Challenging the Rhetoric : fracking

Showing posts with label fracking. Show all posts

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Anti-Fracking Activists Speak out Against Lifting the Ban on Crude Oil Exports

By Julie Dermansky • Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 13:02

Americans Against Fracking held an emergency conference call the day after Speaker of the House Paul Ryan revealed the new spending bill would remove the 40-year-old ban on exporting U.S. crude oil, if passed.

About 100 people, many of them affiliated with environmental advocacy groups, joined in on the call, and ideas were shared on what can be done to prevent oil exports from proceeding without restrictions again.

“To lift the crude oil export ban flies in the face of climate progress less than a week after the United Nations Paris Agreement,” the group stated. Some felt hoodwinked because when they headed off to Paris, they believed President Obama would veto any bill that included lifting the ban. That no longer seems to be the case.

Lifting the ban will likely boost oil production in areas where the fracking industry’s boom has slowed down, including Eagle Ford Shale in Texas and in Oklahoma, the state that now has the highest earthquake rate in the world due to injection well use.

Communities in areas where the fracking industry has taken hold are already faced with increased air pollution, water contamination, and risk of explosions from crude oil-carrying trucks and trains.

“The Democratic leadership settled for temporary credits for solar and wind when they were asking for permanent ones,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It is a give-away. There is no upside.”

Siegel believes if the Democrats do not stand firm, the Republicans will continue to use extortion-like situations as a normal way of governing.

To stop the spending bill you are basically asking people to shut down the government,” she said. “It is the only way to stop it.”

When asked what the chances are of stopping this, Siegel conceded they are very small, but encouraged everyone to do whatever they can think of to stop it.

If that doesn’t work, pressure needs to be put on the administration to stop oil exports anyway.

According to Siegel, Obama can scuttle the deal after the fact. “He could declare a climate emergency to get the ban reinstated by banning export licenses for a year.”

A suggestion was made to contact Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to see if one of them would filibuster the bill.

Environmental groups plan to send action alerts urging people to call, tweet, and email their senators to reject lifting the ban.

The emergency conference call left David Braun, with Americans Against Fracking, hopeful. He was encouraged by the large number of people who were willing to drop everything to participate in the call in order to see what they can do.

Even if stopping the spending bill is a long shot, this group plans to do whatever it can to stop oil exports.

“The response from people concerned about this has been fabulous,” Siegel wrote DeSmog in an email. “Someone at Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday told me that call volume was heavy on this. People understand that fossil fuels need to stay in the ground and this outrageous giveaway to oil companies is totally unjustified.

“The idea the government will lift the oil export ban, when in Oklahoma the fracking industry continues to inject fracking wastewater into the ground causing a record number of earthquakes, is unthinkable,” Angela Spotts, an anti-fracking activist in Stillwater, Oklahoma, told DeSmog.

She continues to hope the state will ban injection well use, but with fracking companies permitted to export oil, she has no doubt things will only get shakier.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Heat on EPA as National Study on Fracking's Risks to Drinking Water is Challenged

By Julie Dermansky and Sharon Kelly • Sunday, December 6, 2015 - 11:35

The Environmental Protection Agency's draft national assessment on fracking's potential to pollute drinking water is still under review. If it is to reflect science over policy, some dramatic changes to the wording of the study's conclusions are needed, EPA's review panel was told during a public comment teleconference on Thursday.

Back in 2010, when Congress first tasked EPA with investigating the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to American drinking water supplies, relatively little was known about the scale and significance of the onshore drilling rush's environmental impacts.

Over the past half decade, the pace of scientific research into fracking has accelerated dramatically. In 2009, only a handful of peer-reviewed studies (the gold standard for scientific research) on the environmental risks of shale and tight gas extraction were published; by contrast, over 150 studies were published in 2014, according to a review of the literature by Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Health Energy.

That scientific evidence has overwhelmingly found that shale and tight gas extraction has the potential to harm – and has harmed – air, water and people's health, that group wrote in an analysis released this year.

For politicians seeking to keep federal regulations for the industry at bay and for those backing an “all of the above” energy strategy, the growing evidence of a broad range of hazards related to fracking is bad news. In Pennsylvania alone, state regulators have documented hundreds of cases of water contamination, making it more challenging for supporters to argue that the industry is well-policed and operating safely.

But the final word on all of this research, as far as many federal policy-makers are concerned, will likely be the EPA's take on fracking's risks.

When the draft assessment was released, the door should have been closed on a favorite industry talking point – the (oft-debunked) claim that there has never been a documented case where fracking contaminated underground drinking water supplies. The EPA's draft assessment reported multiple documented instances where that precise problem occurred.

But a single phrase from the study's executive summary – saying that the EPA “did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” – managed to leave a door open. That phrase continues to be quoted in headlines and media coverage about the report.

And policy makers, state regualors and industry supporters immediately beganto cite that draft summary. Florida Senator Garrett Richter said “Fracking can be accomplished without any material harm to our water supply,” recently while defending a bill he proposed that would overturn exisisting fracking bans in Florida.

A look back at history suggests reasons to be wary of the differences between EPA's highlighted summaries – often heavily edited at high levels within the agency – and the details buried in the fine print of their reports, authored by agency scientists. Again and again, EPA studies on the oil and gas industry's environmental impacts have been used to justify a hands-off approach to the drilling industry.

“More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed,” the New York Times reported in 2011, part of an investigative series that found that EPA's new fracking study had already suffered from repeated cuts to research plans.

“It was like the science didn’t matter,” Carla Greathouse, the author of a 1987 EPA study into the oil industry's toxic wastes – used to justify an exception for drillers from hazardous waste handling laws –had told The Times. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.”

Concern that history may be repeating itself may help explain why the summary's focus on evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts” from fracking, seems to have struck a nerve, sparking an outpouring of indignation from close observers, and unusually frank questioning by the EPA's own scientific reviewers.

During a teleconference lasting over four hours on Dec. 3, the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), charged with overseeing the agency's fracking report, was inundated with comments challenging that finding.

Over 280 comments were submitted to the board and three dozen people requested an opportunity to make 3 minutes comments during the EPA's public teleconference.

Lena Moffit, a representative for the Sierra Club opened the public comments by expressing her shock at the EPA’s oft-quoted conclusion that the assessment failed to find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources. Despite the report’s shortcomings, she said the report does not supports that conclusion, a complaint echoed by most of the speakers who called in.

Shelly Perdue holds up a glass of contaminated water in Parker County, Texas. Her home is across the street from an Range Recources fracking site.©Julie Dermansky

Sharon Wilson, Earthworks’ Gulf Regional Organizer asked the board to add a formal remark on major data gaps in the report due to “industry obstruction, interference, and attempts to silence people who live with the pollution EPA intended to study.”

Wilson describing her first-hand knowledge of cases where gag orders prohibit impacted families from speaking out. “In addition to water pollution, industry intimidation tactics are also widespread and systemic,” Wilson told the EPA scientists.

Andrew Chichura, a resident of Susquehanna County, PA, expressed his support for the oil and gas industry before sharing his family’s own experience with contaminated water. Even though the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection confirmed that the Chichuras had methane in their water in 2011 and made the determination that Cabot Oil and Gas, a drilling company, was responsible for the family’s water well’s contamination, the family has still not resolved its dispute with the company in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Chichura's time expired before he could finish describing his family's plight, but the anguish the situation has caused him was evident.

Scott Seagle an attorney with Bracewell Giuliani who represents natural gas producers, was the only caller that agreed with the EPA’s statement that there is no widespread evidence of drinking water contamination. He repeated the claim that no cases of contamination had been proven and urged the board not to be swayed by “anecdotal” information.

Property owners whose wells are contaminated made clear their conclusions that fracking was to blame were based on the findings of scientific research, not guesswork. They asked the SAB to compel the EPA to include findings from preliminary tests the agency conducted that determined water contamination in Parker County, TX, Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY was likely caused by the fracking industry. Leaving out data from those areas creates data gaps in the report, they said.

The EPA's own scientific review board has also begun challenging the notion that their research shows fracking poses only marginal threats.

“Of particular concern is the statement of no widespread, systemic impacts on drinking-water resources,” the SAB wrote in a preliminary report. “Neither the system of interest nor the definitions of widespread, systemic or impact are clear and it is not clear how this statement reflects the uncertainties and data limitations described in the Report's chapters.”

The EPA's draft assessment contains case after case where fracking caused contamination – and even evidence, buried in the study's fine print, that the industry has at times deliberately injected fracking chemicals into drinking water supplies.

For some who have closely followed the issue for years, the question is no longer whether there is enough evidence that fracking is causing problems, but simply a question of political will to hold a powerful industry accountable.

“The truth on whether or not fracking is inherently contaminating is not being debated here. We know that that is the case,” Josh Fox, director of Gasland, said during his comments. “What is in question is whether the EPA will have any creditability as an organization if the EPA and the SAB caves to industry and political pressure.”

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

WISE WOMEN MEDIA FOR NOVEMBER 25, 2015--JULIE DERMANSKY, PHOTOJOURNALIST ON "FRACKING IN FLORIDA"

Julie Dermansky at 6 Flags in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina

"Fracking in Florida" with Julie Dermansky

This was a special broadcast on American Freedom Radio on November 21, 2015.

Julie Dermansky is my returning guest on this show; she is an artist, multimedia expert and photojournalist. Her stories and photographs have been published on such news outlets as Truthout, DeSmogBlog and Alternet just to name a few. And of course, I repost her work on Challenging the Rhetoric and Hoodooed.

She and I got together last week on the phone and we had a long conversation about some of the legalities of Fracking in Florida, the fragile locations (contiguous to the Everglades and the last Florida Panther preserve), the ongoing threats of land grabs, the environment, the state's precious water, the Indigenous people's way of life, the wildlife and what she has documented during her investigations.

We also discussed the River of Grass Greenway which threatens to destroy the Everglades. We briefly touched on the planned Sabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline that will extend from Alabama, through southern Georgia and intersect the center of Florida down to the Green Swamp and Orlando areas. A pipeline accident here could potentially threaten most of Tampa's drinking water, the largest metro area in the state.

This story is meant to be heard!

Thanks for tuning in--be sure to check out the source information (hyperlinked) and share!

REMEMBER, it is just a conversation!

Websites we mentioned:

Spectrabusters

Stonecrab Alliance

Preserve Our Paradise

Stop the Sabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline

(There is an approximate 2 minute gap in the audio due to a technical problem that occurred while we were recording; this is between 42 and 44 minutes.)

CLICK THE ORANGE BUTTON WITH ARROW TO PLAY THE AUDIO

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Battle to Keep Florida Frack-Free Heats Up

By Julie Dermansky • Saturday, October 31, 2015 - 05:58

The battle to keep Florida frack-free is intensifying ahead of the 2016 state legislative session.

Fracking became an issue last year after Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) revealed that the Dan A. Hughes Co. had fracked the Collier-Hogan well in Naples, despite regulators telling it not to until the agency had a chance to thoroughly review the company’s plans.

Shortly after the news broke, the move to ban fracking in Florida began.

Democratic State Senators Dwight Bullard and Darren Soto filed Senate Bill 166 that called for a statewide ban on fracking. Their bill failed, but was reintroduced this year.

In July, Bonita Springs, a city near Naples, passed a ban on all types of well-stimulation techniques, including fracking. Nearby Estero is considering a ban as well.

In a move that would void existing bans, companion legislation sponsored by Republican State Senator Garrett Richter(SB318) and Republican State Representative Ray Rodrigues (HB 191) calls for statewide regulations for fracking. The bills, if passed, would preempt all local ordinances governing the oil and gas industry.

On October 15, the public had an opportunity to address a Collier County legislative delegation on the bills meant to govern the fracking industry. Senators Bullard and Richter were part of the delegation present at the Naples meeting.

Anti-fracking activists stated that nothing short of a fracking ban would protect their families from the harm the industry can cause, pointing to other states where documented incidents of negative impacts caused by fracking are stacking up.

Objections were made to the preemption of local ordinances governing oil and gas that would void Bonita’s ban and prevent other municipalities from initiating their own ban.

Richter said he is “not pro or anti fracking.” But he warned if the proposed statewide fracking ban fails to pass, Florida would be left with no regulations to govern fracking. Currently, no state agency has the legal authority to regulate fracking.

He doesn’t believe a statewide ban has any chance of passing, and insists the companion bills are the state’s best option to protect Florida. Not only would his legislation offer the first statewide regulations governing fracking, it would also ban fracking until the state conducts its own study.

Naples anti-fracking activist John Dwyer disputed Richter’s claim that “passing something is better than nothing.”

SB 318 is “something that is far worse than nothing,” Dwyer told the panel. “It hobbles local governments so that they cannot defend their citizens against the dangers of the oil industry: the traffic, the noise, the pollution, the damage to natural resources, the health risks.”

VIDEO: Senator Bullard on Bill 166 That Calls For A Ban on Fracking in Florida

In a state where Governor Rick Scott prohibits state employees from using the term “climate change,” Senator Bullard told DeSmog during an interview after the meeting,

“The devil’s in the details. The bills’ preemption of all local rules pertaining to the oil and gas industry will make it impossible for local governments to object to anything the oil and gas industry does in a meaningful way.”

According to Bullard, the Richter and Rodrigues bills are full of loopholes that leave Florida’s water supply vulnerable. Though they claim that the bills will force the industry to reveal all of the chemicals injected into the ground, it really isn’t so.

In fact, the industry will only have to disclose the chemicals that fracfocus.org, a registry managed in part by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, requires. Fracfocus.org allows the industry to keep a portion of the chemicals it utilizes secret due to proprietary concerns.

VIDEO: Jennifer Hecker On Well Stimulation Treatments in Florida

Jennifer Hecker, director of natural resource policy for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also finds Richter's and Rodrigues' companion bills plagued with problems. They only address fracking, offering no regulation of other forms of well stimulation techniques.

A document (PDF) the Conservancy prepared for legislators explains how HB 191 and SB 318 fail:

o This legislation only addresses those techniques which fracture rock, excluding dissolving techniques and operations which “incidentally fracture the formation.”

o We know operations are completed in Florida using chemical mixtures to dissolve rock as well as fracture it. In order to address risks associated with this chemical use, dissolving and fracturing operations must be captured.

o The definition of well stimulation introduces a loophole by exempting operations that “incidentally fracture.” It is unlikely an operator would unintentionally fracture rock as this requires a great deal of fluid and high pressure. Even if this did occur, it would likely go unnoticed as fracturing occurs out of view thousands of feet below ground.

o While a draft hydraulic fracturing study has been prepared by EPA, the study does not include examples of well stimulation in Florida. Consequently, a Florida specific study is needed to evaluate the risks of unconventional extraction.

The Conservancy played a key role in uncovering what happened at the Hogan-Collier well, where Florida’s first publicly disclosed frack job took place.

While reviewing documents released by the DEP, Hecker learned that once a company has a permit to drill a well conventionally, all it has to do to use other well-stimulation treatments, including hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing, and matrix acidizing, is to submit a workover notice to the state. And if the workover is marked “trade secret,” the public won’t know about it.

The documents show that Hughes stimulated the Hogan-Collier well with matrix acidizing, before it informed the DEP that it intended to workover the well again by fracking it. The records reveal that the DEP was not concerned about the matrix acidizing, only the facking, but it concerns Hecker.

Matrix acidizing uses many of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, though it is not considered fracking. The chemicals are injected into the well with less pressure than required for fracking to dissolve rock (limestone in Florida’s case) to increase the flow of oil.

“Matrix acidizing is more likely to be utilized than fracking in Florida,” Hecker said, and legislators she spoke to told her “the process is thought to be fairly commonly used in Florida.”

The discovery that workover treatments can be kept confidential was alarming.

Hecker pointed out there is no way for the public to know how many wells have been worked over with well-stimulation treatments.

“The Conservancy isn’t pushing for a fracking ban,” she said, but it does not support the regulatory bills as they currently stand.

VIDEO: Senator Richter and Pamela Duran Talking About Fracking

Pamela Duran, a Naples resident who lives 1,000 feet from a site where Hughes had planned to drill before the state revoked the company’s drilling permit, approached Richter during a break in the session. She asked him if he believed fracking is safe. “Yes,” Richter said, explaining that his conclusion is based on findings of Florida’s DEP and the EPA’s recent study.

LIke other pro-industry supporters, Richter’s takeaway from the EPA’s preliminary report on fracking's potential impact on drinking water resources was that the fracking doesn’t damage the water supply. “Fracking can be accomplished without any material harm to our water supply,” he said, “That study would refute that it damages our water supply.”

He admitted to not reading the entire report, so it is unclear if he realizes the report determined that the fracking industry was responsible for contamination of some drinking water supplies.

In an interview with DeSmog, Richter dismissed the concerns of those citizens speaking out against his bill as “emotional,” and denied that the bill would make the Bonita Springs fracking ban illegal.

“Bonita’s ban is more of a public statement than it is an actual ban,” Richter said. ”No one is going to go into Bonita Springs and go for oil. Let’s call a duck a duck.”

“If our fracking ban is symbolic, why is Richter pursuing a bill to overturn it?” Ben Nelson, the mayor of Bonita Springs, asked DeSmog. His citizens don’t want their city to be transformed into an industrial zone. The city’s ban on all well stimulation techniques, including fracking, was put in place to make sure that doesn’t happen. Nelson objects to any bill that strips local municipalities of their right to govern land use.

Senator Bullard also objects to such moves. His district currently includes part of Collier County, the county where new well stimulation activities are most likely to occur.

Efforts to redistrict the counties Bullard represents are already in the works. However, Bullard plans to continue fighting for a fracking ban even if new redistricting rules take Collier County away from him.

“Aquifers don’t follow redistricting rules,” he said.

VIDEO: Antifracking Activist, Dr. Karen Dwyer at a press conference in Naples

Attachment: The Conservency of Southwest Florida’s Legislator Handout 2016

Article originally published here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/10/31/battle-keep-florida-frack-free-heating

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Texans Warn EPA Its New Rule to Reduce Methane Pollution Isn’t Tough Enough

By Julie Dermansky • Thursday, September 24, 2015 - 14:15

On September 23, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held public hearings in Dallas and Denver on its proposed rule to lower methane and associated pollution from oil and gas industry facilities. A third hearing will take place in Pittsburgh on September 27th.

Once finalized, the standards mandated by the EPA to control methane pollution will be a component of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan for reducing U.S.greenhouse gas emissions.

For Texans, the hearing holds special significance because of HB40, a new law the state passed shortly after Denton, Texas, voted for the state’s first fracking ban. HB40 makes fracking bans illegal and threatens all local ordinances the oil and gas industry doesn't like.

“The industry showered our Texas legislators with over $21 million to pass HB40,“ Sharon Wilson, Texas organizer for Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project, told DeSmog. “It stripped from cities a 100-year tradition of concurrent state and city regulation of oil and gas development.”

Shortly after the law was passed, Denton repealed its fracking ban, and the industry, in turn, dropped its lawsuit against the city for enacting it.

Testimony during the Dallas hearing revealed that many citizens impacted by the fracking industry don’t think the proposed rule goes far enough, while the industry doesn’t believe the new rule is needed at all.

Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, was among the industry representatives who spoke out against the proposed rule.

“The American economic system has made the United States the world leader in abundant and low-cost energy, thanks in no small part to contributions from Texas,” Ireland wrote in an editorial for the Texas Tribune. “But new rules from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency pose a direct threat to our oil and natural gas revolution.”

And the American Petroleum Institute, a national trade association representing oil and gas companies, claimed that“the proposals are unnecessary because the industry has already significantly reduced methane through innovation and existing regulations.”

But the EPA makes its case clear on its site:

“The industry is the largest industrial source of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a group of chemicals that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog). Exposure to ozone is linked to a wide range of health effects, including aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions, and premature death. EPA estimates VOC emission from the oil & natural gas industry at 2.2 million tons a year in 2008.”

“The oil and natural gas industry also is a significant source of emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Emissions of air toxics such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane, also come from this industry. Air toxics are pollutants known, or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects.”

Lance Irvin, a resident of Mansfield, Texas, a gas producing suburb of Dallas, who testified at the hearing, told DeSmog that Ireland’s editorial supports the EPA’s move to create a new rule.

“Methane leaking is a problem for the planet, and solving it isn’t coming from producers or Texas because it is so abundant, and it’s cheaper to waste lots of it during processing than to capture it,” he said. Irvin urged the EPA to make its rule tougher after pointing out ways in which the proposed rule falls short.

Sharon Wilson, Earthworks Gulf Coast Organizer, using a FLIR camera in Greeley Colorado at Northridge High School.

Wilson opened her testimony by showing a video she shot using a FLIR camera that records methane pollution not visible to the naked eye. The footage shows emissions spewing from fracking sites in Karnes County, Mansfield, and Denton, Texas, and in Greeley, Colorado, next to Northridge High School.

VIDEO: FLIR video shot by Sharon Wilson on behalf of the Citizen Empowerment Project

“You are the last hope for Texans. We are counting on you to make these methane rules strong enough to keep oil and gas pollution out of our neighborhoods,” Wilson told the EPA.

Wilson claimed that state regulators are not responsive to complaints from the public about air pollution in the Eagle Ford Shale, recounting her own experience.

She called the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) office after recording a site emitting a massive amount of fumes. Over 24 hours later the emissions worsened, so she called again and spoke to the region’s director who refused to investigate because Wilson is not a Karnes County resident.

Three months later, a Texas A&M atmospheric chemist found data that showed TCEQ’s own air monitor recorded a hydrocarbon spike on those same two days, yet TCEQ refused to investigate. Now that HB40 has stripped municipalities of their ability to protect their citizens, federal regulators are more important than ever, Wilson said.

Jim Schermbeck, anti-fracking activist and founder of Downwinders at Risk, doesn’t believe the new regulations offer adequate protection either. His organization points out that while the rules promise to cut future pollution levels as new equipment comes on line, they do almost nothing about existing facilities.

“Texas is the VW of State Governments,” Shermbeck told the EPA during the hearing.

DeSmog asked residents impacted by the fracking industry to weigh in on the proposed rule.

Lynn Buehring, a Karnes City resident in the Eagle Ford Shale region where 50 wells have been drilled within 2.5 miles of her home, told DeSmog she didn't come to the hearing because she suffers “from [post-traumatic stress syndrome] PTSS from my two accidents with 18-wheeler trucks.” But she shared her message to the EPA with DeSmog:

“I hope regulations are put into place to curb and/or stop the release of the methane gas from all facilities. Since the release of these gases, I now have full-blown asthma, watery burning eyes, skin rashes and bumps, nasal discharge, dry mouth, stomach issues and terrible migraine headaches…just to name a few of my health issues. We are not expendable just because we live in a rural area. Please help us, as no one else will.”

Cathy McMullen is the former president of the Drilling Awareness Group in Denton that was instrumental in making the fracking ban a reality. She is now involved with Texas Grassroots Network, a group leading the statewide effort to overturnHB40, and she commented at the hearing.

She asked the EPA to enact and enforce the strongest rules possible to reduce methane emissions. McMullen dispelled the industry’s claim that new rules controlling emissions will imperil job creation.

“Colorado has more stringent methane emission capture rules than the EPA is imposing, and their job growth has exceeded Texas,“ she said. A report by E&E confirms that.

Arlington resident and co-founder of the grassroots environmental group Livable Arlington, Ranjana Bhandari, stressed the need for the strongest rules possible in connection with her children’s well-being during her testimony:

“The Texas Railroad Commission does not have enough inspectors, 158 at last count, to monitor the large number of wells we have – 400 in Arlington alone. While supporting a rapid shift to clean, renewable energy, we strongly urge the EPA to implement these rules for new and existing oil and gas facilities in the interim, to help preserve not just a Liveable Arlington, but also a Liveable Planet.”

Tammie Carson, an environmental and social justice activist, took a day off work to attend the hearing despite doubting her effort would make a difference. Carson presented a photo of her grandchildren and said she believes it is her duty to protect them before pleading with the EPA to do the same.

“I am willing to go to any lengths to help facilitate whatever it takes to get clear air,” Carson told DeSmog. In 2012, during a Tar Sands Blockade action in East Texas, she locked herself to a truck carrying pipelines, delaying the construction of the southern route of the Keystone XL (renamed the Gulf Coast pipeline) for a day. The action landed her in jail overnight, and although her case was dismissed, she has a police record and an FBI file.

Weatherford, Texas homeowner Steve Lipsky, whose flammable water was featured in Josh Fox’s documentary,Gasland, told DeSmog he did not attend the hearing because he has little faith in any governmental agency.

He lost faith in the EPA after the agency dropped his case despite his water being contaminated with methane levels that are three times over the explosive limit, and shown to contain toxins like benzene and toluene over permissible limits.

Angela Spotts, Oklahoma homeowner and one of the founders of Stop Fracking Payne County, a grassroots organization, wanted to attend but was too busy fighting against the fracking industry in Oklahoma, where the number of earthquakes caused by the industry’s use of waste injection wells are record-breaking.

Spotts is skeptical that the EPA’s effort to set standards will be good enough. “How will the EPA actually address the seriousness of the issue of our air quality, despite the current administration's pro-fracking stance?” she told DeSmog. “The Oklahoma Corporation Commission is not adequately addressing the man-made earthquakes and the EPA has yet to step in and take over though we have asked them to do so.”

And in Colorado, despite some of the strictest emissions rules in the country, Eric Wilson, a resident of Weld County, north of Denver, had to temporarily relocate his family due to air pollution emitting from a frack site.

“I planned on speaking at the EPA hearings in Denver regarding the methane rule, but felt that effort was futile considering the revolving door between industry employees and regulatory agency staff, as well as the financial influence of the industry on our local and national government,“ he told DeSmog. “Since I am not writing a check, I probably won’t be heard.”

Mike Eisenfeld, New Mexico energy coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, didn’t attended either, though his group submitted comments.

“We’re glad to see reasonable measures to stop the oil and gas industry from continuing to foul the air in the San Juan Basindue to their leaking facilities,” said Eisenfeld. “The rule is going to help us tackle the sources that have caused the national disgrace of New Mexico’s 2,500-square-mile methane 'hot spot.'”

Testimony by Adam Briggle, a professor at the University of North Texas and leader of the Denton Drilling Awareness Group, ended with a message to the EPA that echoed throughout the day by those in favor of regulations tougher than those the EPA has proposed.

“I need your help. I need you to go back to Washington, D.C. and tell them that folks on the gas patch are watching. Remind them that they are deciding what will go into the bodies of children,” he said before asking them to do the right thing.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

How America’s biggest swamp could become fracking wasteland

Environmental groups, locals worry Louisiana’s Atchafalaya Basin might be destroyed by a proposed industrial facility

May 7, 2015 5:00AM ET

by Julie Dermansky

Originally published for Al Jazeerah America.

A cypress-tupelo swamp in the Atchafalaya Basin. Photo by Julie Dermansky

BELLE RIVER, La. — In the heart of Louisiana’s Cajun country, Julie and Lee Hines considered themselves lucky when they purchased a riverfront property. “I have the bayou in my blood,” said Julie Hines, a lifelong resident of the area.

The Hines family values the outdoors, like most of the other members of the 107 households in the tiny town of Belle River. Many in the region are fishermen, making their living on the water, of which there is plenty.

But the Hines’ dream faded quickly after they felt the impact of nearby industrial facilities’ fugitive emissions and increased truck use. They don’t believe the rules to protect them are enforced rigorously enough and found there is little they can do when the rules are broken.

Now plans for a new facility have sparked fears among Belle River residents that they too will have to deal with increased traffic and pollution and that there might be little anyone can do to stop it. It is a situation that has set off a fierce dispute and highlighted a national issue of how Big Business can sidestep rejections of their plans.

One hundred miles west of New Orleans, Belle River is considered the gateway to the Atchafalaya Basin, the largest wetland in the U.S. The area is famous for its plentiful seafood and cypress-tupelo swamps. “This is no place to dispose of toxic chemicals,” said Dean Wilson, the head of the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper grass-roots environmental group.

But that is precisely what FAS Environmental Services has done since the mid-1980s. The company receives industrial waste from processes ranging from conventional oil drilling to hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. The waste can often contain high concentrations of methanol, chloride, sulfates and other substances. “Produced water,” the industry’s name for waste from fracking sites, can also contain toxins like benzene and xylene.

The waste arrives via truck and barge at an FAS transfer station close to the Hines residence, on the flood protection side of the levee. It is then transferred onto a shuttle barge for a 2-mile trip on the Intracoastal Waterway to the company's injection well, where it is pumped at high pressure deep below the surface into rock formations, where it is meant to remain permanently.

Now FAS wants to build a new facility directly across the waterway from the injection well. Its plan requires a pipeline to be built under the Intracoastal, connecting the new facility to the injection well, allowing waste to be moved under the waterway and eliminating the need for the current shuttle barge system. According to FAS, the new station would end the use of shuttle barges, cutting down on the risk of water-borne accidents.

But the proposed facility is in a residential neighborhood not zoned for heavy industrial use. When FAS requested that the local zoning commission rezone the land, its request was denied.

The company could have appealed the decision to the St. Martin Parish Council. Instead, circumventing local laws, it applied for a permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) office of conservation, which regulates oil and gas drilling in Louisiana. A decision on the permit application will be made before the end of June.

A battle has erupted between FAS and local residents who oppose overruling local laws, their government representatives and environmental groups.

The DNR doesn’t take zoning into account when considering a permit, department spokesman Patrick Courreges told Al Jazeera. It considers only “construction and environmental protection,” he said, evaluating whether a company will be able to contain materials and clean them up quickly should something go wrong.

Outside Louisiana, the energy industry has frequently challenged government restrictions with lawsuits and lobbied for legislation that would overturn municipal rulings. In Texas the state legislature recently enacted HB 40, a law that effectively overturns the town of Denton’s fracking ban and other local ordinances on the oil and gas industry.

In Belle River many residents are furious that their objections and regulations may count for little. A recent public hearing for the FAS permit took place in the volunteer fire station in the town and drew a large crowd.

Retired Lt. Gen. Russell Honoré at DNR’s public permit hearing in Belle River, Louisiana, in February 2015. Photo by Julie Dermansky.

Retired Lt. Gen. Russell Honoré, famous for leading military relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, testified on behalf of the Green Army, a coalition of environmental groups. “Democracy has already failed in Belle River,” he said. “In Louisiana a hearing is just a delay in action before they announce they are going to approve it.”

Residents fear problems at other Louisiana towns offer a taste of what might happen to Belle River. In 2003 a methane leak from a well owned by a Dow Chemical facility forced a 50-day evacuation of 28 residents in Grand Bayou. The company later bought out most of the residents. In 2012 in Bayou Corne, the petrochemical company Texas Brine was held responsible for causing a massive sinkhole. The sinkhole released deposits of natural gas into the aquifer that spread underneath Bayou Corne, leading officials to call for a mandatory evacuation. Now only a handful of 350 residents remain, leaving Bayou Corne almost a ghost town.

At the permit hearing in Belle River, residents, local politicians and representatives from environmental groups, including Honoré, disputed claims the company made in its proposal. Lee and Julie Hines, who live closest to the existing FAS transfer station, warned about the company’s practices. “What they say and what they do are completely different things," Julie Hines testified.

When FAS asked for a permit for the first facility, it said waste would arrive at the transfer station only by barge. But less than two years later, the company wrote a letter to the DNR asking for permission to receive waste by truck too. Up to 57 trucks a day now also use the current facility, according to FAS documents submitted to the DNR for the hearing.

Lee Hines argued that FAS operations at the proposed facility, including the use of generators, could cause the levee to vibrate, potentially jeopardizing the levee’s structural integrity. The levee is the community’s principal flood protection. A breach in the levee would likely result in a disaster.

State Rep. Sam Jones also voiced his concerns about the facility putting additional stress on the levee and the facility’s potential to be flooded. “The question is not if we are going to have another flood that will swamp this station. It is when,” he said. Belle River is prone to flooding. Hurricanes Gustav and Ike significantly damaged Belle River’s boat landing near FAS’ proposed site.

No representative from FAS spoke on behalf of the company at the hearing, and the company did not return phone calls to Al Jazeera.

At the permit hearing, environmental scientist Wilma Subra testified on behalf of Louisiana Environmental Action Network that the project’s design cannot cope with the flood levels predicted for a 100-year flood. “The project’s potential to flood will be built in,” she said. That is particularly worrying, as the area has reached the 100-year-flood level three times in the last 40 years.

In its permit application, FAS stated that the company doesn’t plan to increase the amount of waste material it is accepting and that it would no longer use the current facility if a new one is built. The company said that building the new transfer station at the new location will enable them to streamline operations and eliminate a degree of risk.

Residents, however, were skeptical that FAS does not plan to increase capacity. FAS will not be required to close the current transfer station or decommission the shuttle barges as a condition for getting the new permit. At the hearing, those against the proposal said they believed the company may try to keep its current facility operational and expand operations.

“If FAS wants to accept more material than their application states, all it has to do is write DNR a letter and ask to take in more,” Subra said. She also pointed out that FAS has stated its new facility will be able to handle fracking waste from new deposits like the Tuscaloosa Shale and the Haynesville Shale as well as material from Northern states looking to transport waste by barge if the Coast Guard permits it.

The Coast Guard has been considering allowing barges to transport fracking waste down the Ohio River to the Mississippi River and then to the Atchafalaya Basin. “The decision has not been finalized, and there is no estimated time for the decision,” Coast Guard spokeswoman Cynthia A. Znati said in an email.

FAS’ track record is another problem. In 2013 an FAS manager was found guilty of taking kickbacks from a wastewater brokerage firm and allowing the disposal of 380,000 gallons of industrial wastewater that contained chemicals not permitted to be dumped at the facility. The Environmental Protection Agency determined the owners of FAS were not aware of the manager’s wrongdoing and didn’t profit from it.

Subra said that the DNR has no mandatory inspection schedule for injection wells or transfer stations. A DNR representative was unable to tell Al Jazeera the last time the FAS injection well and transfer facility were inspected, nor could it confirm how often the agency is required to visit.

Most Belle River residents are not optimistic they can stop FAS. When zoning rules are challenged, the courts moderate between local governments and corporations. In April two court challenges based on local zoning rules against a proposed fracking project in St. Tammany Parish, 40 miles from New Orleans, were dismissed.

Any ruling against industry can come at a potential cost for elected officials seeking funding for their campaigns. Don Briggs, the president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, wrote in a plan of action posted on the organization’s website, “Judges that blatantly rule against the industry, parish presidents that stand behind egregious lawsuits and mayors that publicly support litigations to prevent oil and gas activity were elected at some point in time. These same officials can also be voted out of office.”

Guy Cormier, the president of St. Martin's Parish, stressed when he testified at the hearing that he is not anti-industry but that it was his job to protect the community by enforcing zoning laws. He told the DNR the parish will not issue FAS a building permit, even if the DNR permits the company’s new facility. If that is how things unfold, FAS can then sue the parish.

The FAS disposal site in the Atchafalaya Basin. Photo by Julie Dermansky

Honoré pointed out that if FAS builds the facility, despite zoning rules forbidding it, a dangerous precedent would be set. “If it can happen here,” he said, “it can happen anywhere.”