42 pounds of benzene released. It’s enormous.”

Prolonged exposure to benzene, Subra says, is known to cause leukemia and blood cell damage. In addition, TCEQ reports from the facility showed elevated levels of toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, compounds that may cause liver and kidney damage over long exposure periods, Subra says. In the short-term, “you’d expect to see nose, throat, eye and skin irritation,” Subra said.

After meeting with the Cernys this month to hear about their health complaints, Subra said, “What they’re reporting are exactly the health impacts you’d expect to see with these chemicals. … It correlates exactly.”

**

Industry largely derides Sharon Wilson as an anti-fracking crackpot.

In 1996 Wilson left Fort Worth for some 40 acres she bought in rural Wise County. Soon afterward, wildcatter George Mitchell pioneered fracking as we know it today, and his Mitchell Energy & Development moved in next door to Wilson to frack the surrounding Barnett Shale. Within a few years, drilling rigs had sprouted up all around her, and Wilson grew weary of the waste dumping, the generators, and the foul air.

That’s when Wilson started her widely-followed fracking blog, Bluedaze, chronicling the dark side of life in oil and gas plays, posting page after page of disaster stories, toxic waste photos, and tales from sick families.

Myra and Mike Cerny complained to Marathon for months before finding Wilson. Last spring, the Cernys were still in talks with Marathon over a buy-out, hoping to leave the area. When Marathon reneged on the offer, Myra took to the internet searching for people like her. She soon landed on Wilson’s blog.

“The emails she sent me were just so sad,” Wilson said. “I knew they were miserable.”

This month, Wilson, Wilma Subra, and other activists toured Karnes County with an infrared camera, looking for fugitive oil and gas emissions.

At nearly every facility, including the one TCEQ investigated last year, contaminants were seen boiling out of flares and storage tanks.

“We’ve done this all over the Barnett Shale,” said Calvin Tillman, founder of North Texas-based air monitoring non-profit ShaleTest, looking at an infrared video feed on his laptop. “We’ve found small leaks, but the ones that are really just massive and bellowing, those are few and far between,” he said.

“Down here, nearly every single one we’ve filmed shows massive leaks. … It looks like the wild west down here.”

It’s still an open question whether significant leaks, like the kind happening near the Cernys, are anomalous or the norm industry-wide.

While industry estimates methane leakage rates of about 1.6 percent, recent research from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado at Boulder indicate the number could be as high as 9 percent. Finding the true number is critical. One study by scientists at Princeton University and the Environmental Defense Fund suggests that shifting from coal to natural gas will only reap climate benefits as long as methane leakage stays below 3.2 percent.

The EDF last year joined with University of Texas at Austin and nine major gas producers, like Chevron and ExxonMobil, to catalogue methane emission rates at shale gas wells across the country. David Allen, who led the fieldwork and data analysis for UT, said results have been submitted to a scientific journal and should be published within the next two months.

None of the Cernys had inhalers until about a year ago. On a recent visit, Mike counted four lying around the house that he, Myra, and their teenage son regularly use.

“I mean, just sitting there looking at those, that’s fucking sad,” he told me.

“It’s now where our sinuses burn, our eyes burn so bad you have to rinse them out in the middle of the night,” Myra said. “The smell gets so heavy outside you feel like you have to vomit.” Family members will no longer visit them because of the noxious stink.

Myra and Mike left Marathon’s community meeting last December nonplussed. They’d expected a public question and answer period; there wasn’t one. They expected Marathon reps to take their concerns seriously; Marathon workers instead argued whether the nearby storage sites were even theirs.

A Marathon worker asked the Cernys whether they were getting their royalties. At one point the Cernys got one payment of about $1,700. This year, those royalty payments dipped down to a couple hundred dollars. The Cernys are told they might soon receive as much as $7,000.

“Honestly, I could give a flip about our royalties,” Myra told a Marathon worker. “We want our health back. We want our air back.”

Before leaving, Myra pulled out a stack of handouts on fracking emisions and their potential health impact. “Could you please get her to go outside to pass out those things?” a visibly uncomfortable Marathon worker asked Mike.

He responded, “Shit, you try.”

Hal Quinn, CEO of the National Mining Association, told the House Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources that the measure “addresses a key issue for the country’s future economic growth and manufacturing revival: the painfully slow permitting process for the miners that supply metals and minerals essential for our basic industries, our national defense and the consumer product we use.”

“The value added by major industries that consume the $77 billion of minerals produced in the U.S. was an estimated $2.4 trillion in 2012, or 15% of our GDP,” Quinn noted. “In addition, domestic mining generated $50 billion in tax payments to federal, state and local governments.”

“Mining’s potential is even greater than its current performance,” Quinn asserted. “The United States has an immense and enviable mineral endowment waiting to be tapped.”

“Overall, when view through the lens of resource potential, the U.S. is underperforming, a fact that will have increasing consequences as global demand for minerals becomes more competitive due to the demands of development economies, where millions are being propelled into a rising global middle class,” he noted.

Quinn argued the length of time consumed in obtaining mining permits is a major obstacle to the U.S. reaching its mineral potential. “In fact, the length, complexity and uncertainty of the permitting process are the primary reasons investors give for not investing in U.S. minerals mining,” he suggested. “In the U.S., necessary government authorizations now take approximately seven to 10 years to secure, placing the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage and forcing our economy to become increasingly reliant on foreign producers for mineral was can produce domestically.”

In 1993, Quinn noted that the U.S. attracted 20% of worldwide exploration investment dollars. “Today, our share has eroded to just 8 percent.”

In his testimony, Quinn observed that Canada “maintains an expedient, approximately two-year, permitting timeline by implementing a flexible system that seeks to minimize duplication, uncertainty and delays.” He estimated that 16% of all global exploration dollars were invested in Canada last year.

‘EXTREMELY FRIENDLY REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT’

Earthworks Executive Director Jennifer Krill, however, declared, “In reality, hard rock mining companies in the United States enjoy subsidies and loopholes that create an extremely friendly regulatory environment for them.”

A longtime advocate for reforming the 1872 Mining Law, Earthworks claimed a “trifecta of an outdated mining law, the ability to dump mine waste directly into fresh water and enormous tax breaks for the industry makes hard rock mining unique in this country, and renders HR 761 unnecessary and absurd.”

“The United States of America is one of the world’s best places for mining investment,” Krill asserted. “We have stable Democratic institutions, courts that enforce contracts, favorable tax and environmental policy, and an orderly and reliable process.”

She observed that the Fraser Institute annual survey of mining and exploration companies ranked Nevada, Utah and Wyoming among the top 10 most attractive jurisdictions for mineral exploration investment.

Krill also told the subcommittee that she disagrees with HR 761’s attempt to define gold as a critical or strategic mineral “for the simple reason that the majority of in the U.S.—54% in 2011, according to the USGS—is used in jewelry fabrication.”

“Since jewelry fabrication is neither a critical nor strategic use for gold, then no critical or strategic purpose is served by exempting its mining from our most basic environmental protection like NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] review,” she asserted. “If not for NEPA, citizens would not know how badly the mining industry performs, nor be able to use this information to pressure permitting agencies to improve its behavior.”

Krill claimed that environmental reviews and legal challenges “do not substantially affect mining investment, emplo9yment or the reserves of certain critical minerals” because “the market has long ago priced in these costs and the result is that many of our western states are among the best places for mineral investment and have substantially lower unemployment rates than surrounding communities.”

“HR 761 is a bill in search of a problem that does not exist,” Krill declared.

The agreement, between the UK energy company Centrica and the U.S.-based Cheniere Energy Partners, would see more than 1.7 million metric tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year shipped to the United Kingdom, starting in 2018. The U.K.’s gas supply has been extremely tight this winter, and the new sales would satisfy requirements for around 1.8 million British homes.

The deal would mark the first time that the U.S. government has allowed any of the country’s booming natural gas production to be sold to state that does not have a free trade agreement with Washington. While 19 other permits have been allowed to countries with such agreements, only one, South Korea, has engaged in any significant U.S. gas imports.

Critics warn that the industry in the U.S. remains too unregulated and that exports will cause a spike in domestic gas prices. In recent months, the debate over exports has become highly divisive.

“We cannot guarantee that drilling occurs safely in the United States, because there is neither the science to justify nor do states enforce what regulations do exist,” Alan Septoff, the Washington-based director of communications for Earthworks, an advocacy group, told IPS. “Increasing demand via exports for a dirty, dangerous process is not something we think is a good idea.”

The Centrica deal comes after the U.S. Department of Energy published a commissioned study that found, among other things, that the negative economic impact of LNG exports on the United States would be negligible. Yet critics say the study failed to look at either environmental or health impacts, while downplaying the effect on poor and middle-class communities.

“We have problems with this study and have called on the Department of Energy to conduct another study that incorporates environmental and health assessments,” Jenny Chang, a campaigner with the Sierra Club, an advocacy group, told IPS.

She notes that some 200,000 people wrote the Department of Energy to criticise the report (the Sierra Club has published an exhaustive study here).

“But now that the department has finished its part of the bargain, there’s nothing stopping them from issuing more permits,” she continues, “even though doing so may not be in the public’s interest.”

Pressing decisions

Centrica is cautioning that the contract still hinges on Cheniere receiving “necessary regulatory approvals”. But according to a statement put out by the company on Monday, British Prime Minister David Cameron is already extending his “warm welcome” to the new deal, stating, “Future gas supplies from the U.S. will help diversify our energy mix and provide British consumers with a new long-term, secure and affordable source of fuel.”

Indeed, although the Centrica deal would be the largest agreement of its kind so far, it is also almost certainly only the beginning of a massive exports push. The Department of Energy reportedly has 21 pending LNG-export permit requests, constituting around 45 percent of the country’s gas production.

Of course, all of this is taking place in the context of a massively altered energy landscape in the United States, which is thought to have more extensive gas resources than any other country. Over the past five years, powered by new extraction techniques known as hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”), U.S. engineers have been able to extricate previously unreachable natural gas, much of it trapped in shale and other geologic formations.

From 2007 to 2012, gas production in the U.S. increased by 25 percent, with dramatic domestic effects. The cost of energy in the country has fallen, with some experts suggesting this helped stabilise the country’s economy following the 2008 international economic crisis.

More controversially, natural gas – which burns cleaner than coal and other petroleum products – has been touted as a “greener” energy solution, helping in part to bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990s-era levels.

Yet critics point to mounting evidence of environmental and public health issues cropping up in local communities near the thousands of wells that have gone into production over the past half-decade. In addition, the methane that tends to seep out of these wells during production is particularly potent in causing climate change.

As the United States has thus far refused to allow any major sales of its new gas reserves, however, the international ramifications of this sea change are only now starting to be understood.

Opponents of the push for exports highlight two main concerns: economics and environmental impact. First, if significant U.S. gas reserves were to enter the international market, the domestic price would almost certainly increase in response.

Second, the hydraulic fracturing industry here remains unusually unregulated, largely because politicians have yet to agree on how to deal with what remains a new – but extremely lucrative – technology. Critics say that politicians still don’t have a handle on either the impact of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater or on the extent that the technique is resulting in increased methane emissions.

In an open letter sent in mid-March to President Barack Obama, Earthworks and the Sierra Club joined with other groups to call for an “open and informed national conversation to test whether [gas exports] are actually in the public interest.” They also stated that, “Deciding whether and how to move forward with LNG exports is among the most pressing environmental and energy policy decisions facing the nation.”

Regulatory progress

In recent days, both regulatory and political processes on this issue have progressed.

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the formation of a new advisory council, made up of 31 external experts, that will now formally look into the effects of fracking on drinking water. And on Friday, Senator Ron Wyden announced he was starting work on a new legislative bill that would aim to find common ground on natural gas exports and hydraulic fracturing.

Finally, in a major but polarising new initiative, last week also saw the opening of a new institute that has brought together some environmental groups and some major oil producers, including Chevron and Shell.

The Center for Sustainable Shale Development says it has already established “15 initial performance standards designed to ensure safe and environmentally responsible development” of shale gas, which will be used to offer “independent, third-party certification” of gas wells, including ensuring the use of certain methane-trapping technologies and techniques.

More than 60 people attended the meeting, with more than half providing comments — nearly every seat was taken, and folks were standing in the back of the room. People spoke with overwhelming passion about the White Mountains and asked BLM not to consider mining in an area that we all love and use year-round. The evening was inspiring. Every person who testified reminded me of how fundamentally important it is to have wild places to go to, to make memories in, and to allow our minds, bodies and souls to rejuvenate in the great outdoors.

It wasn’t by accident that the White Mountains was designated as a National Recreational Area.  This 1 million-acre area is recognized nationally for its world-renowned winter trails system, public use cabins, training grounds for dog mushers, berry picking opportunities, and natural beauty such as the Beaver Creek Wild and Scenic River that winds through the region. All of these recreational gems are just up the highway from Fairbanks. Originally, the White Mountains was established by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to “provide for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment and for the conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, fish and wildlife, and other values contributing to public enjoyment of such area.” I commend BLM for managing the White Mountains NRA in a way consistent with its identified values and purposes.

Unfortunately, these good land management practices could change.

At the request of the state of Alaska, and to the surprise of many, BLM is evaluating the possibility of opening the White Mountains NRA to a hard-rock mineral leasing program. The leasing program would allow mineral exploration and development for gold and rare earth elements (REEs) in 160,000 acres of the recreation area. Traces of four REEs were identified in granite at the headwaters of Roy Creek, just north of the Richard’s public use cabin, and leases for gold would become available along many of the tributaries feeding into the Beaver Creek Wild and Scenic River.

How rare are REEs, really? I spoke with Earthworks, a group committed to working with communities to ensure responsible mining, about REE economics and environmental impacts. First, the name “rare earth elements” is really a misnomer because these elements are not that rare. They are quite abundant but not found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms. There is only one REE mine in the United States, the Mountain Pass mine in California.  They ran into some trouble with contaminated ground water and are now remediating and upgrading site facilities. Photos of Mountain Pass depict open pits, separation facilities, paste tailings and storage facilities, a crushing facility and water treatment facilities that will be there forever. 

In Alaska, we are quite familiar with gold. State lands around the White Mountains are actively being mined for gold with either a suction dredge or with the use of heavy equipment, known as mechanized mining.  Both of these methods are damaging to rivers, drinking water and scenic landscapes, which we have already been witness to in Beaver Creek and Birch Creek. These rivers are only now starting to show recovery from mining activity begun in the early 1900s and continuing all the way through the 1980s. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

The White Mountains NRA is unique in that it is both accessible and affordable to the public. This is a recreation area, not a mining district. Rarely do we get the opportunity to voice our opinions to BLM about how they will manage the White Mountains.

Decisions BLM makes now will determine the fate of the White Mountains NRA in the future. Our land needs our voice to protect a national treasure in our backyard: the White Mountains National Recreation Area.
Darcie Warden is BLM lands outreach coordinator for the Alaska Wilderness League.

The bill to trade land near Superior with Resolution Copper Mining, passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate, and is back now for an eighth year.

Supporters said the deal, which would give Resolution access to a copper-rich piece of government land, would bring thousands of jobs and more than $6 billion in new taxes to the state over 40 years of operation.

“The economic benefits are staggering,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Prescott, who co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Flagstaff.

The company says the mine would be the largest copper producer in the country and would account for 25 percent of the world’s copper, turning out 1 billion pounds or more a year.

Opponents worry about the environmental and cultural impact from a mine of that scale, and they question why the government would swap such a valuable resource with a company that is not American-owned. Resolution’s parent companies are based in England and Australia.

“At a time when all Americans are being asked to tighten our belts, this bill will result in a giveaway of American wealth to a foreign-owned mining company,” said Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

He also said the massive copper mine would deprive the tribe of sacred lands at Oak Flat, a popular recreation spot, and that the mining process would harm all lands in the area.

Rambler and other critics said the potential loss of water in the area is a particular concern. He pointed to ancient oak trees in the area that take centuries to produce a single acorn.

“These trees will be destroyed and the land flattened,” Rambler told the House Committee on Natural Resources subcommittee.

The bill would give Resolution 2,422 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in the Tonto National Forest, in exchange for 5,344 acres of environmentally sensitive land currently owned by the company.

Gosar said the region has been suffering economically. The mine would create 1,400 high-paying jobs that, in turn, would bring about 2,300 more jobs to the area.

Resolution officials said it is important to pass the bill quickly. Continued delays caused the company’s main sponsor, British mining company Rio Tinto, to pull funds from the project late last year and cut 200 jobs, with another 200 job cuts expected before the end of this year.

By the end of this year, the company will have spent almost $1 billion and it expects to spend more than $5 billion before ever producing a pound of copper, said Resolution spokesman Bruce Richardson. He said production is not expected to begin before 2020.

But Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, a longtime opponent, said there is no point in holding hearings about the bill until both sides are willing to have a “meaningful discussion” on the issue. The same arguments keep being rehashed without any of the questions being answered, he said.

“Here we go again,” Grijalva said Thursday.

He pointed to what he called a lack of public support as one reason not to rush into a decision.

“All we have is the legislation to go by as fact,” Grijalva said. “There has to be an independent look at what this mine is going to be.”

Superior Town Councilwoman Kiki Peralta said the town, which has many residents employed by the mine, supported the project in the past. But she said that after learning about the potential environmental impact, she was forced to speak out against it.

“This project will be in our backyard and we can’t let that happen,” Peralta said. “Information has been difficult to come by, but with the little information we have, we have learned the true impacts of this project.”

Earthworks Executive Director Jennifer Krill noted in her prepared remarks that mining was banned on much of the government land in the 1950s, and allowing a swap now would set a “chilling precedent” forr reversals of other bans. The Resolution project, she said, would “leave a permanent scar on the landscape” that would damage recreation areas and the opportunity for jobs there.

But Gosar said there is no reason for delay and that opponents simply do not understand the facts.

“This is a good bill all the way through,” Gosar said. “I’m not here to compromise a bill just to get people to get on board.”

Kirkpatrick said her district was “hit hard by the recession” and could use an influx of jobs and tax revenue. But she said environmental impacts of mining will need to be addressed before the bill can go through. She is considering amendments to protect land and water in the area.

“There is a way to work together,” Kirkpatrick said.

While Gosar said he would be open to compromise, he said he has not seen any efforts by oppponents to alter their stance.

“We’re grasping at straws, basing not on facts but on hearsay,” he said.

For their part, company officials said the project is not going away, even though they would like to see action sooner rather than later. Richardson said Resolution expects to finish its mining operations plan and submit it to the Forest Service for environmental review this year.

“There’s too much copper there,” to walk away, Richardson said.

Filed by Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), the bill was presented to the House Committee on Energy Resources by Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) Wednesday.

Burnam began by saying the distance of 500 feet was so small, that “one could argue that it shouldn’t be allowed, but that’s not what this bill is about. This bill is just saying that they have the right to know.”

“This one’s a no-brainer,” Burnam said, explaining that it would build on the disclosure requirements passed last session. “This bill protects private property rights, the right to know.”

Under HB 448, the Natural Resources Code would be amended, requiring an operator of a well on which a hydraulic fracturing treatment is to be performed, to mail each person residing within 500 feet of the well a list of the chemical ingredients that the operator anticipates will be used in the fracturing treatment and require that the notice be mailed no later than 30 days before the fracturing process begins.

However, the code also would allow the operator to withhold and declare the identity of a chemical ingredient anticipated to be used a “trade secret,” and the person to whom the notice is required to be sent to may challenge the trade secret protection.

As well as a mailed notice, the operators of the wells using fracturing treatments must post a list of the chemicals to be used online.

“This is so that likely consumers of water know what’s going on with the fracturing process,” Burnam said.

Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, testified for the bill Wednesday, saying that if passed, Texas would be one of five states with this requirement.“Most states do not require pre-fracking chemical disclosure but some are starting to: Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia in certain cases and Wyoming. There is a precedent for doing this.”

With regard to the trade secrets outlined in the code, Reed said, “We were supportive of trade secrets in certain situations, but there’s no check.”

Reed explained that the only check is when the property owner decides to challenge the trade secret.

Dukes’ bill would not change current state law, but it would give a pre-notice of the additives being used before fracking occurs. Currently the information on the additives used in the treatment are available online after the treatment has occurred.

“There’s a lot of noise out there on whether fracking is safe or not safe and whether it could contaminate water or it couldn’t, and by disclosing that information, it’s a good way for people to actually test water and see in fact if there are any problems with contamination,” Reed said.

Mari Ruckel, vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs for the Texas Oil and Gas Association, testified against the bill, pointing out that in the last session, when HB 3328 filed by Rep. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) was passed, Texas became the first state to require a well-by-well disclosure of all the constituent chemical compounds and water volume contained in fracking fluids, which is available online after the process has occurred.

“We find this problematic,” Ruckel said. “Operators don’t know what the situation is 30 days ahead of time — what water sources are going to be used, and different water sources require different chemicals. They have the information post-frack. That’s why it’s required with the completion report to the Railroad Commission.”

Burnam was not convinced, saying “surely at some point in time the industry knows what fracking materials will be used before they actually do it.”

“They have an idea, but it’s not exact,” Ruckel said.

The list of chemicals vary from well to well, which chemicals are used and in what amounts, and as Ruckel tried to convey, operators would not know 30 days before the fracturing treatment which chemicals they will be injecting into the ground.

Keffer, chairman of the committee, noted that the operator is ultimately the person liable, but there is a service company involved.

“Things do happen where they may not know the exact issue. Then if you’re giving a mailing out and you leave off something, are you opening yourself up for liability in that regard?” Keffer said.

Sharon Wilson of the non-profit organization Earthworks also testified in support of an anticipated list with no liability.

Wilson became involved with Earthworks after living around a shale extraction site for 16 years and losing $80,000 in property value.

“When your water is contaminated, your property is completely worthless,” said Wilson.

Wilson described that in one case, post-fracking water samples had been done less than a year later and high levels of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), an additive in diesel fuel, were found resulting in a 75 percent reduction in property value.

A Congressional investigation found that between 2005 and 2009, 32 million gallons of diesel were used in hydraulic fracturing fluids in 19 states. Half of that, 16 million gallons, was used in Texas.

“When landowners have proof of contamination, they sue, there’s a settlement and then a non-disclosure agreement,” Wilson said. “Those records, including all test results, are sealed forever. This pattern allows industry to continue to say they have been fracking for decades and there has never ever been one case of documented water contamination. Citizens are largely on their own when it comes to grappling with the oil and gas industry. The least the state of Texas can do is provide fair warning that they’re coming.”

Teddy Carter, vice president of Government Affairs for the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, testified against the bill.

“HB 3328 last session was highly debated among environmental groups and industry groups,” he said. “We believe it’s something to be proud of.”

“As far as what some refer to as a ‘trade secret loophole’ — that is current law for regulating any trade secret, regardless if it’s oil and gas or soda manufacturers. It would be a loophole for anybody that is subject to trade secret challenges,” Carter said.

“If the goal of giving the prior notice to know ahead of time what might be used is in order to initiate trade secret challenges, I would worry that would have the potential to hold up operations. It makes more sense to me to challenge based on what you know was used,” Carter said.

In a unanimous vote, the three La Plata County commissioners -- two Democrats and one Republican -- adopted the memorandum of understanding, which commits Houston-based Swift Energy Co. to take certain precautions when drilling a pair of proposed test wells in a rural area in the western part of the 1,700-square-mile county.

The memorandum of understanding helps clear the way for the first test wells under the county's jurisdiction to be drilled in the Mancos Shale. (Another company has drilled test wells on the nearby Southern Ute Indian Reservation.) Many in the industry have high hopes that the formation, composed of inky hard rock, will revive energy production in the San Juan Basin in the wake of a precipitous drop in natural gas prices and a rise in oil prices (EnergyWire, March 18).

The agreement, which the company entered into voluntarily, calls for using existing well pads and roads whenever possible; restricting the number of new wells to one per exploratory unit; monitoring water wells on neighboring properties; capturing "fugitive" emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas, instead of flaring or venting it; and using electric motors on equipment to minimize air pollution.

In exchange, the county agrees not to protest Swift's exploratory application to the state, which needs to be approved by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before the project can go forward.

"We're going to go above and beyond what's required to make sure resources are protected," said Bob Redweik, Swift's corporate manager for health, safety and environment, at yesterday's hearing on the MOU.

Public concerns

Swift Energy wants to drill the two wells in two separate exploration units about 30 minutes southwest of Durango. The parcels, which are several miles apart, lie in a rural valley between two mountain ranges. While a few wells dot the area around the western unit, only two of them are active, and in the area where the eastern unit is found, there are no existing wells, according to a map on the county's website.

The approval of the county commission -- which now includes former Oil and Gas Accountability Project director Gwen Lachelt, voted into office last year -- came despite testimony from several residents expressing concerns about the project's potential impacts on air quality, water resources and the area's scenic beauty.

"If you're testing these [water] wells, and your well turns up toxic, then what?" asked resident Leslie Swanson. "Are we just going to be notified, and then it's up to us to fix it?"

Jessica Kopp, who lives on a road near one of the proposed drilling sites, said water wells should be tested over a larger area, and over a longer period of time -- at least 10 years.

"I'm concerned the MOU is not enough," she said.

Bruce Baizel, director of the Oil & Gas Accountability Project, which is based in Durango, expressed concerns about truck traffic, water quality and degradation of the area's rural character.

"You're going into areas you haven't dealt with before," he said. "When you have this traffic in this eastern drilling window, there are no other wells there. So it's a big deal."

May Morley, a rancher who was among the minority who testified in favor of the agreement, said the energy development in the area would be good for the economy and that the company should be trusted to do the right thing.

"Swift has worked in good faith; everyone who has worked with them has said they've been great," said Morley, whose family owns half of the surface area where one of the wells would be drilled.

The commissioners said the MOU adequately addressed most of those concerns raised during the hearing and noted that the public will have another chance to weigh in on the project when the state examines it.

"The MOU is just a small layer of all the other regulations that are going to be imposed on the industry," said Commissioner Robert Lieb (R).

Limited jurisdiction

La Plata County, like many other counties across the country, is struggling to find ways to exert some control over expanding energy development, particularly as new technologies allow companies to tap resources that could not be accessed using conventional extraction methods.

But there's only so much counties can do to ensure drilling is done in a responsible way. As La Plata County staffers and commissioners pointed out several times during yesterday's hearing, state law -- like many others around the nation -- grants counties their authority to govern, and state rules trump local rules.

"We are a subdivision of the state," said Bob Weaver, deputy attorney for the county. "When it comes to oil and gas, we have land-use authority. We can't do whatever we want to do. That's not how the state is set up."

The company, for its part, said the county has little to worry about.

"We want to make sure we comply with all the rules," Redweik said. "Everywhere we go, we strive to have good working relationships with everyone, including the counties."

The company already has changed its access route to use a road that will have less of an impact on neighboring landowners, he added.

"I believe the county has done the best it can do right now to try to protect the people who live in this area, but to also allow the energy development to go forward," Commissioner Julie Westendorff said. "We can't stop energy development from going forward, and I can't say it's in our best interest to stop it from going forward."

The day before the county hearing, at a San Juan Basin energy conference an hour south in Farmington, N.M., that explored the promise of Mancos Shale development in the basin, former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) encouraged the industry to embrace "reasonable" regulations -- including water quality monitoring.

"There's technology where you can do on-site monitoring at not a great cost," said Ritter, who recounted his efforts to establish the state's new oil and gas development rules. "It is important to understand as an industry that in arid states, if the drought is a prolonged one, energy production has some trade-offs, and we're willing to consider those trade-offs -- especially if they involve other important industries," such as agriculture, he added.

Ultimately, approval of the project lies with the state. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is scheduled to consider the company's proposal to explore in the two units March 25. The MOU with the county will be included in it, officials said.

The next step is to submit an application for a permit to drill the two exploration wells to the COGCC, due April 15, and if all hurdles are cleared, drilling will likely begin this summer, Redweik said.

The US Environmental Protection Agency rates the metal mining industry as the number one toxic polluter in the country in its Toxics Release Inventory 2011. A large part of this pollution is cyanide, the main chemical used to leach gold from crushed ore; it can contaminate surface and ground water if it leaks from waste sites. One of the worst such accidents occurred in Romania in 2000, when a burst dam sent cyanide-contaminated water into the Someş river, and eventually into the Danube. It killed large numbers of fish and poisoned the drinking water of more than 2.5 million people.

Mining companies often say that new technologies will make mining cleaner, says Alan Septoff, communications director at Earthworks, but that is rarely the case. Research commissioned by Earthworks found that, in the United States, “75% of mines wind up polluting water, no matter what they promise,” he says.

This is at least partly because nothing is quite as effective as cyanide at getting gold out of rock. There have been attempts to find less dangerous chemicals, but they have been largely unsuccessful, says John Monhemius, a mineral engineer at Imperial College London. Thiosulphate, thiocyanate, perchlorate, chloride and bromine have all been tried, but none can match cyanide's specificity for gold.

“I did quite a lot of work on thiocyanate, but in the end I decided it wasn't any better than cyanide,” Monhemius says. Although it is not as directly poisonous as cyanide, thiocyanate requires much higher concentrations so the results of an accidental spill would be just as bad — possibly even worse, he says. “Cyanide suffers from a lot of bad press,” Monhemius adds. “If it is used properly, it doesn't cause a threat to the environment.”

The gold mining industry's voluntary International Cyanide Management Code provides guidelines to ensure the chemical is manufactured, transported and used safely.

Unwanted neighbour

Gold mines can be a source of great wealth but they are not always welcomed by the local population. In Peru, for example, massive protests and nationwide strikes against the planned Conga gold mine eventually led to the suspension — although not the cancellation — of the project in 2012. People were concerned that the amount of water the mine would use would endanger agricultural and drinking water supplies in the region.

Earthworks is running a campaign called No Dirty Gold, which aims to encourage consumers to pressure the mining industry to be more environmentally and socially responsible. The industry is engaging with Earthworks and other civil society groups, says Septoff, although the two sides have not yet agreed on what “responsible mining” should look like.

In October 2012, the mining industry issued a Conflict-free Gold Standard that companies can use to certify that none of the proceeds of their gold — including any bought from local small-scale operations — is supporting “unlawful armed conflict”. The first public announcements by companies that they are complying with it, which must be externally verified, are expected in early 2014 when they report on their 2013 activities.

Gold not green

But even avoiding mining by recycling gold from scrap electronics is not always the ethical or environmentally friendly option. Although advanced plants, such as precious-metal recycling firm Umicore's closed-loop facility in Hoboken, Belgium, release very little waste, this standard is not universally followed. In fact, much electronic waste is sent to the developing world, where piles of televisions and computers are burnt under the open sky, with cyanide poured over the slag to extract the precious metals. This not only releases dangerous fumes and chemicals, but also results in low yields.

“It is obvious that from an environmental and social point of view this unregulated recycling is a disaster,” says Umicore recycling engineer Christian Hagelüken. The electronics recycling industry must be better managed and regulated, he says, to stop dangerous and wasteful operations. — B.O.

Pennsylvania residents have been asking for protocols for testing contaminants in residential water wells; the scientific basis for determining which parameters to test for (and not); how decisions are made in the field and at DEP offices in response to homeowners’ concerns; and the number of cases in which only partial testing results have been provided to homeowners. As spring approaches, Pennsylvania residents still don’t have answers to these questions that were first raised last fall and posed again over the winter. The questions are in a letter to Secretary Krancer posted at http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/DEPWaterTestMeetingLetter_FINAL_1-25-13_%281%29.pdf.

"It is stunning that families impacted by fracking operations are no closer now to learning what is in their water, according to DEP's own lab tests, than they were last November," said Iris Marie Bloom, Executive Director of Protecting Our Waters. "Secretary Krancer must do his job to protect the families of Pennsylvania and answer all responsible inquiries about water testing protocol immediately."

"People need answers to the pressing questions that continue to be ignored by Secretary Krancer about the veracity of water tests of residents' wells that may have been polluted by gas development. Mr. Krancer's deep silence on the details begs the question 'What is the state doing to protect Pennsylvanians' drinking water from fracking pollution?'", said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

Unfortunately, Secretary Krancer’s recent response offered no direct answers to the important questions and concerns outlined in the email. "It is simply not enough for Secretary Krancer to repeatedly assert that the DEP makes decisions based on science or that staff are sufficiently trained, while refusing to answer specific questions or provide supporting information," said Nadia Steinzor, Eastern Program Coordinator, Earthworks. "Events on the ground have grown urgent and many households continue to potentially be exposed to toxic substances."

Instead, Secretary Krancer chose to make general statements and tried to paint the coalition of environmental and citizens groups as the obstructionists to obtaining the answers by asserted that they are the ones who refuse to meet with the DEP. “This is simply not true,” said Steve Hvozdovich Marcellus Shale Policy Associate, Clean Water Action. “The only thing we refuse to do is allow Secretary Krancer to exclude organizations and individuals from the table which he is trying to do, simply because he doesn’t like their message. If we allow it to occur here, who will be the next group or individual he blackballs because of similar circumstances.” “For months, our organizations and the hundreds of thousands of residents we represent have been waiting for answers from Secretary Krancer to pressing questions about residential water quality testing and reporting,” said Erika Staaf of PennEnvironment. “We’re looking for a substantive dialogue on this matter, and yet all we’re getting in response are vague assurances that DEP staff are doing their jobs.”

“The run-around our coalition has been getting and the patent disingenuousness we are experiencing from Secretary Krancer is eerily but unsurprisingly congruent with the lack of transparency at issue in the water testing results and protocols,” said Julie Edgar, Organizer, Lehigh Valley Gas Truth. “Pennsylvanians are left with a situation as murky as a glass of shalefield frackwater.” Secretary Krancer’s reply email also included politically charged statements about topics irrelevant to the inquiries on policies and procedures in the original email. He used this medium to re-raise his personal feud with Rep. Jesse White and attack him for his vote on Act 13, a message he consistently carried throughout all of his replies regardless of whether the recipient was a constituent of Rep. White’s or not.

The people of Pennsylvania have been waiting patiently for answers and deserve better than the response they got. “As a public official, Secretary Krancer should respond to the concerns of residents across the Commonwealth with care and seriousness,” said Karen Feridun, Founder, Berks Gas Truth. “DEP needs to provide details on how it does its work and plans to address problems related to water quality and health going forward.” The only glimmer of hope that this may occur is a statement from Secretary Krancer’s email where he states that “DEP does plan on responding in writing to some written inquiries posed by the groups.” But until the day actually comes where Secretary Krancer directly addresses ALL not just some of their inquiries, the residents of Pennsylvania will continue to feel let down and strung along and will work to apply additional pressure to get their answers.

--ENDS--

The people of Longmont by an overwhelming vote of 60% (more than 25,000 people), voted in the November, 2012 election to amend the City Charter to ban fracking, affirming their intention “to protect themselves from the harms associated with hydraulic fracturing, including threats to public health and safety, property damage and diminished property values, poor air quality, destruction of landscape, and pollution of drinking and surface water.”  This historic ballot measure was spearheaded by Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont (Our Longmont).

“We are taking this action because we hope to affirm the rights of citizens and communities to guarantee a safe and healthy environment for themselves and future generations,” said Michael Harris, Director of the University Of Denver Sturm College Of Law Environmental Law Clinic. He continued, “We are honored to represent Our Longmont, Food & Water Watch, the Sierra Club and Earthworks.”

The Colorado Constitution confers on all individuals certain inalienable rights.  These rights are expressed in the Colorado Oil and Gas Act, which requires that oil and gas resources be extracted in a “manner consistent with the protection of public health, safety and welfare.”

“The extraction process of hydraulic fracturing has not been proven to be safe,” said Kaye Fissinger, managing member of Our Longmont.  “Further, the State of Colorado has created a situation where the commission that oversees the oil and gas industry has an inherent conflict of interest.  It cannot simultaneously foster the development of oil and gas and protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.”

“The dangerous, toxic practice of fracking has been a matter of grave importance to the people of Longmont since October of 2011,” said Michael Bellmont, spokesperson for Our Longmont. “To assure the protection of those in our community, Our Longmont undertook a petition drive to place the charter amendment on the ballot. In November, our citizens exercised their rights to self-determination, also guaranteed under Article XX of Colorado’s Constitution. In light of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association’s attack, it is necessary that citizens participate in the judicial process to guarantee our constitutionally protected rights. It is for this reason Our Longmont and others have moved to intervene,” Bellmont said.

Food & Water Watch provided invaluable assistance to Our Longmont throughout the effort to qualify and pass Longmont’s charter amendment.  Sam Schabacker, Mountain West Regional Director for the organization, said, “We were delighted to be able to help the citizens of Longmont prohibit the dangerous industrial practice of hydraulic fracking and are pleased to be able to continue to support them.  We have every confidence that the courts will reject the claims of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and preserve Longmont’s constitutional and home rule rights.”

According to Eric E. Huber, Senor Managing Attorney for the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, “This lawsuit could have a precedential effect throughout Colorado as other communities work to pass similar prohibitions on fracking and the disposal of its waste products within their boundaries.”

Bruce Baizel, Director of Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project, said, “The citizens of Longmont took this action because they don’t trust state regulators to protect them. Rather than sue communities acting to protect their public health, industry and the state should be addressing legitimate community concerns by putting the public’s health before industry profits.”

In order to understand why you’d want an ethically sourced ring, it’s important to know the potential consequences that come from choosing one that isn’t. According to the New York Times, conflict diamonds “refer to gems that have been used by rebel groups to pay for wars that have killed and displaced millions of people in Africa, the source of an estimated 65 percent of the world’s diamonds.” In 2007, Amnesty International estimated that 3.7 million people had died as the result of conflicts fueled by diamonds. And though a set of tracking regulations known as the Kimberly Process was implemented in 2003, an outdated definition of “conflict” has rendered its effects unreliable according to the lobby group Global Witness. In a 2012 New York Times article, the group asserted that, “consumers could still not be sure where their diamonds came from, or whether they were financing armed violence or abusive regimes.”

Human rights violations aren’t the only ethical concern when it comes to buying luxe jewelry. According to the Washington Post, “the mining watchdog group Earthworks estimates that a standard 18-karat wedding band leaves behind 20 tons of ore and waste rock.” Not only does this process guzzle up a ton of energy, but gathering gold and other precious metals can also lead to toxic mine drainage which wreaks havoc on the environment. Not necessarily what you want to be reminded of when admiring that sparkling number on your appendage.

Luckily, quite a few jewelers are working hard to avoid these detrimental affects. “It didn’t seem right that a ring meant to last a lifetime would have human and environmental costs that last for generations,” says Kristin Coffin, who uses recycled gold, conflict-free diamonds, and alternative gemstones to create her simple, stunning, nature-inspired pieces. Valerie Kasinskas of VK Designs and Tamara McFarland of McFarland Designs do the same, and also donate five percent of their sales to Earthworks “No Dirty Gold” campaign and a variety of charities, respectively. “The stones I work with fall into three categories,” says McFarland. “Lab-created stones, stones that are mined and cut in the US, and stones obtained from outside the US through channels that can be verified to be promoting environmental health, worker safety, and local communities.”

The most popular conflict-free and eco-friendly alternative to diamond is a stone called Moissanite. One look at its brilliant, sparkly façade makes it easy to see why. McFarland explains that the gemstone, which was originally discovered in a fallen meteorite but is now produced in laboratories right here on Earth, has “2.4 times the fire of diamond and 10 percent more brilliance and luster.”

Amethyst, ruby, sapphire, and citrine are just a few of the colored stones that can be sourced according to fair trade principles, and many of these stones can be created in a lab, which bypasses the worker- and environmental-exploitation problems found in the mining industry altogether. “Lab-created stones have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than even the most ethically sourced mined stones,” McFarland points out.

Avoiding new materials altogether is another route ring-shoppers with ethical and environmental concerns can take. Buying a vintage piece is “reusing and recycling in its simplest form,” says Erin of Addy’s Vintage who has a gorgeous collection of old-European-cut diamonds and Art Deco styles. Gold Adore’s Gillian Griffiths agrees: “No new resources are expended and no new chemicals are added to our environment.” Plus, she says, vintage diamonds are guaranteed to be conflict-free since the practice of using diamond wealth to fund wars began in the early 1990s.

Buying vintage has appeal outside of simple ethics as well. “It’s like buying a beautiful snapshot from a specific time period,” says Somewhere in Time’s Kathryn. “Each ring has its own personality and uniqueness.”
Antique Etruscan Revival ring set with diamond and seed pearls.

The advantages of buying an ethical, eco-conscious ring can hold even more weight when a wedding is involved. “Marriage is about lasting love, happiness, dedication, and problem-solving,” says Coffin. “What better way to show your commitment than through rings which exemplify a sustainable and loving future?”

Invited by Common Council President Donald Moore, Steinzor approached Monday night’s meeting by giving the aldermen insight into the community-level work she does as the Eastern Program Coordinator for Earthworks, an environmental non-profit. Built upon the foundation of the former Mineral Policy Center, Earthworks has collaborated over the last 25 years with “federal, state and local leaders to evaluate the impact of mining and gas development on communities,” she said.

“So many of them are trying to play catch up to deal with the impact of the natural gas lobby,” Steinzor said.

So far statewide, Steinzor indicated there are already 45 municipal bans upon hydrofracking, with more than 100 additional moratoriums. Hudson, Steinzor indicated, is far from alone, as it is one of 90 New York state communities “on the move” toward putting prohibitions on hydrofracking into law.

“We are dealing with an industry that uses toxic, carcinogenic chemicals,” Steinzor said. “This gets at the heart of why it’s so important to have legislation.”

Draft legislation defeated by the Common Council last December depicted the “waste stream” being generated from hydrofracking as largely unregulated under current federal and state environmental laws. High volumes of hydrofracking wastewater, mentioned by the legislation, are not subject to the “joint, several and strict liability provision of the state or federal Superfund laws, nor has the industry uniformly disclosed the constituents of its waste stream.”

Four years of reviews by federal and New York state officials, Steinzor said, have failed to close a litany of loopholes. More than 70 percent of New York state’s active oil and natural gas wells, Earthworks found, sit uninspected each year due to budget cuts at New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation. Steinzor anticipated the number of inspections, and inspectors, would only continue to drop.

“Currently, there are no requirements that the solid waste and wastewater be designated as hazardous materials,” Steinzor said. “This is the only industry to have that exemption. It could be passing through your town right now, and it wouldn’t be identified.”

The city’s proposed ban has identified the “grossly excessive volumes of truck traffic due to the transportation of waste and wastewater” as a chief complaint. Treatment of any hydrofracking waste at Hudson’s wastewater treatment plant would be specifically prohibited, as would the dispersal of any solution which contains hydrofracking wastewater on “any streets, roadways or highways within the city of Hudson” as a de-icing agent.

“Municipal home rule can be used in fracking bans,” Moore stated as the result of a court decision Roberts helped litigate.

Nevertheless, Roberts found herself bombarded by questions from concerned citizens about the treatment and storage of hydrofracking waste material.

“They found by trucking it that it costs more than to transport it by barge,” city resident Helen Arrott said. “I’m very concerned about protecting our waterfront.”

Cheryl Stuart, a resident of Hudson’s Fifth Ward, loudly complained that “we have no teeth in our legislation” that could deter those barges.

“Our authority extends to the waterfront,” Roberts replied, adding that the city could not interfere with interstate commerce.

In response to Stuart’s concerns, Roberts said existing penalties are already written into Chapter 266 of Hudson’s City Code. Violators may be subject to up to 15 days of imprisonment, a $250 per day fine, or both.

“We’re a couple of months away from getting the law,” Roberts claimed. “Whenever you have a zoning law, you have to have a public hearing."

But even with all the delays and frustration above ground, down here Dobbs only sees possibility.

“I can visualize 180 guys down here, busy like an ant farm,” Dobbs said last week. “It’s really exciting to imagine.”

In 2005, Mines Management, Inc., the parent company of Montanore Minerals Corp., submitted a hard rock mining application to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and proposed a plan of operations to the Kootenai National Forest. Dobbs, CEO of Mines Management, hoped the environmental impact study and subsequent approvals would take about two years.

“And we’ve been at it ever since,” he said.

Now, Dobbs says the end of the permitting process is in sight and work could begin inside the mine’s exploratory adit, located 16 miles south of Libby, before the year is out. Company officials say it would take four to five years to develop and construct the mine, which could annually produce 7 million ounces of silver and 60 million pounds of copper. Dobbs predicts that when it’s fully operational, the mine could employ 350 people. That would be a welcomed boost to Lincoln County, an area plagued with the highest unemployment in the state.

But environmental advocates worry about the long-term effects of a mine located directly underneath the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness. Even some locals in Libby, a town with a complex mining history, wonder how the Montanore project could change the area.

“Look at this street and count how many empty buildings there are,” Sheri Brookshire said last week at Cardinal True Value Hardware on Mineral Avenue.

The empty storefronts in downtown Libby provide a grim picture of what the last 20 years have done to the town. When Brookshire began working at the hardware store 22 years ago, there were 13 employees; today there are only five. The store was so busy back then that it had to expand into another storefront, on the other side of a bar.

“I could stand at that cash register and not move all day,” said Brookshire, who is now the general manager.

In 1990, the W.R. Grace and Company closed its vermiculite mine. Later it was discovered that the asbestos produced from the mine had sickened thousands. Then in 2003, Stimson Lumber, Co. closed its mill in Libby, which employed almost 300 people. In December 2012, the unemployment rate in Lincoln County was 14.8 percent.

Mayor Doug Roll said the Montanore Mine could help the struggling economy, which is why he is a supporter of the project. According to Mines Management, 500 to 600 people would be employed during construction.

“There is no doubt about it, (the mine) would be an economic boon for the city of Libby,” Roll said.

Brookshire also supports it. She has a yellow sign in her storefront window that reads “We Support Montanore. Do You?” Along with signs supporting the local high school teams, the cardboard Montanore posters are popular at area businesses.

Indeed, there would be a lot more customers walking through the door if the mine opened. Brookshire says the only reason her store hasn’t closed is because “crap breaks.”

“The town wants it; I mean we have no industry and no jobs here,” she said.

Dobbs, who has worked in the mining industry since the 1970s, says Libby needs the mine and that there is “almost universal support,” at least locally.

Almost. Jim Costello is a member of Save Our Cabinets, a spinoff of the Rock Creek Alliance, an environmental group raising awareness about mining in the area, including Revett Minerals’ proposed Rock Creek Mine. Costello lives in nearby Sanders County and understands the region’s economic struggles but says a large mine could change the Cabinet Mountains for decades. He is especially worried about water.

“To just accept the environmental impacts as the price of doing business is unacceptable,” he said. “If it can’t be done right, then it shouldn’t be done at all.”

Costello said a large mining operation could dewater the headwaters of creeks, including Rock Creek and East Fork of the Bull River. He is also concerned about what would happen to the groundwater after the mine closes. Bonnie Gestring of Earthworks in Missoula agrees and said the mine would have “serious impacts, and lasting consequences” for the pristine Cabinet Mountain Wilderness.

But Eric Klepfer, a mine consultant working on the Montanore project, says Costello’s concerns are based on a conservative hydrology model and that some streams and rivers dewater naturally, depending on the season. Klepfer also said once the company begins to develop the mine, it could make adjustments to the hydrology models.

All of that will be disclosed in an extensive environmental impact statement due out this year. DEQ project coordinator Kristi Ponozzo and the U.S. Forest Service’s Lynn Hagarty have studied the mine’s potential effect on water, land and animals. The study includes input from various state and federal agencies and a draft version was released in 2009, followed by a supplemental draft in 2011. Dobbs is frustrated with how long it has taken to complete the assessment.

“This is clearly the most studied mine project in North America today,” he said. “We have data going back to 1988.”

Exploration for copper and silver deposits under the Cabinet Mountains began in the early 1980s by U.S. Borax, which leased a mining claim from the Heidelberg Silver Mining, Co. With an estimated 230 million ounces of silver and nearly 2 billion pounds of copper, it is one of the world’s largest deposits. In the late 1980s, Canadian-based Noranda Minerals Corp. purchased the claims and began to develop the site and seek mining permits. Noranda constructed a 14,000-foot exploration shaft, just outside of the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness.

Noranda stopped working on the project in 1991 because of weak mineral prices and blasting was releasing nitrates into Libby Creek. Although development stopped, the company continued to work on permitting the project. In 1995, the company closed the site and in 2002 abandoned the project, despite spending more than $100 million. Some of the state and federal permits expired that year as well. Mining claims reverted back to Heidelberg, which had since merged with Mines Management, based in Spokane.

In the mid-2000s, copper and silver prices began rebounding and Mines Management began to explore the project again with a wholly owned subsidiary, Montanore Minerals. In 2005, the company applied for new permits and to update existing ones. The Forest Service and DEQ started work on another environmental impact statement and a final version has yet to be released.

“This can be very frustrating, as you can imagine, because all the while, the company has been spending money,” Dobbs said, adding that his company has spent almost $50 million on the project.

But Ponozzo and Hagarty say it’s a complex project and cannot be rushed. Hagarty also said the agencies want to make sure the permits can withstand litigation.

“Shortcuts will not lead to a successful defense of a very complex decision that involves a wide range of environmental concerns and issues,” Hagarty wrote in an email to the Beacon.

Costello said his group will be watching for the final impact statement and hasn’t ruled out legal action. He said all of the information used by the government needs to be made available to the public.

“No one is asking our opinion and the only way we can have our voice heard is through public comment and legal action,” he said. “We don’t have a seat at the table.”

Costello said although opposition to the mine has been quiet in Libby, he believes people are aware of the potential environmental impacts. Even Brookshire says she worries about water quality and public health, especially after what Libby has gone through with W.R. Grace. However, she believes the mine would be a good thing for the community.

Einard Mattila, a sales associate at the store, agrees. He has lived in Libby for 40 years and has seen the local economy’s downward “spiral.”

“(The mine) will bring jobs here, that’ll bring families back and that has to be a good thing,” he said. “We’ve been through so much with the asbestos thing and so I don’t think anyone would turn a blind eye to the environment.”

This winter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing a terrestrial and fisheries biological opinion that could be finalized in the coming weeks and months, according to Ponozzo. Those assessments will be included in the final environmental study, to be released this fall, followed by a record of decision at the end of the year.

Dobbs believes the end is finally in sight. Once the record of decision is made and permits are issued, he says work could start inside the mine before the year is out.

“It will happen this year,” he said. “We have answered all of the questions that could be raised about this project.”

If that happens, the remote mine site near Libby Creek could soon become a busy place, with pumping operations beginning in earnest to clear the 14,000-foot mine adit of water. When Noranda abandoned the project and closed the shaft, it filled with groundwater and the lower 7,000 feet is still flooded. Once the shaft is clear, miners and contractors will start to extend the shaft by 3,000 feet to reach the copper and silver ore body. Work will also begin above ground on the processor.

Once permitted, full production could start in four to five years. Dobbs said the mine has an expected lifespan of 15 years, but additional exploration and development could extend that to 20 years.

“This project is going to be permitted, this project is going to be built and it will be mined,” he said.

Driving slowly down the 18-by-18 foot tunnel, Dobbs talks about all the things that need to be completed in the coming months and years. At 69 years old, he says he hopes he lives long enough to see the mine in full production.

After awhile, the car is parked and the group gets out on foot. At 7,100 feet from the surface, the Montanore Mine is silent.

“Every time I come down here, I feel a sense of urgency. Here it is, ready and waiting,” Dobbs said, standing in the dark. “Let’s get it going.”

Some are familiar with the feelings of loneliness and depression that can come to them if they don’t find that special someone to share the day, but few consider the global impact of this consumer driven holiday.

Chocolate

One of the first things about this holiday that should leave a bad taste in your mouth is where the candies in that heart shaped box really come from. The Valentine’s staple chocolate is one of the most unethically harvested commodities on the market today. Half of the world’s cocoa supply is from Ghana and Ivory Coast where children and adults are forced into labor. According to a 2011 report from Tulane University, over 800,000 children in Cote d’Ivoire and almost 100,000 children in Ghana work in the cocoa harvesting industry. But only 5 to 10 percent work for pay. It’s hard to comprehend the romantic appeal of receiving the product of child slave labor.

Roses

The quintessential red rose bouquet doesn’t occur anywhere in nature. To meet the unnatural demand for these flowers, florist’s in the United States import flowers from South America. According to a 2012 article from International Business Time, 90 percent of the roses sold on Valentines Day are imported from Columbia and Ecuador. Not only does this all come with an enormous carbon footprint, workers in these South American flower factories, who are mainly female, suffer long hours and low wages as well as sexual harassment from their male bosses. Next time you try to score points on Valentine’s Day with a bouquet, you might want to think about the greenhouse workers who harvested, cut and de-thorned those roses while risking stress injury and exposure to dangerous pesticides. Not to mention the fact that those romantic red roses will wither and die in a couple of days anyway and your significant other will probably forget about them in a few weeks.

The future looks dim as well, since profit is the main motive and companies will only try to make more money each year by continuing to exploit people’s emotions and push Valentine’s Day into new markets. Countries like Iran and Malaysia lament the rise of Valentine’s Day’s popularity, as it imports western values and ingrains the empty and frivolous holiday into their society.

Jewelry

A 2013 report from the National Retail Federation (NRF) states that “total spending on jewelry is expected to reach $4.1 billion, up from $3.5 billion last year.” While the NRF celebrates these facts and many would see this as another boost to our economy, few consumers consider the source of their luxury items.

According to a 2004 report from Amnesty International, only 13 percent of retail stores in the U.S. offered warranties to their customers to ensure that they not purchasing conflict diamonds. While it’s lamentable that this billion dollar industry fails to regulate itself in the pursuit of mass profit, the real tragedy is the fact that most consumers do not even attempt to seek information about where the diamonds are coming from, much less take action and demand that companies stop the practice of purchasing and selling blood diamonds. Amnesty also estimated 3.7 million people have died as a result of conflicts, funded by diamonds in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone. Sadly, diamonds continue to flood the international market, mined from war-torn areas of West Africa, but the average consumer’s concern when buying diamonds is whether or not they are going to get laid because of it, after all every “kiss begins with Kay.”

However, the problem is not only with the diamonds. The demand for gold jewelry contributes to destructive mining practices.

According to a 2012 report from Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada, an estimated 180 million tons of hazardous mining waste are dumped each year into our oceans, rivers and streams. In addition to poisoning our earth’s most precious resource, mining is also hazardous for workers and accounts for3 percent work-related deaths globally. Its imperative to remember that mines also use an enormous amount of electricity and water to operate and thus destroy wildlife habitats, and displaces communities.

In all fairness, Valentine’s Day should not be the scape goat. Rather, our consumerist and materialistic tendencies needs to be carefully examined and truly challenged. If we continue to express our romance to each other with meaningless gifts and disregard the global impact of our cultural imperialism and purchasing decisions, we violate the true nature of love by disrespecting other cultures, destroying our planet and oppressing the powerless in our world.

We told you this invite-only civil disobedience demonstration was coming a couple of weeks ago. It’s news in that Obama’s liberal base is increasingly ticked off at him about his inaction on climate change. (And it was the first time in its history that the Sierra Club OK’d nonviolent civil disobedience as an organization.)

And yes, while Obama launched more climate change promises in Tuesday’s State of the Union speech, a lot of enviros want to see Obama’s actions back up his words. And they’re taking a stand on the pipeline.

UPDATE No. 1:
Just spoke with Werbach, the former Sierra Club leader, about protesting outside the White House after being involved in so many meetings inside over several Administrations. (He called after being released after his arrest for refusal to obey a lawful order, a $100 infraction.) It was his first arrest and as he pointed out, his fellow demonstrators “aren’t a bunch of radicals.”

“I’ve been working on these issues since 1990 and nothing has changed. Something had to be done,” said Werbach, who will remain in D.C. for Sunday’s protest. “Our message wasn’t just to the President, but to the Congress and the American people.”

UPDATE No. 2:
Brune, who will speak at a major climate change rally Sunday in DC, told me that demonstrating against an Administration that he generally supports “was like telling someone in your family that you love them but you wish they would do something different.”

Brune felt that Obama’s State of the Union comments were “sincere” about climate change and that he was “cautiously optimistic” that Obama would not approve the Keystone Pipeline. After talking up climate change in his second inaugural address and the SOTU and investing a lot of resources in his Organizing for Action (which lists climate change as a priority), “he can’t approve it now. It wouldn’t make sense.”

This crew included a lot of folks who have never been arrested before. Other Californians collared after being unshackled from the East Gate of the White House include Danny Kennedy, founder of the Oakland solar power firm Sungevity, Berkeley’s Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks; Michael Kieschnick, president and co-founder of San Francisco’s Credo Mobile; Andre Carothers, board chair of San Francisco’s Rainforest Action Network; Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of Oakland’s Green for All and Ellie Cohen, President and CEO of PRBO Conservation Science in Petaluma.

Other headline protesters will be actress Daryl “Splash” Hannah and author and activist Bill McKibben, of 350.org, the climate change-focused enviro group that put this together and has a lot of organizational roots in the Bay Area.

As such things go with a choreographed protest like this, Kieschnick was ready with a post-arrest statement:

“As a CEO my job is to make tough decisions ignoring special interests and taking the path that is best for all. President Obama’s decision on Keystone should be easy if he ignores the conventional wisdom that he can trade something else and tune out the legions of lobbyists spreading lies about the consequences.”

On Sunday there will be a mass demonstration in Washington — and here in San Francisco — on the same topic. The details are here. The DC gig is expected to be the largest climate change demonstration ever, featuring tens of thousands of folks.

The challenged Ordinance, passed in July 2012, prohibits oil and gas surface activities from occurring near homes, schools and hospitals, and places mandatory setbacks from these and other facilities, as well as from waterways and parks. The Ordinance also requires disclosure to emergency responders of hazardous chemicals transported through the City and consultation with local wildlife experts before operations begin.

“Recent research shows that oil and gas development risks the health of those living nearby,” said Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project Director Bruce Baizel. He continued, “Longmont’s Ordinance is necessary to protect the public’s health because it fills a regulatory void. It is ironic that COGCC is suing to overturn the Ordinance because the void it fills was left by the COGCC’s failure to set and enforce adequate rules governing oil and gas development.”

Over the past decade Colorado has experienced a historic boom in oil and gas drilling. Colorado currently has more than 50,000 active oil and gas wells covering much of the state’s landscape. Across Colorado’s northern plains, oil and gas companies are increasingly operating not only in sparsely populated areas, but also in towns and suburbs.

This growing trend of drilling near homes and schools prompted the City of Longmont, located 37 miles north of Denver and on the western edge of Colorado’s most productive oil and gas field, to update its land use rules to prohibit certain surface activities in residential areas.

The new rules immediately came under legal attack by the State of Colorado calling into question the City’s authority to protect its own citizens from the adverse effects of oil and gas development.

“We believe this is the first time a State has initiated a lawsuit against a local government regarding oil and gas regulation,” said Eric Huber, Senior Managing Attorney for the
Sierra Club Environmental Law Program. “This action by the State government only proves that decision-making by our representatives is not always done with people in mind. If Longmont wants to prevent certain dirty and dangerous practices from energy companies from happening, then that should be their right.”

“It is imperative that Colorado communities have the ability to protect their citizens from the many harmful impacts from oil and gas mining operations,” said Shane Davis, Longmont resident and Sierra Club chapter member. “The industry has operated largely without meaningful and safe regulations and we must not let that happen any longer.”

In the lawsuit, Earthworks and Sierra Club also plan to defend Longmont’s new hazardous materials disclosure rule for chemicals transported on Longmont’s roadways, as well as the city’s new wildlife habitat and species protection rule, as they do not conflict with state law.

The State and oil industry may oppose the environmental groups’ intervention, although the Boulder County court previously allowed the industry association COGA to intervene. Attorneys for the environmental groups expect a ruling from the court in about 30 days, and the case to proceed to a decision on the merits of the State’s claims later this spring.

This lawsuit could have a precedential effect on other Colorado communities working to pass similar local regulations to protect the health and environment of residents across the state from the threats of rampant oil and gas development.  

For more information on Sierra Club’s efforts to protect communities from harmful oil and gas operations go to http://content.sierraclub.org/naturalgas ; and to http://rmc.sierraclub.org/ ; and for Earthworks see http://fracking.earthworksaction.org.

February 13, 2013, WASHINGTON, DC: Over 90 of the world’s leading jewelry retailers, including 8 of the top 10 US retailers, have committed to more responsible metals sourcing by signing the No Dirty Gold campaign’s Golden Rules. However, Macy’s Inc., the fifth largest jewelry seller in the US, lags behind and has yet to meaningfully commit to cleaning up its gold supply chain. The campaign’s Facebook-based Valentine’s Day card urges Macy’s to dump dirty gold, and has been widely viewed and shared.

“Dirty gold is no way to show your love on Valentine’s Day,” said Payal Sampat of Earthworks’ No Dirty Gold campaign. “Macy’s customers need to know that the gold jewelry they are buying is not produced at the cost of clean water or children’s health.”

Gold mining is one of the world’s most destructive industries, and has been linked to human rights abuses, perpetual water pollution, destroyed wildlands, and long-term health impacts. Producing a single gold ring leaves behind 20 tons of mine waste, on average. EPA data shows that metal mining is the largest toxic polluter in the United States.

While the jewelry industry is not driving the earth-moving equipment at minesites, it is driving demand for gold; jewelry demand accounts for more than 70 percent of newly mined gold.

The world’s largest jewelry retailers including Tiffany & Co., Target, and Zales have all committed to steps to clean up irresponsible gold mining. These include studying their metals supply chains, revising their supplier sourcing criteria to include the Golden Rules, increasing recycled gold content, and seeking more responsibly produced metals.

The Valentine’s Day card circulating on Facebook reads: “Roses are red, Cyanide is Blue, Dirty Gold is no way to say I love you,” and leads viewers to an action alert urging Macy's to clean up its gold supply chain.

Macy's remains one of the last major jewelry retailers that has yet 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, ringing up $1.6 billion in jewelry sales in 2011.

-- ENDS --

But we do know that both the state and federal regulatory regimes are not equipped to cope with the boom. Loopholes in federal law and lack of enforcement of state law mean oil and gas companies are largely self-regulating, accountable only to themselves.

We also know that recent scientific studies show that living near oil and gas development exposes residents to toxic air pollution, and is associated with negative health impacts.

And  we now know that oil and gas companies are the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, so that continuing on a path of drilling at any cost will have devastating impacts on our planet.

Therefore, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee must examine very closely policies supporting the export of natural gas to foreign countries. Before diving headlong into the natural gas export business, we must weigh the significant threats to public health, air, and water quality posed by the industry’s wastes, damages to landscapes and communities, and the significant greenhouse gas emissions from this industry. 

Instead of fast tracking natural gas exports, the public deserves a transparent and thorough environmental impact statement (EIS).  Only an EIS will document the adverse effects increased domestic drilling to meet foreign demand may create for American citizens living in the path of industry expansion. And an EIS should also require a much-needed reexamination of the economic impacts that will undoubtedly come from the increased natural gas prices such foreign demand will bring.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - More than 80 organizations from 12 states and a New York State Senator today called on the inspector general of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to investigate a decision to drop legal action against a drilling company despite evidence that it had polluted residents’ well water near Fort Worth, Texas.

The organizations sent a letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., asking him to broaden an ongoing investigation of a case that made national news last year when the EPA dropped an enforcement action against Range Resources Ltd. after earlier invoking rare emergency authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. New York State Senator Tony Avella is sending a similar letter later today. Elkins began investigating the case after six U.S. senators asked him last June to determine whether EPA had followed proper procedures.

Associated Press and other news outlets have recently brought new information to light that raises additional questions about EPA’s commitment to protecting the public.

The case began in 2010 when EPA found that Range’s natural gas drilling near Forth Worth had “caused or contributed” to pollution of residents’ well water with benzene and dangerous levels of methane. The agency issued an emergency order requiring Range to provide drinking water to two families and to install meters in their homes to monitor explosion risks, among other actions.

The drilling industry and other critics charged that EPA’s decision to drop the case was proof that it had “rushed to judgment” and that Range had not polluted the families’ water. EPA did not explain its decision, issuing only a two-sentence statement describing its withdrawal as an opportunity to work with Range to make drilling safer. The EPA also withdrew the requirement that Range provide the families with drinking water.

Last month (January 2013), the Associated Press reported that the EPA made its decision even though a 2011 report it commissioned from an independent scientist had strongly suggested that one of Range’s natural gas wells was the source of the water contamination. EPA did not mention that report when it announced its reversal.

The joint letter calls on the inspector general to investigate why the EPA did not mention the scientist’s analysis, whether the EPA had a scientific basis for dropping the case against Range and whether the EPA had responded to political pressure, including recently-disclosed communications from Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

“We fear that the EPA has failed in its duty to protect people’s health,” said Paul Gallay, President of New York-based Riverkeeper. “As a critical decision about fracking looms in New York state, we are left wondering what science and data have been kept secret from our experts and decision makers. All eyes are on Governor Cuomo to protect New Yorkers, and we urge him to take a step back and see what other information is hidden that could prevent an informed decision.”

“Range Resources went behind-closed-doors and solicited special favors rather than be a good neighbor to homeowners whose drinking water was polluted by Range’s drilling,” said Earthworks Energy Program Director Bruce Baizel. He continued, “The fact they were successful calls into question all public oversight of oil and gas development.”

“EPA’s inexplicable decision to drop the case adds to a growing concern that drilling regulation is woefully inadequate even as drillers push into more populated areas from New York to California,” said EWG Senior Counsel Dusty Horwitt. “The public must have confidence that the EPA is acting to protect our health and drinking water, not corporate profits.”

Associated Press reported that Steven Lipsky, whose family EPA identified as having been affected by the contamination, can light his well water on fire and now pays $1,000 a month to have water delivered.

###

Joint release: Clean Water Action Texas * Earthworks * Environment Texas * Environmental Working Group * GASLAND * Public Citizen Texas * Texas Drought Project

Feb 7, Fort Worth - Conservation and citizen groups from Texas and around the country today sent a letter calling on EPA Region 6 Administrator Ron Curry to resume legal action against Range Resources for polluting the drinking water of homeowners near its operations in Weatherford, Texas. The letter also calls upon the EPA to require the company to immediately supply clean drinking water to homeowners whose wells were polluted during the company’s drilling, to publicly post all existing tests related to the matter, and to resume testing to ensure that Range Resources acts to remedy the situation.

In 2010, EPA invoked its rarely used emergency authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act, to require Range to provide drinking water to two families, install meters in their homes to measure for explosion risks and perform other actions.   

This video is of gas venting from Steven Lipsky's water well, one of the affected landowners

When EPA dropped its case last year, the drilling industry and others characterized the decision as proof that the agency had acted without scientific integrity and that Range had not polluted the families’ water.  EPA did not explain its decision, which included withdrawal of the requirement that Range provide the families with drinking water.

Yet, as the Associated Press reported last month, EPA commissioned a report by an independent scientist in 2011 that strongly suggests that one of Range’s natural gas wells was the source of the water contamination.  And Tuesday, EnergyWire reported that, on Range Resources’ behalf, former Pennsylvania Governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Rendell had pressured EPA to withdraw its action, which the agency did, despite pleas from regional staff.

“Based on strong scientific evidence, multiple EPA staff called for immediate action to protect homeowners from Range Resources drilling pollution,” said Earthworks’ Energy Director Bruce Baizel.  He continued, “To discover that EPA retreated from protecting the health and safety of homeowners because of political lobbying calls into question all public oversight of oil and gas development. If the federal government can’t withstand political pressure from the oil and gas industry, how can we expect state and local officials to do the job?”

“EPA told me Range Resources polluted our well with their drilling,” said Steven Lipsky, one of the affected landowners. He continued, “I was shocked when they withdrew. That’s the kind of behavior I expect from the Texas Railroad Commission, not the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

"If industry is so powerful that it can dictate to the E.P.A., then who is left to protect the people?," asked Alyssa Burgin of the Texas Drought Project. She continued, "The protection of our water supply should be at the fore of the agency's responsibilities, without outside influence, industry interference or regulatory capture."

--END--

A meeting of 25 environmentally themed groups, the department’s oil and gas division and the state Department of Health’s Bureau of Laboratories had been set for Jan. 24 after the disclosure last November that department scientists had omitted data on some toxic metals found in water taken from a site in southwestern Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 22, the department informed the groups that the meeting was being deferred until an unspecified date, according to Iris Marie Bloom, director of Protecting Our Waters, a group based in Philadelphia that had planned to take part.

On Tuesday, the environmental groups issued a statement urging the Department of Environmental Protection to be more transparent about its testing procedures. “The D.E.P. seems more interested in protecting its own information than protecting the environment,” Nadia Steinzor of the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, one of the groups that was due to meet DEP officials, was quoted as saying.

A spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, Kevin Sunday, said the agency put off the meeting because it objected to a statement issued by one of the environmental groups, Marcellus Shale Protest, that it planned a “takedown” of Michael Krancer, the department’s secretary, at a public meeting in Harrisburg, Pa.

“That language and that reference is unacceptable in the forum of civil public discourse and dialogue,” Mr. Sunday wrote in an e-mail. “We are working with the remainder of the invitees to reschedule the meeting.”

Mr. Sunday said that Mr. Krancer had been “very transparent” on the subject of water testing and oil and gas investigations in recent months.

Concern that the department had reported only partial results from water tests surfaced after Taru Upadhyay, technical director of the Bureau of Laboratories, testified last September in a legal deposition that her office had reported on the presence of only eight of 24 metals it tested for in one set of water samples.

The samples were taken from a water well owned by a resident who is suing the gas driller Range Resources and more than a dozen of its contractors, asserting that their activities had contaminated his water with the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

The resident, Loren Kiskadden, and six other plaintiffs who live near a Range gas site in Washington County, Pa. say they have suffered from nausea, breathing difficulties, bone pain and other health complaints because of their exposure to fracking chemicals.

Among the metals detected but not reported in Mr. Kiskadden’s water were copper, nickel, zinc and titanium, all of which may be hazardous to human health, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Ms. Upadhyay said she had omitted some metals from her test report because they had not been requested by the Department of Environmental Protection’s oil and gas division. In early November, Mr. Sunday said that some metals were excluded from the test report because officials wanted to see only those deemed relevant to determining whether drinking water was being contaminated by gas drilling and production in the Marcellus Shale.

In the e-mailed statement on Tuesday, the environmental groups asked the agency to explain why landowners are not routinely provided with quality-control measures and to clarify when and how certain testing protocols are used.

They also called on the department to specify its criteria for determining whether water contamination was caused by natural gas development.

Environmental activists have been fighting the spreading use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, insisting that the process could cause water contamination, a claim the energy industry has vehemently denied.

Now there might finally be a real test of the real consequences of fracking, as Dow Jones Newswires reports, Chesapeake Energy Corp. has agreed to let the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency thoroughly test the safety of its drilling practices.

Studying the boom
The EPA is already in the midst of a major study on the environmental ramifications of fracking.

The report was ordered by Congress and intended to be a definitive statement on the prospects for the new approach to drilling. Scheduled for final publication late next year, the agency has already released a 275-page report on the research so far.

Surprisingly enough, according to The Wall Street Journal, the EPA has so far managed to win some modest praise from both environmentalists and the energy industry, including intensive research alongside numerous simulations about the possibility for water contamination.

Not everyone agreed, however, as environmental group Earthworks pointed to the lack of on-site water testing as a fatal flaw in the study.

"Computer simulations are not enough," Alan Septoff, a spokesman for Earthworks, said.

First for fracking
Given the importance some advocates have put on gathering data firsthand, the decision by Chesapeake to participate in the EPA study could go a long way to legitimize the reports results.

"The value of these tests is that they are really the first independent review of what's happening from start to finish. It is a data set that doesn't really exist right now," Briana Mordick, a scientist for the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Newswires.

To collect this crucial data, researchers from the EPA will visit sites scheduled for drilling in advance and run a variety of tests on the water in the area, establishing baseline levels for a variety of chemicals. Many energy companies already go through much the same process, but primarily only to protect themselves in the case of legal action later.

Later on, once the wells have been drilled, the researchers will come back and test water in the area again, keeping a careful tab on any changes and in particular looking for the presence of certain toxic chemicals.

As it stands, Chesapeake is the only company to agree to the EPA study, but as the second-largest gas producer in the country that should already provide a reasonable test. However, another major player in shale gas, Range Resources, is also hoping to take part, with the two sides only working out liability for the researchers while on site.

Skepticism and frustration
Despite some optimism about the prospects of this new study, some experts questions whether the results will ultimately prove representative.

"If a company knows they're being followed closely, they're going to be very, very careful," said Glenn Miller, a professor of environmental science at the University of Nevada Reno.

At the same, some environmental advocates are angered that the EPA chose to pursue a partnership with Range Resources rather than continue litigating a case in Texas where the company was accused of contaminating water wells in an area west of Fort Worth, according to The Associated Press. In particular, many cried foul after the agency set aside a report strongly linking the contamination with the company's gas wells.

Still, while there have been a number of incidents that have been blamed on fracking, the broader risks for the new technology remain highly unclear - something this new report could help resolve.

But there's another technology that is just as responsible for drilling booms happening across the country: horizontal drilling.

Environmental Consequences

Horizontal drilling and fracking have been combined in recent years to make previously unprofitable deposits profitable.

Much of the oil and natural gas that drillers are after these days is sandwiched deep underground in layers of rock.

"A vertical well going through a hundred-foot-thick gas shale, like the Marcellus, contacts that formation for a hundred feet," says Terry Engelder, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.

That means a driller would be able to extract oil or gas from only that 100-foot section. But with horizontal drilling, Engelder says, the drill bit makes a turn and extends the well out — horizontally — through that layer of petroleum-rich shale. Instead of extracting gas from only a 100-foot section, now a driller can extract it from a section that extends a mile or more.

Combining both technologies has turned once sleepy communities into industrial zones in states such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. The environmental consequences spawned a new protest movement. It's showing up in your movie theater in the recent film Promised Land and the 2010 film Gasland.

This past summer Yoko Ono and her son, Sean Lennon, sang their fracking protest song "Don't Frack My Mother" on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon.

Ono held a globe labeled "Mother Earth" as her son sang about the dangers of fracking, but they never mention horizontal drilling.

'Naughty Connotation'

While you won't hear about horizontal drilling in a song or see it on a bumper sticker, it's just as responsible as fracking for changing rural landscapes. So why all the focus on fracking?

Chris Tucker of Energy in Depth, a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, suspects the reason fracking has taken off — especially among the industry's opponents — is the word itself.

"It starts with F, ends in C-K," he says. "It sort of has this naughty connotation to it."

Tucker says fracking has been distilled down to a curse word, "and that's important for press releases and bumper stickers and everything else. Horizontal drilling hasn't been distilled that way."

This focus on fracking and not horizontal drilling has surprised even some of the petroleum industry's critics.

"In our organization we talked about fracking maybe eight years ago," says Bruce Baizel, with Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project. "I never would have predicted that it would have become the catchall term."

Fracking has evolved to mean more than just hydraulic fracturing. Baizel says people now use it to refer to just about anything to do with producing oil and gas.

"It means either drilling or ... hydraulic fracturing or it means the truck that ran off the road and spilled whatever the waste was it was hauling away from the well site," Baizel says.

Groups like Baizel's that regularly go up against huge oil companies have embraced this expanded definition of fracking. Oil and gas drilling employs complicated technology that can be difficult to explain to the general public. But with one common word — especially one like fracking that just sounds bad — it's easier to rally opposition.

The rise in releases is mainly from increases in land disposal at metal mines, where small changes in the composition of the ore being mined can lead to big changes in the amount of toxic chemicals reported nationally, EPA said. Smaller increases in releases occurred in the hazardous waste management sector.

Following a long-term decline in toxic releases, 2011 is the second year in a row in which EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, which collects data on toxic chemicals produced and used at industrial facilities nationwide, has recorded an increase in total on- and off-site disposal or other releases (36 CRR 29, 1/9/12).

Other factors that can affect trends in disposal or other releases of toxics include changes in production, changes in management practices at facilities, and installation of control techniques, EPA said in its 2011 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis.

Metal Mining Tops Industry Releases

Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, covered industries are required to report by July 1 each year on releases of certain chemicals into air, water, and land. EPA usually updates the data set through quality checks over several months before releasing its annual analysis, which marks trends in national and local toxic releases and trends in chemicals managed by TRI facilities and examines certain chemicals of interest, industry sectors, parent companies, and geographic areas.

The 2011 data set included information on about 511 chemicals, 16 of which were reported to TRI for the first time (34 CRR 1145, 11/29/10).

The number of facilities reporting to TRI has decreased by 1 percent since 2010.

Of the 26 industries that must report to TRI, nearly half of 2011's total toxic releases originated from mining of metals like copper, lead, and gold, according to the analysis. Metal mining, which typically accounts for the largest share of toxics reported by industries, grew to 46 percent of total releases in 2011.

The data should prompt EPA to issue financial assurance requirements for the metal mining industry, as required by a 2009 court order, Alan Septoff, a spokesman for Earthworks, said in a statement.

“Billions of pounds of pollution requires billions of dollars to clean up,” Septoff said. “If the EPA doesn't act soon to require cleanup bonds, taxpayers could be paying the cleanup bill instead of the polluting mining companies. Meanwhile, our nation's rivers, streams, air and land remain at risk.”

Air Releases Continue to Decline

The 2011 analysis shows that the majority of toxics, 2.44 billion pounds, were released or disposed of on-site to land.

From 2010 to 2011, land releases saw the biggest year-to-year change as a percentage of total releases, climbing by 4 percentage points. The growth in land disposal could be attributed to increased metal mining production, waste rock disposal, and changes in the composition of waste rock in recent years, the analysis said.

Total air releases declined 8 percent from 2010, continuing a downward trend that has reduced toxics in the air by 788 million pounds since 2003, the analysis said. The drop was primarily a result of reductions in hazardous air pollution emissions by electric utilities, EPA said.

“Likely reasons for the decreases include a shift from coal to other fuel sources and installation of control technologies at coal-fired power plants,” the analysis said.

About 220 million pounds of toxics were released or disposed into water, a 4 percent decrease from 2010.

Analysis Highlights Pollution Prevention

In line with EPA's recent spotlight on pollution prevention under TRI, the 2011 analysis featured an expanded discussion of waste managed by facilities (36 CRR 1257, 11/26/12).

Total production-related waste managed, which includes total toxic chemical releases as well as amounts recycled, combusted for energy recovery, and treated on- and off-site, increased to 22.77 billion pounds in 2011, a 4 percent rise from 2010.

Over the past decade, however, total waste managed has dropped by about 17 percent, a possible indication of successful source reduction.

JOINT RELEASE

Harrisburg, PA – Mystery, questions and concern continue to surround Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) water testing and reporting policies related to suspected impacts from Marcellus Shale natural gas operations. These issues were originally revealed in the Kiskadden vs. PADEP deposition of Taru Upadhyay, technical director of DEP’s Bureau of Laboratories—and described widely in subsequent news stories regarding the use of suite codes, which result in only partial test results being sent to homeowners.

“Where gas development goes, problems follow. Yet the DEP seems more interested in protecting its own information than protecting the environment," says Nadia Steinzor, Eastern Program Coordinator, Earthworks' Oil & Gas Accountability Project. "DEP should stop playing hide and seek and start giving the public better water and air tests, complete results, and honest answers."

"We've worked with and supplied clean water to desperate and impacted people begging DEP for more and better information about their water. By not giving these people full information, PA DEP is violating communities' right to know, behaving with shocking arrogance, and endangering public health," said Iris Marie Bloom, Director, Protecting Our Waters. 

In November, 25 organizations sent a letter to Governor Tom Corbett and Secretary Michael Krancer criticizing the PA DEP’s water testing and notification policies as outdated, lacking transparency, and inadequate to protect residents and drinking water from pollution caused by gas drilling. The groups called for immediate action to be taken to reform PA DEP’s procedures and to disclose all data collected through DEP water tests but only partially reported to households where the testing occurred.

Following Secretary Krancer’s reply to the letter, a meeting to discuss these issues was scheduled for January 24th between representatives of the signatory organizations and the PA DEP’s Oil and Gas Division and Bureau of Laboratories. However, DEP abruptly cancelled the meeting. “Our organizations were optimistic about the opportunity to finally get answers that we and the public are seeking regarding this important public health issue,” said Steve Hvozdovich, Marcellus Shale Policy Associate, Clean Water Action. “We are extremely disappointed with the cancellation, particularly because the meeting was arranged at their suggestion.”

“Residents who are in the dark about their well water quality need answers and as advocates, we are determined to find out what’s really going on. DEP’s offer to meet seemed to represent a willingness to begin to address these issues, now that is called into question,” said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

 “It has been two and a half months since we sent our letter to the governor and it appears that we are no closer to getting answers to our questions,” said Karen Feridun, Founder, Berks Gas Truth. “Pennsylvania has over 1,000,000 private water wells, more than any state except Michigan. How long do the millions of Pennsylvanians in the drilling region who rely on those wells have to wait for transparency from Secretary Krancer’s DEP?”

In light of PA DEP’s actions, the signatories scheduled to participate in the meeting sent a letter (see attachment) to Secretary Krancer, expressing dissatisfaction with PA DEP’s decision and outlining a list of pressing questions to which the public needs answers. Some the questions we hoped to have addressed during our meeting with PA DEP include:

• Why are landowners not routinely provided with the quality control/quality assurance measures used by DEP laboratories to process samples and a full report of the raw data and findings from DEP samples? 
• When are the various Suite Codes applied (i.e., 942, 944, and 946, as well as any others related to oil and gas development)? Does DEP have an established protocol for which code to apply? How many were there where only partial results were shared with the homeowner?
• What is the DEP protocol for re-sampling and/or using third-party test data (such as gas operator sampling results) in investigations prompted by a request for determination of contamination of a private water supply by oil and gas activities?
• To what degree does DEP use emerging knowledge about contaminants associated with oil and gas operations to determine its testing parameters? For example, DEP’s list of “Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Process in Pennsylvania Prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Oil and Gas Management” includes dozens of contaminants.
• What criteria in the test results would lead DEP to determine that water contamination was caused by natural gas drilling? Why would DEP state in letters to homeowners that “The sample results of samples taken by the Department did not show any evidence that your water was affected by oil and gas drilling activities,” even if results indicate elevated levels of such substances such as chloride, barium, strontium, methane, ethane, and propane?

“There is a rig 1000 ft from my house that is readying to drill 4 horizontal wells. I used a TDS meter this morning to get a baseline normal reading because I am anxious about my drinking water,” said Rebecca Roter, Coordinator, Cross County Citizens Clean Air Coalition. “I ask that Secretary Krancer exercise humanity by providing transparency in water testing protocol and reporting of data in cases of suspected drinking water contamination from shale extraction activities. I ask that he continue dialogue with us in good faith about PA DEP's water testing and reporting procedures for drinking water in PA's gasfields."

"Drinking water to support life is vital, not optional, and the sanctity thereof is being violated liberally,” said Julie Ann Edgar, Organizer, Lehigh Valley Gas Truth. “All concerned organizations fully expect to see a significant increase in transparency and responsive cooperation on the part of PA DEP. PA DEP and Secretary Krancer's job includes stewardship of the commons in perpetuity, not "getting gas done" by withholding vital information from the public.”
“We believe access to clean drinking water should be a right, not a privilege, and we need answers from the DEP about why their water testing and reporting appears to be missing critical data for homeowners,” said Erika Staaf, clean water advocate with PennEnvironment. “We hope the DEP will change its mind meet with our organizations so we can find answers to these important questions for our members and residents across Pennsylvania.”

 “Our organizations have a long history of interacting with PA DEP and PA DEP Secretaries from both Republican and Democratic administrations and we remain ready to meet immediately on this pressing issue,” said Melissa Troutman, Outreach Coordinator, Mountain Watershed Association.  DEP representatives originally expressed their intention to the group to reschedule the meeting but after 10 days no new dates have been offered.  The representatives of the signatories of the letter are open and eager to meet. The organizations also intend to follow up with members of the General Assembly and the Auditor General who have been investigating the problems with DEP water testing policies.

####

CASPER, WY – In an effort to help protect the public from exposure to toxic chemicals, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks and Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch) went to court today to ask a judge to require the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) to disclose information about chemicals used during the controversial oil and gas development process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Under regulations approved in 2010, Wyoming became the first state in the nation to require well operators to disclose the identities of chemicals that are mixed with water and injected into the ground during fracking. But since the regulations were adopted, the Commission has approved some 50 secrecy requests, shielding identifying information about over 190 different chemicals, by Halliburton and other oil and gas service companies.

Attorneys with the public interest environmental law organization Earthjustice argued the case today in Natrona County District Court for the State of Wyoming, asking a judge to rule whether WOGCC acted illegally in granting the trade secrets requests and arguing that companies must reveal the identities of chemicals used during fracking.

The case could set a broad legal precedent – as the states of Texas, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Montana, and Michigan all have fracking chemical disclosure regulations similar to Wyoming’s on the books.

The following is a statement from the groups involved in the case:
“We went to court today because the public has a right to know what chemicals are being transported, stored, and injected underground during fracking. Some of these chemicals can be harmful enough to be associated with cancer, nerve damage, and other public health concerns. We appreciate Wyoming’s leadership in making more of this information available. But without a complete list of fracking chemicals, it’s much more difficult for residents to determine whether their drinking water has been contaminated by oil and gas development. We are arguing that protecting public health should be the state’s priority. We hope the court agrees.”

A report yesterday (1/16) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency withdrew action against a natural gas company despite evidence that its drilling operations had contaminated drinking water in Texas raises alarming questions about the industry’s influence and the agency’s commitment to protecting public health and the environment.

According to an investigation by Ramit Plushnick-Masti of the Associated Press, the EPA dropped legal action against Range Resources Corp. even though an independent study strongly suggested that Range’s drilling operations contaminated a nearby water well.  The study was conducted by scientist Geoffrey Thyne and commissioned by the EPA.

“If people can’t trust the Environmental Protection Agency to protect communities and the environment, who can they?” asked Earthworks’ Bruce Baizel. He continued, “Not the states, they leave uninspected more than 50 percent of oil and gas wells each year. So long as the public cannot rely on regulators to defend the public interest from drillers, public opposition to drilling will continue to grow.”

EWG’s Dusty Horwitt added, “From Texas to New York to California, regulators at the federal and state level have shown that they are all too willing to overlook serious drilling risks. What is even more troubling about this case is that EPA has allowed the drilling industry to criticize its scientific integrity when, all along, EPA officials had evidence of real drilling pollution. At the very least, these facts make it clear further investigation is needed, not only of Range’s activities, but also of EPA’s motivations.”

—30—

Jan 6th, Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified the metal mining industry as the nation’s largest toxic polluter. The metal mining industry reported the release of 1.9 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in 2011, according to EPA’s annual Toxics Release Inventory, or 46% of all reported toxics.

“Billions of pounds of pollution requires billions of dollars to clean up,” said Earthworks’ Strategic Communications Director Alan Septoff. He continued, “If the EPA doesn’t act soon to require cleanup bonds, taxpayers could be paying the cleanup bill instead of the polluting mining companies. Meanwhile, our nation’s rivers, streams, air and land remain at risk.”

The EPA was court-ordered in 2009 to issue financial assurance requirements for the metal mining industry to protect taxpayers against clean-up costs under its CERCLA authority. Yet, the EPA has recently postponed the draft rule release date until 2014. Financial assurance is intended to guarantee that mining companies provide funding up front to demonstrate that mine clean-up will occur if the company is unable or unwilling to do so. Some states don’t require adequate, or any, financial assurance (aka bonds) for mine reclamation and closure.

“Idaho’s Lucky Friday mine reported 17 million pounds of toxic releases in 2011 and will require long-term water treatment when it closes,” said Earthworks’ Northwest Circuit Rider Bonnie Gestring. She continued, “Idaho doesn’t require a bond for underground mines, so taxpayers could be on the hook for more than $100 million in mine clean-up costs at this mine alone.” Hecla, the mining company behind the Lucky Friday mine, has previously experienced financial problems.*

The metal mining industry has been the nation’s largest toxic polluter every year since it was required to report its releases to the TRI in 1997. The metal mining industry accounts for the vast majority of toxic releases, such as:

• arsenic - 334 million pounds or 97% of all releases,
• lead – 724 million pounds or  93% of all releases, and
• mercury – 5 million pounds or 93% of all releases, among others.

Over 500 mines are listed in the EPA’s CERCLA program, and the EPA estimates the current liability to taxpayers at $50 billion.

“What’s fair is fair,” said Bonnie Gestring Earthwork’s northwest circuit rider. She continued, “Taxpayers should not be shouldering the cost of mine clean-up.  We need these rules to hold mining companies accountable for their own pollution.

-- ENDS --

*NOTE: An earlier version of this release incorrectly indicated that Hecla Mining had at one point been bankrupt.

SANTA FE, N.M., Jan 10 — Today, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission concluded a public hearing on proposed amendments to the oil and gas waste pit regulation (the Pit Rule) without allowing conservation groups to testify. Expert technical witnesses offered by the New Mexico Environmental Law Center (NMELC) were not permitted to comment on the potential effects that burying toxic waste products from oil and gas drilling in the ground would have on the state's groundwater and public health.

"The Commission is supposed to hear relevant testimony from experts and the public in order to make an educated decision on the rules and regulations it chooses to adopt," says Eric Jantz, NMELC Staff Attorney representing Earthworks' Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP). "The Commission chose to afford industry every leniency, and in doing so, pushed the public's welfare aside."

The hearing was scheduled because the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association and Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico (industry trade groups) used an old and superseded version of the Pit Rule when petitioning the Commission for amendments. The hearing was an attempt to rectify this error.

"The Commission’s decision not only undermines the goal of maximizing the amount of information the Commission, as a policy making body, receives about this important environmental and public health issue," says Jantz, "but it also disrupts the democratic process and public participation."

“Irony aside, blocking testimony on a public health issue at a public hearing is part of an unfortunate trend across the country to avoid emerging science concerning the impacts of oil and gas development,” said Earthworks' Oil & Gas Accountability Project Director, Bruce Baizel. “In New Mexico, Colorado, and New York, industry and its advocates have recently attempted to obstruct input into public rulemakings regarding the environmental and health impacts of oil and gas development. You have to ask yourself, what are they afraid of? We think the answer is: the truth.”

The Commission will now continue deliberations on the Pit Rule. "We hope the Commission will do the right thing and preserve the Pit Rule as it is," says Jantz. "However, we’re not counting on that. We are prepared to challenge any decision on the Pit Rule that rolls back public health and environmental protections.”

Glenn Paulson, the EPA's science adviser, describes the project as "one of the most aggressive public outreach programs in EPA history."

The final report won't come out until late 2014. But a 275-page progress report was released in December and, for all its details, shows that the EPA doesn't plan to address one contentious issue — how often drinking water contamination might occur.

Congress ordered the EPA to study the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which entails blasting a mixture of water, sand and hazardous chemicals at underground shale to release the gas or oil captured in the rock.

As a gas rush surged in parts of the Marcellus Shale region that underlies Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia concerns arose for the watershed that provides drinking water for 17 million people from Philadelphia to New York City.

For the study, the EPA is talking to experts from the industry, the environmental community, and universities. It's conducting its own research and using federal supercomputers to analyze the possibility of contamination.

In the report, the EPA describes what it is and isn't studying. The agency also indicates its final report won't provide a measurement of the likelihood of contamination — for example, once every 100,000 wells or once every 1,000.

The industry and many federal and state officials say fracking is safe when done properly, but environmental groups and some scientists contend the risk of contamination is too great.

Earthworks, an environmental group based in Washington, said it welcomes the EPA study but has concerns with plans not to include some probability of groundwater contamination in the final report.

The EPA had planned to do both computer simulations of water contamination and actual field tests at drilling sites. But the agency hasn't found a drilling company to partner with to test groundwater around a drilling site. That leaves the computer simulations. But the EPA said those won't be able to address the likelihood of contamination "occurring during actual field operations."

"In its inability to find a single company willing to test water quality before and after drilling and fracking, the EPA is being thwarted in perhaps the most important part of its study of fracking's impacts," Earthworks said in a statement.

"Computer simulations are not enough," Alan Septoff, a spokesman for Earthworks, said.

He said the EPA study and any future studies should consider the likelihood of water contamination.

The EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The progress report says the EPA is studying the possible impact on drinking water at several stages of the fracking process: when water is drawn from reservoirs or underground sources and used for fracking; when a chemical mix is injected into the ground to break up rock; when wastewater from fracking is disposed of; how the drilling wells and wastewater-storage wells are constructed; and the potential for toxic fluids to migrate from deep underground to near-surface drinking water supplies.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby based in Washington, said in a statement that the progress report "is just the first step in a multi-year research study."

"More collaboration, continued transparency and stakeholder involvement are essential elements for any scientifically sound study, and we hope that the rest of this process remains open and any data released has the necessary context," API policy adviser Stephanie Meadows said.

Despite its concerns, Earthworks described the EPA study as a positive step.

"It represents a step towards EPA's first real scientific inquiry into the safety of fracking," the group said.

Matt Damon film understates oil and gas company misbehavior, unintentionally highlights need for stronger oversight.

Jan 4 -- The new film Promised Land -- opening today -- is bringing welcome attention to the issue of irresponsible oil and gas development. The sad truth is that Promised Land is no fairy tale.

The movie turns on the amoral and unethical behavior of a fracking/drilling company, and the landmen that try to convince citizens to lease their property for drilling. 

We can tell you from experience that Promised Land understates the depths to which some companies are willing to stoop.  In fact, fracking company representatives have told us so.

In 2011, at an industry conference intended to burnish the industry’s tarnished public image, our colleague Sharon Wilson recorded a “public relations” representative of a fracking company recommending the use of the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency manual against American citizens.  At the same conference, another industry PR rep boasted of their employment of ex-military psychological operations personnel and their use of psyops tactics in gasfield communities.

Promised Land is a cautionary tale and I encourage everyone to see it. It has top-notch actors, great dialogue, beautiful scenery, and a plot twist.

And then as you leave the theater, remember that in order to protect communities and the environment from the corporate behavior Promised Land shows, we need much stronger oversight of oil and gas development, from top to bottom.  And that means, for a start, closing the loopholes in federal environmental laws that give the oil and gas companies an unfair advantage.

We need to be honest about the risks of oil and gas fracking, to our air, water and healthy communities. Our new year’s resolution is to give the story of communities faced with oil and gas drilling a happier ending.

And, as expected, the movie some have dubbed "Good Will Fracking" has been praised by environmentalists and seen scorn from the natural gas industry and supporters.

"It's entertainment, and pretty silly entertainment," said former Pennsylvania environmental regulator John Hanger. "It doesn't pretend to deal with the real issues."

Hanger, now running for governor, supports gas development but also hit a drilling company in Dimock, Pa., with one of the largest-ever penalties in the country. He said "Promised Land" missed its chance by sidestepping most of the real issues faced by landowners, gas producers and environmentalists in the shale boom.

Drilling companies have launched their own online response, called "The Real Promised Land," highlighting the financial benefits of drilling and the stories of landowners who've suffered no ill effects.

But the movie struck a chord with Sharon Wilson, a blogger and activist with Earthworks, who has taken on drilling in Texas. The film, she said, accurately portrays some of the "dirty tricks" companies use when moving into new communities. And she said the audience she saw it with was impressed.

"No one moved or said anything when it ended," Wilson said. "It was total silence and stillness."

Though the movie uses the term "fracking" only four times, all in one scene, followers of the shale debate will recognize many references. Damon's character, landman Steve Butler, name-drops Dish, Texas, a town where the drilling debate has been high-profile and intense. Butler assures residents of the fictional town of McKinley that hydraulic fracturing has been done for "over 50 years." John Krasinski's character, environmentalist Dustin Noble, warns the town with stories about dying cows near drill sites. (For a copy of the screenplay, click here.)

Krasinski and Damon have said they turned to the New York Times' "Drilling Down" series on the shale boom after finding they needed to revise a story that was originally about wind farms. They were also informed by a "60 Minutes" piece on drilling and the anti-drilling documentary "Gasland" (Greenwire, Feb. 24, 2011).

Although the actors lauded the Times series, the paper's review of "Promised Land" didn't return the favor. Reviewer A.O. Scott opined that the film "works" but that it is "unable to fulfill its own promise."

The Washington Post was less charitable, calling it an "attractive, well-intentioned dry well." And the Los Angeles Times deemed it "an echo of a convincing film rather than the real deal."

In its box office roundup last weekend, Variety said the movie "got lost in an uber-crowded post-Christmas frame." Opening at 25 U.S. locations, "Promised Land" drew an estimated $190,150, "for a modest per-screen average of $7,606." It is to expand to more theaters later this week.

Most of the filming was done in Westmoreland County, Pa., east of Pittsburgh, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Some of the farms filmed were in Armstrong County, northeast of Pittsburgh. Armstrong is next to Butler County, which shares its name with Damon's character.

Some residents in Armstrong County where some scenes were shot have said they were misled into believing the film would be less critical of the natural gas industry.

"They filmed this movie in our backyard. They said it would be fair to drilling. It's not. We're pissed," the group says on its Facebook page.

Hanger said the movie sticks to caricatures, with the gas company supporters cast as dishonest, landowners as greedy and drilling opponents as "selfless saints." In one unlikely scene, Damon gets punched in a bar by a camouflage-wearing local opposed to gas development.

"In Pennsylvania's gas drilling counties, drilling is favored about 3-to-1," Hanger said. "There are people in the rural areas who oppose gas, but the odds are heavily in the direction that Dustin [Krasinski's character] would be the one getting hit."

"Earthworks welcomes today’s progress report on EPA’s study of hydraulic fracturing’s impacts on drinking water. 

It represents a step towards EPA’s first real scientific inquiry into the safety of fracking – a step nearly ten years in the making.  EPA’s 2004 study of the subject cannot be called science, as it was publicly revealed to be partially written by the very industry it studied.

To date, the only actual science on the subject – including EPA’s own investigations at Pavillion, WY and Duke University’s groundwater studies – suggests impacts and risks.

Most significant about the progress report is the lack of progress it reports. In its inability to find a single company willing to test water quality before and after drilling and fracking, the EPA is being thwarted in perhaps the most important part of its study of fracking’s impacts.

We are not surprised, however.  Oil and gas companies’ unwillingness to cooperate continues a pattern of obstruction of actual science on the impacts of drilling and hydraulic fracturing.  Oil and gas developers and their advocates are quick to claim that fracking is safe, but they are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is.  Until they do, the industry has no credibility in the debate about the science and safety of fracking.

We look forward to EPA’s continued work on a scientific assessment of fracking during the coming year."

--30--

The group, Mined in America, said in a news release that Arizona workers are "paying a heavy price for this unreasonable postponement."

"With so many Americans out of work and such a tremendous need for American natural resources so that we can revitalize manufacturing, it's time for regulators to stop delaying and allow this project to move forward," said Maurice Daniel, executive director of the group, in an interview.

"Let's be clear: All of us want a responsible process. All of us view Rosemont as an opportunity to come together to create jobs and jump-start our economy. And yet unnecessary bureaucratic delays create a real lose-lose situation," Daniel said.

In response, Coronado National Forest Supervisor Jim Upchurch reiterated his past statements that the service must clear up unresolved issues about the proposed open-pit copper mine near Tucson to make sure it meets all laws before approving it. These include issues involving Endangered Species Act rules, cultural and historical resources and air quality, among others.

In all, Rosemont's permit application with the Forest Service has been pending five years - compared with a seven- to 10-year U.S. average, according to a study done by an international mining advisory group.

"The Rosemont project is a complex and controversial proposal that affects important and valuable natural, cultural and community resource values in Southern Arizona," Upchurch wrote in an email to the Star. "These are not bureaucratic delays but rather important and required analyses and consultations that must be completed prior to a decision being made."

started in September

Mined in America, which formed in September, calls itself a coalition of labor, mining and other business interest groups that supports "government policies that promote developing domestic supplies of mineral resources through environmentally sound modern American mining."

It sees domestic mining as a key to rebuilding U.S. manufacturing, and says copper is essential for everything from "wind turbines and solar panels to plumbing and everyday appliances."

This is the first time a national mining group has stepped into the Rosemont controversy. National environmental groups such as Earthworks, the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife have opposed the mine, while local chapters of the Sierra Club, Audubon Society and the League of Conservation Voters belong to the Rosemont opposition group that calls itself Save the Scenic Santa Ritas.

Mined in America director Daniel was political director for Democrat Al Gore when Gore was vice president. He also worked as a top aide in the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign of Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt.

On Rosemont, the group issued a news release giving the proposed mine in the Santa Rita Mountains a "Shovel Ready" award.

"The Arizona site is home to a copper deposit of more than 4 billion pounds - the annual production of which will satisfy 5 percent of the total U.S. copper need. ... Unlike previous Arizona copper mines, Rosemont Copper has proposed integrating never-before-used water conservation and recycling techniques as well as lighting systems to preserve the natural environment," the news release said.

It cited company estimates that the mine would create more than 400 direct jobs, paying nearly $60,000 average salaries, and 1,600 indirect jobs.

As for Upchurch's comments, Daniel said in an interview that he can't get into "every nut and bolt" about the Forest Service's delays, but "we need a process that you can go through A-B-C. I don't want to oversimplify it. I know it is a very detailed, difficult process at times. But we think it can be more efficient and standardized."

The Internal Revenue Service classifies the group as a tax-exempt, 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Such groups organize to promote social welfare and are allowed to lobby, but not to get involved in election campaigns. Unlike other nonprofits, they don't have to disclose donors.

Asked for specific members, the group named four out of a total of 80: The Milwaukee and Michigan Building and Construction Trades Councils, Lester Building Systems LLC of Michigan and Johnson Refrigerated Truck of Wisconsin.

Comments criticized

Environmental groups opposed to Rosemont took strong issue with Mined in America's comments.

Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the Forest Service has often had to wait for Rosemont Copper to produce information.

"The Coronado is doing the right thing in insisting on accountability," Serraglio said. "The Coronado has a duty to protect these public lands, as well as the people and wildlife that depend on them."

Gayle Hartmann, president of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, and Elizabeth Webb, a Vail activist, noted that the Dos Pobres Mine in Safford, which opened in the mid-2000s, needed a decade to get its permits, although part of that was because it had to pull off a land exchange first. The Carlota Mine in Central Arizona also took more than a decade to receive its permits, said Hartmann.

"This group's comment is completely out of line," said Hartmann, speaking of Mined in America. "They're an industry-based group, trying to prop up an unpopular industry."

Globally, the United States is tied with Papua New Guinea as the country that takes the longest time of 25 studied to permit a new mine - seven to 10 years, said a study prepared by Behre Dolbear Group, an international mining advisory group. The group said permitting delays are "the most significant risks to mining projects in the United States."

The U.S. fared better, sixth from the best of the 25 countries, when the study's researchers lumped permitting times with six other factors, including a country's political and economic systems, degree of corruption and stability of currency.

That’s why the state is making a hard push to hire and train more inspectors to keep the expected rush of new drillings up to code.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is the state agency charged with regulating oil and gas drilling in the state, and within it the Oil and Gas division handles inspections. It had 41 inspectors going into the fourth quarter of this year, up from 30 at the end of 2011, said ODNR spokeswoman Heidi Hetzel-Evans.

But by the spring, ONDR hopes to field about 80 full-time inspectors, as well as perhaps 10 other field staff members to support them, Ms. Evans said. The state’s trying to bring them into service in batches of eight to 12 and then have them begin by working with experienced inspectors, she said.

They’ll all work out of five field offices (they don’t do much drilling in Columbus) and some will specialize on injection well inspections, as four do currently, according to Ms. Evans.

Inspectors might play a key role in the state’s image going forward when it comes to shale gas and oil drilling. Government officials, from the governor to Ms. Evans herself, have often boasted lately that Ohio has some of the most stringent regulations in the nation when it comes to drilling – but the toughest regulations anywhere aren’t much good without inspectors to enforce them.

The role of inspectors is already being watched and there’s already contention over how well Ohio has conducted oil and gas well inspections generally. In September, the anti-fracking environmental group Earthworks issued a report that compared inspection rates in Ohio to those in some other gas-producing states. It took Ohio to task for the infrequency with which it found wells in the state were inspected, as well as enforcement actions the group claim are “inadequate to deter violators” of state regulations.

“They are stretched, obviously, very thin,” said Kari Matsko, a Lake County resident who founded the People’s Oil and Gas Collaborative-Ohio and works with Earthworks on anti-drilling issues.

According to Earthworks data, 91% of Ohio’s 64,378 active gas wells, most of them conventional vertical wells, were not inspected in 2010, the last year for which data was available. That’s the same inspection rate as in Pennsylvania, the group found — but it also found that both states are not inspecting wells nearly so often as oil and gas-producing states like Texas, New Mexico or Colorado. Only 57% of the active wells in Texas went uninspected in 2010, compared to 61% in New Mexico and 63% in Colorado, Earthworks found.

That report brought cries of foul from both state and industry officials.

Tom Stewart, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, said Earthworks did not take into account the age or activity of the wells in question, some of which are years or decades old and produce little or no gas and oil at this point.

State inspectors are on site when they need to be, Mr. Stewart said – including at several critical stages of each new well’s drilling and completion, which includes the pouring of cement casings and for the actual hydraulic fracturing of the shale.

ODNR’s Ms. Evans said the report also did not take into consideration the state’s recent efforts to hire more inspectors, or new state regulations that require inspections at critical points in a well’s lifecycle.

Earthworks attorney Bruce Baizel – who, incidentally sits on the board of the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations chaired by Mr. Stewart – said his group only compared similar data between states and did not set out to make any one state look bad.

“The data is what it is. I’m sorry they don’t like it,” Mr. Baizel said.

Ms. Evans said the that critical wells all are inspected.

“We have a 100% inspection rate for Ohio’s Class II injection wells and we currently have a 100% inspection rate on all shale wells,” Ms. Evans said.

ODNR expects drilling to peak in 2014 or 2015 and wants to be ready, Ms.Evans said, which means finding new inspectors. It’s looking for applicants, preferably with industry experience working in oil and gas drilling, or a background in geology.

It’s not that difficult to train a new inspector, said Louisiana petroleum engineer Jim Rike, who’s been training them along with other oil and gas workers and engineers since the 1970s. About a month of intensive classroom training and another month of field work with an experienced mentor can produce a quality inspector, he said.

“The inspectors don’t really have to be high-powered scientists,” Mr. Rike said, “they just need to understand the practical side of the engineering, not the technical side.

The state will have competition in hiring the though. The same folks who make good inspectors often are the same ones that make good employees for oil and gas drillers. ODNR is probably already facing that challenge to some degree.

“With the appearance of some of the larger oil companies, there’s certainly more competition for these applicants,” Ms. Evans said.

Get used to that warns Mr. Rike – and then be prepared to have inspectors hired away by those same energy companies.

“I think there’s more and more consensus on what needs to happen at the Railroad Commission,” says Royce Poinsett. He’s a lawyer with Baker Botts and a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.

Part of the reason is oil and gas drilling is getting far more public scrutiny. There’s even a Matt Damon movie now bringing attention to the hydraulic fracturing technique that’s behind a massive surge in oil and gas drilling.

“Aside from perhaps higher penalties, I think what everyone agrees is that the Railroad Commission is simply not given enough resources. It’s been underfunded for decades,” Poinsett told StateImpact.

How Many Inspectors is Enough?

Since 2003, the number of wells monitored by the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) increased by 42,000 to a total statewide of nearly 400,000 active and inactive wells.

To monitor all those wells, the RRC says it has 97 full time oil and gas inspectors plus 55 additional staff to help out.

But despite the12 percent increase in total wells to be monitored, the number of inspections performed was up only 3 percent (comparing 2003 with 2012) according to data in the RRC’S “Strategic Plan.”

Does this mean the RRC inspections are not keeping up?

No, according to Ramona Nye, a spokesperson for the RRC.

“A growth in drilling activity does not necessarily correlate to a corresponding increase in violations. In fact, our inspectors have been witnessing increased compliance by operators,” wrote Nye in an email to StateImpact.

How Texas Compares

“We thought we’d actually see fewer inspections in Texas than the other states. It turned out to be the opposite,” says Bruce Baizel, an attorney with the environmental watchdog group Earthworks.

Baizel says the group compared inspection data and found Texas was annually checking  51 percent of wells whereas Pennsylvania and Ohio inspected only about 10 percent.

But Baizel says it’s not simply a question of how many wells inspectors check. It’s what happens if they find something wrong. He said Texas stood out for how little it fined violators.

“What you find, particularly in Texas, is the penalties that can be imposed by the state agency are very low, on average it’s about a thousand bucks per penalty,” Baizel told StateImpact. “So if you’ve got a well that’s generating $5 million dollars on average, a $1000 is really a drop in the bucket.”

The RRC’s ‘Unwillingness to Pursue Enforcement’

Another report critical of the RRC’s enforcement of drilling laws comes from right in Austin. The Sunset Advisory Commission, a legislative oversight office that critiques state agencies, found that the RRC brought cases against so few drillers that it was contributing “to a public perception of an unwillingness to pursue enforcement action.”

The RRC has responded to the criticism. In recent months, it has increased penalties and fees. Feedback from RRC staff members indicates the moves have already “raised awareness” among operators, especially smaller companies, that breaking the law will cost them, according to Ramona Nye, the RRC spokesperson.

Texas lawmakers will likely take up the proposals from the Sunset Advisory Commission when their new session begins in January. Previous efforts to beef up the RRC failed in past legislative sessions.

But the draft regulations, issued by the California agency that oversees oil drilling, would not force companies to obtain a special permit for fracking. Nor would the regulations give people living near oil wells much warning that fracking was about to begin.

Environmentalists immediately attacked the proposals as too weak.

"It sets up California to be another, 'Frack, baby, frack' state," said Jennifer Krill, executive director of the Earthworks environmental group.

Tuesday's proposal marks the first time that California regulators have tried to set specific rules for fracking, more properly known as hydraulic fracturing. Until now the state has treated fracking - which uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals to crack underground rocks - as just another oil production technique, subject to the same rules as any other.

While California officials haven't even kept statistics on the practice, its use in the state appears to be rising, with at least 598 wells fracked in the past two years, according to a nationwide website called FracFocus that collects data from oil companies. But no one has been able to say for certain.

The rules proposed Tuesday by the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources would not force companies to obtain a specific permit for fracking. That pleases the oil industry, which sees fracking as key to expanding oil and natural gas production nationwide.

"What's encouraging is that, despite some of the more emotional arguments being made, the state of California recognizes that fracking is an important technology with tremendous potential for California," said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association.

The proposed regulations could change, perhaps dramatically. Division officials emphasized Tuesday that the draft was simply that - a draft, the product of a series of seven public workshops that the division held this year with environmentalists, oil industry representatives and other parties. The process of hammering out final rules will probably take a year.

Under Tuesday's proposal, companies would be required to tell the division 10 days before fracking a well, with a second notification required 24 hours before work begins. The information - including the amount of water and pressure to be used - would be published on the division's website.

The advance notice would give the division time to send one of its field inspectors to monitor the work, officials said Tuesday. But with a field staff of about 70, the division probably won't have someone present every time a well is fracked.

"It'd be really difficult for us to say how many of those we'll be able to witness ourselves," said Jason Marshall, the division's chief deputy director. "But if we need additional staff, that's something we can discuss with the Legislature."

The information would appear on the division's website three days before fracking commenced. That irks environmentalists, who consider three days' notice insufficient.

Each well would be pressure-tested for at least 30 minutes to ensure that its cement casing won't crack during fracking. Cracked casings can allow the chemicals used in fracking to leach into groundwater.

Companies would not be allowed to frack close to existing wells or fault lines. If the subterranean cracks created by fracking touch a fault or well, the chemicals can migrate toward the surface and, again, threaten drinking water.

After fracking, companies would be required to publish a list of the chemicals they used, posting the list on the FracFocus website. But companies could still hide that information by claiming that the exact chemical mix is a trade secret.

That alarms fracking critics. They also worry that the proposal doesn't address concerns about fracking's impact on air quality and possible link to earthquakes. Recent research suggests that the wells used to dispose of water from fracking can trigger quakes, although the seismic risk from fracking itself appears to be low.

"In a state crisscrossed with fault lines, they need to pay more attention to this," said George Torgun, an attorney with the Earthjustice environmental law group, which recently sued the state over fracking.

That is the cautionary tale told in Cyanide Beach, a revealing 24-minute video documentary by award-winning investigative reporter John Dougherty that Green Valley (AZ) News Editor Dan Shearer said “raise(s) questions that Rosemont must address if it intends to move forward with integrity.”

Vancouver, B.C.-based Augusta Resource Corporation owns the Rosemont Copper Company. The film chronicles the deceptive business tactics of Augusta’s top executives when they ran another Canadian junior mining company, Sargold Resource Corporation, which owned and operated the Sardinian mine.

Six of Sargold’s directors are current or former Augusta Board members and are behind the Rosemont Copper Company’s free-spending lobbying and PR campaign to win public support for blasting a mile-wide, half-mile deep hole in the Santa Rita Mountains and dumping 70-story high mountains of toxic mining waste on more than 3,000 acres of the Coronado National Forest.

"We already know that the Rosemont Mine would threaten the air and groundwater in and around Tucson with mercury, lead, arsenic and other poisons from its billions of tons of toxic mine waste," said Lauren Pagel, Earthworks’ Policy Director. "That threat is magnified when we find out that the people behind Rosemont Copper have such a checkered business history.”

Cyanide Beach is based on Dougherty's review of thousands of pages of financial documents involving Augusta’s officers and his on-site interviews in Italy, the U.S. and Canada. Dougherty uncovers a tangled history of cease trade orders, an insider trading settlement agreement, an investment caution warning issued by Canadian regulators, stock exchange de-listings, personal and corporate bankruptcies, and false disclosure statements to regulators. The full details can be found at www.investigativemedia.com.

Cyanide Beach reveals how these speculators conducted operations in Sardinia and raises questions of whether they now can be trusted to deliver on their promises to operate the  Rosemont copper mine without depleting local water supplies, harming endangered wildlife, or polluting the surrounding environment. Their actions in Sardinia include:

• Failing to pay local contractors, forcing vendors to obtain court judgments;
• Misspending a $787,000 Sardinian government loan that was supposed to be used to develop an underground mine;
• Issuing misleading press releases to investors, including a release that overstated gold reserves in Sardinia forcing the Toronto Venture Stock Exchange to require the company to retract the projection;
• Failing to disclose that a Cayman Islands hedge fund controlled more than 10 percent of Sargold’s stock between 2005 and 2007;
• Using its obligation to implement environmental restoration of the Sardinian gold mine as leverage with Sardinian government officials in a failed attempt to gain gold mining rights elsewhere; and
• Failing to disclose Mr. Warke’s personal bankruptcy in regulatory filings between 2003 and 2005.

“Irresponsible mine proposals like Rosemont clearly demonstrate that we need to update the 1872 Mining Law,” said Pagel. “A common sense mining law would allow the Forest Service to look at Augusta’s backers’ dismal history, and decide not to trust them with our public lands.” 

--30--

Lack of funding still main obstacle to reclaiming hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines

Washington, D.C. -- Today, the EPA aided abandoned mine cleanup efforts by assuring Good Samaritans who would perform such cleanup that they do not need Clean Water Act permits -- if they enter into a formal agreement with EPA.  Clean Water Act concerns have given pause to some Good Samaritans who want to help clean up some of the nation’s hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines. Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) has been a staunch advocate for Good Samaritans on this issue, pressing the EPA to help ensure mine cleanups throughout Colorado.

“While we applaud the EPA for aiding Good Samaritan clean ups of abandoned hardrock mines, this policy does nothing to remove the greatest barrier to abandoned mine clean-up in the West: a steady funding source,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks.

Unlike the coal industry, hardrock mining companies pay no mine reclamation fee for the minerals they remove from public lands – an important source of revenue that has been instrumental in cleaning up abandoned coal mines. Many large-scale hardrock mines cause long-term pollution for surrounding ground and surface waters -- harming  important drinking water supplies, agricultural lands, and fish and wildlife habitat.

For example, the Zortman Landusky Mine in Montana has polluted over a dozen streams and over a dozen streams, and taxpayers are paying to treat its toxic runoff, which is expected to continue for centuries.

“It’s time for Congress and the EPA to take actions that will have a serious impact on the water pollution caused by mining,” said Pagel. “Mining companies should be required to help pay for clean up, and pay upfront to ensure clean water is protected.”

Since 2009, EPA has also considered using its authority under the Superfund law to ensure that mining companies put money in a fund upfront to cover future clean up costs. This would make sure that current mines are fully reclaimed when mining has ceased, and that perpetual water pollution is continually treated, long after the mine has closed.

“Polluters should pay for the pollution, not the American taxpayer,” said Pagel. “Congress needs to reform the 1872 Mining Law to make sure mining companies pay their fair share.”

1872 Mining Law reform, long stalled in Congress, made national news recently when a Government Accountability Office report highlighted the billions in lost revenue due to this antiquated law.

Washington, DC – A new Government Accountability Office report to Congress reveals that American taxpayers annually give away to mining companies unknown billions in hardrock minerals like gold, copper and uranium. Because the law does not allow taxpayers to charge a royalty for hardrock minerals taken from publicly owned lands, the Interior Department collects no data on their value.  In 2011, Interior estimated their sales value at $6.4 billion

“As our country teeters on the fiscal cliff, it is ridiculous that taxpayers are giving away unknown amounts of valuable gold, copper and other metals to mining companies each year,” said Lauren Pagel, Earthworks’ Policy Director. “One of the first belt-tightening measures should be to eliminate the enormous subsidies taxpayers give away to polluting oil, gas, and mining companies.”

The GAO report, requested by Congressman Grijalva (AZ) and Senator Tom Udall (NM), details just this one subsidy to the multinational hardrock mining industry. Beyond not requiring a royalty, taxpayers also subsidize hardrock mining companies with major loopholes in federal environmental law, tax breaks, and avoided clean-up liability for hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines. According to industry-reported data from the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, hardrock mining is the nation’s #1 toxic polluter.

“If hardrock mining companies had to play by the same rules as everyone else and pay their fair share, we could reduce our deficit by $14 billion over the next 10 years, and create jobs that clean up our rivers and protect our communities’ health,” said Pagel. She continued, “Add in the subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies that President Obama has pushed to eliminate, and that number jumps to over $50 billion over 10 years.”

The Department of Interior soon will convene stakeholders to participate in the Extraction Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), a consensus driven process designed to shed light on the royalties and other payments oil, gas, and mining companies pay. 

“Thanks to the antiquated 1872 Mining Law, not only are taxpayers being fleeced out of billions, the government doesn’t even know exactly how much the fleecing is worth,” said Pagel. “In addition to reforming the outdated 1872 Mining Law, we need transparency around these issues.”

We cannot expect much help from Congress. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid is strongly supported by the mining lobby, and so long as he is in power, the 1872 mining act will remain the law of the land. One way forward with domestic mining reform may be through a concerted alliance between environmental organizations and a new coalition of ethical jewelers, particularly in the most prominent environmental mining battle at Bristol Bay, a pristine ecological national treasure located in Southwestern Alaska.  

Environmentalists Organize Against Pebble Bay Mine
The Pebble Bay Mine is being proposed by the London based mining giant, Anglo American, in partnership with Northern Dynasty, a Canadian Company that owns the mineral rights.  The mine expects to employ about 400 people, and in terms of overall area, would be the second largest in the world.

To extract 55 billion pounds of copper, 3.3 billion pounds of molybdenum, and 67 million ounces of gold, massive dams would be built in environmentally sensitive areas, threatening the bay, which is home to the largest run of salmon, along with herring and other fisheries, accounting for 75 percent of local jobs. The mining is strongly opposed by environmental groups nationwide, and Native people of the area.

Earthworks Action, an environmental NGO focusing on hard rock mining and drilling issues, has been strongly vocal in their opposition to the proposed mine. Through their No Dirty Gold campaign, and Bristol Bay Pledge, they have highlighted the connection between jewelry and mining to both the consumer and the trade.

Perhaps the most high profile campaign to protect Bistol Bay has been waged by the National Resource Defense Counsel (NRDC), supported by Robert Redford, who has been featured prominently in NRDC’s full page, anti-Bristol Bay ads in the New York Times. Their campaign has been focused on gathering signatures and putting public pressure on mining companies. 

Getting Mining Companies To Be More Responsive
These days, larger mining companies have “sustainable development” initiatives, but mining companies do not have consumer-facing brands, making it easier to ignore signatures and bad publicity. However, the linkage between Bristol Bay and other dirty gold issues is risky for jewelers, because jewelry is an emotional product with symbolic significance.

As a maker of ethical jewelry and the founder of Fair Jewelry Action, a grassroots coalition of those in the jewelry sector fully committed to ethical sourcing, I wrote to Redford and Peter Lehner, Executive Director of the NRDC, in June. I suggested discussing opportunities for collaboration in linking jewelry with mining. 

NRDC and Redford were targeting Rio Tinto — perhaps because Rio Tinto cares more about their CSR than other mining companies. In my letters, which were never responded to, I suggested that the NRDC could strengthen their message by connecting mining issues with jewelry.

Ultimately, we need to get consumers to understand how to remedy the terrible disconnect in purchasing a wedding ring that caused twenty tons of toxic sludge. I also pointed out that Anglo American recently purchased 85 percent of DeBeers.

A consumer message such as: Buy A DeBeers Diamond And Support The Destruction of America’s Greatest Salmon Fishery over this upcoming holiday would probably garner some attention.

Whether it is fair to link DeBeers and Anglo American is a tactical decision. Three million Africans died in wars that were funded by the diamond trade in the 1990s, and not one person in the jewelry sector has ever been held accountable.  DeBeers, despite their history, is one of the most responsible mining companies in the jewelry sector. Their third party-reviewed environmental practices and downstream beneficiation in Botswana and other countries is a model for large-scale ethical mining practices.

DeBeers, unlike Anglo American, is also hypersensitive in regard to their branding.

Linking them to Bristol Bay mine is not without risk. But perhaps Anglo American is not going to understand anything other than a campaign that affects the bottom line in one of their most valuable assets.

Crafting The Ethical Jewelry Message
Regardless, NRDC and other environmental organizations have not yet taken advantage of a new opportunity with jewelers.  People who should know better do not consider jewelry an environmental issue. In my letter to Redford, I raised the point that his prominent Sundance Catalog makes no issue of where and how they source their jewelry — a very odd disconnect.  

Perhaps this is because ethical jewelry is so new. With the introduction of fair trade gold into the world market, and the prevalence of jewelry made from recycled metals, there is a strong coalition of small jewelers working on the grassroots who have proved the concept and business viability of ethically sourced jewelry.  

We now have the opportunity to actually create an aspirational message with jewelry that will create a virtuous cycle. If fair trade gold had a strong market in the U.S., the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people living in the developing world would be lifted out of poverty. The amount of mercury in the environment would be reduced. We have a vision of jewelry that creates a better world. But as a group of small, artisanal jewelers, we need help from other organizations with a larger reach.

I want to see the day that ethical jewelry becomes the norm rather than a niche market. If any environmental NGO is interested in working with us, contact me through my website, www.fairjewelry.org.

For those considering jewelry this holiday season and beyond, you must support only those jewelers who can honestly answer the question: Can you trace your gold, silver platinum and gems from mine to market?

The flap began in the Keystone State, where it recently came to light that the state Department of Environmental Protection routinely withholds water quality data it deems irrelevant to oil and gas contamination. Critics are pressuring regulators to overhaul that practice because they say the untold contaminants could make people sick.

In the two weeks since a state legislator publicized the issue by calling for an investigation, DEP officials have repeatedly defended their process as standard operating procedure that has simply been "misapprehended" by drilling critics.

The contention boils down to this: When the state checks water wells that homeowners suspect might be tainted by drilling operations in the Marcellus Shale, samples are sent to an agency lab that uses a U.S. EPA testing method to screen for dozens of metals. DEP has determined that eight of those are strong indicators of oil and gas contamination, so it instructs the lab to return results on only those eight metals. Those are the results given to homeowners.

Protocol or not, environmentalists don't like it. The unreported metals include, for example, titanium, aluminum, silicon, lithium and molybdenum. DEP has said there's no way those metals, without the presence of the eight target metals, would indicate oil and gas contamination. But Nadia Steinzor, a coordinator for Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project, said it's not the role of a regulatory agency to decide which metals are of public concern.

"That is a tremendous lack of transparency on the part of a public agency," she said. "It's not really their call to say you're not going to be affected by X metal."

Earthworks signed a letter with other environmental groups last week urging Gov. Tom Corbett (R) to make changes to DEP's system and immediately release comprehensive results of previous tests.

The metals that are reported by the labs are barium, calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium and strontium, which are common contamination markers used by agencies in other states and recommended by the Marcellus Shale Coalition for water quality testing around oil and gas operations.

Do other states filter?

DEP Secretary Michael Krancer said in a letter defending his agency's practices that the parameters used in Pennsylvania are "substantially similar" to those used in New York, Ohio, Colorado and Wyoming.

But regulators in at least three of those states said they do not withhold any data from homeowners.

In an email, staff from Colorado's Department of Natural Resources said technicians in third-party labs there use the same testing technique -- EPA Method 200.7 -- that Pennsylvania uses to test for metals like calcium, arsenic, boron and more.

But unlike Pennsylvania, the labs and the agency do not filter the data. The environmental staff provides a summary table to concerned residents, along with a copy of the entire lab package. The data are also publicly available online and include metals like aluminum and lithium, which go unreported in Pennsylvania.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources officials said they, too, use Method 200.7 and report all parameters tested by the lab. They screen using an oil and gas analysis suite that includes the eight markers used in Pennsylvania, plus a few other contaminants, including aluminum and bromide -- unreported in Pennsylvania. Residents who file water complaints receive water investigation reports along with copies of the unfiltered lab results.

Officials from New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, which also uses that EPA testing method, said any testing would have to be released "in its entirety to the landowner."

A review of the state's draft environmental impact statement for fracking, which is currently on hold there, shows the state plans to test for contamination with lab parameters that focus on a smaller group of metals, including barium, chloride, iron, manganese and sodium, along with other materials.

Pennsylvania DEP spokesman Kevin Sunday wrote in an email that Krancer's assertion that Pennsylvania's practices are similar to others is based on a "good working relationship" among states.

He clarified that the secretary's statements are not in defense of "filtered" data because the agency maintains it has not filtered anything; rather, it has zeroed in on target metals for further analysis. The results for the whole suite of metals are preliminary, he said, and final results are pursued for those contamination markers only.

Are all results final?

Indeed, hydrogeology researcher David Yoxtheimer says the results of metals testing that go unreported in Pennsylvania are not as readily available as environmentalists think.

Although the lab uses the EPA method that screens for 24 or more metals, technicians have to take an extra step to get final results on the eight markers. The initial analysis produces a chart of peaks and valleys that indicate levels of the various metals. That must be analyzed to identify the levels of target metals, which are then compared with a reference standard to ensure the results are accurate.

In other words, the eight target metals are subject to further analysis -- and cost -- to ensure quality. So the lab may have preliminary results for all the metals but final results for only the eight. Krancer said during a conference last week that he has no intention of releasing data points that have not undergone the quality-control analysis, especially because he said they do not signal oil and gas contamination.

"You're going to use this method and in theory you could report all 24," said Yoxtheimer, who is on staff at Pennsylvania State University's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research. "But we're really not interested in two-thirds of them because they're not related to drilling impacts, at least commonly."

That shadow of condition, "at least commonly," is enough to keep many environmentalists on edge.

"[T]he reporting procedure reflects an anachronistic approach to water testing that is gravely insufficient in light of the new and specific impacts of high-volume drilling and hydraulic fracturing in deep shale formation," the groups wrote in their letter to the governor last week.

Because industry technology and practices evolve to enhance production, they wrote, additional metals could enter water supplies, and DEP's focus on the eight markers could result in other problematic materials being overlooked. Plus, they say, there is scant research on the effect of exposure to even low doses of multiple contaminants at the same time -- making full disclosure critical for understanding those unknowns.

"In a time in which drilling practices are changing so rapidly, it is something to look at and revisit," Steinzor said. "If nothing else, if we can succeed in getting states that do this to take another look ... that'll be a step in the right direction."

Spats vs. substance

For now, the battle is relegated to an exchange of heated remarks in letters, blog posts and statements made to local newspapers. Rep. Jesse White, the state legislator who sparked the dust-up by calling for an investigation into DEP lab procedures, has been seared by industry representatives who say he's just bitter about a falling-out he had with driller Range Resources Corp.

Range released a series of 2010 emails between White and company officials that illustrate a once-friendly relationship that turned sour when Range hosted a fundraiser for the legislator that came up short on cash. White has dismissed the emails as an attempt by the industry to discredit him as he pushes for increased accountability among Marcellus operators.

Environmentalists who have taken up the cause have sidestepped the spat and instead focused on the lab procedures in question. But Krancer and other state officials have brushed off the groups' requests as a misinformed product of wild accusations from White.

"The letter was just echoing unsubstantiated and outrageous allegations," said Corbett administration spokesman Eric Shirk, adding that although DEP is always reviewing and improving policies, it has no plans to change the lab protocol.

Former DEP Secretary John Hanger offered his take two weeks ago, telling EnergyWire that he believed the agency's policies were not an attempt to shroud any data, but that they should be changed immediately in order to give residents all available information (EnergyWire, Nov. 5). Even if the other metals are unrelated to drilling, he said, residents should know what's there.

"That soil there is dead," growls Carl Johnson, a rancher who owns the land around here for miles, pointing over a box of bullets on the dash. "It'll still look like that in 60 years."

He spins the wheel of his mud-splattered Ford Super Cab pickup and crunches to a stop at another site that looks similar, except for a pile of dirt on the side, and his stern mood lifts a bit.

"There'll be something growing there in two years," Johnson says. "It won't be good. But in 10 years there will be grama grass and weeds."

The pile is scraped-off topsoil, which will be put back. More importantly, no waste or drill cuttings were buried next to the oil well, which was recently removed. Drill cuttings were instead diverted to big steel tanks and carried off to a landfill.

That's the way things must be done under New Mexico's strict "pit rule." In places like Tatum, where groundwater is near the surface, drillers can't use pits and must use steel tanks as part of a "closed loop" system.

But those strict requirements will likely end soon. Bucking a national trend toward tightening rules, New Mexico oil and gas officials are de-fanging the pit rule at the request of the oil and gas industry.

Drillers here have despised the rule since it was enacted in 2008. They said it added as much as $250,000 to the cost of drilling a well, driving many companies across the nearby border into Texas, which has no pit liner requirements.

"It swung the pendulum so far to the protective side that it went beyond what was needed," said Wally Drangmeister, spokesman for the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association.

The oil and gas industry put more than $1 million into the 2010 campaign of New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R), who campaigned on rolling back the pit rule. According to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, nearly $1 in every $7 she raised came from oil and gas, making it the top industry among her funders.

Martinez appointed two of the three members of the state's Oil Conservation Commission, which has held several daylong sessions to hammer out changes to the rules but has not finished its work (EnergyWire, May 18). It is to meet again today.

Most states swept up in the nation's oil and gas boom in recent years have moved toward stricter rules. Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Texas have all enacted new sets of rules that were at least promoted as reforms to outdated regulatory systems.

Environmental groups and ranchers such as Johnson are fighting to keep New Mexico's pit rule intact, saying tanks and closed-loop systems have kept drilling wastes out of soils and groundwater. It is a fight they expect to lose.

'It took people awhile to get used to it'

Because of the pit rule, the landscape between Johnson's ranch and the oil town of Hobbs is dotted with neat rows of large green tanks lined up on drill pads next to pumpjacks.

But cross the long, straight border into Texas, and as the pink and yellow hues of the New Mexico landscape fade to brown, the tanks disappear.

On a clear day last month outside Midland, the Academy #205 rig gushed water and drill cuttings into a big U-shaped pit. Once the crew is done drilling, the water will be left to evaporate. The cuttings and whatever's left will be buried under the ranchland.

Texas has no pit liner requirements. Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, explained to a small crowd of visiting reporters over the din of the rig that rigs streamed across the state line when New Mexico enacted its pit rule.

"You could see companies packing up and moving," he said. "It was extremely expensive, especially for small companies. It took people awhile to get used to it."

But they did, Shepperd said, and now he expects Texas drillers will have to get used to something similar in the not-too-distant future.

"It's working in other parts of the country. It probably will come to Texas," he said.

Most other states are not banning pits (most do require liners) or requiring closed-loop systems. But some state oil and gas officials are strongly encouraging them.

In a 2011 staff report, Dave Neslin, then-director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, enthusiastically reported that 91 percent of new wells in Weld County, the heart of Colorado's Niobrara Shale drilling, were employing closed-loop systems.

In Pennsylvania, some drillers are using closed-loop systems to stay on the good side of their neighbors in the northeastern part of the state. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. even sought and received state permission to dig up buried cuttings from a dozen well sites and remove them. Now, all of its operations are using closed-loop systems.

"We want to say we haven't buried anything here," Steve Woelfel, Anadarko's drilling operations manager in Appalachia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2011. "It always could be a risk. It could come back to you."

Rig numbers don't show flight

The top talking point of pit rule opponents is that rigs stampeded across the state line after the pit rules were imposed.

"Rigs were fleeing New Mexico because of the pit rule," oilman and former New Mexico Republican Party Chairman Harvey Yates Jr. told an audience in New Mexico in October, according to the Alamogordo Daily News. "We can calculate the loss to New Mexico if we make an assumption -- a conservative assumption and a Republican assumption, if [then-Gov. Bill] Richardson had not tinkered with the problem -- drill rates and gas production would have simply stayed the same."

But statistics don't bear out the assertions that the pit rule caused a mass migration of rigs out of New Mexico.

The number of rigs in New Mexico actually increased briefly after the pit rule was enacted in June 2008. The monthly rig count, compiled by oil field services company Baker Hughes Inc., started to drop in New Mexico, Texas and the country as summer turned to fall as the economy spiraled downward. New Mexico's rig count fell 55 percent from May 2008 to May 2009; in Texas it fell more, 62 percent.

As the economy crept back, so did the rig count. By 2011, Texas and New Mexico were back to about the same place they were before the pit rule and before the economy tanked.

Industry officials, though, say that activity should be compared more narrowly within the Permian Basin, which includes three counties in New Mexico and many more across the border in West Texas. Those figures show that drilling went up on both sides of the state line after the pit rule was enacted, then fell in tandem in 2009. By mid-2010, drilling had recovered to about where it was before the crash.

But it then leveled out on the New Mexico side of the Permian, while in Texas it continued to surge. Rig counts compiled by the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico indicate in mid-2010 there were about four times as many rigs on the Texas side. By the end of 2011 the ratio was heading toward 6-to-1.

"We've never said that there won't be any development in New Mexico because of the pit rule," said the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association's Drangmeister. "We're saying it would have happened at a faster rate."

And that hints at what some say is the real issue -- large-scale hydraulic fracturing.

"What we lost in New Mexico is horizontal drilling for gas," Yates said.

In West Texas, "multi-stage" fracture treatments are being used to revive production from previously ignored Permian Basin formations, similar to the shale drilling that has revolutionized the country's oil and gas production. Those "frack jobs" produce a lot of "flowback" water that is most easily stored in pits.

Gwen Lachelt, who has fought dilution of the pit rule for the environmental group Earthworks, says interest in new hydraulic fracturing techniques is driving the changes. Rolled into industry's proposal is a request to let drillers use one large pit for multiple wells that employ high-volume, high-pressure hydraulic fracturing. Lachelt calls them "frack lakes."

"The industry wants to get rid of the pit rule so it can build frack lakes and usher in a new era of unregulated oil and gas development," Lachelt said.

New Mexico officials started looking at pits in 2006. The rules, drafted after 17 hours of hearings, required different levels of protection depending on how close and vulnerable groundwater supplies are to the water used in the well. In practice, Drangmeister says, almost all pits are banned and almost all oil drilling must use closed-loop systems.

The pits or tanks hold briny water, far saltier than seawater, which is mixed with drilling "muds" that cool and lubricate the drill bit. The mud also maintains pressure to prevent blowouts.

The mud can contain chemical additives to inhibit corrosion, acids, cements, gels, polymers, organic compounds and metals. Also, whatever the bit drills through will be pumped up with the mud and into a pit.

For decades, pits were simply bulldozed over when the well was finished, leaving whatever materials they contained to seep into the soil and potentially the groundwater.

The problems with that can be seen on Johnson's ranch, where cattle drink from stock ponds that draw from groundwater just a few feet below the surface. Those cattle wind up in hamburgers and steaks in supermarkets and restaurants.

"There's every kind of chemical out there," Johnson said. "All this groundwater strata is the same."

The state first required liners in 1992. In 2003 the state enacted another set of rules, which officials found to be too broad and lacking in specifics. The pit rule was drafted to fix those problems.

Johnson scoffed at the assurances industry attorneys make at hearings that pit liners protect groundwater (to wit: "That's bullshit"). He said he has watched them get laid down by low-skilled laborers in high winds. He said they're ripped full of holes as crews install them on the windy range. Then, they tear even more when heavy equipment is used to roll the cuttings into place for burial.

State officials documented about 400 incidents of contamination from leaking pits. Oil and gas officials said that finding overstated the problem, arguing that many of the leaks were from something other than pits.

Oil and gas companies began seeking to reverse the rule almost as soon as the New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission adopted it. They got their chance when Martinez won.

Industry submitted a proposal last year to allow companies to use lined pits instead of tanks when the risk to groundwater is small, increase the level of salt allowed in drilling fluids buried on-site and streamline the permitting process.

A victory undone?

Johnson calls himself "an irritating old bastard," but if a Hollywood producer wanted an authentic-looking rancher, he couldn't do better than the 74-year-old cattleman. The third-generation New Mexico rancher wears a dusty brown cowboy hat set atop short white hair and a Carhartt jacket.

Warning of the dire consequences of a second term for President Obama in a Western twang, he doesn't sound like the type you'd expect to link up with environmental groups like Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project. But he sees oilmen as a bigger threat than lefty green groups.

"I hate them sum-bitches," he says. "These oilies, the only time they're not lying is when they're not talking."

Johnson owns thousands of acres of the yellow and green range around here (he doesn't like to talk about how much), and his family members own more. But like many ranchers, he owns almost none of the oil underneath.

So the law compels him to allow oil companies to set up shop on his ranch and drill.

It's a recipe for conflict. Explaining the way the "oilies" treat his land, he stomps the brake and comes to a stop on the hardpan road. He turns and holds up a finger.

"I own this land," he spits. "I have a deed." His eyes narrow and his lips purse. "I can't do what they do."

Four years ago, he thought he and his fellow ranchers won a measure of victory in the pit rule. Now, he expects that victory to be undone.

"Our pit rule was the best in the country," he says, looking over the steering wheel across the expanse of his land. "I'm so proud of my state for being in the lead. Now they're trying to go the other way."

Gov. John Hickenlooper predicted that private oil companies will sue the northern Colorado city to overturn the ban.

Hickenlooper, an advocate of natural gas, said the fuel is essential to cutting global-warming emissions, but it can’t be extracted without hydraulic fracturing.

“Fracking is essential to get that kind of resource out. It suggests to me that we have to do fracking, but we have to make sure that it’s absolutely safe,” Hickenlooper said.

His administration has already sued Longmont over a previous city ordinance that regulates drilling and bans it in residential areas. That lawsuit is working its way through the courts.

Legislators fought to a draw in early 2012 over whether the state or local governments should have more regulatory power over drilling.

Gwen Lachelt, head of the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, said she wasn’t surprised at the Longmont vote.

“It was bound to happen,” said Lachelt, who is locked in a too-close-to-call race for a seat on the La Plata County Board of County Commissioners.

A new breed of gas and oil activists wants to ban fracking altogether, and Lachelt said these activists view her as pro-development because she advocates responsible drilling.

“They feel like they need to take action to protect their water supplies, because the state’s not looking out for them, and the federal government’s not looking out for them,” Lachelt said.

The state has not challenged La Plata County’s local gas and oil rules and agreements with gas companies. But if companies sue Longmont, La Plata might have to get involved to defend its regulations, depending on how broad the lawsuit is, Lachelt said.

The state quickly overturned the ordinance. Gov. John Hickenlooper said that letting it stand would “stir-up a hornet’s nest,” encouraging other Colorado towns to pass their own drilling rules. Longmont Mayor Dennis Coombs argued that communities have the right to restrict heavy industry in residential zones – including oil and gas drilling.

The natural gas “gold rush” underway in 31 states is indeed “stirring up a hornet’s nest,” sparking pushback from communities that see themselves as the last line of defense protecting citizens against state and federal failures to regulate fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technology that blasts millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand underground to release oil and gas from shale bedrock.

“The U.S. faces a crisis in the enforcement of rules governing the oil and gas industry,” states a new report by Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project. Their study, which analyzed government data from six heavily-fracked states, discovered that each of them failed to enforce existing drilling regulations. Between 53 and 91 percent of active wells in those states go uninspected – 175,000 to 300,000 wells in all, with not enough inspectors nor the funding to pay for them or their equipment. As a result, many violations go unrecorded, with few penalties and many repeat offenders.

With just 17 inspectors for 60,000 wells in West Virginia, municipalities and environmental groups are calling for a moratorium on drilling until various safeguards and monitoring criteria are met. North Carolina’s controversial moratorium on natural gas drilling runs until 2014, when the legislature will vote on as-yet-unwritten regulations. But Raleigh, NC, Morgantown, WV, and other communities aren’t waiting for state action. They’ve preemptively passed local drilling bans or strict zoning rules.

New York State’s contentious 2010 moratorium on natural gas drilling currently remains in place, with Gov. Andrew Cuomo launching a new health study, and the state Supreme Court upholding municipalities’ rights to ban drilling within their borders. At least a dozen New York communities, including Buffalo, have passed such bans.

Next door, in Pennsylvania, the legislature passed a 2012 law forbidding towns from regulating fracking, which was then overturned by the courts. Five Delaware Valley towns quickly asserted their “home rule” rights and prohibited fracking.

In Texas, the towns of Flower Mound, Grapevine and Southlake chose to regulate fracking within their city limits after the industry had heavily impacted their towns. Those ordinances include buffer zones that distance wells from homes, schools, churches, and hospitals, as well as a Southlake ban on summertime fracking due to the industry’s competition for drinking water.

Meanwhile, back in Colorado, more than 80 county commissioners, mayors, and city council members statewide have asked Gov. Hickenlooper to withdraw his lawsuit against Longmont’s fracking ban, saying that, “Local governments have both the right and responsibility to take action to protect the public heath and well being of our citizens as well as the environment.”

Across the nation, this local opposition is occurring within a vacuum. The federal government does not regulate hydraulic fracturing, and the industry – unlike any in America – is exempted from seven major environmental regulations. On the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, fracking gets a pass, along with exemptions from the Clean Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Superfund law and hazardous waste disposal regulations.

Only four states have significant regulations, which seem to go largely unenforced.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has conclusively proven that fracking contaminated an aquifer in Pavilion, Wyoming, refuting longstanding industry claims that the process doesn’t pollute drinking water. Across the state line, a Colorado School of Public Health study released earlier this year found high levels of airborne petroleum hydrocarbons near drilling sites in Garfield County, levels that could cause acute or chronic respiratory and neurological problems.

Municipalities are increasingly concerned over health and economic impacts from frack water and air pollution. Drillers transform quiet rural communities into industrial zones with wells, waste ponds, smog, roaring compressors and heavy truck traffic. Environmental advocate Robert Kennedy Jr. estimates that it takes over 4,200 truck trips to carry freshwater in and contaminated frackwater out of each well site.

In Ohio, a grassroots “limited home rule” campaign seeks to regulate drilling by drafting community noise limits, designating operating hours, and limiting truck routes and drilling waste shipments. The strategy would, in theory, supersede Ohio Department of Natural Resources authority over drilling, passing it back to municipalities.

In Broadview Heights, Ohio, – an upscale city dotted with 90 wells – a “charter amendment” on the November ballot would ban future drilling, citing citizens’ rights to clean air, clean water, clean soil and a sustainable energy future. At least 30 Ohio communities have passed statutes to regulate or ban fracking.

Not one state, nor the federal government, currently requires drillers to disclose “proprietary” drilling formulas, which contain chemicals known to cause cancer or disrupt hormones that regulate basic body functions, including benzene, toluene, diesel, and formaldehyde, to name a few. Oil and gas companies pumped 780 million gallons of fracturing products underground from 2005-2009 containing about 750 different chemicals.

Of the 353 chemicals identified by researchers in a recent study, about half could harm the nervous system, the cardiovascular system and blood, 40 percent could disrupt immune function, about a third could affect endocrine organs, and a quarter could cause cancer.

A new Pennsylvania law demonstrates how states favor drillers: companies there are now required to reveal “trade secret” chemicals to physicians, but doctors must first sign a confidentiality agreement. Ohio’s new fracking rules include a similar provision.

In August, Wilkes-Barre physician Dr. Alfonso Rodriguez filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the PA frack “gag rule” violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, preventing communication with “patients, colleagues, medical researchers and the public regarding the identity and amount of chemicals, and the health hazards they present to the community.”

The root of the regulatory breakdown lies with elected officials who take hefty campaign contributions from frackers – then pass industry-friendly rules. The oil and gas industry has already handed at least $30 million in 2012 campaign contributions to members of Congress and fossil fuel political action committees. A current flag-waving “Vote 4 Energy” TV ad boasts job creation, though most frack jobs are short-term and go to out-of-state, transient workers – often attracting drugs, prostitution and crime to communities.

But it also goes one step deeper. The underpinning that allows fracking to go nearly unregulated across America is a century-old, Industrial Revolution-era legal framework that favors limitless economic growth, even if it harms human health or the environment or tramples the rights of citizens or communities – and it’s up to those harmed to prove damages, notes legal scholar Joseph Guth.

The European REACH system stands in stark contrast to the U.S. model, placing the burden of proof on companies – not governments – to show that the chemicals they produce or use are safe.

Polls show that more than 80 percent of Americans want clean energy, but federal and state officials have done little to shift towards renewables. In the meantime, more and more communities are moving to protect their citizens against the “fracking gold rush.”

Joint press release

Harrisburg, PA – 25 organizations sent a letter to Governor Tom Corbett today criticizing the PA Department of Environmental Protection’s well water testing and notification policies as outdated, lacking transparency, and inadequate to protect residents and drinking water from pollution caused by gas drilling. The groups called on the Governor to take immediate action to reform PADEP’s procedures and disclose all data collected through DEP water tests but only partially reported to households where the testing occurred.

The letter and requests for action were prompted by information revealed through depositions in the case of Kiskadden vs. PADEP and DEP Secretary Michael Krancer’s recent announcement of changes to how suspected water pollution from shale gas operations is investigated.

The organizations’ letter made three requests:

1. DEP report all data from households where well water was sampled due to suspected pollution from gas and oil operations. A court deposition of the technical director of DEP's Bureau of Laboratories indicated that DEP routinely omits data on 16 of 24 heavy metals for which it conducts water analyses from the final reports provided to well owners. Some of the omitted metals have serious health impacts and have been found in drilling flowback and produced water. DEP should revise its testing protocol to include all potential contaminants so the agency can accurately evaluate drinking water impacts and affected residents can make informed decisions about their water supplies.
2. DEP revoke the new policy requiring administrators in Harrisburg to approve any positive notices of water contamination before public notification is made. In response to previously made requests in this regard, Secretary Krancer claimed DEP was fully transparent. In light of the revelations of Kiskadden vs. PADEP, the groups reasoned that the data used by DEP and provided to the public is neither complete nor accurate, and should not be the basis of determining whether pollution has occurred. Notification of contaminated water should be made without delay and bureaucratic red tape eliminated due to the potential harmful health impacts on residents waiting for testing results.
3. The missing results from all well water tests ordered by the DEP should be provided immediately to well owners. This includes all tests using special reporting codes that omit from reports data that is necessary for accurate determinations by DEP of whether pollution occurred and whether residents’ health and water supplies are being harmed. Determinations by DEP based on partial data must be questioned.  

The groups concluded that such actions are key to ensuring that the DEP, as a public agency, fulfills its responsibility to serve the public interest and rigorously protects Pennsylvania’s residents and the environment. The groups pointed out that current policies fly in the face of DEP’s mission to protect the state from gas drilling pollution, increase the risk of residents’ exposure to contaminated drinking water, and undermine DEP’s credibility in the eyes of the public.

"One the biggest fears for people living near drilling is the possibility of having your drinking water supply impacted. We trust DEP to look out for us and safeguard this vital resource. However, that trust is shaken and eroded when you learn about procedures and policies like this. Clean Water Action is proud to join with other organizations in calling for swift response to correct these procedures and policies and restore faith that DEP is looking out for the public’s best interest not the oil and gas industry's," says Steve Hvozdovich, Marcellus Shale Policy Associate, Clean Water Action.

 “As gas development spreads across Pennsylvania, problems with drinking water and health often follow,” says Nadia Steinzor with Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project. “Residents of the Commonwealth turn to the DEP to help them find answers—not limit the very information on which those answers depend. Transparency and reliability are hallmarks of responsible public agencies, which the DEP in this case clearly is not.”

“Pennsylvanians need protection from the invasive pollution that drilling and fracking is bringing into communities and into the water people drink. But when pollution of a water well is suspected, DEP isn’t on the job. Instead of digging deep to discover the facts, they are doing cursory testing and holding back critical information from those affected, making their decisions fatally flawed. This is flat out wrong and we’re calling on Governor Corbett to make immediate changes,” says Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.

"Pennsylvania residents in fracked communities have complained for years that DEP has protected the industry instead of protecting their water, air, land and health. Withholding information from impacted homeowners endangers public health and is inexcusable. We call for a complete reversal in DEP's priorities and an end to their betrayal of Pennsylvania communities," states Iris Marie Bloom, Director, Protecting our Waters.

“The deposition testimony shows where DEP's priorities lie - the agency doctored lab reports in order to protect the fracking industry from the people it is charged with safeguarding,” said Sam Bernhardt, Pennsylvania Organizer for Food & Water Watch. “The process of fracking simply cannot be done safely,” he concluded.

“As citizens concerned for the health and safety of their families, property owners deserve better from the DEP than having any water test results withheld. Moreover, as taxpayers, property owners are entitled to all 24 data points in the test results because their tax dollars paid for them,” states Karen Feridun, founder of Berks Gas Truth.

Julie Edgar of Lehigh Valley Gas Truth states, “Lehigh Valley Gas Truth thinks that this development, though superficially shocking, is unfortunately characteristic of the DEP under the regime of Governor Corbett, and we call out as demonstrated by these shady procedures that benefit privatized corporate profit agendas while sacrificing public health.”

###

Spurred in large part by concerns over the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, citizens and local governments are mobilizing in support of bans or other restrictions on oil and gas drilling and, specifically, fracking.

Fracking—the high-pressure injection of water, chemicals, and sand to fracture underground rock formations and release trapped natural gas and oil—along with advances in horizontal drilling, has made it possible to develop extensive new fields of oil and gas around the United States. But the practice now used in an estimated 95 percent of U.S. oil and gas wells has elevated concerns about the health and safety of drilling, particularly in regard to those communities close to oil and gas developments.

As of late July “more than 200 municipalities in 15 states, including city councils, town boards, and county legislatures, have banned natural gas drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing,” according to OMB Watch, a nonprofit organization that follows the Office of Management and Budget. Some of these recent developments include:

• In Colorado the state commission that oversees development of oil and gas resources has taken the city of Longmont to court to block the city’s new restrictions on drilling in residential areas and its requirement that water quality be monitored for five years after wells are hydraulically fractured. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has strongly backed the agency’s suit.
• In Pennsylvania municipalities are suing the state over a new law that bars them from using their zoning authority to determine where wells can be drilled. The dispute is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, after a lower court ruled in July that the law violates the state constitution.
• In New York more than 140 towns and cities have imposed bans or moratoria on drilling, anticipating that a four-year-old statewide suspension on fracking will be lifted once environmental and health reviews are completed. Energy companies have filed lawsuits to question the legality of these local antifracking ordinances, and in October two New York judges ruled in separate decisions that local governments are allowed to prohibit drilling—decisions that are likely to be appealed.
• In Ohio several dozen local communities have called for drilling bans, despite a state law that gives sole regulatory authority over oil and gas development to the state government. In an attempt to gain some local control over drilling, activists are pushing communities to adopt what is called “limited home rule,” which would ideally give the local communities more control over oil and gas drilling, and bills asserting the right to clean air and water.

The uprising against drilling and fracking is widespread enough that the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group, announced in late September that it has established a new program to assist fracking opponents with legal and policy advice. The Community Fracking Defense Project will operate in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and North Carolina.

“For too long, communities around the country have had little defense against the oil and gas companies that sweep into their neighborhoods and start fracking without regard for the impacts on the people who live there,” said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney in the New York office of the National Resources Defense Council.

In response to the creation of the Community Fracking Defense Project, industry spokesmen said it would hurt economic development in communities by discouraging drilling and argued that state regulation of oil and gas development has been effective thus far. John Krohn, a spokesman for the oil and gas industry group Energy in Depth, said that assisting local communities in opposing fracking was part of the National Resources Defense Council’s longstanding “anti-energy agenda.”
As oil and gas development has exploded in many states, however, the ability of state regulatory agencies—increasingly strapped for cash and short-staffed—to perform effective oversight has been called into question. A report published in late September by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project of the group Earthworks, for example, said states have been overwhelmed by the oil and gas boom of late and cannot adequately enforce their own regulations. The report concludes:

The U.S. faces a crisis in the enforcement of rules governing the oil and gas industry. The shale gas and shale oil boom has brought an expansion of oil and gas activity unseen in many parts of the country since the 19th century. Unfortunately … states are dangerously unprepared to oversee current levels of extraction, let alone increased drilling activity from the shale boom.

As National Public Radio reported in May, inspectors often face an overwhelming task: Too much work and too few people to handle it. Colorado, the NPR report said, has just 17 inspectors for 47,000 active wells. Wyoming has 12 inspectors for 60,000 wells, and North Dakota 19 inspectors for 6,600 wells.

The showdown between Colorado’s state government and the city of Longmont is a particularly telling example of the opposing pressures resulting from dramatic increases in oil and gas development in some regions of the United States. Longmont is a city of about 90,000 people located within the Niobrara Formation—a shale oil play stretching from northeast Colorado to southeast Montana—about a half-hour north of Denver. On July 17 the Longmont City Council adopted its first rewrite of city drilling rules since 2000, banning all oil and gas drilling in residential areas and requiring rigorous monitoring of the water quality of wells until five years after they are abandoned.
Two weeks later the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission sued the city in what is believed to be the first such action by the agency in its history. Gov. Hickenlooper, a former petroleum geologist, has been a leader in criticizing Longmont’s new ban, saying it would put “intense pressure” on other communities to follow suit, resulting in a hodge-podge of differing regulatory schemes. More than 82 city and county leaders in Colorado, however, have supported Longmont, asking Hickenlooper to abandon the state’s lawsuit.

“Local governments have both the right and responsibility to take action to protect the public health and well being of our citizens as well as the environment,” the officials said in their letter to the governor.

Colorado’s rules governing oil and gas development are regarded as some of the most rigorous in the United States. But they require only a modest 350-foot setback between oil and gas wells and schools and residential areas. As the environmental group Western Resource Advocates pointed out, the state requires medical marijuana dispensaries and idling diesel vehicles to be at least 1,000 feet away from schools.

It makes little sense to have every city and town devising its own requirements for all the sophisticated engineering aspects of energy development. But when it comes to determining if drilling is appropriate inside municipal boundaries or close to neighborhoods and schools, local communities ought to have some say.

A four-justice majority ruled this week that Revett Silver Co. needs a more site-specific permit with greater public review before it starts a five-year effort to develop its copper and silver mine north of Noxon.

Writing for the majority, Justice Michael Wheat said the state Department of Environmental Quality erred in granting a general permit if the “point source will be located in an area of unique ecological or recreational significance,” according to Montana law.

The justices agreed with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks research showing that Rock Creek is an essential bit of bull trout habitat that cannot be replaced if damaged. And they supported a U.S. Forest Service conclusion that road construction over five years would fill the stream with sediment that could “result in permanent loss of the Rock Creek bull trout stock.”

Justices Mike McGrath, James Nelson and Brian Morris agreed with Wheat to uphold a state district court ruling rejecting the general permit. Justices Jim Rice and Patricia Cotter dissented.

Dissent author Rice argued that the court majority based its decision on “a very selective review of the evidentiary record and one that is contrary to the record as a whole.”

Rice said he thought DEQ properly decided the matter and the courts should have deferred to the agency.

He also argued that the area already suffers from a century-old network of logging roads that dumped 379 tons of sediment a year into Rock Creek. Revett’s improved road is expected to add 1,415 more tons to that load. But Rice noted the company’s road plan accounts for all of that discharge, plus improvements that would remove an additional 54.9 tons a year.

***

On Tuesday, Revett president John Shanahan said while he was pleased to convince some of the justices, the company planned not to appeal the decision.

“The reality is the Supreme Court has ruled,” Shanahan said. “We’re in the process of completing our (individual) permit, and that should be out in January or February of next year. It’s a different process. It involves a public comment period, but it won’t change the nature of the work we’ll be doing. We believe it will improve critical habitat, and won’t endanger the bull trout spawning areas.”

The Rock Creek Mine was proposed in the 1980s and took more than a decade of analysis before the state and U.S. Forest Service completed a joint environmental impact statement in 2001. In that time, several environmental and conservation groups challenged the project on grounds it would hurt threatened or endangered species like bull trout and grizzly bears.

Revett sought a general storm water discharge permit from the state in 2008 to upgrade about 12 miles of forest road, of which three miles ran next to Rock Creek. In July 2011, a district court judge ruled the general discharge permit wasn’t strict enough to protect the bull trout fishery.

“They issued the discharge permit knowing there would be significant impacts and knowing the significance of bull trout in Rock Creek,” said Bonnie Gestring of Earthworks, which joined the Clark Fork Coalition, Trout Unlimited and the Rock Creek Alliance in opposing Revett. “This decision will require they go back and obtain an individual permit and take steps to protect the fishery.”

Throwing an old cellphone into the trash, the most likely end to any cellphone, over time leads to the leaching of hazardous chemicals like lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and other rare earth elements into the soil and groundwater. In some areas that incinerate their trash, these toxins could quickly find their way into our atmosphere.

Keeping cellphones out of landfills is not the only environmental impact that the group hopes to achieve. Recycling cells, mobile devices, and laptops reduces the demand on mineral mining by keeping these materials in circulation.

According to Earthworks, recycling 50 million cellphones could prevent the creation of 2 million tons of mining waste. The group projected that iPhone 5 sales alone will reach 50 million by the end of 2012. Those purchasing the new iPhone probably have an old device that might just be thrown away.

“We hope the public will embrace this easy option for recycling with the guarantee that their devices are being handled responsibly,”

—Hilary Lewis, manager, Recycle My Cell Phone

“Recycling helps protect communities and the environment in the United States and around the world by keeping hazardous chemicals out of landfills and reducing the demand for conflict mineral mining,” said Recycle My Cell Phone Manager Hilary Lewis in a statement on the Earthworks website.

Additionally, another impact of phone recycling includes the potential reduction in demand for conflict materials. An area of cellphone consumerism that is often overlooked, conflict materials include minerals like gold, tin, tantalum, and tungsten, which are mined in areas of the world with high civil conflict.

Specifically, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is currently suffering from heavy internal strife, and the sale of minerals mined from that country for electronics and cellphones is directly funding human rights abuses and civil violence there.

The Montana Supreme Court voided a key water quality permit for the proposed Rock Creek Mine on Monday, holding that the state’s use of a permitting shortcut would not sufficiently protect Rock Creek’s threatened bull trout population, a resource of “unique ecological significance” under state law.  The Rock Creek Mine is a controversial mining project that would excavate for silver and copper underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in the lower Clark Fork River drainage near Idaho.  

The Supreme Court upheld a decision issued by a Montana district court in July 2011, finding that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated Montana’s water quality laws when it issued a general construction permit that would allow the mining company to degrade Rock Creek, instead of preparing an individual permit specifically designed to protect Rock Creek’s uniquely sensitive resources.

The Supreme Court agreed, citing the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which described Rock Creek’s bull trout population as “an essential stock for conservation purposes,” and the stronger of the “only two stocks in the Lower Clark Fork considered to have enough individuals to avoid significant risk of extinction.”

Construction of the mine would discharge massive amounts of sediment to Rock Creek, increasing sediment loading by 38% overall.  Fine sediment smothers bull trout eggs, dramatically decreasing survival.  The discharge, slated to occur for five to seven years, would encompass the full seven-year life span of a bull trout. 

“The mine’s impacts to Rock Creek and its bull trout population would be devastating,” said Jim Costello of the Rock Creek Alliance.  “The state knew this, but chose to treat this discharge as insignificant by issuing a general construction permit that ignores the importance of Rock Creek.  

“The Rock Creek bull trout population is critical to the recovery of the species in the Clark Fork Watershed,” said Bonnie Gestring of Earthworks.  “This decision prevents the company from cutting corners to avoid protecting Montana’s native trout.”

The court agreed with the four plaintiff organizations, which include the Rock Creek Alliance, Earthworks, Clark Fork Coalition and Trout Unlimited, and issued a summary judgment voiding the permit.  The court’s action precludes any construction activities until the state prepares a detailed, site-specific permit for the mine in accordance with state law, and with full public review.
Karen Knudsen, executive director for the Clark Fork Coalition was gratified that the Supreme Court upheld the decision. “The court validated our contention all along that Rock Creek is too important to dismiss.”

The proposed mine is widely opposed by a diverse group of businesses, local governments, and conservation and sporting organizations in the region concerned about the long-term pollution the mine would generate.

—30—

WASHINGTON, D.C.///October 24, 2012///The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), along with 16 other local, regional, and national organizations petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today to require the oil and gas extraction industry—including companies engaged in fracking—to report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).  The oil and gas extraction industry has long used and released large amounts of TRI-listed toxic chemicals, and this has dramatically increased in the last decade with the rapid spread of horizontal hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”).

Today’s petition would finally make this information available for the first time to citizens, communities, and lawmakers.  The full text of the petition is available online at: http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/petition_to_add_oil_gas_extraction_to_TRI.

Joining EIP on the petition are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, CitizenShale, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthworks, Elected Officials to Protect New York, Environmental Advocates of New York, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, OMB Watch, PennEnvironment, Powder River Basin Resource Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, and Texas Campaign for the Environment.

“The Toxics Release Inventory brings daylight to dark corners, by requiring companies to quantify and report their pollution to a public data base for everyone to see,” said Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer.  “That makes it easier for communities to measure the environmental impact of local industries, motivates companies to reduce their emissions, and gives all of us insight into how well our environmental laws are working.  The EPA estimates the oil and gas industry releases 127,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, second only to power plants and more than any of the other industries already reporting to TRI.  Why shouldn’t oil and gas companies be required to report these toxic releases under our Right-to-Know laws, like so many other industries already do?” 

The oil and gas extraction industry is a vast and growing industrial sector, operating in most states across the U.S.  Oil and gas industry processes extend from well exploration to production and processing up to the point at which the natural gas is ready for transport to market or oil is ready for transport to a refinery.  The advent of fracking has allowed the industry to grow even more rapidly in the last decade, but with the addition of greater amounts and volumes of toxic chemicals, more wastes, and a much bigger environmental footprint.

“As a mother, wife, community member, and individual suffering health issues caused by breathing toxic emissions, such as benzene, from a natural gas compressor site, I am very concerned about the impact the oil and gas industry is having on human life and the environment,” said Pam Judy, a resident of Carmichaels, Pennsylvania.  “I am dismayed that there is not an adequate federal disclosure requirement that would provide individuals with the information necessary to make decisions regarding their health and safety.”

Data on the oil and gas industry (including fracking) points to a large toxic footprint.  EPA has estimated that the industry emits 127,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, including benzene, xylenes, and hydrogen sulfide—more than any other TRI industry except electric utilities.  And EPA investigations of natural gas development in Pavillion, Wyoming, and Dimock, Pennsylvania, found toxic chemicals and methane present in groundwater and drinking water wells.  In fact, a Congressional report based on industry data found that the industry regularly uses products containing at least 45 TRI-listed toxic chemicals, the most common of which are: methanol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.

“I don’t just work with Powder River Basin Resource Council members in Pavillion, Deaver, and Clark, Wyoming, who are severely impacted by contamination from oil and gas development.  I also live with it,” said Deb Thomas, Powder River Basin Resource Council organizer and resident of Clark, Wyoming.  “For those of us who fear our health is being affected by this industry, disclosure of the chemicals and constituents used during development is extremely important.  We need to know what we’re being exposed to so that physicians can diagnose and treat our health problems and we can make informed decisions about staying in the communities we live in.  It is a human right to know what toxic materials are being stored and used where we live and work.”

In spite of these significant quantities of toxic chemicals used and released, the industry is one of the few energy or extraction sectors that do not report to the TRI.  For example, electric utilities, coal mining, and metal mining have all reported to the TRI for nearly fifteen years.  The oil and gas extraction industry is also uniquely exempt from many key provisions of our major environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

“Western Maryland currently has the highest targeted amount of shale gas within the state, and development activities will likely be centered in rural communities like Garrett County.  Unfortunately, the county does not have the information or ability to address the storage of large volumes of chemicals, which may appeal to companies looking to stage drilling and processing activities within Maryland,” said Eric Robison, CitizenShale president and resident of Garrett County, Maryland.  “The reporting provided by the TRI would allow a community like Garrett County to, first, be informed and, second, be prepared.”

Today’s petition requests that the industry’s facilities report their releases of toxic chemicals to the TRI, as electric utilities and coal mining already do.  The reporting requirement is annual, procedural, and simply requires disclosure.  These reports would provide a valuable resource to communities, lawmakers, and the companies themselves.  For example, if a gas company were to propose a facility in a municipality, a community member or local decision maker could pull up the company’s past TRI reports and judge whether the facility would be a good neighbor.  Or the company itself could compare its releases against other facilities and determine whether it is in line with the industry standard.  Above all, the petition would serve a fully informed public and industry responsibility.

The TRI was enacted in 1986 as Congress’s response to the Bhopal disaster that exposed hundreds of thousands of people to toxic chemicals.  The TRI requires each industrial facility to report annually on its releases of over 650 TRI-listed toxic chemicals to the air, land, water, landfills, treatment plants, and other sites.  The reports published in the Inventory are available online, providing basic but essential information about the environmental “footprint” of facilities.

Statements of Petitioners

National

Lynn Thorp, national campaigns director, Clean Water Action: “Inclusion of oil and gas sector pollution data in the Toxics Release Inventory is long overdue, and will provide people the information they need to protect their health, their drinking water, and their communities.”

Bruce Baizel, senior staff attorney, Earthworks: “Industry claims oil and gas development is safe.  Yet it blocks access to the information the public needs to judge for themselves.  EPA can and should stop the oil and gas industry from talking out both sides of its mouth, and require it to report its chemical releases to the Toxics Release Inventory.”

Amy Mall, senior policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council: “The oil and gas industry has enjoyed exemptions from our most important environmental laws for far too long.  EPA has a responsibility to look out for the best interests of Americans’ health and environment – not polluters. It’s time for the fracking industry to report the chemicals they release into our communities, just like other businesses must.”

Sean Moulton, director of Federal Information Policy, OMB Watch: “No state is requiring enough upfront collection of baseline data and ongoing monitoring to adequately protect local water supplies and public health. Citizens need adequate information to evaluate the potential risks of allowing fracking in their communities.  At the federal level, the EPA should add the oil and gas extraction industry to the Toxics Release Inventory program to help fill the information gap that currently exists.”

Deb Nardone, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign director, Sierra Club: “People have the right to know when the oil and gas industry dumps toxic pollution into our air and water, and it's high time the gas industry started playing by the same rules as everyone else.  We strongly urge the Environmental Protection Agency to require mandatory reporting and tracking of all the toxic chemicals that the gas industry uses and releases into our communities.”

Pennsylvania

Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum: “Communities are already suffering from the environmental and health impacts of the shale gas industry’s use of hundreds of chemicals in the drilling and fracking of thousands of wells, with no idea of which chemicals are responsible for these impacts. Industry cannot truthfully claim that fracking is safe while refusing to disclose what toxics it puts into drilling muds and fracking fluids and what toxics come out of its wells. Our right to know what is contaminating our water, air, and soil so we can take the necessary steps to protect our families, communities, and the ecosystems on which we all depend fundamentally outweighs the industry’s interests in keeping its toxic cocktails secret.”

Guy Alsentzer, staff attorney, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper: “The TRI petition is a logical and important step toward better, safer regulation of a polluting industry.  Inclusion of the oil and gas industry within the TRI will increase public knowledge and create a meaningful mechanism for better tracking and reducing the use and release of toxic chemicals in our air, waterways and lands, tasks especially important as natural gas hydrofracking operations continue apace.”

David Masur, director, PennEnvironment: “The ‘Right-to-Know’ principle is the cornerstone of making environmental decisions—and every basic decision in a democratic society.  Without having the facts, we hinder the ability of every-day Americans from making thoughtful decisions for their own good and good of the public. The ‘Right-to-Know’ principle gives Americans access to crucial information in order to make informed decisions.”

New York

Katherine Nadeau, Water & Natural Resources Program director, Environmental Advocates of New York: “As Governor Cuomo contemplates permitting the dirty gas drilling technique known as ‘fracking,’ New Yorkers along with our state and federal leaders need to protect what matters most—our public health, communities, and natural environment.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can require the gas industry to report the harmful chemicals it uses and toxic wastes it produces, and the agency should act now to provide decision-makers and citizens nationwide with this critical information.”

Dominic Frongillo, Deputy Town Supervisor of Caroline, New York, and Founder of Elected Officials to Protect New York: “Over 450 elected officials from across New York are calling for continuing the state's moratorium on fracking until the drilling method is proven safe.  Requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals is the common-sense first step. We need the federal government to be a leader and advocate for our citizens.”

Maryland

Diana Dascalu-Joffe, senior general counsel, Chesapeake Climate Action Network: “On behalf of our more than 60,000 supporters in Maryland and Virginia, we’re calling on the EPA to hold the oil and gas industry accountable to the same standards as other industries and tell the truth about the toxic chemicals that they spill into the environment. Communities in Maryland and Virginia where the industry wants to frack deserve to know what dangerous toxins are already impacting communities on the front lines of fracking in neighboring states. This is especially important because rural regions of Maryland and Virginia have little access to expert emergency services trained to deal with toxic chemical spills or releases.”

Eric Robison, president, CitizenShale: “Western Maryland currently has the highest targeted amount of shale gas within the state, and development activities will likely be centered in rural communities like Garrett County.  Unfortunately, the county does not have the information or ability to address the storage of large volumes of chemicals, which may appeal to companies looking to stage drilling and processing activities within Maryland.  The reporting provided by the TRI would allow a community like Garrett County to (1) be informed and (2) be prepared.”

Colorado

Dan Randolph, executive director, San Juan Citizens Alliance: "The San Juan Basin of Colorado and New Mexico has over 33,000 oil and gas wells.  It is critically important that the public knows the risks to public health from this tremendous amount of activity.  The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Toxic Release Inventory, must include oil and gas extraction if our communities are to be able to assess and cope with the impacts associated with this development.”

Wyoming

Deb Thomas, organizer, Powder River Basin Resource Council and Clark Resource Council: “I don’t just work with Powder River Basin Resource Council members in Pavillion, Deaver, and Clark, Wyoming, who are severely impacted by contamination from oil and gas development.  I also live with it.  For those of us who fear our health is being affected by this industry, disclosure of the chemicals and constituents used during development is extremely important.  We need to know what we’re being exposed to so that physicians can diagnose and treat our health problems and we can make informed decisions about staying in the communities we live in.  It is a human right to know what toxic materials are being stored and used where we live and work.”

"We use water for nothing other than flushing the commode," said Janet McIntyre, after describing her family's wide-ranging health problems -- from projectile vomiting to skin rashes -- that she attributed to the water.

McIntyre and her husband, Fred, were among more than 100 people recently surveyed by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project at Earthworks, an environmental and public health advocacy group based in Washington, for a report published on Thursday, which suggests that widespread contamination of air and water by natural gas drillers in Pennsylvania has triggered an array of health problems, including sinus, respiratory and mood problems.

"We have a serious timing problem," Nadia Steinzor, of Earthworks, said during a press call on Thursday. "Natural gas development is accelerating rapidly, but knowledge about its impacts on the environment and people is coming much slower."

Natural gas production is expanding across the country. While the burgeoning industry has lowered U.S. energy costs, some experts and advocates say they're increasingly concerned that the natural and manmade chemicals released during drilling, hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) and reinjection are making more people sick.

"They are playing roulette with public health," said Steinzor, lead author of the report.

Rates of symptoms since drilling began generally went up the closer people lived to gas facilities, according to the survey. Children averaged 19 health problems, with throat irritation and severe headaches topping the list.

In addition to asking participants about symptoms before and after natural gas development, the research team conducted 34 air tests and nine water tests. They wrote that many of the chemicals detected have been linked to oil and gas operations, as well as with many of the symptoms reported in the survey.

Critics of the report said the 108 residents surveyed across 14 Pennsylvania counties came from Earthworks' contacts and participants' own networks.

"This report seems somewhere between anecdotal and a rigorously designed study," said Rob Jackson, a biologist at Duke University. He said the report fills a "critical gap."

"The health effects are the biggest uncertainty with this issue. There's almost no information about it," said Jackson, whose research has found some evidence for elevated levels of gases such as methane in water supplies close to gas wells. "That doesn't mean there are huge health effects. We just don't know."

Steinzor acknowledged the report doesn't prove fracking harms public health. She added: "An absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Some recent studies have offered hints. Earlier this year, researchers suggested that average birth weights may drop and peoples' exposure to known carcinogens may rise close to natural gas development sites. Another study found animals living near fracking wells suffered serious health effects. (The McIntyres' dog suddenly died around the same time they began to be sickened by what they believe is their water.)

LuAnn Brink, a visiting assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, shared Jackson's mixed reaction to the study. "Earthworks represents a biased group of highly motivated individuals. As such, the interpretability of this work is limited," she said. "However, the conclusions of this work are in line with public health, including enhanced surveillance for disease outcomes of interest in affected areas, as well as an evaluation of the 'loopholes' in environmental regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, for which it was provided an exemption under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

"Public health has not been invited to the table yet," Brink said, referring to the relatively "new industry."

Dan Whitten, spokesman for America's Natural Gas Alliance, said he sees the situation differently. "Hydraulic fracturing has been used for more than six decades with an excellent safety track record," he said. "Extensive federal and state regulations are in place to address public health and safety."

Earthworks also released a study in September that quantified doubts that environmental advocates have with such a statement. As HuffPost reported, government inspections of wells, as well as fines for regulatory violations, according to the report, are generally too infrequent and too small to change drilling company behavior.

Industry representatives dismissed that report, much as they have done with the new one.

"The conclusion of this study is not supported by either history or the broader science surrounding natural gas development," Whitten said. Companies that belong to his trade group "take seriously the responsibility of ensuring the safety of our operations."

Janet McIntyre said that drinking bottled water and using a shower at a family member's home have reduced many of the symptoms plaguing members of her family, including her young daughter. But she said she believes the continued irritability, headaches, breathing and other health problems come from air contaminated by the drilling. McIntyre is among the 80 percent of survey participants who reported smelling bad odors.

And then there's the noise. "It's constant, 24 hours a day," she said. "It keeps me up at night."

McIntyre, who turned 53 on Thursday, said this might be the first presidential election since she turned 18 in which she won't cast a vote. President Barack Obama received her vote in 2008.

"I'm so frustrated," said McIntyre. "We're not getting answers. I think Obama needs to sit back and really take a look at it, instead of just saying, ' We need this, we need this.' We need more regulations and stiffer penalties."

Of course, while both presidential candidates have expressed support for expanding natural gas development, McIntyre is aware that Republican challenger Mitt Romney has pledged to reverse Obama's four years of "overregulation."

"Not voting is not good either," she said.

The findings come from a survey released today of 108 residents in 14 Pennsylvania counties. Since 2009, more than 5,000 wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania’s portion of the Marcellus Shale using hydraulic fracturing. This process requires sending millions of gallons of chemically treated water and sand underground to break shale rock and free trapped gas.

There should be ‘‘no more permitting for drilling until the health impacts can be fully understood.’’

“Many residents have developed health symptoms that they did not have before, which is a strong indication that they’re occurring because of gas development,” Nadia Steinzor, eastern program coordinator for Earthworks and lead author of the study, said on a conference call. There should be ‘‘no more permitting for drilling until the health impacts can be fully understood.’’ The group says that air samples reveal 19 volatile organic compounds, some of which can be linked to gas development.

Fracking has lowered U.S. energy prices, created jobs and enhanced national security, according to a task force formed by President Barack Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Critics say the benefits may not outweigh the environmental and health risks. Fracking has been linked to groundwater contamination in Pennsylvania, high ozone levels in Wyoming and now to health impacts for people living close to wells. Those living closer to gas wells reported higher rates of symptoms, according to the study. The survey was distributed to both Earthworks’ existing contacts in communities where drilling has occurred and other people who were referred to the group.

‘‘We are not saying this is definitive cause-and-effect proof,” Steinzor said. “What we’re saying is there are a lot of associations that are very strong and that need to be investigated further.”

The study results are questionable because of the participants chosen for the survey may have come in with a bias against drilling, according to Steve Forde, a spokesman for the Pittsburgh-based Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group.

"By the ‘researchers’ own admission, their so-called methodology clearly demonstrates that this is not a work of objective scientific research, given that they relied completely upon ‘existing contacts’ and others who attended their anti-natural gas ‘public events’ for their survey," Forde said in an e-mail.

October 18th –The largest health survey to-date of Marcellus Shale residents living near oil and gas development shows a clear pattern of negative health impacts associated with living near gas facilities, according to a new report released by Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project today.  Released in association with ShaleTest, Gas Patch Roulette: How Shale Gas Development Risks Public Health in Pennsylvania surveyed 108 residents in 14 Pennsylvania counties, and conducted air and water tests at more than half of the households were surveys were completed.

“For too long, the oil and gas industry and state regulators have dismissed community members’ health complaints as ‘false’ or ‘anecdotal’.” said Nadia Steinzor, Earthworks’ Eastern program coordinator and the project’s lead author. She continued, “The industry tries to shift blame onto residents themselves or onto any other possible source than oil and gas facilities, Now we know better. With this research, they cannot credibly ignore communities any longer.”
 
Gas Patch Roulette’s main conclusions are that

• Chemicals associated with oil and gas development are present in communities where development occurs.
• Residents in these communities report that after gas development began, they developed new health problems—many of which are known consequences of exposure to these chemicals.

State governments, which are largely responsible for protecting the public from irresponsible oil and gas development, have until recently refused to act on behalf of the public.

“The clear association between gas development and public health impacts revealed by this research demands that states stop ignoring the problem and start developing the standards necessary to protect the public,” said President of Subra Company and MacArthur Genius Grant recipient, Wilma Subra. She continued, “It’s clear that nationwide, because of regulatory inaction and a lack of corporate accountability, states are playing roulette with public health.”

Other findings of the report include that

• Those living closer to gas facilities report higher rates of impaired health.
• Children living near gas development reported negative health impacts that seem atypical in the young.
• Chemicals detected by air and water sampling have been associated by state and federal agencies with both oil and gas development and with many of the health symptoms reported in the surveys.

“It is clear from both the lab results and the reported health affects that the exploration of natural gas comes with consequences,” said Calvin Tillman, former mayor of gas-impacted DISH, Texas and founder of ShaleTest.  He continued, “Industry needs to step up to the plate and quit denying they are damaging our lives and property. The people in this survey are innocent bystanders that deserve better from the industry that is exploiting them, and the governments that are letting it happen.”

"Pennsylvania and many other states are forging ahead with oil and gas development without considering the public interest,” said Steinzor. “That needs to change. And they can start by refusing to permit new drilling until regulators can assure the public that they’ve taken all necessary to steps to prevent risks to their health.”

“Right now, the people of California don’t know where or when the drillers are fracking, what chemicals they are using, what pollutants they’re releasing into the air and water and what other risks they are taking,” said George Torgun, an attorney with the non-profit environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed the suit on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups.

The highly controversial practice of fracking, most frequently used in California to extract oil, has become a lightning rod in states across the country. It’s helped revitalize depressed local economies in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and elsewhere and has dramatically improved the hopes of North American energy independence by unlocking huge quantities of natural gas and other fuels inaccessible with conventional drilling techniques.

But it’s also generated determined resistance among environmentalists and other critics, including many in state legislatures across the nation. California drillers say there is ample regulation already on the books to ensure the safety of state residents.

California now joins New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo continues to delay a decision whether to allow fracking in parts of the state near the Pennsylvania border, as a central battleground in the debate.

The environmentalists’ lawsuit asks a state court to declare the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, signed into law by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. The suit contends that by failing to “consider, evaluate and mitigate the impacts of fracking,” the agency hasn’t adhered to the decades-old act.

“The state is risking California’s public health and environment by refusing to apply [the law] to fracking,” said Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks, another party to Tuesday’s filing. “Without it, the public is in the dark about fracking’s impacts on our health and environment. It’s time for the oil and gas industry, and state regulators, to stop denying fracking’s negative impacts and start working to prevent them.”

Prior to Tuesday suit, the agency had already begun to revise its drilling protocol to better address fracking. Its website states that “California’s regulations do not require notification to the division when hydraulic fracturing occurs,” and acknowledges that “there is a gap between the requirements placed on oil and gas operators to safely construct and maintain their wells, and the information they provide” to state regulators.

Regulatory changes now in the works, the agency says, will address that issue. DOGGR also says there is “very little, if any,” fracking in California of the type seen in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Industry groups argue that, despite the state’s regulatory gap, oil and natural gas wells are still subject to strict oversight by state officials.

“Every well in California is a highly regulated activity. There are a whole host of regulations,” said Rock Zierman, head of the California Independent Petroleum Association. “Every well, whether it is [fracked] or not, has to go through the same rigorous environmental review.”

States such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and others have adopted detailed fracking regulations, and most drilling companies now disclose the chemicals used during the process.

The state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources currently lets oil companies frack wells without an environmental impact report, according to the suit. Such reports are required for most major construction or infrastructure projects.

"It's time for our regulators and our oil and gas industry to stop denying the negative impacts of fracking and start working to prevent them," said Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks.

The suit asks a judge to rule that the division has violated the California Environmental Quality Act, a cornerstone of the state's environmental regulations.

The suit comes at a time when fracking is growing more common in the state. The practice involves pumping a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals underground to crack rocks that contain oil or natural gas.

Fracking has already triggered a boom in oil and gas production in states such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas. It has also been blamed for tainting water supplies, sparking fierce debates in some of those states.

"We've learned in our state-by-state fights that in the face of intense industry pressure, state agencies need to be pushed to do the right thing," said George Torgun, an attorney with Earthjustice. "That's what this suit is all about."

Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, the Environmental Working Group and the Sierra Club.

Environmentalists have been urging California officials to create specific regulations for fracking, which is currently treated as just one oil-production technique out of many. The division is now developing such rules. A first draft is expected this fall.

A spokesman for the division said Tuesday that the office had not yet seen the suit.

Oil companies have fracked wells in California for decades. But fracking's use within the state appears to be on the rise. A website that tracks fracking across the country shows 456 wells that have recently been fracked in California.

The technique can free oil and natural gas trapped in shale rock, and California boasts what could be the nation's largest oil shale formation. The Monterey Shale, which lies beneath much of Central California and the southern San Joaquin Valley, could hold more than 15 billion barrels of oil, according to one federal government estimate.

But complaints of water contamination have followed fracking's rapid spread across the country. The oil industry maintains that fracking in itself isn't the problem. Instead, poorly built wells have allowed natural gas and chemicals to migrate up the exterior of some wells, seeping into aquifers.

Oil companies argue that California already regulates well construction, regardless of whether the well is fracked.

"Each well is vigorously regulated by the state - that's what's missing from the verbiage of this suit," said Rock Zierman, chief executive officer of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

Not only are there toxic materials in these devices that should not go into a landfill, there is sensitive information that you should keep out of the hands of people who might misuse it.

Mining for gold
There are plenty of companies advertising online that will buy your old cell phone. In most cases they won't refurbish and resell them but tear them apart for the gold and other materials they contain.

Earthworks, an organization that collects and recycles old cell phones, says recovering the gold found in 50 million cell phones -- iPhone 5 sales are projected to reach 50 million by year's end -- could prevent the creation of 2 million tons of mining waste.

"Recycling helps protect communities and the environment in the U.S. and around the world by keeping hazardous chemicals out of landfills and reducing the demand for conflict mineral mining," said Earthworks' Recycle My Cell Phone Manager Hilary Lewis. She continued, "We hope the public will embrace this easy option for recycling with the guarantee that their devices are being handled responsibly."

Professionally sanitized
All cell phones collected through Earthworks' Recycle My Cell Phone campaign are sent to MPC, a certified IT Asset Lifecycle Management company, where the phones are securely handled in accordance with environmental and data security standards. All cell phones are either sanitized for reuse or physically destroyed and recycled in the United States.

Consumers, however, should not allow their old cell phone to be removed from their possession without first going through some "sanitizing" steps first. Even if you’re sending your phone to a company where the data is securely wiped or the phone is shredded, think about how your phone gets there. If you’re sending it in the mail you can’t be sure that it won’t be lost, or if you’re throwing it in a collection bin at a public drop off site, you never know who could get to your device before that company picks it up.

Steps to follow
So what’s a person to do when the time comes for an upgrade? One authorized method for sanitizing a phone is to delete all information, such as calls made and phone numbers, manually and then perform a full manufacturer’s reset to put the cell phone at its factory default settings. Removing the SIMcard of the phone, a commonplace for stored information, is also recommended.

The Federal Trade Commission says encrypting passwords and other sensitive data stored on your cell phone, and “locking” the keypad while your phone is not in use, can help prevent unauthorized access even after your cell phone is no longer in service. Still, certain data on your phone, including personal contacts, photos and Web search terms, may be recoverable with relatively simple and inexpensive software programs.

Permanent data deletion may require you to clear data from the phone’s contacts and other stored information. Your owner’s manual, your wireless provider’s Website, or the manufacturer will likely provide information on how to permanently delete information from your mobile device.

Through the website, consumers can responsibly recycle their phones; reducing the demand for newly mined metals – including conflict minerals, and protecting groundwater by keeping hazardous metals out of landfills. For example, recovering the gold found in 50 million cell phones (iPhone5 sales are projected to reach 50 million by year’s end) could prevent the creation of 2 million tons of mining waste.

"Recycling helps protect communities and the environment in the U.S. and around the world by keeping hazardous chemicals out of landfills and reducing the demand for conflict mineral mining," said Earthworks’ Recycle My Cell Phone Manager Hilary Lewis. She continued, "We hope the public will embrace this easy option for recycling with the guarantee that their devices are being handled responsibly."

All cell phones collected through Recycle My Cell Phone are sent to MPC, a certified IT Asset Lifecycle Management (ITLM) company, where the phones are securely handled in accordance with the highest environmental and data security standards. All cell phones are either sanitized for reuse or physically destroyed and recycled in the United States.

MPC’s Senior Vice President, Gregg Bjork says what Earthworks is doing is noteworthy, “We are proud to be able to support Earthworks' efforts to promote environmental awareness. MPC has always strived to use the highest environmentally sound practices for electronics reuse and recycling and we are happy to partner with environmental organizations like Earthworks who share our passion.”

Earthworks encourages both individuals and groups to participate by visiting the program website at www.RecycleMyCellPhone.org.

“People with old mobile phones should ask themselves a simple question: ‘Do I want to help the environment or hurt it?’”, said Alan Septoff, Director of Strategic Communications.  He continued, “If the answer is ‘help’, then go to RecycleMyCellPhone.org.”

###

Earthworks is dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions. For more information on Earthworks and their "Recycle My Cell Phone" program, visit www.recyclemycellphone.org.

MPC is an innovative IT asset Lifecycle Management (ITLM) business setting the standard for secure and certified services that ensure customers maximize the value they receive from technology throughout the entire lifecycle, from acquisition to disposition. Founded in 1983, MPC proudly holds R2, e-Stewards, ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and NAID certifications. For more information on MPC and their Cell Phones for My Cause program, visit www.mpc-e.com. 

That changed in the 1990s with the bonanza of natural gas in the Barnett shale, as drilling became an up-close-and-personal experience for suburbanites in North Texas.

"Everybody was going to be wealthy," said Sharon Wilson, who lived in Wise County at the time. "I launched a campaign to get people to drill on my property."

She soon changed her mind and later joined a campaign against the drilling, which so far has sparked two state investigations into health concerns, hundreds of complaints filed with state agencies and scores of lawsuits.

So when drilling began in South Texas' Eagle Ford shale four years ago, people were understandably nervous.

Exploration companies wanted the oil and gas, but not the lawsuits and hassles. Residents wanted the royalties and the jobs, but not the worries about health and environmental problems.

"I think the Barnett was a real eye-opener," said Leodoro Martinez, executive director of the Middle Rio Grande Development Council in Cotulla, who is involved in several efforts to ease the growing pains.

Outwardly, at least, experiences in the regions have been vastly different.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality reported receiving 329 complaints about drilling in the Barnett shale for the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, compared with 45 for the Eagle Ford shale.

South Texas is more rural - drilling in North Texas is concentrated around the northern and western suburbs of Fort Worth, while it is spread across 20 sparsely populated counties in South Texas.

And people say they have learned from mistakes made earlier.

"I think the oil companies learned some lessons. The Railroad Commission learned some lessons from what happened in the Barnett shale, and we worked a lot harder," said Railroad Commissioner David Porter, whose state agency regulates the oil and gas industry.

Complaints about Barnett shale drilling reverberated from North Texas to Austin and beyond.

Calvin Tillman, the former mayor of Dish, a tiny town in Denton County, moved his family out of town because of concerns about health problems he blames on a nearby processing plant.

He, like Wilson, later joined the Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project, an arm of the environmental group Earthworks, which organized opposition to the drilling.

"Is that what we're all expected to do, to move away from our homes because the state regulatory agencies are not protecting us?" Tillman asked last month as the group released a report critical of state oversight.

Porter said he has seen no evidence of lasting health problems.

The Texas Department of State Health Services conducted two investigations related to drilling in the Barnett shale.

In 2010, after a consultant hired by the city of Dish found elevated levels of benzene in air samples, state investigators collected blood and urine samples from 28 people and analyzed them for volatile organic compounds. The investigation concluded there was no community-wide exposure.

The department also investigated a possible cancer cluster in two ZIP codes in Flower Mound after residents reported concerns that benzene from gas drilling could have caused a spike in cases from 1998 to 2007. The investigation found no evidence of a cancer cluster but did note a slight increase in breast cancer, which it said was consistent with population growth and likely higher mammography use.

Still, Porter said, the Railroad Commission and production companies entered South Texas determined to do things differently.

"The perception was that the oil and gas industry was completely unregulated and could do whatever they wanted to," he said. "Which wasn't true, but if you're not telling people what you're doing, that (perception) can grow."

Porter formed a task force in May 2011, made up industry representatives as well as South Texas residents, in an effort to avoid the problems that continue several hundred miles to the north.

"We wanted to make sure communities within the shale understood what was happening around us," said Martinez, who runs the development council serving a nine-county region in South Texas.

He is a member of Porter's task force, as well as one formed by regional leaders that began meeting in 2010.

Wanting to be ready

Everyone knew about the problems in North Texas, he said, and they wanted to be ready.

But Martinez said no one was prepared for how quickly drilling took off in the Eagle Ford shale.

The Railroad Commission issued 28 drilling permits in the Eagle Ford shale in 2008; it issued 2,957 in the first eight months of this year.

No number of committee meetings could make that painless.

"We do have some problems," said Live Oak County Judge Jim Huff.

Everyone complains about traffic and damage to roads from heavy equipment. Housing, or the lack of it, is another problem, and Huff said travel trailers are parked wherever they can get water and sewer connections.

But he focuses on the positive. "It is bringing income into the county," he said. "It's a really good thing."

Teddy Carter, vice president for government relations at Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners, worked for the state Senate Natural Resources Committee when drilling heated up in the Barnett shale.

"I think there were, I wouldn't call them mistakes but maybe errors in judgment in the Barnett," he said. "Maybe mistakes."

This time around, he said, "the more we can educate the public and convey exactly what to expect, the better received it will be."

But it takes more than talk, and Carter said drillers have also changed the way they operate.

They use hydraulic fracturing in shale rock formations, injecting millions of gallons of water, along with sand and chemicals, to blast cracks in the dense rock to allow oil and gas to filter out.

Exact figures aren't yet available, but CJ Tredway, a water consultant who works with the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said current estimates indicate the average hydraulically fractured well in the Eagle Ford shale uses 3 million to 4 million gallons of water. That compares with 6 million gallons of water just a few years ago.

That's not necessarily all freshwater, Tredway said; drillers increasingly use brackish water or buy recycled water from a power plant or another source for at least part of their needs.

And Huff, the Live Oak county judge, said he doesn't worry that drilling will drain the Carrizo and Wilcox aquifers, although there have been instances of illegal dumping of drilling sludge.

Afraid to speak up

Wilson, who now is Gulf regional organizer for the Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project, said she often hears from South Texas residents unhappy about the drilling but afraid to speak up publicly.

"There is a reluctance to make a complaint," she said.

Martinez acknowledged that some residents, at least initially, were concerned about the environmental impact of drilling.

"I think those questions will never go away, but the thing is not to shy away from asking questions," he said.

Court documents show the Elm Ridge Exploration Co. violated the Clean Air Act by operating engines that are not in compliance with emission and operating limitations. The company also failed to get written approval from the EPA to install several high-pollutant engines.

Elm Ridge owns the Ignacio Gas Treating Plant on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation about eight miles west of Ignacio. The plant has been in operation since 1999 and accepts low-pressure raw and untreated natural gas from about 140 surrounding wells owned by the company, according to the court complaint filed by the EPA.

The plant became a major source of hazardous air pollutants in 2000, after two reciprocating internal-combustion engines were installed, the complaint states.

“We know from years of monitoring in the Four Corners that the pollutants being put out by these engines have been near to EPA air-quality limits,” said Bruce Baizel, staff attorney for Earthworks. “They’re basically diesel-generator engines.”

The pollutants from the engines can exacerbate health issues such as asthma, Baizel said.

The EPA became aware of the violations in September 2010, when Elm Ridge submitted an operating permit application, said Hans Buenning, an environmental engineer with EPA.

An EPA inspection shortly after the company filed for the permit revealed the emission violations. Elm Ridge also failed to file various compliance reports over its years of operation. As part of the settlement, Elm Ridge will pay $67,850 in unpaid permit fees.

“To be honest, if the company hadn’t filed with the EPA initially this could have gone on indefinitely,” Baizel said.

The company is required under the settlement to replace the existing compressor engines with lower-emitting engines equipped with pollution-control equipment, replace Southern Ute tribal members’ older wood stoves with EPA-certified wood stoves and implement a project that will reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and conserve natural gas at the plant, according to an EPA news release.

The EPA worked with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe on the settlement, Buenning said. The public has until Nov. 5 to comment on the agreement.

Join us for a fun night out at the Red Palace in the hip Atlas District of H St. NE. Have a beer with Earthworks staff members from around the country and listen to the music of the U-Liners.

The U-Liners, based in Takoma Park, play a deep and eclectic repertoire of roots-rock and Americana with a social conscience. Members of the band have shared a stage with diverse artists such as Tom Morello, Billy Bragg, Steve Earle, the Dropkick Murphys, Jill Sobule, Lester Chambers and Pete Seeger.

Proceeds from this show will benefit Earthworks, which fights to hold the oil, gas and mining industries accountable while protecting clean air, water, public health and people’s rights.

Doors open @ 730pm Show @ 8-10:30pm 21+ only

Tickets are $15 in advance and $17 at the door.

CLICK HERE TO BUY YOUR TICKETS NOW

I can't make it, but I want to make a donation! Click here to make a donation.

If you would like to sponsor the event or join the host committee please contact Ann at acorbett@earthworksaction.org.

U.S. Geological Survey Verifies EPA Findings in Pavillion, WY

Pavillion, WY -- An independent analysis of new U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water monitoring data verifies a 2011 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation into whether hydraulic fracturing contaminated the Wind River aquifer near Pavillion, Wyoming - an important groundwater source that provides water to thousands of Wyoming residents and farmers.

The preliminary results of EPA’s study was one of the first to document hydrocarbons consistent with fracking fluid chemicals in drinking water wells and monitoring wells located near natural gas wells.  EPA’s preliminary results have since been attacked by the oil and gas industry, as they seek to continue their dangerous practices and protect their own interests over public health and safety.  USGS’s study was conducted specifically to check EPA’s results.

The Sierra Club, Earthworks, and the Natural Resources Defense Council worked with a hydrologist and independent expert, Dr. Tom Myers, to analyze the USGS raw data and compare those results with the original EPA report. Dr. Myers found that the USGS data support EPA's initial findings.  EPA’s analysis should be widely accepted now that its findings have been replicated.  

The USGS report found that thermogenic gas, which very likely comes from fracked deep shale formations, continues to increase in a monitoring well.  This evidence strongly suggests that as a result of fracking, gas is seeping into Pavillion’s water. A range of chemicals associated with the fracking process also continue to appear in the monitoring well, showing that hazardous pollution is spreading towards the surface.  This new information supports EPA’s hypothesis that natural gas drilling activities, including fracking, have contaminated the Wind River aquifer near Pavillion.  

Read Dr. Myers’ analysis here.
View the U.S. Geological Survey’s data here.

“The Sierra Club is concerned by the U.S. Geological Survey’s important conclusions, which further underline EPA’s report that fracking has contaminated Pavillion’s water,” said Deb Nardone, Sierra Club Beyond Natural Gas campaign director.  “This report raises the alarm on the public health threats posed by dirty and dangerous fracking and the need to rein in a oil and gas industry that remains unchecked and unaccountable for their toxic pollution.”

“Dr. Myers’ analysis shows that the USGS upholds EPA’s preliminary conclusion that hydraulic fracturing contaminated Pavillion-area groundwater,” said Bruce Baizel, Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project Senior Staff Attorney.” He continued, “It’s long past time for states and industry to stop denying oil and gas development’s environmental problems, and start working on fixing them.”

“This reinforces EPA’s findings – and the concerns of Americans in communities across the country – that dangerous fracking practices are putting our drinking water and health at risk,” said NRDC senior policy analyst Amy Mall. “That’s why it’s critical that EPA thoroughly investigate reports of fracking water contamination concerns. It’s essential that we protect Americans from a repeat of what we are seeing in Wyoming.”

###

Earthworks, and its Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), is dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions.

Twitter: earthworksrocks
Facebook: earthworksaction

Benzene is a hydrocarbon commonly associated with oil and gas development. Last year's testing by the EPA showed benzene at almost 50 times the recommended EPA limit. The new data released Wednesday by the U.S. Geological Survey show benzene at 3 percent of the recommended EPA limit.

This year's tests and the previous tests aren't an apples-to-apples comparison, however. Researchers this time around decided they couldn't get enough water for a reliable sample from one of the wells the EPA drilled to test for pollution near the rural community of Pavillion.

That low-flowing well had the very high benzene level. In the other well — the one researchers relied on for this year's testing — any amount of benzene in the groundwater tested was too small to be detected last year.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said the state would need more time to review the data gathered in collaboration with the USGS, Wyoming, the EPA and two American Indian tribes.
Also Wednesday, Pennsylvania regulators aren't inspecting tens of thousands of oil and gas wells even once a year, a new report says. But state officials say they're inspecting most new wells in the Marcellus Shale region, which is the right place to focus.

The report issued Tuesday by Earthworks, a Washington D.C. nonprofit, found that more than 66,000 active wells weren't inspected by the federal government last year.

Annual reports and incident reports prepared by Department of Environmental Conservation staff and reviewed by The Associated Press run counter to the agency's long-stated assertion that the types of problems reported in other states have been prevented in New York by strong regulations.

The review comes as New York officials prepare to issue a decision on whether to allow hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a lucrative method of extracting natural gas that has raised environmental concerns.

"Division of Mineral Resources annual reports over two decades show that the DEC's inadequate regulation of gas and oil extraction activities resulted in thousands of unresolved pollution threats to public health and the environment," said Walter Hang, president of Toxics Targeting, an Ithaca-based consulting firm that provided the reports. Hang leads an effort to ban natural gas drilling in New York, where drilling has been on hold since the DEC began an environmental impact review in 2008.

That same year, then-DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis said: "As a result of New York's rigorous regulatory process, the types of problems that have occurred in states without such strong environmental laws and rigorous regulations haven't happened here."

A DEC spokeswoman said agency enforcement personnel have resolved or are working to address problems noted in the agency's reports, including oil spills and soil and water contamination. She also noted that under the proposed new regulations on natural gas drilling, the DEC would get help capping wells because companies would have to survey the land within a mile of a new well and plug, at the driller's expense, any wells found there that are "orphans" — unplugged wells with no known owner.

"By and large, complaints received by DEC regarding potentially leaking wells have proven to be from wells drilled before environmental regulations were put in place, or were from naturally occurring sources of contamination," spokeswoman Emily DeSantis said Wednesday.

"DEC takes all complaints of water contamination seriously and works with the state Health Department to ensure New York residents have a safe source of drinking water," DeSantis said. If fracking is allowed, new regulations include "multiple protections and measures required to safeguard the integrity of New York's drinking water supplies," DeSantis added.

But environmental groups have questioned whether DEC oversight is strong enough. A study released in July by Earthworks, an environmental group, found that in New York, well inspections occur too infrequently and too irregularly; fines are inadequate; lack of data prevents public scrutiny of DEC's oversight; and citizen complains aren't used efficiently to improve oversight.

The problem of orphan wells is widespread in drilling states. The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission estimates the number at about 50,000 nationwide. Pennsylvania officially lists about 8,200 abandoned wells.

Annual reports from the New York DEC's Division of Mineral Resources as early as 1995 have repeatedly identified unplugged, abandoned wells as a major problem, with about 4,800 known and an equal number yet to be discovered in woods, backyards, playgrounds and even under buildings.

"One of the biggest challenges facing the oil and gas regulatory program is the growing liability of idle and abandoned wells," Gregory Sovas, former director of the minerals division, wrote in the 1995 report. These wells pose a liability for local taxpayers, he said. "This is not a hypothetical worst-case scenario, but reflects current events already happening in the counties."

For example, in the Allegany County community of Bolivar 65 miles southeast of Buffalo, workers found several abandoned well while constructing a school bus garage, and in Wyoming County, the DEC plugged a well that was leaking brine in a school parking lot, according to the DEC reports. Such wells pose a risk for groundwater contamination by providing a pathway for hydrocarbons and other toxic pollutants to migrate to the water table.

In addition to unplugged wells, the DEC reports identify vegetation killed by leaking waste pits, brine leaking from rusted storage tanks, and crude oil contaminating residential wells and streams.

The agency said the cost of plugging abandoned wells ranges from $5,000 to $50,000 per well. DeSantis said the DEC has plugged more than 115 wells since 2002 using $459,000 from the Oil and Gas Account. The account balance is currently $156,000, and there are 4,100 wells on the priority list. The Environmental Protection Agency has plugged another 126 abandoned, leaking wells, DeSantis said.

Leaking brine storage tanks were also identified as a problem in the DEC reports. In 1996, DEC inspectors found that about 40 percent of brine tanks examined at active well sites were leaking or had holes in them. The 1997 report said enforcement efforts had reduced the number to 7 percent.

In addition to annual reports, the DEC also has individual spill reports detailing numerous incidents. For example:

— In September 2011, a family in Bolivar had black crude oil in their sinks, toilets and shower. Tests of their well found crude that matched oil sampled at an oil well more than 1,000 feet away. DeSantis said the DEC upgraded and deepened the family's well and has done quarterly water testing that has shown no petroleum contamination.

— In December 2010, oil was reported in a residential water well in nearby Scio. The resident believed it came from an oil well about three-quarters of a mile up the road; he hired a local well driller to clean out his water well. DeSantis said investigators found evidence of oil drilling on the site decades ago.

— In May 2011, a man in nearby Allentown, N.Y., alerted the DEC to an oil separator pond at a neighboring drilling site. The inspector found crude oil had been discharged into a stream leading to the Genesee River. The driller was ordered to clean up the spill and install a device to prevent discharges to the creek. DeSantis said additional action against the driller is being considered.