Unnatural Gas
Unnatural Gas
The East’s best trout country is facing slap-dash gas development.
- By: Ted Williams
MOST OF THE EAST’S GREAT TROUT streams drain New York State’s Catskills, northern Pennsylvania and the highlands of West Virginia. Superimpose a map of these watersheds on the prime drilling sites in the Marcellus shale region—a 48,000-square-mile layer of sedimentary rock a mile or more below Earth’s surface and containing an estimated 363 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—and you get almost an exact geographic match. This probably isn’t coincidence because in high country, where remnant populations of wild trout abide in cold headwaters, natural gas tends to be under greater pressure.
Natural gas extraction from this, potentially the largest of some two-dozen gas development areas in the United States, is just starting. No one I consulted in the conservation community opposes exploiting this rich resource. They’d just like it done right; they’d even settle for legally. Instead, New York, West Virginia and, especially, Pennsylvania are in the process of suspending what the energy industry calls “impediments” to gas production and what the rest of the nation calls environmental laws.
Basically, they’ve embraced the Bush-Cheney “energy policy,” hatched in secret with the energy companies themselves: Extract as much gas as possible as fast as possible, at any cost to fish and wildlife and with enormous subsidies to industry at a time of record profit. One might have supposed that these states would have learned something from the recent rape of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, but no.
And, while the Obama administration is relatively sympathetic to fish and wildlife, it can’t do a lot because, unlike western gas reserves, the Marcellus formation underlies mostly private and state lands. The current atmosphere approaches that in Alaska back when whooping sourdoughs were slamming gold nuggets onto the bar at the Red Dog Saloon. Suddenly farmers who have spent their adult lives wresting produce from parsimonious dirt are being offered $2,500 per acre just for drilling rights. Texas-based Range Resources has thus far leased 1.4 million acres in the Marcellus region and claims that in Pennsylvania alone gas extraction would create 100,000 jobs and annual revenue of at least $8 billion. Pennsylvania issued 471 drilling permits in 2008 and, as of this writing in early June, 476 in 2009.
So-called clean natural gas fouls everything but your furnace. In a process called “hydraulic fracturing,” developed by Halliburton Company, a witches’ brew of water, sand, formaldehyde, acids, petroleum compounds and herbicides (highly toxic to fish) that discourage pump-clogging algae in wastewater ponds and tanks, is blasted into the earth at high pressure, fracturing the shale. Dozens of other ingredients are unknown to the EPA and the public because the precise composition of “fracking fluid” is conveniently said by the industry to be a “trade secret.” Halliburton vows to pull its affected operations out of Colorado if the state forces it to disclose the recipe for its toxic cocktail.
And the government accountability outfit OMB Watch reports that in 2008 a Colorado nurse almost died just by treating a gas field worker who had been doused in fracking fluid and that although the nurse was suffering heart, lung and liver failure, kidney damage and blurred vision, the drilling company refused to tell her doctors what the “proprietary” chemicals were. When frack fluid is pumped out, the sand remains, propping open the cracks so the gas can flow.
But now the fluid—as much as 4 million gallons per well—has picked up such additional toxins as benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, heavy metals, salts and naturally occurring radioactive material (chastely referred to as NORM) and usually consisting of Radium 226 and Radium 228, bone seekers that cause cancer. According to the Los Angeles Times, information on fracking and its dangers to public health was deleted from the White House National Energy Policy, written largely by then Vice President Dick Cheney, previously CEO of Halliburton, which, while he was in office, paid him $150,000 a year until 2005.
At best, treatment of used frack fluid is only partial, and there’s no place to dispose of it other than in streams where it can poison aquatic ecosystems or underground where it can poison aquifers. In southwest Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia, the Monongahela River, source of drinking water for 350,000 people and habitat for endangered mussels as well as a rich diversity of warmwater fish including bass, sauger and walleye, got so rank with used frack fluid in 2008 that its water wasn’t even fit for industrial use.
U.S. Steel actually had to stop production at its Pittsburg coke plant. Steve Kepler, a biologist with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, points out that there aren’t anywhere near enough treatment plants to handle used frack fluid and, as a result, it is being trucked halfway across the state, overwhelming municipal sewage treatment plants, and ending up in streams along with the municipal effluent whose treatment it has impeded.
And he says his agency worries about new treatment plants, perhaps as many as 30, that will be popping up along the state’s rivers just to handle frack fluid. “A lot of times these plants use the assimilative capacity of a river for dilution,” he told me. “Putting that much material in rivers concerns us.” Finally, Kepler worries about damage to groundwater, citing a recent case in Centre County in which a gas-drilling operation hit a regional aquifer, thereby polluting Little Sandy Creek, a wild brook trout stream that delivers cold, oxygen-charged water to a trout hatchery cooperatively run by his agency and local sportsmen. Fortunately, the company was able to cap the leak fairly quickly. Still, there was trout mortality. To obtain frack fluid, gas companies divert enormous amounts of water from streams, destroying aquatic and associated terrestrial life in the process.
In the last two years fish, including wild brook trout, have been left rotting in the sun when gas companies pumped dry Pennsylvania streams, including Cross Creek and Sugarcamp Run in Washington County. Amphibians such as hellbenders are especially vulnerable. Trout magazine, the official publication of Trout Unlimited, reports that four gas companies have paid a total of $1.7 million to settle charges of illegal water withdrawals from Pennsylvania trout streams and that these include Chief Oil & Gas, which took 3.5 million gallons from a tributary of Larry’s Creek, and Range Resources, which took 2.2 million from Big Sandy Run. Additionally, water withdrawals have damaged Meshoppen, Pine and Sugar Creeks.
At least the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basin Commissions place limits, generous though they are, on water withdrawals. But there are no such restrictions on many streams, including those in the Ohio River system. Some great Pennsylvania trout water is in dire peril of desiccation, including many productive but little-known streams along with such famous ones as Beech Creek, Fishing Creek, Cedar Run and the upper Delaware River. Laurel Hill Creek, a tributary of the Youghiogheny River, already diverted by a water-bottler, golf courses, condo developments and ski-slope snowmaking, is now targeted for frack fluid. As a result it made it to American Rivers’ 2009 list of the nation’s 10 most endangered rivers.
Then there is the polluted, sediment-laden runoff from well pads, drilling access roads and pipelines. In 2005, under intense lobbying from the energy industry and pushed by the administration, Congress exempted gas and oil operations from the Clean Water Act provisions for sediment and erosion control—provided they are under five acres (as most are for this precise reason). One five-acre pad and its tangle of access roads can wipe out the prime spawning and holding habitat in a fair-sized trout stream; and the five-acre pads can be clustered together. In 2006, the EPA issued a rule that exempted all oil and gas operations, including those over five acres, from sediment and erosions controls. But when the Natural Resources Defense Council mounted a legal challenge, the 9th Circuit found the rule to be unlawful and further stipulated that, even if a well pad under five acres produces runoff that contributes to a water-quality violation, the Clean Water Act applies.
Therefore, in failing to control such pollution, states are violating federal law. I wish the state politicians and bureaucrats in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia who have been sitting on their hands for the last several years could have been with me when I was inspecting the consequences of slap-dash gas extraction in Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado. This and worse is coming their way unless they act soon.
On public land in New Mexico’s piece of the San Juan Basin, I checked a few dozen of the 18,000 operating gas wells, finding gross violations at virtually every pad. Required fencing to keep wildlife out of poisonous evaporation ponds was missing or broken. Deer, pronghorns and cattle were dying as a result. Sediments were bleeding into streams. Trout were dying. Required re-plantings to replace the junipers and pinyons that had burned up during gas flaring and that had been killed by dust was inadequate or nonexistent. Recent snowmelt had turned the barren dirt around wellheads and compressors to mud the consistency of mortar. With each step several pounds of it stuck to my shoes, making me feel like I was walking in water-filled chest waders. When I floated and fished the San Juan River I found it stained for miles. At Navajo Dam I encountered one of many watershed gas wells perched atop three acres of sticky mud and cheek by jowl to a malodorous, unfenced wastewater pit easily accessible to waterfowl and other wildlife. In Wyoming’s Upper Green River Valley I inspected the 30,000-acre Jonah gas field from a Cessna 172. The clustered well pads looked like shotgun patterns on car windshields. Scum-encrusted wastewater festered in holding ponds, and stretching across each were three orange ribbons, a pathetic, useless gesture to warn away waterfowl and wading birds. A compressor station the size of a large factory moved gas through a pipeline that wandered west under a raw-dirt swath about 15 times wider than the raw-dirt roads.
Groundwater in the valley, contaminated by frack fluid, has been found to contain 1,500 times the amount of benzene considered safe for humans; and it is running into some of the last, best Colorado cutthroat trout habitat. Here, elsewhere in Wyoming and in other states, including Pennsylvania and Ohio (overlaying the Marcellus formation on its eastern flank) there have been more than a thousand incidents of groundwater contamination by frack fluid. Despite the disaster in the West, state environmental laws and regulations are being flung aside so that Marcellus gas extraction can be “streamlined.”
For example, on March 18, 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a proclamation—sans public hearings or even public notice—that, henceforth, the county conservation districts will no longer be vetting gas operations for erosion and sediment control or post-construction stormwater management. Instead, this task will be handled by DEP bureaucrats squatting in distant offices and who have little knowledge of, interest in or commitment to local watersheds. They’re not going to know about, say, a wetland feeding a trout stream or, in many cases, even the trout stream itself.
“We believe a fast-track permitting scheme that eliminates technical review of erosion, sediment and stormwater plans is illegal under federal and state environmental laws,” declares Matt Royer, staff attorney at the Pennsylvania Office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “The forms have been streamlined. Now the gas company’s paid consultant signs the plan and certifies that it’s accurate. So DEP doesn’t have to review forms for technical merit; it just makes sure they’re signed—‘administrative completeness,’ it’s called. DEP isn’t even looking at the plans. It has also adopted a model plan, apparently so that the operator can fill in the blanks. But you have to configure your landscape into best management practices to deal with local soil, slope and vegetation. You need custom-made plans.” Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, weighs in with this: “DEP’s actions are complete give-aways to the oil and gas industry…. DEP has ignored its own core values of environmental protection and public transparency.” Van Rossum’s and Royer’s groups are two of 36 environmental organizations that co-signed a letter to DEP Acting Secretary John Hanger demanding that he rescind fast-track permitting.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has compounded DEP’s dereliction by attempting in his proposed budget to seize for the general fund $174 million derived from leasing state lands for gas extraction—money dedicated to conservation, parks, recreation, dam repair and flood control. What’s more, there are no protections in place for the parks and state forests on which this money is supposed to be spent, on which the state does not own mineral rights, and through which run the state’s wildest and best trout streams. In an effort to get some modest protection for this land and water the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had been making gas extractors sign surface-use agreements.
But in May a state court ruling put an end to even this, thereby giving the industry pretty much carte blanche to hack and gouge as its appetites dictate. “We have a pretty good wilderness trout-water designation,” remarks Deb Nardone of Pennsylvania Trout. “But it’s unprotected. We’re concerned that drilling, roads, well pads and pipelines in those watersheds will remove wilderness esthetics and even the designation.” Having squandered its chance to purchase and protect buffer zones around its six Catskill reservoirs, New York City is now scrambling to keep gas extractors out of these watersheds, which daily send 1.2 billion gallons of pristine drinking water to 8 million people. It’s not going to be easy because the city has monumental budget problems, and the temptation to sell off mineral rights is enormous. Still, New York is one of only five major U.S. cities that has been granted a waiver on federal requirements to filter tap water. Catskill gas extraction would likely require filtration, which, in turn, would make current watershed protections unnecessary. City Councilman and environmental protection committee chair James Gennaro warns that the current “‘drill, baby, drill’ mentality” could cost the city $20 billion for filtration plants.
Gas drilling has been temporarily suspended in New York State while the Department of Environmental Conservation updates its generic gas and oil extraction Environmental Impact Study for operations in Marcellus shale, which were impossible when the document was released in 1992—before the advents of horizontal drilling and fracking fluid.
Meanwhile, regulations for water withdrawals are thoroughly inadequate there and in the other two major Marcellus states. Further, New York and Pennsylvania are among the very few states with natural-gas resources that don’t have a severance tax for gas production. Thirty-nine others, including West Virginia, do.
The word “severance” derives from the severing by a private entity for its own gain earth-bound resources belonging to the public. Severance taxes are designed to mitigate and repair damage caused by public-resource extractors to other public resources—trout streams, for example.
The Marcellus gas rush coincides with a critical lack of funds for preserving and restoring land and water. In Pennsylvania, for example, the $625 million Growing Greener II bond is about to run out. Almost a quarter of that bond was allocated to drinking water and wastewater treatment; and $10 million of it has gone to plug abandoned oil and gas wells. A severance tax to offset costs of such environmental protection and restoration is eminently fair and desperately needed. Yet the gas industry and conservative lawmakers are viciously fighting it.
To his credit, Pennsylvania Governor Rendell is pushing for a severance tax (though at this writing he has not committed to dedicating any of it to land, water, fish and wildlife protection). He figures that just in the first year such a tax would generate $107 million for his destitute state. That sounds like a lot until you consider what the gas industry spends on itself and what taxpayers give it.
According to the resource-advocacy group PennFuture, Chesapeake Energy, the state’s largest gas-lease holder, recently gave its CEO, Aubrey McClendon, a $75 million bonus, then paid him $12.1 million for artwork he’d accumulated.
And thanks in part to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, oil and gas companies will receive $33 billion in subsidies over the next five years. The same recession that has tempted the major Marcellus states to fast-track gas extraction has placed operations on temporary hold. In Pennsylvania, one company that won a bid for a $32 million lease has just walked away.
So the good news is that the three states have time to prepare for an onslaught more intense than anything seen in the West. During this brief grace period, lawmakers and regulators would do well to recall and live by the wise “finding statement” the New York Department of Environmental Conservation made 17 years ago after releasing its generic EIS on oil and gas extraction: “It is less expensive to prevent pollution than pay for remediation of environmental problems, health care costs, and lawsuit expenses.”
Ted Williams writes the Conservation column for each issue of FR&R. His latest book is Something’s Fishy; order it online at flyrodreel.com.





The truth is: Fish are swimming in toxic fracking waters.
I grew up fishing with my dad and know when water is clean.
I know what naturally occurring brownish earth foam on the water smells like.
I know when suds are coming up out of the earth in forested streams and do not disappear but cling to the inside of the glass jar, are unnatural suds. Nature does not make soap and detergents used in the laundry or natural gas drilling.
Prewater testing before gas drilling began showed the waters were not polluted.
After drilling started, unnatural looking soap suds were seen in the waters then tested for "MBAS" methylene blue active substance which proved they are unnatural.
Woes began each time I went to the pond and streams because I learned what soap detergent could do to the fish which is chronic and shows up many months later.
The internet, my only source of information, showed me the truth of man made chemicals and what the fish have been exposed to:
Methylene blue active substances (MBAS) Surfactants and Their Significance in the Environment Detergents contain synthetic or organic surfaceactive agents called surfactants, which are derived from petroleum product precursors. They have the common property of lowering the surface tensions of water thus allowing dirt or grease adhered to various articles to be washed off. Industrial facilities use detergents to clean machinery. Soap manufacturers and households will also discharge anionic detergents into the surface water. The problem with these types of discharges is that surfactants can present significant environmental pollution problems. In aquatic environments, surfactants may form a surface film and reduce oxygen transfer at the water surface. Some surfactants may be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms. Detergents can damage fish gills by stripping them of their natural oils, thus interrupting oxygen transfer. Surfactants and detergents may also cause suds or foam to form on surface waters, which is aesthetically displeasing. Furthermore, this foam often contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous which can; in turn, provoke algae blooms. Surfactants can also alter the hydraulic characteristics
of soils, affecting the movement of contaminants through soils and into groundwater. Surfactants are very slow to biodegrade and have carcinogenic and reproductively toxic byproducts such as nonylphenol, which is currently
regarded as a potent endocrine disrupter.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/lab/qa/MBAS_000.pdf.pdf
Where did the surfactant MBAS suds come from in the forested streams and pond? There are no laundry facilities in the forest; no one does dishes in the forest or takes a bath in the waters; there are no agriculture activites in the forest; the only link left shown to us on the internet was: "Industrial Wastes."
An Investigation followed which shows suds were linked to industrial pollution (gas drilling)
At the drilling site, white foam was piled high in the pit. Foam suds got out of the pit and was released onto the surface. We spotted a huge container at the drilling site labeled Aqua Clear Airfoam B. The internet said the manufacturer of this product noted the foam is a polymer foam with other unknown substances which makes the foaming surfactant agent superior, meaning the suds last longer than ordinary dish soap and are perfect for drillers but damaging to aquatic life!
The internet states foam drilling is linked with incidents of damaging underground formations then it can seep up through fractures in Pennsylvania geology into aquifiers and ending up in the surface waters. The foam did this in the forest streams as we watched suds oozing out of the earth. One of those oozing sudsy days, drilling created a geyser 3 feet tall, the pond swirled around like it was going to blow up! That was a real frightful experience. We have endured suds and geysers along with the rest of the drilling nightmare. It appears pollution is spreading throughout all of Pennsylvania as drilling sites increase with no infield hands on regulatory oversight as discussed later herein.
Additional signs of pollution and drilling effects were also seen in this area:
Prior to natural gas drilling: Water was plentiful in the forest. It was pure, clean and fresh smelling with healthy fish.
After drilling began: We saw sediment building up in the pond, the water level went down, then we noticed a big algae bloom.
The internet supplied answers for these pollution issues as DEP kept.. "Tight lips."
Fracturing fluids with excess nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrates and other fracturing chemicals cause chemistry water changes which compromised the waters.
Hook, line and sinker:
Fracturing chemicals are toxic to aquatic life. Hook
Fracturing chemicals made their way into the pond. Line
Fracturing chemicals showed up as suds, algae bloom and sediment buildup. Sinker
***********************
Warning for fishing enthusiasts, you should research the streams and lakes where you fish because:
Fishing anywhere in a river or stream where natural gas drilling occured nearby or upstream means your fish could absorb toxic fracturing chemicals known to cause cancer in humans. The fracturing chemicals went into waters in the areas of the West Sideling Hill Watershed and The Raystown Branch of the Susquehanna Watershed.
A natural gas fracking chemical fish map could identify drilling locations so we would know whether we want to fish near or downstream from such activities.
**************************************
Why to be concerned about whether your fishing water is safe to fish in?
Fishing has been compromised in Pennsylvania due to government officials putting the cart before the horse and buying sugar coated lies of gas lobbyist who state but can't prove fracturing chemicals are safe. Theo Coburn Endocrine Disrupters from fracturing chemicals and Pitt University, Dr. Conrad Voltz shows fracturing chemicals are linked as endocrine disrupters to humans. Now do you think those fracturing chemicals could be harmful to fish?
Do you know that 99 out of 100 natural gas wells drilled use fracturing chemicals and no one knew about it ten years ago?
Do you know no water testing has been done for fracturing chemicals on aquatic life and there are no safe aquatic guidelines at PADep for toxic fracturing chemicals?
Biocides such glutaradehyde is one of those fracturing chemicals which is toxic to humans so what do you think it can do in small concentrations to fish?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1D4bRFOrxg
www.youtube.com/clearvilletimes
www.clearville.wordpress.com
www.youtube.insearchofhelp
The industry truth and those who work for it:
Gas industry employees & lobbyist state fracturing chemicals are safe. Why would gas drilling employees tell the public the truth when the unskilled laborers pay starts at $100. per day and they are taught by the industry that the fracturing chemicals are safe with lessons such as: "Protect your job and the industry or we won't be here"
PADep submits harmful information to the public. Can this endanger humans health?:
PADep sends letters out to PA residents living near natural gas drilling stating water was tested and is not polluted from natural gas drilling. Here is what they neglect to tell PA citizens: PADep does not tell residents their water was not tested for fracturing chemicals which are linked and known to be associated with endocrine disrupters which can cause cancer and other adrenal diseases?
PADep should be an agency working infield to protect the environment.
It appears PADep is a paper shuffler instead of infield inspecting agency which would ensure the environment is protected, for example:
PADep told us the well casings are cemented and because of this, chemicals can't escape into the environment. We asked PADep how they know the wells were properly cased and cemented. PADep said it is simple: " The drillers sends PADep a report filled in by the gas company stating the well was properly cased and cemented." We asked, why doesn't PADep go out in the field and watch the well casings being cemented to ensure the cement job is done properly? Wouldn't it be better to see the results or is it easier to sit in an office and believe what gas companies tell you they did and if not done properly something can escape into the environment? How would you know if something escaped if you can't prove the well was properly cased and cemented if you did not see it? "Wella....DEP said, we feel gas drilling companies are honest and wouldn't lie about a well casing cement job and we believe all the other reports they fill in and submit are done truthfully?"
As a landowner we believe someone wants an easy office job instead of being a hands on agency in the field, proving what was being done and protecting the environment instead of taking the world of the company on ventures for profits in their best interests. We told PADep other states ensures an inspector is on site when cementing is done to ensure it flows back properly.. We told DEP since records of pollution are escalating with excessive drilling, a change is needed such as: "Getting into the field and seeing cement job are done right instead of sitting in offices and shuffling cementing report papers which lies still for anything gas companies report to them." Where is environmental quality assurance and why isn't someone in the field and on the job? Why are we paying for paper shufflers as the environment gets polluted because no PADep inspectors are onsite watching the drillers to ensure each well casing is cemented properly so nothing can escape? PADep only knows what is reported to them so how can they say fracturing chemicals cannot escape a properly cemented well? PADep has no comment.
We further gave PADep a solution for the pollution: We feel the environment is not being protected due to their antiquated procedures and policies and this is what should be on their agenda as immediate action to protect the environment :
PADep Inspectors should be at the drilling site when wells are being cemented to ensure proper flowback. Make sure drillers let the cement job setup for ten hours after the cement job is finished!
PADep should make companies use closed loop systems instead of open pits which leak and overflow into the environment;
PADep should make gas companies pay for pre and post water tests within 2,000 ft of the drilling site including testing the water for any and all fracturing chemicals the company plans to use in the drilling operation.
PADep should give landowners MSDS sheets so they know what acute and chronic health effects can result from fracturing chemicals near their water supply.
PADep should educate landowners as to what kind of pollution signs they need to watch for near drilling operation.
(PADep gets most all pollution reports from some landowners but most landowners are oblivious to what is occurring before their eyes. Alot of pollution in the past and present never gets reported, there is no public education and if you don't have internet, it is a free road for the gas companies to do whatever they want to do no regulatory oversight}
***********************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************
Where is a safe fishing spot? The perfect spot would be where there is no natural gas drilling near or downstream of streams or lakes until PADep gets a new environmental infield hands on agenda on the table. Pollution travels down stream and in the aquifier perhaps years later because it was held up in underground formations and slowly seeps out.
Fishing tip to ensure your fish are safe to eat and the waters you wade in do not have fracturing chemicals in them which can be absorbed into your skin and cause an endocrine disruption such as: Cancer
You can't see fracturing chemicals in the water, check this visible sign:
"The next time you see suds near natural gas drilling in the water and they do not disappear easily when touched and they stick to the inside of the glass jar, get them tested to see if they came from the natural gas industry drilling foams. If the suds test positive as MBAS, you know you likely have other fracturing chemicals in the water, some of which are not biodegrable, causing ongoing chronic effects to the fish.
" Fish can be swimming in toxic chemicals near or downstream from natural gas drilling." What are you going to do to protect Pennsylvania's streams and lakes?
Can you cast some of your time so the fish will survive?
Invest in Alternative Renewable Sources of Energy
Natural Gas is always touted as a "Clean Fuel" that produces the least amout of environmental impact. Clearly that is not the case. This type of environmental destruction goes unnoticed by most people, but every time an alternative is propsoed, people compain about the cost and how the consumer is getting ripped-off.
Pick your poison polluted rivers, streams and oceans, or pay more for energy using wind turbines, solar collectors, and other capital intensive (read as "more expensive") technologies.
Another alternative is to turn off your computer.
Post new comment