soliticing paddlers

Natural gas extraction, Democracy, Paddling. Three things that shouldn't go together?

Attached is a PDF letter soliciting participation. (Scroll down)

I'm planning to kayak the length of the Cuyahoga, hopefully this May or early June, to bring regional awareness of the plans the gas industry has for us - 300 5+ acre gas wells in Geauga county alone (where I live). If you aren't aware the the subject of "fracking", I summarize it in the PDF (scroll down). But this isn't just about fracking, it's about how it came to be that the industry has managed to get where it is - by dumping money into the political process, working with states to consolidate control over drilling decisions without local input, and mis-informing the public as the the history and safety of this method of deep shale gas extraction.

For some, maybe many of you, paddling is a way to forget about politics, etc. But for those of you interested in making a point, and/or just enjoying a portion of the river one day, please consider joining me.
I'm not organizing this as part of any group - I'm just a man who recently relocated / returned to the area with his wife and girls and didn't realize that our rural existence was going to be transformed out from under us.

For more information, email me at ofcorso@gmail. I have developed a Power Point on the subject for any group of people who want more info beyond my attached PDF.

Thank you for your attention.

Steven Corso
http://ofcorso.blogspot.com/ (this site has some of my articles and letters to local news papers)

 

Calling all kayakers and canoers!

Hello Northeast Ohio Water-Lovers

My name is Steven Corso. I am a former biology teacher turned farmer (pawpaw and other stuff) who recently moved to Geauga county with my wife and daughters from California. For me is was a return home; I grew up in Mentor.

Perhaps you've been following the recent expansion of natural gas extraction by the process colloquially known as “fracking”. I only learned about it a year ago, shortly after moving back. As you may know, the first such well in Geauga county was drilled a few months ago but, at the time of this writing, has not yet been “fracked”. Here's a clip of map (from the ODNR website) showing the well with its one well bore. (The dashed arrow is the directional drill bore that runs within the shale bed over a mile beneath the surface; the actual well pad is at the start of the arrow in the north).

Let me provide a summary of fracking, especially as it might be of concern for river users:

Fracking involves drilling deep (7000 feet possibly) then drilling horizontally for perhaps a mile. The well bore is pumped full of water – millions of gallons of it. The water can be obtained from aquifers or municipal water systems that are willing to sell. In some places the water has been diverted from local rivers and streams to the tune of millions of gallons per day.

Before the water is injected into the well it has thousands of gallons of chemicals added. Some of these are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and toxins of various organs. Some are biocides added to purposely kill microbes that might contaminate the well.

For most well pads, this water and chemicals (and sand) must be trucked in; a thousand round trips of tanker trucks per well bore is typical. Keep in mind, one well pad could have 8 or more bores.

Now I probably don't have to say more about the potential risk for your favorite natural resource from spills; well blow out; leaks of containment ponds, pipes and trucks; and underground migration of frack fluid. The waste water, which is very salty (6x sea water), contains heavy metals and is often radioactive, must also be transported and dealt with. The industry says there is little risk. But a little research will dig up reports, anecdotes, and expert opinion that reasonably undermines the industry's confident claims of safety. Incredibly, the ODNR requires drilling must be at least 50 feet from any waterway.

I learned from the mouth of a gas industry spokesman that the industry plans to put 300 such well pads in Geauga county alone; at 400 square miles that's one 5+ acre well pad every 1.3 miles! Keep in mind the forest that must be cleared (potentially) for these pads plus compressor stations, miles of pipeline, processing stations, etc. The potential for increased erosion run-off is considerable.

Again, I probably don't have to point out to you all that the headwaters of the Grand, Chagrin, and Cuyahoga Rivers are all in Geauga county. In fact, in the map above, the small body of water just south of the well is Chicagami Park and the headwaters of the Grand River.

The gas industry plans for similar numbers of wells for all productive counties (mostly the eastern half of Ohio) and have been busy getting signed leases in rural counties all over northeast Ohio.

The federal and state governments have been on board the industry led efforts to expand this drilling across the U.S., with 500,000 pads envisioned across Ohio, PA, NY, WV and adjacent states. The industry has been given major exemptions from clean air and water laws. Local government officials in Ohio (and some other states, like PA) have no ability to determine where, when, or if gas wells will be established in their counties, towns and cities; the ODNR has consolidated all decision-making.

That leaves the fates of local places and local watersheds in the hands of state drilling laws – which, in my opinion, are not going to protect anything – and local leasers of drilling rights, many of whom I fear accept claims of safety by the industry and ODNR under the enticement of large checks when the leases are signed.

That leaves the rest of us to wonder how our voices might be heard. Which is what brings me to you all.

I would like to hold a news-worthy event, using a flotilla of boaters traveling from some point of entree in Geauga county, down the Cuyahoga and/or Grand rivers, to draw attention to the expansion of gas well drilling, the risks associated with it, the undemocratic decision-making process behind it, and most-importantly, the water that links the gas wells to the communities downstream.

I am emailing to ask your advice and see if there is interest in planning and/or participating in this event, which ideally I'd like to hold as early as later May. Although I've been minimally active with the Sierra Club and a group called NEOGAP since learning of fracking, I am not coming to you from any group.

Call or email me with questions or concerns. Ideally I'd like to come to some meeting to discuss this if that is possible. I could also present a more thorough Power Point on the subject if there's interest.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Steve Corso

email: ofcorso@gmail.com

home phone: 440 635 0137
cell phone: 510 390 3160 (use this number for the second half of March)

Serious Math

Time for some serious math. Don't like math? This math is particularly ugly, in my opinion.

I heard from a spokesman of the natural gas industry that the industry hopes or plans (not sure which verb is most accurate) to have 300 hydraulic fracture natural gas well pads in Geauga county. This is the county where I live but even if you do not live there, please read on remembering that the headwaters of the Cuyahoga, Grand, and Chagrin rivers are located in my county; This concerns us all.

Each well pad could have 6 or more horizontal drill bores. Let's work with 6.

Six times 300 is 1800 well bores.

Hydraulic fracturing, or simply fracking, utilizes chemical-laced water and sand at very high pressure (10,000 psi) to force open cracks in deep shale, where natural gas is locked. The gas flows from these crack into the well bore, which is located several thousand feet down. The horizontal portion of the well could extend a mile in subterranean distance.

The industry has recently been coaxed to make public what chemicals it uses in the process. As it turns out, independent investigation of the chemicals listed by the industry as ingredients in their fracking products reveals that many of them are toxic to certain organs, carcinogens, mutagens, and/or endocrine disruptors. The industry downplays the risk by pointing out that only 0.5% of the solution they pump through the water table into the shale is chemical additive. But let's get back to the math.

To frack one horizontal well bore requires millions of gallons of frack fluid – I've seen estimates ranging from 2 – 7 million gallons. Let's work with 3 million gallons.

0.5% of 3 million is 15,000 gallons of chemicals! Is that right? Let me try that again. Yep, got the same number.

So if each of the 300 well pads has 6 horizontal bores and each of those requires 15,000 gallons of chemicals then that's...27 million gallons of chemicals.

Ok now wait, the industry tells us that some portion of the fluid pumped into the shale comes back out and can be reused. Unfortunately, when this water does return, it often contains very high concentrations of salts, heavy metals, and radioactive elements like radium.

Nevertheless, some fluid can be pumped back through the water table and reused - so 27 million is probably a high estimate.

Note this, if 3 million gallons of fluid is used to frack a single well, that 95.5% water has to come from somewhere. For 300 well pads with 6 well bores the total amount of water we're talking about approaches 5.4 billion gallons of water. You might be asking yourself – where's all this water come from? Good question! Well in other gas extraction areas the water has come from local municipal water supplies, ground water supplies, or has been diverted from local streams and rivers. It has also been trucked in from other places. And don't forget, eventually all this radioactive, carcinogenic, salt water has to be disposed of.

On average, to drill and frack a single well bore requires round-trip deliveries and removal from around 1000 large, diesel-powered trucks (water, sand, and chemicals). If that's how it'll work in Geauga county, there might be (300 x 6 x 1000) 1.8 million truck deliveries around the county over the coming years. At 400 square miles, there should be – on average – one 5+ acre well pad every 1.3 miles in Geauga county, so maybe the traffic will be spread out.

But Geauga is not unique. The industry wants a similar number of wells in most counties of eastern and southern Ohio. In fact, it wants 500,000 such well pads tapping into shale under much of OH, PA, WV, NY and other adjacent states. The industry says this can all be done safely, but geology, engineering, and hydrology experts not hoping to strike it rich have explained how this fluid could migrate up to the water table, or close to it, via faults and nearby wells. There's even evidence that frack fluid has traveled “out of zone” by these routes. This is besides the inevitable truck traffic accidents and leaks. And this assessment also ignores the mathematical guarantees of air pollution.

Is this the future world we want to inhabit? Do we want to industrialize the American countryside? Would our children trade spring peepers for tanker trucks and generators? Fishing and swimming for community clean-up projects? The smell of cut hay for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP)?

The gas industry and our state and federal governments - under the influence of gas industry money - says this is going to be great for the country and local communities. But who gets to decide the future of rural America? Local officials don't have much authority, although they do have an official voice with which to ask the state for a moratorium. There are five bills seeking stricter control over gas drilling stalled in the state legislature.

Beside that, it seems we locals will decide. We will each “vote” in our own strange and corrupted “democratic” process. The ballot of a “Yea” vote is a signed lease, which is rewarded with the delivery of a handsome check a few weeks later. A “Nay” vote is unaccompanied by financial reward but will still yield, for those who cast it, the same air pollution, water contamination, constant noise from truck traffic and compressor stations, loss of property value, and declines in health and happiness that those locals who are inviting the industry into the county will experience - whether they know it or not.


Shorter alternate:

I heard from a natural gas industry spokesman that the industry plans to have 300 hydraulic fracture natural gas well pads in Geauga county. This is the county where I live but even if you do not live here, please read on remembering that the headwaters of the Cuyahoga, Grand, and Chagrin rivers are located in my county.

Each well pad could have 6 or more horizontal drill bores. Let's work with 6.

Six times 300 is 1800 well bores.

Hydraulic fracturing utilizes chemical-laced water and sand at very high pressure to force open cracks in deep shale, where natural gas is locked. The gas flows from these crack into the well bore, which is located over a mile deep. The horizontal portion of the well could extend a mile in length.

The industry has recently been coaxed to make public the chemicals it uses in the process. As it turns out, independent investigation of these chemicals reveals that many of them are toxic to certain organs, carcinogens, mutagens, and/or endocrine disruptors. The industry downplays the risk by pointing out that only 0.5% of the solution they pump through the water table into the shale is chemical additive. Back to the math.

To frack one horizontal well bore requires millions of gallons of frack fluid – I've seen estimates ranging from 2 – 7 million gallons. Let's work with 3 million gallons.

0.5% of 3 million is 15,000 gallons of chemicals!

So if each of the 300 well pads has 6 horizontal bores and each of those requires 15,000 gallons of chemicals then that's 27 million gallons of chemicals.

The industry tells us that some portion of the fluid pumped into the shale comes back out and can be reused. Unfortunately, when this water does return, it often contains very high concentrations of salts, heavy metals, and radioactive elements like radium.

Nevertheless, some fluid can be pumped back through the water table - so 27 million is probably a high estimate.

The 95.5% water used has to come from somewhere. For 300 well pads with 6 well bores the total amount of water we're talking about approaches 5.4 billion gallons of water. Where's all this water come from? Well in other gas extraction areas the water has come from local municipal water supplies, ground water supplies, or has been diverted from local streams and rivers. It has also been trucked in from other places. And don't forget, eventually all this radioactive, carcinogenic, salt water has to be disposed of.

On average, to drill and frack a single well bore requires round-trip deliveries from around 1000 large, diesel-powered trucks. In Geauga county, there might be (300 x 6 x 1000) 1.8 million truck deliveries around the county over the coming years. At 400 square miles, there should be – on average – one 5+ acre well pad every 1.3 miles in Geauga county.

But Geauga is not unique. The industry wants a similar number of wells in most Ohio counties. In fact, it wants 500,000 such well pads tapping into shale under much of OH, PA, WV, NY and other adjacent states. The industry says this can all be done safely, but some experts have explained how this fluid could migrate up to the water table, or close to it, via faults and other nearby wells; in fact, there's evidence that this has occurred. We're ignoring the inevitable truck traffic accidents and leaks and the mathematical guarantees of air pollution.

Is this the future world we want to inhabit? Do we want to industrialize the American countryside? Would our children trade spring peepers for tanker trucks and generators? Fishing and swimming for community clean-up projects? The smell of cut hay for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP)?

The gas industry and our state and federal governments - under the influence of gas industry money - says this is going to be great for the country and local communities. But who gets to decide the future of rural America?

It seems we locals will decide. We will each “vote” in our own strange and corrupted “democratic” process. The ballot of a “Yea” vote is a signed lease, which is rewarded with the delivery of a handsome check a few weeks later. A “Nay” vote is unaccompanied by financial reward but will still yield, for those who cast it, the big costs that always come with industrialization

Mail to the Chiefs

Steven Corso                                                                                                        March 12, 2012

11863 Taylor Wells Rd

Chardon, OH 44024

To:

President Barack Obama                                                    Governor John Kasich

The White House                                                                   Riffe Center, 30th Floor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue                                                    NW 77 South High Street
Washington, DC 20500                                                          Columbus, OH 43215-6117

Let me forge a connection as we three have something in common: We are all fathers of two girls.

I assume then that we also share similar hopes for our girls and their future. We each hope for the health and safety of two daughters as they grow into intelligent, independent women. We hope that the world they inherit will be one where a happy, healthy life will be likely. We hope that the country they grow up in will be a functional democracy, one in which they will know their basic interests are being considered, their values represented by elected officials, and their guaranteed rights respected and protected.

In fact, I'm sure we three do more than hope – we do and will do anything and everything we can to guarantee the best for our daughters.

However, my motivation for writing is that I am questioning my ability to keep safe and raise healthy girls. It's been difficult for me to have a genuinely positive outlook for my daughters' future because I find it difficult to even imagine an American political system that is of, by and for people – ordinary people like my daughters.

A little background on us: My family and I moved to northeast Ohio in the fall of 2010, after my wife and I both lost our high school teaching jobs in California. Our only employment opportunities came by way of three teaching offers for my wife – all in the Cleveland area. Since I had wanted to develop a market farm (and pawpaw orchard!), we saw the move across country as an opportunity for affordable land on which we, my wife and I, could give our girls (ages 4 and 8) a rural childhood and where I could pursue this new hobby-to-career path.

I first read about shale gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing in an article I found online (The Whole Fracking Enchilada by Sandra Steingraber) a few months after moving into our new house. This was also around the time that my cousin, who lives outside of Pittsburgh, conceded to paying hundreds of dollars to have her well water tested; she needed to establish a baseline of quality as new gas wells were being developed in her area. Then I opened my local newspaper to learn of the first deep shale gas well in my county and the “gas boom” that I was told would follow. In an attempt to educate myself I've done quite a lot of reading of scientific research papers and expert opinion, blogs from people in gas extraction areas (experts in their experiences), and legitimate journalism from the likes of ProPublica, the New York Times, and Scientific American. I've also watched uploaded videos of organized talks and those made by residents of gas drilling areas from the Rocky Mountains to the Mid-Atlantic states.

Now before you think this is just another hysterical complaint about fracking, let me say that it is, but it's also more than that.

It's true that I am beside myself in disbelief at what the gas industry expects to do: Take millions of gallons of drinkable water from municipal water supplies, aquifers, and streams and rivers; contaminate this water with tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals (some of which are toxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors); truck this water, chemicals and sand to a well pad in thousands of tanker trucks; pump the solution through the water table; capture and store much of this water when it comes back out with the natural gas – now the water contains heavy metals, high concentration of salts, and radioactive elements; truck it to where it needs to go and either pump it through the water table again and/or eventually dispose of this quantity of water in some as-of-yet unspecified manner. All the while generating hazardous air pollution and potent greenhouse gases and constant noise. And this will be happening in countless communities across the U.S. - multiply the above by 500,000 well pads in Eastern Shale Gas plays alone; 300 of these are planned for my county.

Yes I am incensed by the conclusion I've been led to by my research: That the gas industry is doing largely whatever it wants on an enormous geographic and human scale and yet the confidence it communicates to the public about its ability to extract this gas safely is grossly overstated if not completely unfounded.

Absolutely I am disturbed by the long-term ecological, financial, and human health costs that I now assume will be the burden of mainly rural Americans from this latest phase of fossil fuel extraction. That the research leading to the quantification of shale gas and the techniques of extraction were tax-payer funded – as you pointed out in your State of the Union, Mr. President - makes this last point all the more outrageous.

But I am also troubled by what this unfolding disaster says about the state of our democracy and political process.

The political watchdog organization Common Cause issued a report last year showing nearly $750 million in political contributions from the gas industry flooded the U.S. political system at the state and federal level over the first 10 years of the 21^st century. During this time, the gas industry gained significant exemptions from the major clean water and air laws. Is there a cause-effect relationship here? It sure looks like it to this American citizen. The EPA has been criticized for a hasty claim of safety for the process of deep shale gas recovery that was based on a flawed paper published in 2004 – a green light for those exemptions that followed.

After years of citizen complaints and some solid data on water and air contamination – both from the EPA and independent labs – only now is the federal government thinking about stricter regulations for the industry – nearly a decade after the fracking booms out west and the establishment of a few thousand wells in the eastern states. And I must state that knowing what chemicals are being used in the process, while helpful in an accident, does not make them any less of a threat to public health.

For the most part, states were given authority to regulate fracking, despite the fact that national air and water resources – which cross state boundaries - were at stake. It seems to suit the gas industry just fine to have state control over drill permitting as demonstrated by the model bill produced by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) entitled “Resolution to Retain State Authority over Hydraulic Fracturing”. I assume you are both familiar with ALEC.

Working in gas industry favor was the consolidation of control over drilling decisions by some states – removing the ability of local government, advised by input from residents, to determine appropriate drilling for their communities and landscapes. Ohio passed legislation giving the ODNR sole permitting power for gas wells in 2005. The ODNR, of course, collects fees from drilling permits but is geographically distant from where most drilling in the state will occur.

Pennsylvania's governor – a recipient of over $1.5 million in gas industry monies – tightened state control over drill permitting in mid-February. His comments about the bill were in line with fracking proponents – that in order for the gas industry to flourish it needed to be free from the tedium of dealing with local authorities – free from the heterogeneity of local values and local wishes.

My review of Ohio state regulations of shale gas extraction, compared to what I know of the entire process summarized above, leaves me completely convinced of the inability of my state's regulators to protect the environment or state residents. I have emailed my state legislators about some of the five bills related to fracking moratoriums and regulations in Ohio – all of which seem reasonable safeguards to me. I have not heard back but word is that these bills, stalled for months in committee, will be killed. Coincidentally the Republican leadership committees of the Ohio state legislative bodies have received hundred of thousands of dollars from the gas industry and many individual members of the legislature have received varying sums of their own.

Has the financial contamination of the political process trickled all the way down to the local level? I can't say but I'm suspect. Last month I scheduled a meeting with my Township Trustees to ask that they consider passing a resolution to ask the state for a moratorium on fracking. To my knowledge, this is about the only power available to local officials in Ohio. My trustees easily worked me into their regularly scheduled meeting but, as I spoke, the trustee who I had scheduled through seemed inpatient for me to finish. As I took my seat I was replaced by another man who, it turned out, was a gas industry spokesman from a couple of counties to our south. He was hosted by the same trustee with whom I had arranged my first ever exercise in local government. I had not been told of his slide show presentation in advance – which consisted of the typical industry spiel about jobs and a deceptive history of safe fracking. Is this democracy in action? My trustee apparently thought that balancing the concerns of one township resident with the interests of the entire gas industry amounted to fair representation.

Lease broker meetings are generally well attended in Geauga county and the education they provide is predictably skewed. That the community meetings put on by the Farm Bureau are also uncritical of the fracking process is more troubling because I fear these two types of meetings constitute the sole education of many lease-signers in my community. With the publication of a few legitimate studies on methane and frack chemical contamination of ground water and air pollution, I would expect some state or local government agency to reach out and inform the public of the associated risks that are known or suspected. Information on the ODNR website looks like it was written by the gas industry and given to the agency. My impression is that many of my neighbors are dismissive of the risks; they've heard again and again how safe it is.

The decision-making process that will shape the landscape and quality of life of my county and, therefore, the health and happiness of its residents – including my growing daughters - seems to be in the hands of local residents in a vacuum of meaningful government authority and without lively and informative town meeting debates. Instead we will each “vote” in our own strange and corrupted “democratic” process. The ballot of a “Yea” vote is a signed lease, which is rewarded with the delivery of a handsome check a few weeks later. A “Nay” vote is not accompanied by financial reward but will yield, for those who cast it, the same detriments that those who are inviting the industry into the county will experience, whether they know it or not.

It's the tragedy of the commons writ large, encompassing every quality my family loves about Geauga county – dark nights, fresh air, sounds of nature or no sounds at all, clean free ground water, open roads, scenic rural landscapes, and the value – both monetary and personal – of our 7 acres and home.

You both have publicly supported the expansion of the gas industry a number of times, including in your recent addresses to the nation and the state. You have both acknowledged that the extraction of shale gas has to be done “responsibly” - a description I now believe is incompatible with the extreme nature of the fracking process. Will I ever tell my daughter that she should drive-while-texting responsibly? Some things just don't go together.

Will gas extraction be a godsend for local economies and the nation as a whole in hind sight when we're building new water treatment plants and delivery pipelines, assessing the health care cost associated with the industrialization of rural communities, and adding decades-worth of new “clean up” projects for our nations water ways?

Let's not wait for hind sight. The education I've given myself, while never complete, has yielded the answers already I fear.

For me, there has been a bright side to the threat posed by fracking – I have finally become a more fully-engaged American citizen, aware of avenues of information that I was not previously privy to. If I had continued to live far away from where the gas boom is happening, my awareness of fracking would have been short-lived, quickly being shelved away with other abstract outrages I've considered too overwhelming and distant for me to do anything about. And while I would have been able to say at any point in my adult life that money corrupts our political process, seeing it in action has been a dismal eye-opener.

But instead, I've been busy. I've involved myself in a local group of concerned citizens; I've written politicians asking for legislation to protect my family; I've written several published letters and articles to local newspapers; I prepared and presented a Power Point to locals in the county on what I've learned that is of concern.

Despite my engagement, I am not at all convinced that reason and precaution will triumph over gas industry profit motives. I am convinced however, that as a nation, we will never be able to overcome our challenges with such pervasive corruption of the political system. The rhetoric I hear about Big Government as the problem might not ring true for so many people in this country if it was more obvious that the government was doing the will of the people rather than the will of monied interests; if pointing the finger of blame at government was more akin to pointing at ourselves.

Until that day comes, I will do what I can to preserve my family's version of the American dream. What would you both do in my place? If you felt like the system was ignoring the well-being of vast numbers of American citizens, including some you know and love? Your girls will not likely come to know a gas well being drilled or a compressor station being installed in their back yard, but the benefits of re-thinking this latest energy boom, and seriously getting to work on other solutions to our energy needs, will be in their best long-term interests too. So will restoring real democracy in this country.

I've wondered if I will ever feel the need to resort to non-violent civil disobedience - the kind this country has turned to numerous times in its history of finding itself. Will I stand in front of tanker trucks full of unknown chemicals to make my point? I'd prefer sensible leadership from my state and federal governments. I'd prefer my elected officials represent what's best for people and the nation's long-term future. I'd prefer to work on my little farm and enjoy life in Geauga county without having to worry that it'll all be pulled out from under us.

Plus my wife thinks I'll look ridiculous standing in front of a tanker truck.

But if it comes down to it, I may just have to come up with a sign to hold up high in necessary defiance. Perhaps it'll say:

                         "I shall resist fracking tyranny to the uttermost."

Wouldn't you do the same for your girls?

Yours with an ounce of hope,

Steven Corso

Under Pressure

“Come on, everybody's doing it”.

This week I used this adolescent strategy of coercion to try and convince my township trustees to pass a resolution asking the state for a moratorium on “fracking”. To be more clear, what I think we Ohioans should put a hold on is the establishment of any more deep-shale gas wells that drill horizontally within the shale layer and then use “slick water” and sand at high pressures to force open cracks within the rock, facilitating the flow of gas into the well. We should only allow the industry to proceed when they convincingly demonstrate a new safe version of extraction.

The “slick water” is indeed overwhelmingly water – 95.5% is the number I most often hear – that is made “slick” by the addition of petroleum-derived lubricants, easing the water's flow along the 6-inch diameter pipe that can extend two-plus drilled miles. These lubricants and other additives are not all harmless, and their tiny minority makeup of the fracking fluid belies the actual volumes of chemicals being used. Of one million gallons of fluid – a lesser amount than I've heard are actually used at each well bore – 5000 gallons would be chemical additives. According to a 2011 paper entitled Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective, published in the journal Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, the authors found that of 353 fracking chemicals with available information on human health impacts, 75% affected the sensory organs, the digestive organs, and/or the lungs; 40-50% could harm the nervous, heart, and immune systems; 37% could disrupt the hormone systems of the body; and 25% cause mutations leading to birth defects in the unborn and cancer.

Furthermore, exposure to many of these chemicals might not be expressed as disease for years or decades, perhaps after drilling operations have moved on or companies have traded hands. And, although many of the chemicals are normally subject to regulation as hazardous substances, the gas companies are largely exempt from this regulation. Some states, like Colorado, have required disclosure of all chemicals used in the fracking process. Some companies have “voluntarily” (under public pressure and the threat of new government regulation) publicly disclosed at least some of the chemicals they use. But the industry has long alleged a “secret recipe” aspect to their fracking cocktail, as if it were a soft drink or fried chicken batter. Ohio allows gas companies to keep secret any ingredient they deem “proprietary information”, which to me represents a PR loophole – the more dangerous a chemical, the more proprietary it might be considered.

Gas companies pour their secrets down the well and apply about 10,000 psi pressure, forcing open the shale, coaxing it to release its 450 million-year-old store of burnable goodies.

The problems with the process are being revealed slowly by independent science, which always seems to play catch up to the progress of industry. But as the scientists are designing their protocols and gathering their data, which might get published in a scientific journal at some future date, another group of people have been communicating the problems in real time, as they experience them. They have already filed their reports, the results of their participation in the vast fracking experiment. They've made their cases heard in local courts and state environmental agencies from the Rocky Mountains, across the southern plains and Deep South and up into the Mid-Atlantic. They've gone on the record with their own blog posts and uploaded videos. Valuable information, freely and readily available online, that could inform those of us on the developing frontier of deep shale gas extraction.

I'm talking about the mostly rural Americans who are already living with an endless unhappy parade of heavy trucks going to 5-acre drill pads that are all too often within a sports-field length of their homes. Their testimonies are paradoxes: tap water you can light your cigarette by; unbreathable country breezes blowing from the direction of compressor stations and containment ponds (No Swimming, No Fishing); healthy, hard-working bodies now suddenly afflicted with unexplained rashes and nose bleeds, a loss of taste and smell, cancers of glands and organs.

It is, I believe, the testimonies of these ordinary Americans that have convinced some local elected officials to question and in some cases deny permits in their jurisdictions in states where local officials still have that authority. This week I read of one such example. In Rockingham County, VA, Carrizo Oil and Gas wanted to tap the eastern edge of the Marcellus shale. Productive wells existed just a few miles away in West Virginia, so it seemed that all that stood between Carrizo and natural gas in Virginia would be a few thousand feet of rock and a permit issued by the five members of the county's Board of Supervisors, four of which were Republican. Carrizo management probably assumed the rock would be the challenging part.

But that's not how this story goes.

Having been presented with the “godsend” of gas investment, the supervisors solicited public comment. They met with industry and conservation group representatives, geologists and farmers, any concerned citizen motivated to meet. For a better sense of the process, the supervisors took a trip to Wetzel county, West Virginia to visit gas wells there. They heard stories of smelly air, 24 hour noise, and the challenges of domestic life ensuing the ruin of one's well water. At least one supervisor seems to have done some more digging, investigating accounts from gas extraction areas in other states. Republican supervisor Pablo Cuevas has been credited with leading the questioning that ultimately resulted in the denial to drill. As quoted by an online news site for the local community, hburgnews.com, Cuevas explained his thinking:

“... you have to ask yourself ‘How much are we hurting for revenue?’ before you approve a permit like this without considering the safety issues... you’re dealing with a company that is a group of investors. They hire other companies to do the drilling and do the trucking. You have five or six companies working under contract, so the energy company has very little to lose if something goes wrong. I would not approve a permit under the current circumstances.”

Supervisor Fred Eberly was a little more succinct: “You don’t trade clean water for dollars...How do you un-contaminate water once it’s been contaminated?”

One wonders how the controversy of fracking and the activities of gas extractors would be different if all communities were given the power to decide on matters of drilling in their area. Would local leaders extend the minimum distance a well can be from a house, a water well, a local stream if a mishap would mean a threat to the quality of life of a neighbor or the whole community? Would local decision-making be more nuanced as to where drilling is most appropriate by local values? Would the gas industry, operating with a currency of drill permits in a “free market” of local access, more quickly change the way it does business and provide information? For communities in many states, the questions are purely theoretical, with permit decisions retained by a state agency, often many miles from where a well will likely be established.

This past week, Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett, who, according to a 2011 report by the political watchdog group Common Cause, has received over $1.5 million in political contributions from the oil and gas industry, signed a law that transferred all drill permitting to the state level there, erasing the decision of residents of Pittsburgh, for example, who banned fracking within their city limits with a unanimous vote of the city counsel in November of 2010.

We Ohioans lost local control of drilling with legislation passes in 2005. And so, Chester Township and the villages of Burton and Garrettsville, among other rural Ohio communities, have asked Governor Kasich for a moratorium on fracking. And so, there I stood in front of the five members of my township government, clumsily handing them copies of resolutions passed by other communities, asking that they consider doing the same.

One trustee seemed impatient for me to finish summarizing the indictment I'd prepared. And as I cut myself short and took my seat, I was replaced by an industry representative. Surprise! After assuring the ten of us in the room that he was “from just down the road” in Summit County, he proceeded to present a Power Point on the incredible benefits and impeccable safety of hydraulic fracturing, featuring every bit of PR I've ever seen on every industry website. As it happened, one of my trustees, elected to represent and be the voice of my township's residents, thought it to be in the “best interest of democracy” to provide a “balance of information” with regard to the concerns of this one township resident.

The gas industry is determined to have unfettered access to as much surface overlying deep shale reserves as possible. Billions of dollars are at stake and political contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which have flowed to federal and state politicians like gas in a pipeline, have thus far proven a good investment. But the stories of rural Americans are finally coalescing around a common story that scientific researchers are bolstering with data.

I have no doubt there will be a regulatory backlash on fracking. What I wonder is if it will do enough and come soon enough to benefit the residents of northeast Ohio.

Trustees, Gas Industry Spokesman - Thank You

Hello Claridon trustees,

[...] I got your message earlier today; thank you. Thank you all for the chance to speak last night, although I guess that's the function of local government – giving residents of their township representation and a voice.

I appreciate the sentiment expressed last night that having information is important in the functioning of democracy. That is why below I have provided you an electronic copy of part of what I gave you last night, with hyperlinks so you can go right to articles that I cite.

I spent 10 years teaching high school biology and always tried to stress to my students the importance of unbiased information, healthy skepticism, and questioning in the development of useful opinions. I do not mind that you invited a spokesman for the gas industry last night, although I might have done some things differently had I known ahead of time that he'd be there and would be following my talk with a slide show. Nevertheless, it was good practice to hear him give the industry spiel. 

Let me restate: Information is important in democracy but mis-information muddles democracy. 

I won't go into all that was objectionable in his presentation last night but I want to be clear that the process of gas extraction I am asking for a moratorium or ban of has not been done in tens of thousands of wells in the state and has not been done since the mid-40s. Most of the tens of thousands of wells fracked in Ohio are shallow and vertical, requiring much less fracking fluid of a different chemistry and effecting a smaller volume of rock. Last I heard, Ohio has only half a dozen fracked deep shale horizontal wells. PA has around 2000 wells, all established within the past 5 years or so. This process – combining deep horizontal drilling with fracking using “slick water” - has really only been practiced for the last decade.

Also, with regard to democracy, if you haven't seen the Common Cause report on the millions of dollars the gas industry has dumped into state and federal politics, it's worth a read http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=7868571 and it's worth keeping in mind the influence the industry already has.

Thanks again. Contact me if there is more I need to know about May 14 – like where the meeting is, for example.

Steve

I am here today to ask the trustees to consider passing a resolution asking the state government to enact a ban or at least a moratorium on the process of natural gas extraction known as slick water hydraulic fracturing of deep shale deposits using directional drilling, colloquially known as “fracking”.

I first learned of fracking around a year ago, shortly after my wife and I and our two young daughters moved to the area, bought a house and 7+ acres in Claridon Township, and began enjoying what we hoped would be a quiet, healthy, safe rural life. This was the place we hoped to put down roots, both figuratively and literally (as I am in the process of establishing an orchard).

With news of the establishment of the first deep shale gas well in Geauga county, and with a promised many many more on the way, I turned to a variety of sources to learn more about the hype surrounding the shale gas boom. What I have learned about the potential downside of the technique has greatly disturbed me and my wife and has called into question our long-term residency here in this place we so happily adopted as our new home.

The benefits of shale gas extraction have been articulated by the industry and government at all levels. Yet, in my research, all of the supposed benefits - from job creation, to land-owner prosperity, to national energy security - have all been reasonably and effectively challenged. This evening I will not be addressing the controversies surrounding the alleged benefits of shale gas recovery.

Instead I want to present a summary of my reading of the downsides of fracking (real and potential) because these risks or dangers are or should be of the immediate and utmost importance to the residents of this township and, therefore, I believe, to their elected officials. My argument for a ban or moratorium is based on quality investigative journalism (ie ProPublica), what scientific evidence exists, expert opinion on likely or potential risk, and anecdotes from those residents and landowners who have already experienced or are experiencing the shale gas boom in their home place. I will focus my argument on water contamination, although health officials site air pollution from fracking as a more immediate and sure threat to human health.

Water Contamination

Perhaps you've seen images of people lighting their tap water on fire. This phenomena has been demonstrated by at least dozens of residents of gas extraction areas from WY and CO to PA. Indeed, some water wells and even houses in areas of intense gas extraction have exploded (see news article links below). The industry has largely denied responsibility but mounting scientific evidence and expert opinion suggests that natural gas can and has migrated from gas wells into local aquifers.

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson

(see http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108.full.pdf+html?sid=bde16321-e169-437d-a59c-798e7f65c479)

Last May Duke University researchers published a widely-cited paper describing a relationship between methane concentration in water wells and proximity to active fracked gas wells in eastern PA and NY. They found a clear correlation: water wells located within one kilometer of active gas wells had, on average, 17 times more methane than water wells located further from active gas wells. The levels of methane in many of these water wells posed an explosion hazard. While they did not link contamination to specific wells, the chemical signature of the methane, as well as the presence of larger hydrocarbons, indicated that the source of methane was deep formations rather than shallow biological sources.

Review of Phase II Hydrogeologic Study Prepared for Garfield County

Geoffrey Thyne 12/20/2008

Whereas the Duke study looked at correlation in space, Geoffrey Thyne's 2008 paper described a correlation over time between methane concentration in well water and increasing numbers of gas wells in Colorado. Over the span of 7 years (2000-2007), as the number of gas wells increased from 200 to over 1300, the number of water wells with methane above their baseline of 1ppb rose, as did the concentration of methane in the well water. Looking at the chemical signature of the methane Thyne concluded that the methane originated from deep geological deposits and was not of shallow biological origin.

Thyne also noted an increase in chloride (salts) in these wells over time.

(See paper at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/methane/thyne_review.pdf; see also news stories http://www.propublica.org/article/colorado-study-links-methane-in-water-drilling-422 and http://www.propublica.org/article/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426)

Another, perhaps more pressing question, is whether the chemical-laced frack water can migrate up from shale deposits thousands of feet below the land surface into the water table. The industry has always said, without a doubt, that the answer is a definitive NO, but circumstantial evidence, expert opinion, and landowner experience casts doubt on this confident assertion.

First let's ask why this question is important? An April 2011 U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Energy and Commerce report demonstrated that many of the chemicals used by the gas industry are known to be harmful to human health, including organ toxins, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and disruptors of embryonic development. Between 2005-2009 the leading 14 energy companies used 29 chemicals that are carcinogens and/or regulated under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Air Acts, which the industry has been exempt from since 2005. At least 60 products used contained BTEX chemicals.

(see: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/GasManuscriptPreprintforweb12-5-11.pdf and, for more on chemicals used in fracking: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.introduction.php)

While these chemicals make up only a small percentage of the fluid injected into a well, the total volumes of fluid injected – millions of gallons typically – means that at each injection well tens of thousands of dangerous chemicals will be placed beneath our feet, right here in Claridon Township.

Now the big question: can these chemicals migrate from a mile below the surface into shallow aquifers? Residents of Pavilion, WY first contacted the U.S. EPA in 2008 to complain of well water that smelled of gas and looked oily. The agency's investigation confirmed the presence of hydrocarbons in the water of many of thier wells, including petroleum distillates like benzene, phenol, phthalates, naphthalene, and other hydrocarbons known to be used in fracking, especially 2-butoxyethanol. It also found lead and other salts and metals and methane of deep geologic origin. In a report issued in December of 2011 the EPA finally concluded that the contamination was likely due to hydraulic fracturing as all other explanations were carefully considered and deemed unlikely.

See the report at: http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf)

But how could chemical-laced water migrate up through a mile or more of rock into an aquifer? Experts agree it's not impossible. The more I've read about the expert opinion of what happens to the frack water that remains in a well the more I realize that there is no scientific consensus of the behavior of fractures in the rock or the movement of water within those cracks and along faults. Of the experts who believe there is reason to be concerned about the many gallons of contaminated water remaining below, most site the potential for migration up along faults to shallower rock layers and/or up other well bores.

In a widely circulated op ed (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20111213/OPINION02/712139975)

Paul Hetzler, an experienced environmental engineering technician, siting faulty well seals and the variable nature of geological strata, said:

“Hydraulic fracturing as it’s practiced today will contaminate our aquifers.
Not might contaminate our aquifers. Hydraulic fracturing will contaminate New York’s aquifers. If you were looking for a way to poison the drinking water supply, here in the Northeast you couldn’t find a more chillingly effective and thorough method of doing so than with hydraulic fracturing”.

Dr. Michel Boufadel of Temple University in PA sites the importance of fractures and faults in geological strata. He has generated computer models in which the pressures exerted during hydraulic fracturing can push frack water up along a fracture to within a couple of thousand feet below the surface. He asks what might happen during subsequent fracks as wells are often fracked more than once.

See his talk at http://mediasite.cidde.pitt.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=7948d41114454ab2ae4d35c1e0f356b7)

http://go.to/stopmarcellus for a slide show citing other expert opinion.

And finally, the Environmental Working Group recently revealed a case of aquifer contamination that occurred WV during the 1980's. The gas well was fractured at 4000 feet and nearby water wells were found to be contaminated with a gel used in the fracking process. The EPA investigated and concluded that the contamination had been caused by the fracturing process, perhaps pushing the frack gel up deteriorating abandoned gas wells. (see http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade)

In 2006 a water well in Garfield County, CO erupted in chemical-laced spray when a nearby gas well was fracked, indicating that the pressures generated during fracturing can sometimes reach the surface.

(see: http://www.propublica.org/article/does-an-old-epa-fracking-study-provide-proof-of-contamination)

And, of course, ground water contamination can come from above and there have been numerous reports of containment ponds and trucks leaking frack fluid and (radioactive) produced water in all gas-drilling areas. The industry has been sited for violations on thousands of occasions (See http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking for description of a number of events as well as http://conserveland.org/violationsrpt and State Impact for a list of violations by the industry in PA http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/drilling/)

Ground water contamination would be devastating for Claridon Township. Can ground water be cleaned up? How long would it take for contamination to disperse? Would we buy our own water? Have a city pipe put in? Sue the gas companies for water? Rely on the EPA to supply us water?

Is there a plan???

While water pollution seems like the significant threat, many health officials seem to be more concerned with the immediate health impacts of air pollution. Fracking contributed to air pollution via many different routes, including blowouts, condensate tanks, diesel engines, containment ponds of produced water/brine, and various emissions. In March of 2011 the Upper Green River Basin – a rural area of WY with thousands of gas wells – the ozone count (smog) hit 124 ppb, topping the dirtiest air day in LA the previous year of 114 ppb.

Indeed, most health complaints by residents of gas-drilling areas are related to air pollutants and the effects have included nose bleeds, rashes, loss of taste and smell and other neurological disorders, blacking out, and cancer. Doctors have told people to leave their house and, indeed some residents have walked away from their homes and belongings. The stories are really too many to tell so I'll direct you to http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking.

Are health professionals worried? From the American Academy of Pediatrics to the CDC the answer is a resounding YES. See for yourself:

http://aoec.org/PEHSU/documents/hydraulic_fracturing_and_children_2011_health_prof.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP8338b702930849f49d22a5d96b7d1b2d.html

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/doctors-urge-n-y-to-weigh-health-risks-of-fracking/

So what's in store for Claridon Township? Are residents aware of the reports I've been reading?

I conclude by asking my trustees to pass a resolution asking the state for a ban or at least a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in our state until shale gas can be extracted safely.

Family Trip to the Gas Well

We're driving on the packed crushed gravel of a country road, trying to avoid the deep chocolate-milk-colored puddles, filled from the recent snow melt. Amish school children are walking home on an uncharacteristically sunny and warm January day to homes that are now within sight of Geauga county's first deep-shale gas well. “We” includes my two girls, ages 3 and 7, off from school and in the back seat, content for now it seems. But we are also one car of a caravan of a dozen or so cars, all of which just departed a press conference at the Middlefield library, the second meeting I'd attended there in two consecutive days. The topic: high volume slick-water hydraulic fracturing of deep shale for natural gas extraction. Let's stick with the simpler term “fracking”. Whatever you call it, my girls, though polite, were not too thrilled with the press conference.

The previous night I had attended an informational meeting hosted by Vanessa Pesec of the Network for Oil and Gas Accountability and Protection (NEOGAP). The meeting was intended to provide would-be leasers of mineral rights information on risks to environmental and human health associated with fracking – risks whose documentation has been growing, building a strong case for a state-wide (if not nationwide) moratorium on the process. Most of the attendees of the meeting, however, seemed pretty well-informed already and perhaps hoped to convene with some like-minded folks from the area. Questions were asked, though most were rhetorical in nature.“Do they really think they can do that”? We knew full well “they” did think they could do that.

One undercurrent in the meeting was the question of government – namely where was it? Why did Columbus and Washington seem so unconcerned that the drinking water of an untold number of Ohio residents and U.S. citizens could become undrinkable in the pursuit of an energy source that, the speaker informed us, was largely being exported?

As it turned out, we had one elected official in our midst; County Commissioner Tracy Jemison identified himself and offered information on the county's protection of the roads from the heavy truck traffic required for each well – hundreds or thousands of round trips per well site – as well as the deal struck whereby truck traffic was prohibited during the minutes Amish children walk to and from school. Then he was asked for his opinion of the safety of fracking in general. He offered that the extraction of gas “should be done responsibly” and he expressed some doubt whether he believed current regulations and oversight were sufficient to protect the public and its natural resources. He also quickly disavowed his potential influence on state officials saying “Your letter is as good, or better, than mine”. After the meeting several of us commented that this sounded like a cop out, like a politician hiding behind the law – namely HB 278 passed in 2004 - that made the ODNR the sole authority in making decisions around gas and oil extraction, taking away any local control beyond road protection. Surely though if the commissioner were to urge the governor and state legislators for a moratorium the request would be taken with some seriousness in Columbus.

But the meeting this sunny day was to harness the media to inform residents of the larger Cleveland metropolitan area what was happening in Geauga county. We also hoped that images of the well and measured words of warning from Ron Prosek, president of NEOGAP, as well as members of the Ohio Environmental Council and the Buckeye Forest Council, might spur the public's interest and action.

Our caravan stopped on the road in front of the well pad. We, the gas-well paparazzi, gawked at the sight. The well did impress. I had resisted a visit since learning of its establishment. Now I could see its several acre footprint; the 100-foot-tall tower (give or take) which had a couple of tiny workers climbing over it; its close proximity to two dwellings, including one yard with a child pulling a sled around. The mix of equipment included several large rectangular metal boxes – perhaps generators or storage facilities – that looked newly painted in reds and oranges. I wondered if Chesapeake Energy, the company developing the site, thought the splash of color against the backdrop of snow, fallow fields, barren trees, and white Amish houses would make gas development seem festive?

From there it was on to Chickagami Park about a mile as the crow flies, headwaters to the Grand River, an Ohio Wild and Scenic River, which empties into Lake Erie near Mentor Headlands Park. My fellow caravaners mingled under a picnic pavilion overlooking a gentle slope that led to some of the wetlands that would slowly contribute water to the upper Grand. As we sipped hot chocolate and waited for everyone to arrive, my girls now playing in the soggy snow, strategic considerations continued. How can a small group of concerned citizens challenge the power of a multi-billion dollar industry, which has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process? Without much apparent support from the established state government, how will we protect that which we hold dear - the rural quality of life we enjoy in northeast Ohio, the value of our homes and land, and, most importantly, the health of ourselves and our children?

My thoughts turned to another river a couple of basins to the west.

The fire that ignited the greasy garbage floating on the Cuyahoga River during the summer of 1969 was only one of many stretching back 100 years of unregulated industry along the river's banks. It wasn't even a particularly costly fire - another in 1952 resulted in well over a million dollars in damage. But the country's ideas of environmental stewardship had been changing. Some environmental historians have attributed that change to the publication of Rachel Carson's expose of pesticide contamination in her book Silent Spring. Others have noted the importance of the first photos of the Earth from space – with the obvious delineation of habitable space versus the rest of the visible universe. Another important factor may have been the growing post-war middle class; with increasing affluence societies tend to demand cleaner environments. Whatever the case, this Cuyahoga River fire joined the seminal moments in the blossoming of America's modern environmental movement. It was time to reign in the freedom of industry to pollute a public resource.

The changes that led to the clean-up of the Cuyahoga River were arguably driven by Cleveland's mayor Carl Stokes, who championed the city by making cleanup of its central waterway a priority. He also introduced and pushed for state and federal laws that would clean up rivers across the state and nationwide, especially in industrialized cities. The mayor's outspoken, unrelenting efforts kept the media's attention focused on the problems and solutions, and the wishes of an engaged public helped sustain the effort.

I don't want to paint too rosy a picture of this time in my brief description. I'm no historian and, as a second-trimester fetus when the fire occurred, I wasn't really observant of the process of change. But the ramifications of the actions taken at that time are measurable in the water quality and biological activity in the river, and Lake Erie, today. A confluence of pressure by an informed public and political will exercised in the public's best interest can accomplish a lot. The Clean Water Act was signed into law in 1972 by a Republican president and efforts of many organizations to clean up and maintain the ecological integrity of the Lake Erie watershed continue to this day.

Alas some other things have changed since that time, and those of us convened at Chicagami Park would deem those changes “not for the better”. Since the Great Communicator declared that government was the problem, decisions by politicians from both parties and even Supreme Court justices have shifted the balance of power away from the public back toward private business interests. For example, a political decision from the previous administration largely exempted gas companies pioneering the then-new type of gas-extraction from the Clean Water Act. Though the process utilizes chemicals that are known toxins, carcinogens, and endocrine disruptors, energy companies will force tens of thousands of gallons of such chemicals into the rock below our land, houses, and water tables at each well site, revealing the specific chemicals used only if they feel like doing so. Current federal and state laws and rules and ODNR staffing leave us ill-prepared to control and oversee what specifically happens to that water when it comes back out of the well, now possibly laced with heavy metals and radioactive elements.

That afternoon at the headwaters of the Grand River I heard someone use the word “corporatocracy”. Indeed, in the United States today, governing– in the public's best interest - has become problematic. We concerned citizens had an uphill climb before us if we wanted to avoid the potential damage that might be wrought by the tens-of-thousands of gas wells the industry hopes to drill and frack in Ohio.

But this was all the concern of the adults, standing in front of a news camera, taking turns making quiet speeches to the twenty other adults taking turns to listen. I turned to look at my girls throwing melty snowballs. They were having too much fun to stop and think that the water of that snow would likely make it's way to the wetland a few yards away. From there it would become the Grand River, eventually draining into Lake Erie if it doesn't evaporate, soak into the ground and join the water table, or get consumed by a plant or animal first. Tonight at dinner they will likely forget to acknowledge that the water in their little cups from the household tap that their parents have set in front of them was pumped up to us directly from water-bearing rock beneath our 7 acres. They'll drink it down between chewing and giggling and chattering without wondering what the water might have picked up on it's subterranean journey to our well, to their bodies. But if deep-shale natural gas-extraction is to become a dominant feature of our shared landscape, their parents won't be able to think about much else.

Gas Money

Last week, many news agencies reported on the EPA's conclusion that contamination of water wells around the town of Pavillion, WY was the result of natural gas drilling. The contaminants recovered from the aquifer included an assortment of carbon-based compounds, among them the carcinogens benzene, phenol, formadlehyde, and 2-butoxyethanol. These and hundreds of other chemicals are known to be used where gas extraction is accomplished using horizontal drilling and hydraulical fracturing – the two procedures commonly and simply referred to as “fracking”. Fracking had been done extensively in the Pavillion area for over a decade and, indeed, local residents had been complaining of smelly, oddly-colored water for about as long. They are not alone. According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy group Common Cause, at least 1000 complaints of water contamination connected to fracking have been reported across the country from the Rocky Mountains to our neighbors in Pennsylvania (most famously around the town of Dimock, PA). The industry continues to reject concerns and fight allegations with a substantial PR campaign and lobbying effort estimated to have cost the industry $747 million over the past ten years, with over $20 million of that going to current members of congress from both parties.

Their expenditures have paid off … for the gas industry. With tens of thousands of wells across the country the industry has been exempt from much regulation, including parts of the Clean Water Act, and to date no independent and comprehensive study of the safety of fracking has been conducted.

Meanwhile in Ohio, as gas lease brokers, with the lure of fast easy money, descend on rural areas across the state, two bills that advocate precaution are stalled in the Ohio state legislature. HR bill 345 and Senate bill 213 are easy to understand: pause natural gas extraction by fracking in the state until the EPA concludes a study – the first of its kind - on the safety of fracking with regard to water resources. (This study is expected to be done by 2014). Then require the ODNR to alter Ohio's regulation and oversight of fracking to address the safety concerns identified by the EPA's research.

Simple and common sense right? It's like making sure your kid knows how to drive before handing them the keys. I'm not sure our state politicians think that protecting the state's water resources is of particular importance, requiring urgent passage of these bills. Instead I've heard grumblings by many proponents of the moratorium that the bills will be killed in committee.

To contrast, let's look to Nebraska, where, over the course of weeks, republican governor Dave Heineman, with a unanimous bipartisan vote from the legislature, took control of the proposed TransCanada tar sands oil pipeline (the Keystone XL pipeline), re-routing its Nebraska pathway to avoid the Ogallala aquifer – a major source of water for that and surrounding states. While admittedly I'm no fan of the XL pipeline, I applaud the Nebraska state government for their recognition of the importance of ground water to the residents of that state and their quick action to protect it.

No one likes to believe that their representatives in government, especially state government, would hold moneyed interests above those of their ordinary constituents. That's why I am ignoring the report and accompanying impressive spread sheet called Deep Drilling, Deep Pockets, published last month by Common Cause, showing state leaders and committees received over $2.8 million in gas industry money over the past ten years. At the top of that list was the Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee ($95,500), the Republican Senate Campaign Committee ($114, 750), and Governor Kasich ($213,519). (To be fair, Ted Strickland was #4).

Instead, I'm going to urge law-makers to apply common sense precaution and pass the bill to impose a moratorium on fracking until we know how it can be done safely. Other states have done it – New York, Maryland, even New Jersey.

Utilizing domestic, even local, energy resources should be a priority for the country and the state. But it's foolish - even unpatriotic - to destroy our drinking water in the pursuit of a buck. And with this last sentence I'm talking to everyone from federal and state politicians to my neighbors signing gas leases.