A group of Denton residents launched an effort Tuesday to outlaw fracking within the city.

If the Denton Drilling Awareness Group succeeds in getting the ban on the ballot and if Dentonites pass the measure in November, Denton will become the first city in Texas to make fracking illegal. Cities in other states have already passed similar laws, but Denton would be the first with existing fracking permits to do so.

The possibility of a city in Texas—a state that accounts for one-third of U.S. natural gas production—making it illegal to frack is sure to rattle the industry. Dallas passed a de facto ban on fracking in December when it adopted prohibitive setback requirements for natural gas wells, but it still didn’t outright make fracking illegal. And Dallas isn’t Denton.

Denton sits atop the part of the Barnett Shale formation that’s richest in natural gas. The county is the fourth-highest producing within the Barnett Shale. It has 275 active gas wells within its city limits (Dallas didn’t have a single active gas well within city limits when it passed the de facto ban) and another 212 wells in the extraterritorial jurisdiction within five miles of city limits.

Nineteen operators own those gas wells. EagleRidge Energy, whose wells have been at the center of the debate between residents and city government, owns at least 107 active wells. The Observercontacted Mark Grawe, the chief operating officer and executive vice president at EagleRidge, but he refused to comment on the proposed ban. Asked how many gas wells EagleRidge operates in and around Denton, he said “in the hundreds,” and asked what percentage of its natural gas production is concentrated in the city, he only volunteered “a majority.”

Denton Drilling Awareness Group member Cathy McMullen moved to Denton when natural gas wells started springing up around her home in Decatur. She and her husband found homes for their farm animals and relocated to Denton with their rescue dogs, thinking they’d escaped drilling. But soon, a drilling rig went up 1,500 feet from their house.

“We were shocked because we’re in town, we’re next to a hospital and next to a city park so we thought they’ll never drill here,” she says. “Then they started drilling here and I told my husband, ‘That is my line in the sand. I’m not going anymore, we’re just fighting it.’”

Dentonites who support the fracking ban don’t expect it will be an easy battle, but they say they had no choice but to resort to a voter-adopted ban. Sharon Wilson, who has been organizing in Denton for five years, says residents have been trying to get city government to pass reasonable restrictions on natural gas drilling for years. The City Council passed a revised gas drilling ordinance last year, but residents were unsatisfied because it left out key protections such as prohibiting open pits, compressor stations, flaring and other measures they requested.

The ordinance also provides an important loophole. Energy companies can’t put new drills within 1,200 feet of homes, but that setback doesn’t apply to developers building new homes. Developers can build near existing gas wells, which energy companies can then return to redevelop, or re-frack. That’s what happened in a Denton neighborhood recently, where EagleRidge Energy bought existing gas wells and began operating them even though they are only 250 feet away from homes. In that case, the developer pledged to disclose the gas well locations to future homebuyers, but in general that isn’t required.

“The last straw was when they decided to allow fracking so close to the Vintage neighborhood,” Wilson says. “It’s been a horrible, horrible experience for these people … We had no choice, we were backed into a corner and the only way to protect families and future generations was to try to get it banned.”

The group has to collect 571 signatures in 180 days to get the ordinance change on the ballot. Wilson and McMullen are confident they can get the signatures easily because so many residents have complained about emissions, noise pollution and dropping property values, but whether a majority of voters decides to back the measure is another matter.

If they are able to muster enough support, the ordinance could still face legal challenges. In Dallas, a company with gas drilling permits sued the city after it passed the de facto ban, and in Colorado, the state joined oil and gas groups in suing the city of Longmont for its voter-adopted fracking ban. In Denton, the City Council can amend or repeal the ordinance even after it’s passed.

“And then we’d have to do the process all over again, which we’ve already decided we would,” McMullen says. “If we have to do this process 50 times we will do it.”

It’s only the beginning of a long battle for many of the cities attempting to ban or significantly restrict urban fracking, but what happens in Texas in the coming months (or years) will likely have an impact beyond the state’s borders.

Daniel Hogan thought he heard a sonic boom when a magnitude 3.6 earthquake hit Azle, Texas, last November. His home sustained damage — broken windows, cracked walls, damaged plumbing and foundation — but he did not have earthquake insurance to cover the repairs. He never imagined he'd need such protection in Texas.

Since November, Azle, Reno and Springtown, three small cities 50 miles west of Dallas, have been at the epicenter of more than 30 earthquakes. The seismic activity began after deep injection disposal wells built to house fracking's toxic wastewater went into operation. There are several injection wells in the area — three of which some suspect to be the cause of the quakes.

The economic impact on residents in the quake zone has been heavy. Melanie Williams had to move out of her home in Azle after her pipes burst and is now is paying both her mortgage and rent to live elsewhere. A survivor of hurricane Katrina, she couldn't take the stress of living in a moldy house that continues to crack with each new earthquake.

Joretta Lanier, another Azle homeowner, told DeSmogBlog when the first earthquake hit, she thought a car had crashed into her home.  "If my insurance company won't pay for this, someone has to be held responsible. We can't afford the repairs."

Springtown residents Tracey Napier and Tommy Eldridge called their county chairman, George Conley, Parker County Precinct One Commissioner, about the mounting damage to their home and the growing number of sinkholes on their land. They were advised to call the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Eldridge says a representative from the agency red-flagged their house and property after an inspection, prohibiting them from selling or building another house elsewhere on the land. They have relocated their horses since it was risky having them near sinkholes, but they don't have the money to do the same for themselves, even though some of the holes are dangerously close to their home's foundation.

On January 2, more than 800 residents turned out for a public meeting with members of the Texas Railroad Commission, the agency that regulates the Texas oil and gas industry. The people who came were desperate for information about what is going on.

Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter was heckled when he refused to answer their questions, telling them they were there just to listen.

After hearing the testimony of their neighbors, most of the residents had more questions than they had when the meeting began. Sharon Wilson, an environmental activist with Earthworks, led the way in organizing a follow-up meeting to educate residents about the fracking industry.

Afterward, 50 area residents chartered a bus to Austin to attend the next Railroad Commission meeting and call for a moratorium on the use of the injection wastewater wells closest to the earthquakes' epicenter. Residents have formed an advisory committee that will coordinate further meetings and do what it can to have the wells shut down.

The Railroad Commission reiterated that it would be hiring a seismologist, but yet again did not answer questions.

Almost a month later, Ramona Nye, a spokesperson for the Railroad Commission, confirmed by e-mail to DeSmogBlog that the hiring process is still ongoing. She repeated what was said at the meeting: "The commission staff has not identified a definitive correlation between seismic activity (or earthquakes) and injection wells in Texas."

Reno's mayor Lynda Stokes disagrees. She told DeSmogBlog she gets reports from all over, including Ohio, Arkansas and Northern Oklahoma, pointing to injection wells as the cause.

Stokes cited studies making the connection, including one by William L. Ellsworth, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, who told NPR, "The increase in earthquakes is very clear, so it’s not an instrumental artifact. This we’re really quite confident of."  

Stokes referenced a similar situation in the Netherlands, where thegovernment is now cutting back on drilling after earthquakes did damage there, and other instances in Texas at the Arlington Airport and in Cleburne, where injection wells ceased operations to reduce the threat of more earthquakes.

When asked by DeSmogBlog if the Railroad Commission had the authority to issue a moratorium on the wells, spokesperson Nye wrote:

“Generally, the commission's jurisdiction is over threats of water pollution from an oilfield exploration or production activity. Specifically, the commission does not have the jurisdictional authority to shut down an injection well based only on the presence of a nearby earthquake. We can immediately shut in a well if there is an indication of reported pressure or mechanical integrity issues with any of the Azle area disposal wells, which would have been an indication of a possible internal or external leak in these wellbores. Our inspections of disposal wells in the 15-mile radius of Azle showed no indications that this was occurring. Additionally, the operator has the right to request a hearing and due process if the Commission shuts down a well.”

But that hasn’t stopped Mayor Stokes and Alan Brundrett, Azle's mayor, from asking for a temporary moratorium on the disposal wells.

"I'm up against Goliath," Stokes said, before pointing out the cracks in the walls and floor of Reno's City Hall

"If you drill into the ground you ought to know what you are drilling into. We are on a fault line. You don't drill into fault lines. If the quakes stop after the wells are shut down, they will have their answer about the earthquakes' cause. This is not rocket science."

The quakes are stirring some of the local youth to engage in the political process. Robert Caney, 11, from Azle has attended all the local meetings. At the advisory board meeting he told DeSmogBlog: "The politicians say they care about us but they don’t. If they did they would shut the injection wells down."

Residents streamed into one of the party rooms Thursday night at Sweetwater Grill and Tavern, lining up to buy T-shirts, make donations and sign a petition to ban hydraulic fracturing in the city limits.

Organizers said they got about 200 signatures, or one-third of what they need to force an initiative in front of the Denton City Council.

A new local nonprofit, Denton Drilling Awareness Group, has organized the petition drive in response to a city ordinance regulating oil and gas production in the city limits. The initiative is itself an ordinance that, if adopted by either the City Council or Denton voters, would make Denton the first major Texas city to ban fracking and the first city in the nation to do so after permits were issued.

Industry officials have questioned whether a ban on hydraulic fracturing — pressure-pumping a chemical and water solution to release gas and oil from shale and other tight rock — would be legally defensible, citing a lack of authority for cities to regulate such techniques. Moreover, royalty owners say they lose money when groups protest production.

Cathy McMullen, a member of Denton DAG, said that the turnout was overwhelming.

“I meant to stay and have a beer, but I just had to go home, I was so emotional,” McMullen said. “To finally see so many people that say, ‘I know how you feel and I’ve got your back,’ it’s such a relief.”

The group is receiving help with the petition drive from Sharon Wilson, a former Denton resident who also works for Earthworks, a national nonprofit environmental advocacy group.

Although McMullen said it wasn’t planned, she was the first to sign the petition because she had been lobbying the city since 2009 for more-stringent regulations.

The group has about six months to gather the 596 required signatures, according to city staff.

Denton resident Maile Bush was there, too, as one of several speakers who addressed the crowd as signing began.

Bush lives in the neighborhoods along Vintage Boulevard and Bonnie Brae Street, which have been at the center of a controversy among the residents, the city and an operator for several months.

“Before last October, I didn’t even know what fracking was,” Bush said. “This is not compatible with neighborhoods.”

Not everyone who came to the launch party was able to sign, McMullen said.

Some of them needed to register to vote first, but organizers were ready for that, she said.

“We’ve got their names and we will go back to them again,” McMullen said.

Because people must sign the petition in front of a person authorized to circulate it, the group has announced more signing events and will be working with businesses that have offered to help, she said.

Dan Garza and his wife, Hatice Salih, who is running at-large for Place 5 on the Denton City Council, have copies of the petition at their shop, Dan’s Meat Market, 2736 N. Elm St., and the new owner of Big Mike’s Coffee Shop, near the University of North Texas, also offered to help, McMullen said.

In addition, the group has about 30 people who will canvass the Vintage, Bonnie Brae, Denia and Southridge neighborhoods in the coming weeks. When they are done, another 20 people will be dispatched to other areas of the city, McMullen said.

“We want to make sure that everyone who wants to sign the petition gets to,” she said.

Today, residents can look for Adam Briggle, Denton DAG member, at Fuzzy’s Taco Shop, 115 Industrial St., between 2 and 5 p.m. On Sunday, the Denton Unitarian Universalist Church, 1111 Cordell St., will play host to a signing event from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Sandie Maddox, another resident in the Vintage neighborhood, is organizing a signing event for Saturday, March 1, or Sunday, March 2, in the community room at Fire Station No. 7.

Details about that event and future signing events will be posted on the group’s website, frackfreedenton.com.

Denton DAG members will be on hand to help answer people’s questions as will residents of the Vintage neighborhood, Maddox said.

“Residents in other neighborhoods, people who haven’t been affected but will be, can come and understand the experience,” Maddox said.

Dillingham, AK & Washington, D.C.: Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it is invoking its Clean Water Act authority to assess permanently prohibiting or restricting mine waste disposal into Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed.  This decision puts on hold attempts to build the Pebble Mine, which would be North America’s largest open pit gold-copper mine.

"We are happy with the EPA's decision to take this crucial step," said Kimberly Williams, director of Nunamta Aulukestai, an association of ten Bristol Bay Native Tribes and Native Village corporations.. "I and more than 30 other Alaskan leaders just came back from Washington to urge the EPA to do so. Now we’re one big step closer to protecting our salmon, our resources and our people from the proposed Pebble mine."

EPA’s action is not a final decision to block the mine. But while the review occurs as authorized by section 404c of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps cannot take any steps to grant permits.  During the review, EPA will rely heavily upon its peer-reviewed scientific assessment of the impacts of large scale mining on the Bristol Bay watershed which was released in January.

“We're thrilled the EPA is taking this important step to protect the world's greatest wild salmon fishery, and the communities that depend on it,” said Earthworks executive director Jennifer Krill. She continued, “The decision is clear. The science is definitive. Some places just shouldn’t be mined, and the Bristol Bay watershed is one of them.”

An unusual coalition of Alaska Native communities, commercial fishermen, conservation groups, jewelry retail companies, churches, investors and recreational fishermen have united against the Pebble Mine proposal and for the protection of Bristol Bay watershed, its people and its $480 million/year fishery.

"Tiffany & Co. commends the EPA for its efforts to protect Bristol Bay and the thousands of jobs that depend on a healthy, sustainable fishery," said Tiffany & Co. CEO Michael Kowalski.

Federal environmental officials on Feb. 28 initiated action under the Clean Water Act to identify appropriate options to protect the Bristol Bay salmon fishery in Southwest Alaska, a move that could potentially halt the Pebble mine.

The announcement came from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, who said that extensive scientific study "has given us ample reason to believe that the Pebble mine would likely have significant and irreversible negative impacts on the Bristol Bay watershed and its abundant salmon fisheries."

"It's why EPA is taking this step forward in our effort to ensure protection for the world's most productive salmon fishery from the risks it faces from what could be one of the largest open pit mines on earth," McCarthy said.

Bristol Bay produces nearly 50 percent of the world's wild sockeye salmon, with runs averaging 37.5 million fish annually. The salmon runs are highly productive due in large part to the exceptional water quality in streams and wetlands, which provide valuable salmon habitat, the EPA said.

Dennis McLerran, EPA regional administrator for Region 10 in Seattle, sent letters to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Alaska, and the Pebble Partnership initiating action under Section 404 © of the Clean Water Act.

Information provided by the Pebble Limited Partnership and Northern Dynasty Minerals shows that mining the Pebble deposit may involve excavation of a pit up to one mile deep and over 2.5 miles wide- the largest open pit ever constructed in North America.

The EPA noted that disposal of mining waste may require construction of three or ore massive earthen tailings dams as high as 650 feet. The copper, gold and molybdenum deposit lies at the headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers, which produce about half of the sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay.

Reaction to the EPA's announcement was mixed, with environmental, sports entities and businesses opposed the mine applauding the EPA's action, the Pebble Limited Partnership calling the move "premature and unprecedented," and Alaska's congressional delegation criticizing federal overreach.

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The act emphasizes protecting uses of the nation's waterways, including fishing.

Now that the 404 © process has been initiated, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit for fill in wetlands or streams associated with mining the Pebble deposit until EPA completes the 404© review process.

The Clean Water Act generally requires a permit under Section 404 from the Corps before any person places dredge or fill material into wetlands, lakes and streams. Mining operations typically involve such activities and must obtain Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. Section 404 directs EPA to develop the environmental criteria the Corps uses to make permit decisions. It also authorizes EPA to prohibit or restrict fill activities if EPA determines such actions would have unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas.

Steps in the review process now under way include the consultation period with the Corps and owners of the site, which was initiated on Feb. 28.

Step 2 is publication of proposed determination, including proposed prohibitions or restrictions on mining the Pebble deposit, in the Federal Register for public comment and one or more public hearings.

Step 3 is a review of public comments and development of recommended determination by EPA's regional administrator to the assistant administrator for water at EPA headquarters in Washington DC

Step 4 is a second consultation period with the Corps and site owners and development of a final determination by the assistant administrator for water, including any final prohibitions or restrictions on mining the Pebble deposit.

Based on input EPA receives during any one of these steps, the agency could decide that further review under Section 404 © is not necessary.

Among those applauding the EPA's decision was Kimberly Williams, director of Nunamta Aulukestai, an association of ten Bristol Bay Native tribes and Native village corporations. "Now we're one big step closer to protecting our salmon, our resources and our people from the proposed Pebble mine," said Williams, who just returned, with more than 30 other Alaskans opposed to the mine from speaking with EPA in Washington DC.

"We're thrilled the EPA is taking this important step to protect the world's greatest wild salmon fishery, and the communities that depend on it," said Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks, in a joint statement with Williams. Also included in their announcement was a statement from Michael Kowalski, chief executive officer of Tiffany & Co., the world famous New York City based jewelry store, who said Tiffany "commends the EPA for its efforts to protect Bristol Bay and the 14,000 jobs that depend on a healthy, sustainable fishery." The store was among a number of jewelry stores that vowed to never purchase precious metals from the mine.

"It is difficult to overstate the significance of this announcement," said Chris wood, president and chief executive officer of Trout Unlimited. "If the EPA follows the science and follows through on this, it will rank as one of the most significant conservation achievements of the past 50 years."

Jason Metrokin, president and chief executive officer of Bristol Bay Native Corp., said that the regional Native corporation supports responsible development, including mining, but that science has shown that the proposed Pebble mine presents "unacceptable risks to Bristol Bay salmon, people and existing economies."

Metrokin said the corporation is continuing to focus on ending the threat of the proposed mine and on creating other appropriate economic opportunities and jobs.

"Katherine Carscallen, sustainability director for the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, said that commercial fishermen have lived for a decade under a cloud of economic uncertainty created by the prospect of the mine.

Carscallen said the BRSDA is pleased that the EPA is responding to a request for Clean Water Act protections, but noted there are still many steps in the process before the threat of mines in Bristol Bay are fully put to rest.

Shoren Brown, speaking for Bristol Bay United, called the EPA announcement "a measured step to protect this extraordinary place."

From the perspective of mine proponents, EPA's decision to initiate action under the Clean Water Act was premature and unprecedented.

Tom Collier, newly appointed chief executive officer of the Pebble Limited Partnership, said the PLP "remain confident in our project and our position.

We will continue to state our case with the EPA as we work through their process," Collier said. "The EPA's actions today are an unprecedented federal action and reflect a major overreach onto an asset of the state of Alaska," he said.

Collier said the Bristol Bay assessment released by the EPA is "not sufficient for any type of agency decision making." Steps taken by the EPA to date "…. Have been biased throughout, and have been unduly influenced by environmental advocacy organizations," he said.

Ron Thiessen, president and chief executive officer of Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited, in Vancouver, British Columbia, which has invested millions of dollars in the project, said that based on input EPA receives during any one of the Clean Water Act steps, the agency could decide that further review under Section 404© is not necessary. Thiessen said for a wide range of reasons, Northern Dynasty remains confident that final decisions about Pebble will be made by federal and state regulators working within the National Environmental Policy Act permitting process, "and not unilaterally and pre-emptively by EPA."

Alaska's congressional delegation also expressed concern over the EPA announcement.

"I have said the Pebble mine is the wrong mine in the wrong place, " said Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

"However, I am skeptical of federal overreach from an administration that has already demonstrated it does not understand Alaska's unique needs," he said.

"I do understand the importance and value of the fisheries resources that are an integral part of the Bristol Bay region," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "But even with that in mind, for the sake of sound law and policy, I have no choice but to remain strenuously and unequivocally opposed to a preemptive veto by EPA."

And Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, commenting on what he called "EPA's unwarranted involvement on Alaska lands," said "this expansive, jurisdictional power grab proposed by the EPA severely jeopardizes not only Alaska's sovereignty, but the rights of states and all private property owners nationwide.

"…For the EPA to preemptively oppose a project located entirely on state land, a project already subject to a rigorous state permitting process, is a serious threat to any future projects on state of Alaska, Alaska Native, or even individually owned private land," Young said.

- See more at: http://www.thecordovatimes.com/article/1409pebble-mine#sthash.vEQNyxWd.NmV6ZEEv.dpuf

SEATTLE -- Now that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun the yearlong process that could lead to halting construction on the controversial Pebble Mine, stakeholders in Alaska’s bountiful Bristol Bay are weighing in.

There is celebration over what could be possible protection for the world’s most productive sockeye salmon fishery. There is wariness about a process that could impede progress on the largest open pit mine in North America.

And there is also a lot of anger up in the Last Frontier, where many of the region’s deeply independent residents bristle at what they view as the federal government’s meddling in their affairs. This is Alaska, the sentiment goes, and we can take care of our own.

Various stakeholders, in their own words, speak out:

The Environmental Protection Agency:

“Extensive scientific study has given us ample reason to believe that the Pebble Mine would likely have significant and irreversible negative impacts on the Bristol Bay watershed and its abundant salmon fisheries.” – Gina McCarthy, administrator, EPA

“Mining the Pebble deposit will involve excavation of the largest open pit ever constructed in North America, completely destroying an area as large as 18 square kilometers and as deep as 1.24 kilometers. Disposal of waste material will require construction of up to three waste impoundemnts covering an additional 50 square kilometers.” – Dennis J. McLerran, regional administrator, EPA

The mine owners:

"We remain confident in our project and our position ... The EPA's actions today are an unprecedented federal action and reflect a major overreach into an asset of the State of Alaska. There is a prescribed, science based process for evaluating projects such as Pebble and the EPA has initiated a step that turns this process on its head." – Tim Collier, chief executive, Pebble Limited Partnership

The Alaska natives:

“Bristol Bay Native Corporation appreciates that EPA will identify appropriate options to protect Bristol Bay from the risks Pebble poses. While BBNC supports responsible development, including mining, the science has shown that the proposed Pebble mine presents unacceptable risks to Bristol Bay salmon, people and existing economies.” – Jason Metrokin, president, Bristol Bay Native Corporation

“We are happy with the EPA’s decision to take this crucial step. I and more than 30 other Alaskan leaders just came bace from Washington to urge the EPA to do so. Now we’re one big step closer to protecting our salmon, our resources and our people from the proposed Pebble mine.” – Kimberly Williams, director of Nunamata Aulukestai, an association of Bristol Bay native tribes and native village corporations

The fishermen:

“Though Bristol Bay supports a $1.5-billion commercial fishery and 14,000 jobs in total, our commercial fishermen have lived for a decade under a cloud of economic uncertainty. Today’s announcement from the EPA shows that the clouds over Bristol Bay are beginning to move.” – Katherine Carscallen, sustainability director, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Assn.

“People in the region depend on salmon for jobs. People who can trace back their history thousands of years asked for protection through the Clean Water Act. Today, we may be one step closer to that.” – Tim Bristol, Alaska program manager, Trout Unlimited

The conservationists:

“The decision is clear. The science is definitive. Some places just shouldn’t be mined, and the Bristol Bay watershed is one of them.” – Jennifer Krill, executive director, Earthworks

“This puts EPA’s eyes on the prize. Bristol Bay is the richest salmon habitat in the world. We can’t let Pebble Mine put that at risk.…The science is sound, EPA’s legal authority is clear, and the people of Bristol Bay have demanded protection. It’s time to say no to Pebble Mine.” – Joel Reynolds, Western director, Natural Resources Defense Council

The elected officials:

“Today’s egregious action by the EPA goes beyond federal overreach. It is unprecedented. The EPA has not only cut off public input and process, but has also unilaterally decided that they, not Alaskans, know what’s best for our future. The State is prepared to pursue all legal options to ensure Alaska’s rights are protected.” – Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell

“Having the EPA come in to do the state’s work to protect our fishing streams was not my first choice. But the governor refused to take action to stand up for Alaskans in Bristol Bay, and the majority of Alaskans who value our fishing waters.… I would not have sided with foreign mine owners who seek to jeopardize the world’s greatest wild salmon and trout waters.” – State Rep. Les Gara

“I applaud this action today to protect Northwest fishing jobs from being destroyed by the largest open pit mine in North America. Washington and Alaska fishermen depend on Bristol Bay for their livelihoods. Ruining headwaters with mining pollution is too big a risk to existing jobs in the Pacific Northwest.” – Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell

Last fall, Eagleridge Energy won some permits to frack right next to a few Denton neighborhoods, despite a new city ordinance that was supposed to keep the company farther away. The city said sorry, it was powerless to stop Eagleridge, because the company had found an extremely clever loophole. So now, pissed-off homeowners are responding by basically telling the city "screw you" and trying to kick the company out themselves. Calling themselves the Denton Drilling Awareness Group, a group of homeowners just announced that they're trying to place a total ban on fracking within city limits on the ballot.

"The city and the state have repeatedly failed us," Maile Bush, one of the homeowners living just outside an Eagleridge drill site, says in a joint press release with Earthworks, an environmental group focused on mineral and energy development.

After years of political wrangling among local activists, the Denton City Council in January 2013 approved an ordinance that required a 1,200-foot setback between drilling operations and residences. That wasn't the 1,500 feet that some had hoped for, but it was tougher than before.

In the end, however, it didn't matter much. While the local activists and the City Council had their argument over setbacks, an energy company profiting from Denton's land continued to do as it pleased.

Last September, well after Denton passed its 1,200-foot rule, Eagleridge got permits from the Texas Railroad Commission to put new gas wells on an old site just 600 feet from homes. Then, less than a month later, Eagleridge started getting to work, calling attention to itself with obvious noises and vibrations.

Denton responded with a lawsuit and a restraining order against Eagleridge, arguing that "The City has never received or approved a gas well permit application" for the multiple wells.

A judge denied Denton's restraining order. It turned out that the company had won approval from the Railroad Commission on a loophole involving bad timing: The gas well site was there first, since 2002. The housing developments nearby were built later, after the site had been inactive for a few years.

While the homeowners claim they had no idea they were purchasing houses just 600 feet from a potential drilling site, that was just too bad. Denton dropped its lawsuit and came to an agreement with Eagleridge that allowed the company to keep working on those contested areas. City Councilman Kevin Rodan wrote that the city had no choice, "thanks to the coziness of Texas legislators, law and legal precedence to the oil and gas lobby."

Then last month, residents say the industrial activity took a turn for the worse. The noise from Bush's front yard could range from 60 to 80 decibels, she told Unfair Park at the time, and the city wasn't very helpful. (Eighty decibels is about as loud as a garbage disposal, according to some comparisons.)

"We were essentially told that the ordinance does not apply to existing wells," she said.

Bush and the other homeowners have to collect 571 signatures within 180 days to get on the ballot.

Council resolution passes due to concerns controversial practice threatens DC water supply

Washington, D.C. -- The DC City Council yesterday passed a resolution opposing hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for natural gas in the George Washington National Forest due to concerns that such development might contaminate drinking water supplies. The 1.1 million-acre forest, located in Virginia and West Virginia, contains headwaters of the Potomac River, the sole source of drinking water for the nation’s capital.

The city council joined several local water providers that have opposed fracking and horizontal drilling in the National Forest. DC Water, Fairfax Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct that provides water to DC, Arlington, Falls Church and a portion of Fairfax County have sent letters opposing fracking and drilling in the Forest until it is proven safe.

"The DC City Council is wise to oppose fracking in the Potomac River's headwaters," said Earthworks Senior Analyst, Dusty Horwitt. He continued, "The West Virginia chemical spill shows how risky it can be to use hazardous chemicals near drinking water. Fracking the George Washington National Forest would similarly threaten Washington D.C.'s drinking water because the process can use thousands of gallons of toxics per well and can generate at least hundreds of thousands of gallons of wastewater laced with radioactive pollutants." 

Numerous local governments near the Forest have supported a prohibition on fracking and drilling within it including the Virginia counties of Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Rockingham, Shenandoah and the cities of Harrisonburg and Staunton. Members of Congress from Virginia, Maryland and DC and Washington, DC's mayor, Vincent C. Gray have also opposed fracking and drilling in the Forest. The DC City Council resolution was introduced by Council member Mary M. Cheh, Council member Jack Evans and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson.

The DC City Council is one of at least three major city councils to recently support or pass regulations on drilling and fracking.  Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to begin drafting regulations that would prohibit fracking and other techniques used to increase oil and gas well production until city elected officials are convinced that city residents and water supplies are safe.  Late last year, the Dallas City Council passed a set of tough drilling regulations including a provision that bans drilling within 1,500 feet of a home, business or church.

A law proposed by the European Commission on responsible sourcing of minerals is not strong enough to prevent European companies’ mineral purchases from financing conflict or human rights abuses, and falls far short of expectations, campaigners said today.
 
Instead of putting forward robust legislation that would require a wide range of EU-based companies to do checks on their supply chains – known as due diligence – the Commission today announced voluntary measures that will only apply to companies importing processed and unprocessed minerals into the European market. The proposal covers companies involved in the tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold sectors. The campaigners warned that the Commission’s proposal – an opt-in self-certification scheme available to a limited number of companies – is likely to have minimal impact on the way that the majority of European companies source natural resources.
 
Sophia Pickles from Global Witness said: “The proposal is tantamount to the EU saying that it’s ok for companies to choose not to behave responsibly. This risks undermining the duty states have to protect human rights, which is well-established under international law. The proposal could even be redundant. EU governments have already endorsed voluntary due diligence guidance developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.”
 
Legislation introduced in the United States in 2010 that requires US-listed companies to do checks on minerals coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo and neighbouring countries has already prompted changes in the way that companies do business. Without a clear EU law that requires companies to do  due diligence – and report publicly on it – the European Commission will fail to bring EU companies up to the same responsible sourcing standards as their American competitors.
 
Gisela ten Kate from SOMO said: “Rather than building on the significant momentum generated by legislation passed in the US, thereby raising the bar for responsible sourcing globally, the Commission’s proposal threatens to lower international standards and start a race to the bottom.” 
 
“It’s absolutely critical that the EU enforces existing international standards”, said Seema Joshi from Amnesty International. Anything short of a mandatory reporting obligation for EU-based companies using and trading natural resources, will fail to prevent Europe from acting as a conflict mineral trading hub. Nor will it ensure that European companies avoid causing or contributing to serious human rights abuses when sourcing from these high-risk areas.”
 
Further, by directing the opt-in scheme only at importers of raw ores and metals, the European Commission has missed a unique opportunity to influence the behaviour of a much wider cross-section of global players. To ensure that natural resources from conflict or high-risk areas don’t enter EU markets, the law also needs to target manufacturers, and companies that import finished products. Metals from conflict areas routinely enter the EU in manufactured products like computers, phones, light bulbs and cars.
 
“An EU law obliging companies right along the supply chain, including end-users who import products containing metals like tin and gold, to do due diligence would have prompted reforms in supply chains beyond Europe, where the majority of minerals – including those that may have funded conflict – are processed and manufactured into components or final products,” said Antonio Manganella from CCFD Terre-Solidaire.
 
Campaigners expressed disappointment that the Commission’s proposal does not address other natural resources, but rather is limited to four minerals. “By focusing only on four minerals, the Commission fails to address reports that other natural resources are also fuelling conflict,” said Astrid Schrama from PAX. “Our research shows that in Colombia, coal extraction has financed the creation of armed paramilitary groups that have caused the deaths of thousands and has led to the displacement of at least 60,000 people in the mining area of Cesar region.”
 
Reports also indicate that precious stones have financed violence in Zimbabwe, Burma and Colombia. 

Over sixty international non-governmental organisations released a paper last year outlining the need for robust legislation based on existing due diligence standards set by the UN and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
 
According to Michael Reckordt from AK Rohstoffe: “It seems that the Commission caved in to a powerful industry lobby to reduce the scope and make their proposal weaker.” Frédéric Triest from EurAc said: “Companies’ resistance to legislation is unfounded and demonstrates a failure to recognise the need for, and potential benefits of knowing what is going on in their supply chain. The fact that US-based companies, prompted by US legislation, are now carrying out enhanced due diligence shows that it is possible.”
 
Chantal Daniels from Christian Aid said: “The Commission missed a chance to propose a law that would make a real difference to millions of people in war-torn countries where natural resources are providing an incentive and source of funds for armed actors. The proposal also falls short of assuring European consumers that the products they are buying have not fuelled violence, instability and human rights abuses.” 
 
The European Parliament and Council will take up the proposal later this year.  At that time, parliamentarians and Member States must make it a priority to strengthen the legislation so that it is fit for purpose. Otherwise, the EU is set to remain a hub for a harmful trade.   
 
/ Ends

Signatories to the release:
 
ALBOAN ; AK Rohstoffe ; Amnesty International ; Association pour le Développement des Initiatives Paysannes, DRC (ASSODIP); Bread for All ; Burma Environmental Working Group; CCFD Terre-Solidaire; Commission on Natural Resources of the DRC Bishops’ Conference (CERN); Christian Aid; Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité (CIDSE); Congo Calling ; Centre for Research and Investigation into the Environment, Democracy and Human Rights, DRC (CREDDHO); Le Réseau européen pour l’Afrique Centrale (EurAc) ; EarthWorks; Enough Project; Friends of the Earth; Global Witness; GreenIT.fr, France; Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Germany; Info Birmanie; India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN); Jesuit European Social Centre (JESC); JRS; Commission Justice et Paix Belgique francophone; Network Movement for Justice and Development (NMJD); Global Ignatian Advocacy Network- Governance of Natural and Mineral Resources; Partnership Africa Canada; PAX, the Netherlands; Powershift, Germany; Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM), China; Save the Congo!; Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, Netherlands (SOMO); Western Sahara Resource Watch.

For years, environmentalists and the gas drilling industry have been in a pitched battle over the possible health implications of hydro fracking. But to a great extent, the debate — as well as the emerging lawsuits and the various proposed regulations in numerous states — has been hampered by a shortage of science.

In 2011, when ProPublica first reported on the different health problems afflicting people living near gas drilling operations, only a handful of health studies had been published.  Three years later, the science is far from settled, but there is a growing body of research to consider.

Below, ProPublica offers a survey of some of that work. The studies included are by no means a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. There are several others that characterize the chemicals in fracking fluids, air emissions and waste discharges. Some present results of community level surveys.

Yet, a long-term systematic study of the adverse effects of gas drilling on communities has yet to be undertaken. Researchers have pointed to the scarcity of funding available for large-scale studies as a major obstacle in tackling the issue.

A review of health-related studies published last month inEnvironmental Science & Technology concluded that the current scientific literature puts forward “both substantial concerns and major uncertainties to address.”

Still, for some, waiting for additional science to clarify those uncertainties before adopting more serious safeguards is misguided and dangerous. As a result, a number of researchers and local activists have been pushing for more aggressive oversight immediately.

The industry, by and large, has regarded the studies done to date — a number of which claim to have found higher rates of illness among residents living close to drilling wells — as largely anecdotal and less than convincing.

“The public health sector has been absent from this debate,” said Nadia Steinzor, a researcher on the Oil and Gas Accountability Project at the environmental nonprofit, Earthworks.

Departments of health have only become involved in states such as New York and Maryland where regulators responded to the public’s insistence on public health and environmental reviews before signing off on fracking operations. The states currently have a moratorium on fracking.

New York State Health Commissioner Nirav Shah is in fact conducting a review of health studies to present to Governor Andrew Cuomo before he makes a decision on whether to allow fracking in the state. It is unclear when the results of the review will be publicly available.

Other states such as Pennsylvania and Texas, however, have been much more supportive of the gas industry. For instance, Texas has been granting permits for fracking in ever increasing numbers while at the same time the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the agency that monitors air quality, has had its budget cut substantially.

1.    An Exploratory Study of Air Quality near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2012.

The study, performed in Garfield County, Colo., between July 2010 and October 2011, was done by researchers at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a non-profit organization that examines the impact of low-level exposure to chemicals on the environment and human health.

In the study, researchers set up a sampling station close to a well and collected air samples every week for 11 months, from when the gas wells were drilled to after it began production. The samples produced evidence of 57 different chemicals, 45 of which they believe have some potential for affecting human health.

In almost 75 percent of all samples collected, researchers discovered methylene chloride, a toxic solvent that the industry had not previously disclosed as present in drilling operations. The researchers noted that the greatest number of chemicals were detected during the initial drilling phase.

While this study did catalogue the different chemicals found in air emissions from gas drilling operations, it did not address exposure levels and their potential effects. The levels found did not exceed current safety standards, but there has been much debate about whether the current standards adequately address potential health threats to women, children and the elderly.

The researchers admitted their work was compromised by their lack of full access to the drilling site. The air samples were collected from a station close to what is known as the well pad, but not the pad itself.

The gas drilling industry has sought to limit the disclosure of information about its operations to researchers. They have refused to publicly disclose the chemicals that are used in fracking, won gag orders in legal cases and restricted the ability of scientists to get close to their work sites. In a highly publicized case last year, a lifelong gag order was imposed on two children who were parties to a legal case that accused one gas company of unsafe fracking operations that caused them to fall sick.

In 2009, the Independent Petroleum Association of America started Energy In Depth, a blog that confronts activists who are fighting to ban fracking and challenges research that in any way depicts fracking as unsafe.

Energy In Depth responded to this Garfield County study and criticized its lack of proper methodology. The blog post also questioned the objectivity of the researchers, asserting that their “minds were already made up.”

The industry has also been performing its own array of studies.

Last year, for instance, an industry-funded study on the methane emissions from fracking wells was published in the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded that only very modest amounts of methane — a known contributor to climate change — was being emitted into the air during fracking operations.

The study came under heavy criticism from Cornell researcher Robert Howarth, who two years prior had published work that claimed methane emissions from shale gas operations were far more significant.

“This study is based only on evaluation of sites and times chosen by industry,” he said.

2.    Birth Outcomes and Natural Gas Development. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014.

The study examined babies born from 1996 to 2009 in rural Colorado locations — the state has been a center of fracking for more than a decade. It was done by the Colorado School of Public Health and Brown University.

The study asserted that women who lived close to gas wells were more likely to have children born with a variety of defects, from oral clefts to heart issues. For instance, it claimed that babies born to mothers who lived in areas dense with gas wells were 30 percent more likely to have congenital heart defects.

The researchers, however, were unable to include data on maternal health, prenatal care, genetics and a host of other factors that have been shown to increase the risk of birth defects because that information was not publicly available. A common criticism of many scientific studies is that they do not fully analyze the possibility of other contributing factors.

The study has thus come under attack from both the industry and state public health officials. In a statement, Dr. Larry Wolk, the state’s Chief Medical Officer, said “people should not rush to judgment” as “many factors known to contribute to birth defects were ignored” in the study.

But Lisa McKenzie, one of the lead authors of the study, said there was value to the work.

“What I think this is telling us is that we need to do more research to tease out what is happening and to see if these early studies hold up when we do more rigorous research,” she said.

In Pennsylvania, Elaine Hill, a graduate student at Cornell University, obtained data on gas wells and births between 2003 and 2010. She then compared birth weights of babies born in areas of Pennsylvania where a well had been permitted but never drilled and areas where wells had been drilled. Hill found that the babies born to mothers within 2.5 kilometers (a little over 1.5 miles) of drilled gas sites were 25 percent more likely to have low birth weight compared to those in non-drilled areas. Babies are considered as having low birth weight if they are under 2500 grams (5.5 pounds).

Hill’s work is currently under review by a formal scientific journal, a process that could take three or four years.

3.    Health Risks and Unconventional Natural Gas Resources. Science of the Total Environment, 2012.

Between January 2008 and November 2010, researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health collected air samples in Garfield County, Colo., which has been experiencing intensive drilling operations. Researchers found the presence of a number of hydrocarbons including benzene, trimethylbenzene and xylene, all of which have been shown to pose health dangers at certain levels.

Researchers maintained that those who lived less than half a mile from a gas well had a higher risk of health issues. The study also found a small increase in cancer risk and alleged that exposure to benzene was a major contributor to the risk.

“From the data we had, it looked like the well completion phase was the strongest contributor to these emissions,” said Lisa McKenzie, the lead author of the study.

During the completion phase of drilling, a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is forced down the well at high pressure, and is then brought back up. The returning mixture, which contains radioactive materials and some of the natural gas from the geological formation, is supposed to be captured. But at times the mixture comes back up at pressures higher than the system can handle and the excess gas is directly vented into the air.

“I think we ought to be focused on the whole thing from soup to nuts because a lot of the potential hazards aren’t around the hydraulic fracturing step itself,” said John Adgate, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Colorado School of Public Health and co-author on the study.

Energy In Depth, the industry blog, responded at length to this study and cited several “bad inputs” which had affected the results of the study. The researchers’ assumptions and data were criticized. For instance, the researchers had assumed that Garfield residents would remain in the county until the age of 70 in order to estimate the time period over which they would be exposed to the emissions.

“Unless the ‘town’ is actually a prison, this is a fundamentally flawed assumption about the length and extent of exposure,” Energy In Depth said.

The point of the 13 January town hall meeting was to organise the locals. And since the locale was a smallish town in Texas – Azle, population roughly 11,000, just far enough from Fort Worth that it doesn’t quite feel like a suburb – that meant the first task, for the handful of fracking critics who led the meeting, was to gently address any reservations that attendees may have had about the purpose of the gathering.

“We were never activists,” says Sharon Wilson, a North Texas resident and organiser for the state chapter of Earthworks, a nationwide, non-profit organisation. “We were not environmentalists. We were just people living our lives, and then the oil and gas industry moved in around us.”

Wilson, of course, is an environmental activist – but only as of a few years ago, when gas production skyrocketed in the Barnett Shale. Still, that gave her considerably more experience than most of the 200 or so people who gathered for the meeting, held in the town’s community centre on Main Street. There was an antiques shop open in the foyer as they arrived, and a few reminders that, until recently, the space had also served as a church at weekends – a sign commanding “Thou shalt not put paper towels or other items in the toilets”, and so on.

Azle is a conservative place; it is represented in the Texas Legislature by Republicans. If people are starting to rumble about the malfeasance of big business, it is because the ground beneath their feet has, of late, been rumbling, too. The area has experienced more than 30 earthquakes since November, including one on the morning of the meeting in question.

None of the earthquakes has been devastating. Most registered between a 2.0 and a 3.0 on the Richter scale. Earthquakes of that magnitude can be felt, though, and their impact can be documented. Residents were woken late at night by the commotion and were worried about their safety and their property values. Students at the local schools have practised a duck-and-cover drill, in case a bigger quake comes along. And, though the earthquakes were the main issue discussed at the town hall, some Azle-ites worried that the tremors could be a harbinger of even worse things to come, such as contamination of the groundwater supply. “How are we gonna clean that up?” shouts a woman in the crowd.

The cause of this upheaval – both literal and figurative – can be inferred. All the earthquakes have happened after oil and gas companies began fracking and disposing of their fracking fluid in injection wells. As many attendees observed, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that there might be a connection.

Nearly 800 people had attended an earlier town hall meeting the previous week, held by the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry. The agency was apparently not expecting that level of interest and announced afterwards that the state would hire a seismographer to look into the issue.

The organisers at the second town hall meeting celebrated this development. “You folks scared the hell out of ’em,” the crowd is told by Gary Hogan, the president of the North Central Texas Communities Alliance. A murmur of agreement rises from the room.

With that said, Hogan warns those assembled not to feel too reassured because the Railroad Commission still asserts that there is not a definitive scientific link between hydraulic fracturing or injection wells, and earthquakes – which, he says, is a bunch of bull.

Fracking uses high-pressure blasts of fluid to break up underground shale formations, freeing trapped natural gas and oil. The fracking fluid is mostly water, but it includes a variety of additives and chemicals; when it is retrieved from the drilling site, it is often too dirty to be sent back into the groundwater supply. So, every month, companies in Texas dump millions of gallons of it into sealed injection wells deep under the ground.

A number of academics have already documented a connection between such wells and seismic activity. Authorities have stopped injections at several sites, including near the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and sure enough the earthquakes there have stopped.

The idea of definitive proof, Hogan adds, doesn’t make sense. That’s not how science works. Scientific theories are intrinsically probabilistic, he explains. If the Railroad Commission is holding out for absolute certainty, the people of Azle will be waiting forever. Hogan has a better idea: “You shut it down,” he says. “If the earthquakes stop, I think you got your scientific evidence.”

The crowd breaks into applause and, at the end of the meeting, a number of them take the microphone and offer their own remarks. Among them is Gale Wood, who introduces himself as a retired scientist. “What were they thinking, putting injection wells in a heavily populated area like this?” he says. “It’s unbelievable!” It would make more sense, he argues, for the companies to haul their wastewater to injection wells in more remote, less developed parts of the state.

Afterwards, his wife, Barbara, tells me that Gale began his career at Nasa, where he worked on the Apollo moon missions. Her husband actually is a rocket scientist. “I didn’t want them to think I was a know-it-all,” he says by way of explanation.

This meeting, as with the previous one, seems to have an effect. A few days later, state representative Jim Keffer, the chair of the House Energy Resources Committee, names four representatives to serve on a new subcommittee focused on seismic activity. And on 21 January, a busload of people from Azle head to Austin to attend the Railroad Commission’s bi-weekly open meeting, where dozens testify about their concerns and scold the commissioners for their inertia. “If you say we should conserve water, I don’t get why you inject millions of gallons of water a year into the ground at huge pressures,” says one witness, an 11-year-old boy named Robert. “And also I learnt that it’s poisoned water. That is very concerning to me.”

It’s unlikely, of course, that Texas will turn against fracking as a whole. The state has been fairly sanguine about oil and gas companies coming to the neighbourhood since 1901, when the first gusher was tapped at Spindletop and it quickly became clear that energy booms create spillover business for landowners and bartenders and innkeepers. The sheer enormity of this boom’s economic bounty in particular is too commanding to be cast aside.

Even many of fracking’s critics understand this. “You cannot have a shale gas and oil boom without fracking,” Wilson had said at the 13 January town hall meeting. The oil and gas companies use the wells, she explained as she went through some PowerPoint slides, because the alternatives are not ideal.

Recycling much of the fracking fluid is possible but expensive. Another option is storing the waste in above-ground impoundment pits. But then – she showed a picture – you have to worry about having a huge above-ground pool of toxic wastewater that might leak or spill. Like Wood, Wilson is not arguing for an end to the industry; rather, she is calling for a moratorium for now on risky injections.

Most of Azle’s newly minted activists have reserved their harshest criticism not for the industry but for the politicians who are supposed to regulate and oversee the industry – in particular, the three officials who serve on the Texas Railroad Commission. They are the ones charged with regulating oil and gas production in Texas, and, as several townspeople observe, all three have taken plenty of campaign contributions from the industry.

Oil and gas executives, of course, have usually supported the commissioners. The cosiness between the regulators and the industry, and the confidence that people often have in the companies, is a recipe for cronyism and complacency.

From another perspective, though, that dynamic is one reason to believe that the people of Azle and their neighbours may have an impact. If solidly Republican, small-town Texans are upset about the oil and gas industry, it’s a safe bet that something has actually gone wrong.

This article originally appeared in the March 2014 issue of Texas Monthly. Reprinted with permission

Hundreds of Oil Wastewater Wells Near Active Faults and Major Cities Already Raising Quake Risk for Millions of Californians

SAN FRANCISCO — Oil companies are increasing California’s earthquake risk by injecting billions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater a year into hundreds of disposal wells near active faults around Los Angeles, Bakersfield and other major cities, according to a new report from Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity and Clean Water Action. 

A boom in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in California would worsen the danger of earthquakes, the report finds, by greatly increasing oil wastewater production and underground injection. Extracting the Monterey Shale’s oil could produce almost 9 trillion gallons of contaminated wastewater, the report estimates. That could expose California to a surge in damaging earthquakes like those seen in Oklahoma, Texas, and other states experiencing rapidly increased fracking and wastewater production.

On Shaky Ground: Fracking, Acidizing, and Increased Earthquake Risk in California finds that millions of Californians live in areas threatened by oil industry-induced earthquakes. Academic research and government experts conclude that wastewater injection can reduce faults’ natural friction and trigger earthquakes.

State officials have not examined whether past earthquakes were triggered by fracking or disposal wells, and existing and proposed regulations do not adequately address the risk. Because of research and knowledge gaps and inadequate monitoring, state officials cannot protect Californians from induced quakes.

“This isn’t rocket science. We’ve known for decades that wastewater injection increases earthquake risk,” said report co-author Jhon Arbelaez of Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project. He continued, “Since Gov. Brown resolutely refuses to learn from other communities’ experience with fracking across the country, our only option to protect California families is to prevent fracking altogether.”

“An oil fracking boom in California could raise the risk of devastating earthquakes in some of our biggest cities,” said report coauthor Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., of the Center for Biological Diversity. “State officials are ignoring the problem, but as risky new oil production techniques spread, we could see trillions of gallons of wastewater shot into the ground near active faults. We need to nip this danger in the bud by halting fracking and acidizing.” 

“The risk of seismic impacts is yet another illustration that the massive wastestream resulting from oil production threatens California's drinking water and public safety," said report coauthor Andrew Grinberg of Clean Water Action. "While threats to water, air and health have been well-documented, our emerging understanding of the risk of induced seismicity is yet another reason for a time-out on fracking. The findings in this report continue this troubling trend: the more we learn about California's oil industry, the more cause we find for alarm.”

The On Shaky Ground report’s key findings:

• A majority of California’s active oil industry wastewater injection wells are near recently active faults:

• Millions of Californians are at risk for induced earthquakes: The oil industry operates hundreds of wastewater injection wells very close to active faults and near major California population centers, such as Los Angeles and Bakersfield.
• Research and monitoring are dangerously inadequate: The increased earthquake risk from California’s existing wastewater injection wells or fracked wells is unstudied. And state oil regulators require no seismic monitoring near wastewater injection wells.
• Regulations don’t protect Californians: Due to significant knowledge gaps, California’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources cannot safely regulate the earthquake risk from oil and gas production and wastewater disposal.
• Other states have seen surges in wastewater-induced earthquakes: Areas outside California where fracking and underground wastewater disposal have proliferated have suffered as much as a 10-fold increase in quake activity.
• Halting fracking is the best solution: Given the earthquake risk linked to wastewater disposal, as well as unconventional oil production’s other environmental risks, the best way to protect Californians is to halt hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and other dangerous oil and gas recovery techniques.

The full On Shaky Ground report — which features maps of faults, fracked and acidized wells, and wastewater disposal wells — is available at www.ShakyGround.org.

***

Denton, TX (Mar 14) – Frack Free Denton today announced they have gathered substantially more than the required signatures to put their fracking ban initiative on the November ballot.  Denton City charter requires signatures equal to 25% of votes cast in the most recent general election for an initiative to get on the ballot.

Denton Drilling Awareness Group (DAG), which was formed by members of the city’s Drilling Advisory Group after their recommendations were largely ignored by the city, launched Frack Free Denton, the fracking ban signature drive on February 20, 2014.

Denton city government, which supports fracking-enabled oil and gas development within city limits, has a track record of ignoring its citizens and giving industry a free rein. Decisions are made in closed sessions without citizen input.

“Our city government is clearly more interested in protecting the fracking industry than its citizens,” said Cathy McMullen, DAG president. She continued, “That’s why we need to gather as many signatures as possible, to show they’ll pay a political price if they try to thwart their constituents’ wishes.”

Yesterday, DAG released a short video (http://bit.ly/FFD-econ-video) demonstrating that Denton citizens are forced to weather the health and safety impacts of fracking-enabled oil and gas development without benefitting economically.

“As far as I know, fracking companies can’t vote. It makes one wonder why the city is prioritizing fracking over Denton’s public health, especially since Denton residents aren’t really economically benefiting from fracking,“ said McMullen.

Upcoming fracking ban ballot initiative signature gathering events include:

Saturday, March 15
Denia neighborhood
2302 Jacqueline Dr
Denton, TX 76205

Saturday March 29
North Branch Library
3020 N. Locust
Denton, TX 76209

Thursday, April 3 at 7:30 PM
The first Denton showing of Josh Fox’s Gasland 2
Dan’s Silverleaf, 103 Industrial Street.
FREE ADMISSION.

MORE INFO about events and the fracking ban initiative at: http://frackfreedenton.com

This is not exactly a news flash for long-time Californians. But scientists are starting to put more numbers on the inevitability that we all live with.

David Schwartz, U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, told listeners to KQED’s Forum program that there’s a 63 percent chance of a major quake on the San Andreas Fault sometime in the next 22 years.

Apparently that’s not enough to worry about, so Schwartz was joined on the program by John Dvorak, author of “Earthquake Storms: The Fascinating History and Volatile Future of the San Andreas Fault.”

“Earthquakes are not random events,” said Dvorak, a former USGS scientist. “Earthquakes are clustered in time and space.”

He said the 1906 San Francisco quake represented a break along the northern section of the San Andreas Fault. A middle section north of Los Angeles broke in 1857, “but that southern part, south of Palm Springs, that hasn’t broken since 1680,” he said.

Contrary to the popular conception that a quake releases pressure along the fault, thus postponing the next temblor, Dvorak said the likelihood of a second quake rises with the first one. During any given three-day span, he said the odds of a magnitude 7 or larger quake are about 1:100,000 in California. But when a magnitude 7 earthquake occurs, he said the odds of another one at least as big in the next three days go to about 1-in-10.

“You don’t need to panic,” said Dvorak. “You just need to have a heightened awareness that the ground could shake again soon.” Schwartz agreed that we can look forward to a whole lotta shakin’ going on. “We’ve got a lot of earthquakes ahead of us.”

And behind us. Schwartz said that seismologists have a “pretty complete record” going back to about 1600 and that we’ve been enjoying an eerily quiet interval. The hundred years or so starting around 1680, “literally every fault in the Bay Area” produced large earthquakes, releasing “almost as much energy as the 1906 earthquake.” After that, Schwartz said things went relatively quiet until the “Big One” in April, 1906.

But Schwartz said the worst-case scenario for Northern California would be a major break along the East Bay’s Hayward Fault or its neighbor to the north, the Rodgers Creek Fault. “There are two million people who fundamentally live right on top of it,” he said. “We’ve never had a major earthquake in the center of a modern U.S. city and we just really don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Fracking Opponents Point to Seismic Risk

Meanwhile, three groups that oppose fracking in California released a report warning that a boom in the practice would pose a serious seismic risk to “millions of Californians.”

Fracking is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, the technique that uses fluids under high pressure to loosen up oil and gas formations underground. Drilling companies also re-inject wastewater back into the ground, which has been shown to produce minor seismic activity.

The report appears to be largely a mapping exercise, which shows more than half of California’s “active and new” wastewater injection wells within 10 miles of faults that have been active within the last 200 years.

None of the authors are seismologists. Patrick Sullivan, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the three collaborating organizations, said that the authors consulted with seismologists at the University of California. He also cited recent reports of increased shaking in Oklahoma, where scientists are “evaluating possible links” to oil and gas operations. Fracking has recently been suspected of triggering tremors in Ohio.

Tsunami Threat Varies

Many have pondered why last Sunday’s 6.7 quake off the Northern California coast did not produce giant, devastating waves. Schwartz explained that tsunamis are produced by the displacement of the sea floor. “That requires sort of an up-and-down movement,” he told listeners. “This was a strike-slip fault, where the movement is lateral, side-to-side, so it really doesn’t affect the sea bottom.”

Schwartz also said the temblor was relatively small for that area, citing five other events within 50 miles, bigger than magnitude 7, since about 1900. But he added that smaller events can trigger tsunamis if they cause underwater landslides.

Both Schwartz and Dvorak agreed on the need for an earthquake warning system in California, but advised not to look to your dog for guidance in the meantime. “There’s no scientific evidence that animals can sense earthquakes before they happen,” says Dvorak.

The Ring of Fire, an earthquake-prone area around the edges of the Pacific Ocean, might not be the best spot for earth-rumbling fracking practices. But fracking is exploding in the ringside state of California, raising fears that the industry could trigger the next “big one.”

More than half of the 1,553 active wastewater injection wells used by frackers in California are within 10 miles of a seismic fault that has ruptured within the past two centuries, according to a jarring new report. The fracking industry’s habit of injecting its wastewater underground has been linked to earthquakes. (And Ohio officials are investigating whether fracking itself was enough to trigger temblors early this week.)

“Some of California’s major population centers, such as Los Angeles and Bakersfield, are located in regions where high densities of wastewater injection wells are operating very close to active faults,” according to the report, which was conducted by Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Water Action. It further notes that California has “no plan to safeguard its residents from the risks of earthquakes” induced by injection wells or drilling and fracking operations.

“This isn’t rocket science,” said report coauthor Jhon Arbelaez. “We’ve known for decades that wastewater injection increases earthquake risk. … [O]ur only option to protect California families is to prevent fracking altogether.”

HELENA – Proposed mining exploration activities at the headwaters of Montana’s famed Smith River threaten to degrade water and further strain already low stream flows, according to a formal legal complaint filed in Montana District Court.

Conservation advocates, supported by Smith River outfitters, filed the formal complaint on Friday, March 14th against the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Tintina Alaska Exploration, Inc., alleging that DEQ failed to conduct an adequate analysis of the many environmental impacts associated with the Black Butte Copper Project, a copper exploration mine proposed by a subsidiary of Canada-based Tintina Resources, Inc.

“To kill a trout stream isn’t a crime; it is a sin,” stated Mike Geary of Lewis and Clark Expeditions, the largest outfitter on the Smith River. “To put the entire Smith River in jeopardy isn’t a risk I would like to take. The mine will affect all downstream recreational and agricultural users. I believe that both DEQ and Tintina haven’t presented a rigorous environmental analysis. They both need to be beyond reproach, and they are not.”

The proposed Black Butte Copper Project is located on the banks of Sheep Creek, a major tributary of the Smith River. The Sheep Creek drainage accounts for over half of the tributary spawning for rainbow trout in the Smith River drainage, and is a critical source of water for the Smith’s frequently low in-stream flows. The Smith River is Montana’s only permitted recreational river, and is renowned for its spectacular scenery, world-class trout fishing opportunities, and unique float trip experience.

Tintina proposes to construct an 18-fott high by 18-foot wide, mile –long underground tunnel, or “decline,” that will produce a 10,000-ton bulk sample of rock for testing. The decline will drop below the water table, and Tintina plans to pump water out of the decline to keep it from flooding. The pumped wastewater, which contains arsenic and other toxic chemicals, would then be discharged to lands in the area.

Under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, DEQ is required to conduct an environmental analysis of these proposed mine exploration activities. The draft analysis garnered significant public outcry, with almost 4,000 comments sent into DEQ during the comment period, the majority of which were opposed to the project. The final analysis presented by DEQ did not adequately assess the full range of environmental impacts associated with the proposed exploration activities, including impacts to water quality, stream flows, and fisheries.

“Montana has a long and sad history with large, out-of-state mining companies conducting temporary mining activities, only to leave Montana taxpayers and families with a legacy of pollution, environmental damages, and clean-up costs,” stated Jim Jensen of the Montana Environmental Information Center.

“The Smith River deserves our most rigorous effort to protect it from mine pollution and dewatering,” stated Bonnie Gestring of Earthworks. “That’s our aim.”

“Montana’s laws and constitution prohibit the state from blindly authorizing potentially destructive activities like the Black Butte Copper Project,” stated Jenny Harbine with Earthjustice. “Montanans and the wildlife who depend on pristine water quality and adequate flows in the Smith River deserves no less than the full protections afforded by these laws.”

The Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks, represented by Earthjustice, filed the legal complaint in Meagher County.

Many of California's oil industry wastewater injection wells are near recently active fault lines, posing a risk of earthquakes that could damage crucial infrastructure in the state, according to a report by three environmental groups.

The report, released on Thursday, maps the proximity of California's active wastewater disposal wells to the state's fault lines and heavily populated areas, such as Los Angeles, Kern and Ventura counties.

The three groups -- Earthworks, Clean Water Action and the Center for Biological Diversity -- said they found 54 percent of California's 1,553 active and new wastewater injection wells are within 10 miles of a recently active fault. (A recently active fault was defined as one that has caused an earthquake in the past 200 years.) The report argues that scientists have said there's a risk of earthquakes within 12.4 miles of injection wells.

Wastewater injection wells have been linked to earthquakes in states including Ohio and Arkansas but not California.

The wells are used by energy companies to get rid of the fluids that are a byproduct of many oil and gas extraction methods, including hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a process in which liquids are pumped into underground rock formations to release hydrocarbons.

Waste liquids that are a byproduct of oil and gas extraction are often injected back into the ground because it is the most inexpensive way to get rid of them, says Anthony Ingraffea, a professor of engineering at Cornell who's advocated against shale gas and oil development in the past. Other options for disposing of the liquids, like using industrial treatment plants, are much more costly, explains Ingraffea, who is on the board of Earthworks, one of the organizations that published the report.

But pumping the water into underground rock formations can build up pressure, which, if exerted on a fault that is already stressed, can cause earthquakes, the report says. (In 2012, a wastewater disposal well in northeastern Ohio was permanently shut down after a series of quakes in the well's vicinity.)

But the report, which has not been peer-reviewed, should be taken with a grain of salt, some say.

Dave Quast, the California director of Energy In Depth, a research and public outreach campaign launched in 2009 by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said the report unfairly singles out the oil and gas industries and attempts to scare people about a nonexistent threat.

"Wastewater injection is a common way to get rid of water across all industries," Quast said. "It has nothing to do with fracking in particular... There's never been a case of earthquakes from wastewater injection in California, and there's no reason to think there ever will be."

Rock Zierman, the CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association, a Sacramento-based nonprofit trade association representing oil and gas producers, echoed that point.

"We reinject 3 billion barrels of produced water into the earth in California every year, and have done so for over 50 years. We've never had a problem," Zierman said, adding that the report was authored by "environmental activists who are not seismologists."

State officials also voiced skepticism of the paper's findings.

“We are reviewing the report now, but at first glance, it appears to include some assumptions and conclusions that should be given consideration in a peer review process," Jason Marshall, the chief deputy director of the California Department of Conservation, said in an email.

Marshall added that California requires energy companies to evaluate subsurface geology before conducting disposal projects.

"On Shaky Ground: Fracking, Acidizing, and Increased Earthquake Risk In California," was published by the nonprofit groups Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity and Clean Water Action.

Environmental groups filed suit in a Meagher County district court Monday challenging mining exploration near the headwaters of the Smith River.

The Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks, represented by Earthjustice, filed the complaint against the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Tintina Alaska Exploration Inc. based out of Vancouver, British Columbia. The complaint alleges that DEQ failed to conduct an adequate environmental analysis of the Black Butte Copper Project near Sheep Creek, a tributary of the Smith.

Sheep Creek originates in the Little Belt Mountains about 15 miles northeast of White Sulphur Springs before flowing west to the Smith. DEQ performed an environmental assessment of the proposed exploration, which hinged on Tintina mitigating any issues with contamination or in-stream flow.

“The environmental assessment didn’t do enough to look at the impacts of dewatering and water quality from mine discharges,” Bonnie Gestring of Earthworks said. “The department should have done an environmental impact statement instead to do a more rigorous assessment.”

On Jan. 14, DEQ approved an exploration permit for Tintina to build a “decline,” or ramp that would survey the Johnny Lee copper deposit. The permit would give Tintina permission to remove 10,000 tons of rock for sampling. Preliminary economic reports indicate the mine could net 47 million pounds of copper per year. That could put values at almost $2 billion over the next 14 years if the price of copper remains near $3 per pound.

Earthworks and MEIC contend that Tintina’s proposal goes well beyond typical mining exploration. The decline will go a mile deep and well below the water table. In order to explore, Tintina will need to pump water out, which could contain contaminates. Removing groundwater could also impact in-stream flow for Sheep Creek, Gestring said.

Vice president of exploration for Tintina Jerry Zieg said they are still evaluating the lawsuit.

“In general we feel that DEQ went through a pretty thorough and exhaustive process,” Zieg said. “As a company and a group of people we’re as highly concerned with water quality in Sheep Creek and the Smith as anyone else.”

Communications director for DEQ Chris Saeger said the agency had received the lawsuit and its attorneys were reviewing it, but did not comment further.

DEQ received nearly 4,000 public comments on the environmental assessment.

Oil and gas development within the shale deposits in Montezuma and La Plata counties could employ the practice of hydraulic fracturing, the controversial drilling practice that has been linked to environmental issues in other parts of the U.S. Host Lyn Patrick talks with Pete Dronkers from Earthworks, a national and local environmental nonprofit that is working on issues related to the potential hazards of fracking in southwest Colorado.

"We applaud the White House for taking a first step to curb methane emissions, a climate pollutant that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The administration must follow Colorado’s lead and require the Environmental Protection Agency to directly regulate methane pollution from hydraulic fracturing and related drilling. The consequences, both globally and locally, are too dire to allow for self regulation. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to the downsides of fracking-enabled oil and gas development, so far the Obama administration has had its head in the sand. We hope that this plan signals a shift for this administration, putting their words into actions to limit the harms from oil and gas production. 

But, no matter how stringent the methane pollution controls, they are no substitute for dropping dirty fossil fuels like fracked gas and replacing them with truly clean alternatives like conservation and renewables. 

The President can't have it both ways. He can fight climate change, or he can promote fracking and unconventional oil and gas production. He can’t do both."