onondaga nation comments on the 2011 hydrofracking sgeis

8/3/2019 Onondaga Nation Comments on the 2011 Hydrofracking SGEIS

1/80


2/80


3/80


4/80


5/80


6/80


7/80


8/80


9/80


10/80


11/80


12/80


13/80


14/80


15/80


16/80

Exhibit A


17/80


18/80

Exhibit B


19/80


20/80


21/80


22/80


23/80


24/80


25/80


26/80


27/80

Exhibit C


28/80


29/80


30/80


31/80


32/80


33/80


34/80

Alex Bissell

SUNY Oswego

Words in the World Intern

Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation

interview with

Bruce Ross

Auburn Wastewater Treatment Plant

...

Me: What kind of pre-testing do you do on the fluid you receive?

Bruce: What we do is, as part of our industrial pre-treatment program, were required to

characterize the waste prior to accepting it. However, in this case, we have been accepting

for years simply as brine. And uh, really much to the surprise to us who are involved in the

engineering department, and who handle, uh, I handle the industrial pre-treatment program, so

what we had to basically do was back out, or back into that procedure. We received lab results

from each of the well developers that were developing, or discharging to the plant at the time.

This was back in 2008. And this came to us from a call from DEC, inquiring as to whether or

not we were taking this fluid. Well, actually, we didnt think we were taking any of that, and,

personally, I had no knowledge of it. So, when I asked the people at the plant, they said, Well,

we take brine, but they didnt know any difference and neither did anybody else at that time.

So, what we did is we had each of the developers, the well developers, at that time send us

lab results for what they had. And, uh, we basically did some calculations, we compared those

results to our headworks (?) analysis, that was revised in 2000, and at that point consideredwhat we had taken and what we had experienced at the plant, which was really nothing.

However, there are two considerations at the plant that you have to think about, and one is

passthrough, and another is interference.

And so, up to that point no one at the plant had experienced any interference, and had they

experienced interference they probably would have said, Hey, were taking something thats not

right. And none of our discharge monitoring reports ever indicated a problem. So, thats pretty

much it in a nutshell, but when we looked like things like chloride and dissolved solids that are in

this material, as well as BTEX p-tex, oil and grease (?), and iron, any kind of metals, that might

be in it and found that our plant removes anything that is high enough in concentration to be

concerned about. And again, the results of our monthly discharges were clean. And when Im

thinking of that Im referring to iron, because iron tends to be periodically in this water, uh, quite

high. So that being the case, the DEC told us Well, we will allow you to continue to take what

water you have taken, but no more. And so, at that time, we were probably taking anywhere

from, uh I dont know, it might have been 100-200 thousand gallons a day. After that, as things

became a little more public on the matter, I think some of the well developers began to back

on their production. And so we began to get less water. What DEC required of us was that we

Exhibit D


35/80

permit each of the developers under the pre-treatment program, and thats all thats been done.

And so right now Im waiting for the sampling results from them.

So what we did was we permitted them, theres probably 6 or 8 that are permitted, and I think

weve only had one that has discharged this year, this first quarter, in February. Other than

that, weve looked at chlorides and one of the interesting things that goes into this wholetopic about wastewater, the wastewater side of this matter, because you know you have

what you see in the public all the time is the potential for groundwater contamination and the

potential for surface-water contamination. And infrequently, but more frequently now, whats

being discussed is the wastewater treatment. Thats a whole different issue, when people get

alarmed with the whole issue, they hear toxic contaminants and thats really. . . Its a matter of

concern, especially when youre talking about groundwater contamination and surface-water

contamination, because I think there are a few states out there that have had claims on both.

...

Me: Do you do any tests on radioactivity at all, do you know?

Bruce: I believe we tested once, and we got a very, very low. . . almost a. . . so low, it was

not. . . it was at least an indication of what might have been happening, but we dont do it on a

regular basis.

Me: As far as pretreatment, what do you treat for exactly?

Bruce: Well, actually, when we refer to pretreatment, the pretreatment program, according to

federal regulations, is a program that municipalities are required to manage and institute as

part of their entire infrastructure program, but the pretreatment program requires that industrypretreat their waste prior to discharge into the sewer system, or prior to discharge into the

receiving stream. So, theres some confusion out there about that, I believe. So, what we do at

the plant, is we do. . . nothing to pretreat wastewater that comes into our plant. The industrial

pretreatment program requires that we permit individual industries that are tributary to our

collection system. Do you understand what I mean?

Me: Yes.

Bruce: So, what we do is we issue them permits based on federal regulations. Based on the 40

part 403 regulations, if you wanna take a look at that, in the code of federal regulations. So, we

have an EPA approved pretreatment program. And as a matter of fact, a couple of years ago

the New York State DEC was recommending the City of Auburn, as well as anyone else with

a pretreatment program as receiving points for this water. But obviously what theyve done is

ratcheted that way down. And were one of the only plants, if not the only plant, that takes it in

the state now.

Me: Have you ever rejected any wastewater haulers?


36/80

Bruce: Um, we have rejected wastewater. And again, its because we were told we cannot take

any more than what weve already taken. And again, one of the things thats made it difficult is

the game of musical chairs that the developers have been playing since this started, and the

controversy all hit the fan. Some companies have bought other companies, some companies

have stop discharging, some companies have pulled out of New York State. And so, you know,youve got a whole variety of scenarios happening with these companies. One I spoke with

recently had discharged any of the water they said they were going to take to us.

Me: As far as hydrofracking waste, have you ever received any from Pennsylvania?

Bruce: Yes, and we do right now. But we restrict water from the Marcellus formation, we do not

take water from the Marcellus formation. And we do not take water from horizontal fracturing,

we only take water from vertical wells.

Me: Can you give me an idea of what months, or around when, youve been accepting the

drilling fluids?

Bruce: Up until this year it had come every day. However, it varies. I couldnt tell you off the top

of my head how often it comes from Pennsylvania and how often it comes from New York.

Me: Is there an agreement that they have to sign, saying that they are not giving you horizontal

fracking waste?

Bruce: We put that in the permit, that theyre not to bring horizontal well water or anything from

the Marcellus formation. Thats whats built into the permit, anything that we restrict them is in

the permit. It appears that they have cooperated for the most part, um, we had some problemswith collecting the quarterly reports, because theyre not used to doing that. Theyre trying to

work now to tank their water because one of the problems with the water, the contents of the

water, is that they change over the life of the well. So, when they start, from start to finish, the

water is more dilute to more concentrated. So, youre gonna have more chlorides, and more

dissolved solids by the time the well is at completion. And so, we have limits on that we have

calculated, that we are trying to limit our plant. However, its a matter of constantly varying with

the well water, the volume that comes in. Its very tricky, and I think the reason most places

dont take it is because its a nightmare to try and control.


37/80

Exhibit E


38/80


39/80


40/80

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Google Email

Earthquake Hazards Program

FAQs - Earthquakes, Faults, Plate Tectonics, Earth Structure

Previous FAQ | All FAQ's | Next FAQ

Q: Can we cause earthquakes? Is there any way to prevent earthquakes?

A: Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada. The

cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water

supplies. Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from f luid injection at the Rocky

Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection

had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes

was established. (Nicholson, Craig and Wesson, R.L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, 74 p.)

Other human activities, even nuclear detonations, have not been linked to earthquake activity. Energy from nuclear blasts dissipates

quickly along the Earth's surface. Earthquakes are part of a global tectonic process that generally occurs well beyond the influence or

control of humans. The focus (point of origin) of earthquakes is typically tens to hundreds of miles underground. The scale and force

necessary to produce earthquakes are well beyond our daily lives. We cannot prevent earthquakes; however, we can significantly

mitigate their effects by identifying hazards, building safer structures, and providing education on earthquake safety.

Previous FAQ | All FAQ's | Next FAQ

- Earthquakes, Faults, Plate Tectonics, Earth Structure http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=1&faqID=

11/28/2011 10:38 P

Exhibit F


41/80

Exhibit G


42/80


43/80

Exhibit H


44/80


45/80

New York Archaeological Councilc/o Marie-Lorraine Pipes, President

323 Victor-Egypt Road,

Victor, NY 14564

[email protected] (585) 742-3185

DATE: November 28, 2011

TO: Mr. Joe Martens, Commissioner

dSGEIS Comments

NYS DEC

625 BroadwayAlbany, New York 12233-6510

FROM: Derrick (Dirk) J. Marcucci, RPA

Chair,Ad Hoc Committee-Marcellus Shale Well Permitting, dSGEISNew York Archaeological Council (NYAC)

SUBJECT: Revised Draft-Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement(dSGEIS) on the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program-Well

Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic

Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-PermeabilityReservoirs

___________________________________________________________________________

The New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) is a statewide association of New York

State professional archaeologists with over 100 members. Membership is primarily

comprised of professionals involved in cultural resource management. As cultural resource professionals, we are concerned with protecting and managing New Yorks cultural

resourcesarchaeological, historical, architectural and visual resources. On behalf ofNYAC membership, we wish to offer the following comments on the revised dSGEIS (dated

7 September 2011) for well permits to develop the Marcellus Shale gas fields throughout the

Southern Tier of New York State.

In 2008, NYAC outlined concerns of this industrys effect on cultural resources in regards to

well permitting (see attached comment letter). Our review of the 2008 dSGEIS document

determined that it did not adequately address adverse impacts to cultural resources, nor did itidentify a process compatible with the State and National Historic Preservation Acts that

would identify and protect cultural resources representing our Nations and States heritage.Given that none of our 2008 comments were integrated into the present revised dSGEIS,

there are identical, and serious, shortcomings with the 2011 revised dSGEIS. The currentrevised dSGEIS only focuses on known (visual) cultural resources, it does not acknowledge

the direct impacts (large scale earthmoving) that will threaten cultural resources, nor does it

identify a clear process for well permitting that ensures protection of New York Statescultural resources as a result of the industrys undertakings.

Exhibit I
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


46/80

2

A serious omission in the revised dSGEIS is its failure to explicitly identify how compliance

with the State Historic Preservation Act (14.09 State Regulations, Part 426) of the Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation Act of 1980, Section 14.09 will be executed. The Actrequires state agencies to consult with the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic

Preservation (OPRHP) if it appears that any projects being planned may or will cause any

change, beneficial or adverse, in the quality of any historic, architectural, archeological or

cultural property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or listed in the StateRegister or that is determined to be eligible for listing in the State Register. Furthermore, it

requires New York state agencies, to the fullest extent practicable, consistent with other

provisions of the law, to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to such cultural properties, toexplore all feasible and prudent alternatives and to give due consideration to feasible and

prudent plans that would avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to such property.

The revised dSGEIS incorrectly subsumes all cultural resources under the category of visual

resources, only considers those historic resources listed or eligible for listing in the

State/National Register of Historic Places (Section 2.4.12), and fails to identify earth

moving/land clearing as an adverse impact to significant cultural resources. While culturalresources that are significant because of their visual qualities or aesthetics and cultural

view sheds are a legitimate concern during in the impact analysis, the revised dSGEIS fails to

identify and consider buried archaeological sites. A major omission in the revised dSGEIS isits failure to consider the potentially disastrous impacts earth moving/land clearing activities

associated with Marcellus Shale development will have on buried and unidentified

archaeological sites.

According to the revised dSGEIS, earth moving/land disturbance(s) associated with this

industry will include the construction of access roads, well pads, and utility corridors.

Other potential impacts discussed in the revised dSGEIS include cuttings pits, reserve pits,fresh water storage impoundments, and waste disposal. The average total disturbance

associated with a multi-well pad during the drilling and fracturing stage is estimated at 7.4

acres and a well pad for a single vertical well for the drilling and fracturing stage is estimated

at 4.8 acres (Section 5.1).

The significance of archaeological sites and other cultural resources important to New Yorks

history and people are unrelated to site size and sites can range from a several square feet(the size of a human grave) to multi-acre prehistoric villages or historic hamlets. The

industrys land disturbances estimates of 4.8-7.4 acres are large enough that entire sites could

be obliterated during land clearing activities required for hydraulic fracturing mining andinstallation or construction of related infrastructure needs.

Only a very small percentage, estimated at less than one percent, of New York has been

surveyed by professional archaeologists or by other cultural resource professionals. As aresult, only a small number of New Yorks known significant cultural resources are officially

recorded and/or listed in the State/National Register of Historic Places. Most New York

archaeological sites that could be affected by this industrys undertakings are buried,

encapsulated in sediments and soils below the ground surface, and as of yet, undiscovered.Because they have not been identified and are buried, archaeological sites can be destroyed

easily by heavy mechanized equipment movement and land clearing activities, both of which

are undeniable impacts linked to Marcellus Shale mining and associated infrastructure needs.


47/80

3

Many archaeological sites in the Southern Tier are at serious risk of destruction from this

industrys actions because: earth moving/land disturbance is a routine and unavoidable part

of this industrys activities; not all significant archaeological sites have been identified andthey can exist below ground; and there are no proactive measures in the revised dSGEIS that

outline how archaeological sites will be identified and protected in the permitting process.

To resolve this threat, we strongly urge NYSDEC to incorporate measures into the permitting

process that comply with the State and National Historic Preservation Act directives toidentify and protect cultural resources by professional archaeologists (36 CFR 61 qualified)

before permits are issued for the industrys undertakings.

Considering the important issues discussed above that are critical for protecting New Yorks

significant cultural resources from activities associated with Marcellus Shale mining, we

recommend that the following be included in the final dSGEIS sections:

CHAPTER 1-Introduction, Section 1.2 Regulatory Jurisdiction

Protection of cultural resources needs to be included in this section. manage natural and cultural resources to assure their protection and balanced utilization;

CHAPTER 2-Destription of Proposed Action, Section 2 Visual Resources

All cultural resources are incorrectly subsumed under a category termed visual resources.

This section needs to renamed Cultural Resources and include a comprehensive list of the

resources that are commonly associated with New Yorks history (archaeological, historical,structures, traditional cultural places, commemorative and traditional cultural places, objects,

districts, objects, artifacts, etc.) , that could be adversely affected by the activities associated

with Marcellus Shale mining and related activities.

As written, the revised dSGEIS only considers cultural resources already recorded/listed.

The final dSGEIS should explicitly state that all cultural resources, known and unknown (i.e.,

undiscovered) need to be considered and protected.

Earth moving/land clearing needs to be explicitly identified as a potential adverse impact to

cultural resources.

CHAPTER 3 SEQRA Process

This section needs to discuss compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act (14.09

State Regulations, Part 426) of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.

Specifically, the well permitting process must include coordination with the NYSDEC

Agency Preservation Officer and OPRHP to determine which impacts, direct and indirect,that may be significant in terms of cultural resources.

CHAPTER 6 Potential Environmental Impacts

A separate section is needed to consider all potential impacts, direct and indirect, to all

cultural resources/cultural properties including buried archaeological sites. Earth

moving/land clearing needs to be explicitly identified as a direct and potential adverse impact


48/80

4

to cultural resources. Direct impacts constitute all earth moving/land clearing activities

required for well drilling (e.g., well pads, access roads, lined pits, injection pits, etc.).

Indirect impacts (e.g., vibration, soil compaction, chemical contamination, etc.) also need to be listed in this section. Indirect impacts have great potential to diminish the integrity of

known or not yet discovered archaeological sites and need to be considered in the permitting

process.

CHAPTER 7 Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures, Section 7.9-Visial

Mitigation Measures

As written, the revised dSGEIS only takes into account visual (above ground) resources. A

separate section needs to be added under Mitigation Measures to address mitigation of

archaeological (below ground) resources. In most cases, high volume hydraulic fracturingoperations and related activities would not result in significant adverse impacts on visual

resources. However, even a small amount of earth moving/land clearing can severely impact

buried archaeological resources. Mitigation measures related to earth movings effect on

(buried/below ground) cultural resources (e.g., prehistoric and historic archaeological sites)and other types of cultural resources needs to be explicitly stated.

CHAPTER 8 Permit Processing and Regulatory Coordination, Section 8.1.1.1 SEQRAParticipation

In Table 8.1: Regulatory Jurisdictions Associated With High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing

(Updated August 2011), OPRHP involvement only is listed for well siting and newindustrial treatment plants and only listed as role pertains in certain circumstances which

are not defined. Again, compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act needs to be part

of the permitting process.

OPRHP involvement should be listed for all earth moving/land clearing activities shown on

Table 8.1, since these are the most likely to have adverse impact to significant (below

ground) cultural resources. The NYDEC should consult with the OPRHP to determine thesensitivity of construction areas proposed for mining and associated activities and assess the

need to conduct cultural resource investigations before permits are issues.

CHAPTER 11 Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures, Table

11.1 Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures

Cultural resources need to be listed as resources that will be affected by this industrys

activities.

Potential mitigation measures for cultural resources would include: A phased approach toidentify, evaluate, and mitigate significant archaeological sitesi.e., Phase I archaeological

identification surveys, Phase II National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) archaeological

site evaluations and Phase III archaeological site mitigations; architectural recordation; and

consultation with OPRHP and Native Americans, or other groups, who have interest inproperty or places that are rooted their community or cultural groups history.


49/80

5

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. NYAC would welcome any questions and willbe happy to provide any needed additional information to assist the NYSDEC if requested.

Sincerely yours,

Derrick (Dirk) J. Marcucci, RPA

Chair, NYAC Ad Hoc Committee-Marcellus Shale Well Permitting, dSGEIS

Attachment (1)

cc: John Bonafide, OPRHP

Charles Vandrei, NYSDEC Agency Preservation OfficeNYS Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo

NYS Senator Thomas Libous

NYAC Board


50/80

Exhibit J


51/80


52/80


53/80

Onondaga

Otisco

La Fayette

SyracuseDe Witt

La FayetteOnondaga

NationTerritory

Interstate Highways

Water Bodies

1 Mile Radius

Tax Parcels with Hydrofracking Leases

February 2010Map created by Syracuse Community GeographyData collected by volunteers of NOON

Oil and Gas Leases Signed within One Mileof the Onondaga Nation, January 2001 - February 2010

Properties Where Hydrofracking or Associated Activities May Occur

Exhibit L


54/80

Life of a Well The gas industry considers the life of a well interms of its productive life, which typically ranges between 4and 20 years. This is the time period when isolation of gas-richformations from the overlying freshwater aquifers mattersmost to them. Loss of zonal isolation equates directly to loss ofprofits because the gas is not captured. When a gas well is nolonger profitable, it is plugged and abandoned. Plugginginvolves removal of an inner steel casing placed during wellconstruction and then cementing of the open borehole to sealoff gas bearing and saline geologic horizons from the over-lying freshwater aquifer. To provide long-term protection,the cement sheath, casing, and inner cement plug must remainfully intact for the life of the aquifer (999,980+ years).

Life of Cement & Life of Steel Long-term protection of freshwateraquifers from deep, contaminant-laden, bedrock formations breached by gaswells relies completely on the durability of the materials used to physically

isolate them. Water quality protection must be viewed relative to the life ofaquifers. Therefore, sealant materials must also have a design life equal to theuseful life of aquifers. Extensive research conducted by the gas industry andothers reveals that cement failure will occur in less than 100 years due tonumerous factors that include shrinkage, debonding, and the development ofchannels that allow gas and fluid migration. Debonding occurs at the casing/bedrock and cement/casing interfaces. A micro-annulus of 0.001 inches issufficient to allow gas flow. Similarly, research shows that steel casing alsohas a design life of less than 80 years - in some cases far less due to exposureto saline water and acid gases (i.e., < 4 years). Thereafter, material failureand groundwater degradation are assured.

Life of Aquifers Through geologic time, layers of sedimentswere deposited and compacted into bedrock. The land was sub-sequently uplifted and then eroded for over 1,000,000 years bythe Delaware River and its many tributaries. In response, freshgroundwater flow now moves slowly from upland areas towardsvalleys. These freshwater aquifers are physically isolated and farabove deep, saline, waters and gas-rich bedrock formations.Wells tap the pure freshwater aquifers we drink from. Gas wellspose a real threat to well water quality because they provide un-natural pathways for contaminants to rise under pressure fromdeep within the earth and to mix with potable water. If saline andfreshwater zones remain disconnected, our aquifers will continueto provide pristine water to our children and their grandchildrenfor another 1,000,000 plus years. If the two become connected,the results would be devastating for future generations - robbingthem of needed groundwater.

DELAWARE

RIVERKEEPER

Methane releasedunder pressure from failed cement

sheaths and casings follows fractures to home-owner wells, water bodies, and the land surface.

Types of cement channels in annular spacesthat may permit upward methane migration.

Modified from Newhall (2006).

microannulus channelwithincementsheath

bedrock

channelalongsidebedrock

missingcement

gas ormud cutchannels

cracks

Casing

Corroded and pitted casing(Shutterstock). Steel andcement subjected to harsh,corrosive, downhole conditionscan degrade in a matter of

years, thereby resulting in anexplosive, contaminant, andh e a l t h r i s k t o n e a r b y.

NATURAL GAS DRILLING& AQUIFER PROTECTION

A

BC

landowners.

What the experts have to say about ...

Groundwater quality throughout the Delaware River Basin is at high risk of being degraded by methane,uranium, radium, radon, chromium, lead, arsenic, barium, benzene, bromide, sodium chloride, H S,2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), 4 Nitroquinoline-1-oxide (4-NQO) and other pollutants.The sealant materials (cement and steel) being used to line boreholes to isolate and protect aquifer watershave a short design life. In places, these materials are already failing.

2

Exhibit M


55/80

Fracture Sets Are Connected Over Thousands Of Feet The above hydrograph documentsthe hydraulic response of observation wells B and C from pumping well A. The schematic set-up of theorientation of these wells relative to themselves and a major stream is depicted on the figure above.Well B is 2,100 feet NW of Well A and Well C is 1,000 feet to the west. Observation Well B is situated

on the opposite side of a valley, beyond a major Delaware River tributary that hydrologists might haveconsidered to be a significant groundwater divide (see also front page figure). This test demonstratesthat pressurized methane-rich waters can impact water supplies across major groundwater divides indifferent watersheds - anywhere along open, permeable, portions of fractures.

Rapid Contamination of Homeowner Wells Methane excursions from gas wells constructedalong the same fracture set as homeowner wells will contaminate drinking water supplies. This willoccur when zonal isolation sealant materials fail, in a time frame ranging from days to 100 years.

Days0 1 2 3 4

2500

2480

2460

2440

2420

2400

2380

2360

2340

2320

A

-B-C

Elevation(ftmsl) Base of Major Stream

Pump On Pump Off

R

ecovery

Drawdown

Pumping - Aquifer TestEast-West Branch

Delaware River Watershed

Hydrograph showing rapid hydraulic responsebetween a pumping well and two observation wells

Delaware Riverkeeper Network tel: (215) 369-1188 June 2011

www.delawareriverkeeper.org

Schematic showing minimum setback distancefrom a gas well array and well A, B, C orientation.Homeowner wells should not be within the array.

Setback Distances From Water Bodies & Homeowner Wells Analysis of hydrologic datareveals that gas well array (i.e., multiple horizontal boreholes stemming from a single well pad) setbackdistances of less than 2,100 feet from water bodies (e.g., reservoirs, lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands) andhomeowner wells may pose a significant water quality risk. DRBC draft gas drilling regulations propose asetback distance of 500 feet between vertical boreholes and water bodies. This distance appears to lack theempirical data needed to document that it will protect water resources. One key hydrogeologic factorinvolved is whether cement sheath failure coincident with hydrofracking events and well decommissioningwill result in rapid transmission of 1) pressurized methane, Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs),

and other pollutants to homeowner wells and water bodies, and 2) free and dissolved gas flow throughleaking well annuli and fractures during gas production. Pumping tests and analyses of known contaminantincidents provide a means of assessing this. Pumping tests that stress groundwater within fractured bedrockaquifers provide a rigorous means of assessing fracture interconnectivity. The hydrograph of a pumping test(below) conducted in the Delaware River Basin documented the effects of turning a pumping well on andoff in less than five minutes in observation wells up to 2,100 feet away. Because this documents long-distance hydraulic connections, it is likely that contaminants driven by high pressures during hydraulicfracturing events and after well decommissioning will adversely impact wells. There is also evidence thatmethane is released from fractures and wellbores at far greater distances. In addition, some fractures naturallyrelease methane. Because hydraulic fracturing within gas well arrays may interconnect these fractures,it would, from a water quality protection standpoint, be prudent to expand the setback distance beyond thewell array. Pumping test data provides solid documentation for mandating minimum setback distanceto at least 2,100 feet as measured from the outer boundary of well arrays to all water resourcesand homeowner wells.
http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/


56/80

Methane contamination of drinking wateraccompanying gas-well drilling andhydraulic fracturingStephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1

aCenter on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment, bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, andcBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011)

Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dra-

matically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying

the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsyl-

vania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for

methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-

gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas

wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations

in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest

gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L1 (n 26), a potential

explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neigh-

boring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similargeologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only

1.1 mgL1 (P < 0.05; n 34). Average 13C-CH4 values of dissolved

methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative

for active than for nonactive sites (37 7 and 54 11,

respectively; P < 0 .0001). These 13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ra-

tios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and2H-CH4 values,

are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such asthe Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas

geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentra-

tion samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had

isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/

thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contam-

ination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or frac-

turing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, andpossiblyregulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future

of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.

groundwater organic-rich shale isotopes formation waters

water chemistry

Increases in natural-gas extraction are being driven by risingenergy demands, mandates for cleaner burning fuels, and theeconomics of energy use (15). Directional drilling and hydrau-lic-fracturing technologies are allowing expanded natural-gasextraction from organic-rich shales in the United States and else-

where (2, 3). Accompanying the benefits of such extraction (6, 7)are public concerns about drinking-water contamination fromdrilling and hydraulic fracturing that are ubiquitous but lack a

strong scientific foundation. In this paper, we evaluate the poten-tial impacts associated with gas-well drilling and fracturing onshallow groundwater systems of the Catskill and Lockhavenformations that overlie the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania andthe Genesee Group that overlies the Utica Shale in New York(Figs. 1 and 2 and Fig. S1). Our results show evidence formethane contamination of shallow drinking-water systems in atleast three areas of the region and suggest important environmen-tal risks accompanying shale-gas exploration worldwide.

The drilling of organic-rich shales, typically of Upper Devo-nian to Ordovician age, in Pennsylvania, New York, and else-

where in the Appalachian Basin is spreading rapidly, raisingconcerns for impacts on water resources (8, 9). In SusquehannaCounty, Pennsylvania alone, approved gas-well permits in theMarcellus formation increased 27-fold from 2007 to 2009 (10).

Concerns for impacts to groundwater resources are based on(i) fluid (water and gas) flow and discharge to shallow aquifersdue to the high pressure of the injected fracturing fluids in thegas wells (10); (ii) the toxicity and radioactivity of produced waterfrom a mixture of fracturing fluids and deep saline formation

waters that may discharge to the environment (11); (iii) thepotential explosion and asphyxiation hazard of natural gas; and(iv) the large number of private wells in rural areas that rely onshallow groundwater for household and agricultural useup toone million wells in Pennsylvania alonethat are typically unre-gulated and untested (8, 9, 12). In this study, we analyzed ground-

water from 68 private water wells from 36- to 190-m deep in

Fig. 1. Map of drilling operations and well-water sampling locations in

Pennsylvania and New York. The star represents the location of Binghamton,

New York. (Inset) A close-up in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, showing

areas of active (closed circles) or nonactive (open triangles) extraction. A

drinking-water well is classified as being in an active extraction area if a

gas well is within 1 km (see Methods). Note that drilling has already spread

to the area around Brooklyn, Pennsylvania, primarily a nonactive location at

thetime of oursampling(see inset). Thestarsin theinsetrepresent the towns

of Dimock, Brooklyn, and Montrose, Pennsylvania.

Author contributions: S.G.O., A.V., and R.B.J. designed research; S.G.O. and N.R.W.

performed research; A.V. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; S.G.O., A.V., N.R.W.,

and R.B.J. analyzed data; and S.G.O., A.V., N.R.W., and R.B.J. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected].

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/

doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental.

81728176 PNAS May 17, 2011 vol. 108 no. 20 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100682108

Exhibit N
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1


57/80

northeast Pennsylvania (Catskill and Lockhaven formations) andupstate New York (Genesee formation) (see Figs. 1 and 2 and SIText), including measurements of dissolved salts, water isotopes(18O and 2H), and isotopes of dissolved constituents (carbon,boron, and radium). Of the 68 wells, 60 were also analyzed fordissolved-gas concentrations of methane and higher-chain hydro-carbons and for carbon and hydrogen isotope ratios of methane.

Although dissolved methane in drinking water is not currentlyclassified as a health hazard for ingestion, it is an asphyxiant inenclosed spaces and an explosion and fire hazard (8). This studyseeks to evaluate the potential impact of gas drilling and hydrau-lic fracturing on shallow groundwater quality by comparing areasthat are currently exploited for gas (defined as activeone or

more gas wells within 1 km) to those that are not currently asso-ciated with gas drilling (nonactive; no gas wells within 1 km),many of which are slated for drilling in the near future.

Results and Discussion

Methane concentrations were detected generally in 51 of 60drinking-water wells (85%) across the region, regardless of gasindustry operations, but concentrations were substantially highercloser to natural-gas wells (Fig. 3). Methane concentrations

were 17-times higher on average (19.2 mg CH4 L1) in shallow

wells from active drilling and extraction areas than in wells fromnonactive areas (1.1 mg L1 on average; P< 0.05; Fig. 3 andTable 1). The average methane concentration in shallow ground-

water in active drilling areas fell within the defined action level(1028 mg L1) for hazard mitigation recommended by the US

Office of the Interior (13), and our maximum observed value of64 mg L1 is well above this hazard level (Fig. 3). Understandingthe origin of this methane, whether it is shallower biogenic ordeeper thermogenic gas, is therefore important for identifyingthe source of contamination in shallow groundwater systems.

The 13C-CH4 and 2H-CH4 values and the ratio of methane to

higher-chain hydrocarbons (ethane, propane, and butane) can ty-pically be used to differentiate shallower, biologically derivedmethane from deeper physically derived thermogenic methane(14). Values of13C-CH4 less negative than approximately50are indicative of deeper thermogenic methane, whereas valuesmore negative than 64 are strongly indicative of microbialmethane (14). Likewise, 2H-CH4 values more negative thanabout 175, particularly when combined with low 13C-CH4

values, often represent a purer biogenic methane origin (14).

The average 13C-CH4 value in shallow groundwater in activedrilling areas was 37 7, consistent with a deeper thermo-genic methane source. In contrast, groundwater from nonactiveareas in the same aquifers had much lower methane concentra-tions and significantly lower 13C-CH4 values (average of5411; P< 0.0001; Fig. 4 and Table 1). Both our 13C-CH4 dataand 2H-CH4 data (see Fig. S2) are consistent with a deeper ther-mogenic methane source at the active sites and a more biogenicor mixed methane source for the lower-concentration samplesfrom nonactive sites (based on the definition of Schoell, ref. 14).

Because ethane and propane are generally not coproduced

during microbial methanogenesis, the presence of higher-chainhydrocarbons at relatively low methane-to-ethane ratios (lessthan approximately 100) is often used as another indicator ofdeeper thermogenic gas (14, 15). Ethane and other higher-chainhydrocarbons were detected in only 3 of 34 drinking-water wellsfrom nonactive drilling sites. In contrast, ethane was detected in21 of 26 drinking-water wells in active drilling sites. Additionally,propane and butane were detected (>0.001 mol %) in eight andtwo well samples, respectively, from active drilling areas but in no

wells from nonactive areas.Further evidence for the difference between methane from

water wells near active drilling sites and neighboring nonactivesites is the relationship of methane concentration to 13C-CH4

values (Fig. 4A) and the ratios of methane to higher-chain hydro-

Fig. 2. Geologic cross-section of Bradford and western Susquehanna Coun-

ties created from gas-well log data provided by the Pennsylvania Department

of Conservation and Natural Resources. The approximate location of the Law-

renceville-Attica Lineament is taken fromAlexander et al. (34). The Ordovician

Utica organic-rich shale (not depicted in the figure) underlies the Middle

Devonian Marcellus at approximately 3,500 m below the ground surface.

Fig. 3. Methane concentrations (milligrams of CH4 L1) as a function of dis-

tance to the nearest gas well from active (closed circles) and nonactive (open

triangles) drilling areas. Note that the distance estimate is an upper limit and

does not take into account the direction or extent of horizontal drilling un-

derground,which would decrease the estimated distances to someextraction

activities. The precise locations of natural-gas wells were obtained from the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Pennsylvania

Spatial Data Access databases (ref. 35; accessed Sept. 24, 2010).

Table 1. Mean values standard deviation of methaneconcentrations (as milligrams of CH4 L

1) and carbon isotope

composition in methane in shallow groundwater 13C-CH4 sorted

by aquifers and proximity to gas wells (active vs. nonactive)

Water source, n milligrams CH4 L1

13C-CH4,

Nonactive Catskill, 5 1.9 6.3 52.5 7.5Active Catskill, 13 26.8 30.3 33.5 3.5Nonactive Genesee, 8 1.5 3.0 57.5 9.5Active Genesee, 1 0.3 34.1Active Lockhaven, 7 50.4 36.1 40.7 6.7Total active wells, 21 19.2 37 7Total nonactive wells, 13 1.1 54 11

The variable n refers to the number of samples.

Osborn et al. PNAS May 17, 2011 vol. 108 no. 20 8173

ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF2http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF2http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF2http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXT


58/80

carbons versus 13C-CH4 (Fig. 4B). Methane concentrations notonly increased in proximity to gas wells (Fig. 3), the accompany-ing 13C-CH4 values also reflected an increasingly thermogenicmethane source (Fig. 4A).

Using a Bernard plot (15) for analysis (Fig. 4B), the enriched13C-CH4 (approximately > 50) values accompanied by

low ratios of methane to higher-chain hydrocarbons (less thanapproximately 100) in drinking-water wells also suggest that dis-solved gas is more thermogenic at active than at nonactive sites(Fig. 4B). For instance, 12 dissolved-gas samples at active drillingsites fell along a regional gas trajectory that increases with reser-

voir age and thermal maturity of organic matter, with samplesfrom Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania specifically matching

natural-gas geochemistry from local gas wells (Fig. 4B, orangeoval). These 12 samples and local natural-gas samples are con-sistent with gas sourced from thermally mature organic matterof Middle Devonian and older depositional ages often foundin Marcellus Shale from approximately 2,000 m below the surfacein the northern Appalachian Basin (1419) (Fig. 4B). In contrast,none of the methane samples from nonactive drilling areas fellupon this trajectory (Fig. 4B); eight dissolved-gas samples inFig. 4B from active drilling areas and all of the values from non-active areas may instead be interpreted as mixed biogenic/thermogenic gas (18) or, as Laughrey and Baldassare (17) pro-posed for their Pennsylvanian gas data (Fig. 4B), the early migra-tion of wet thermogenic gases with low-13C-CH4 values andhigh methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbon ratios. One datapoint from a nonactive area in New York fell squarely in the para-

meters of a strictly biogenic source as defined by Schoell (14)(Fig. 4B, upper-left corner).

Carbon isotopes of dissolved inorganic carbon (13C-DIC >10) and the positive correlation of 2H of water and 2Hof methane have been used as strong indicators of microbialmethane, further constraining the source of methane in shallowgroundwater (depth less than 550 m) (18, 20). Our 13C-DIC

values were fairly negative and show no association with the13C-CH4 values (Fig. S3), which is not what would be expectedif methanogenesis were occurring locally in the shallow aquifers.Instead, the 13C-DIC values from the shallow aquifers plot

within a narrow range typical for shallow recharge waters, withthe dissolution of CO2 produced by respiration as water passesdownward through the soil critical zone. Importantly, these

values do not indicate extensive microbial methanogenesis orsulfate reduction. The data do suggest gas-phase transport ofmethane upward to the shallow groundwater zones sampled forthis study (250;000 mg L1, trace

Fig. 4. (A) Methane concentrations in groundwater versus the carbon

isotope values of methane. The nonactive and active data depicted in Fig. 3

are subdivided based on the host aquifer to illustrate that the methane

concentrations and 13C values increase with proximity to natural-gas well

drilling regardless of aquifer formation. Gray areas represent the typical

range of thermogenic and biogenic methane taken from Osborn and Mcin-

tosh (18). VPDB, Vienna Pee Dee belemnite. ( B) Bernard plot (15) of the ratioof methane to higher-chain hydrocarbons versus the 13C of methane. The

smaller symbols in grayscale are from published gas-well samples from gas

production across the region (1618). These data generally plot along a tra-

jectory related to reservoir age and thermal maturity (Upper Devonian

through Ordovician; see text for additional details). The gas-well data in

the orange ovals are from gas wells in our study area in Susquehanna County,

Pennsylvania (data from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-

tion). Gray areas represent typical ranges of thermogenic and biogenic

methane (data from Osborn and McIntosh, ref. 18).

8174 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100682108 Osborn et al.
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF3http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF4http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF4http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF3http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF3


59/80

toxic elements, (18), and naturally occurring radioactive materi-als, with activities as high as 16;000 picocuries per liter(1 pCi L1 0.037 becquerels per liter) for 226Ra compared toa drinking-water standard of5 pCi L1 for combined 226Ra and226Ra (23).

We evaluated the hydrochemistry of our 68 drinking-water wells and compared these data to historical data of 124 wellsin the Catskill and Lockhaven aquifers (24, 25). We used threetypes of indicators for potential mixing with brines and/or saline

fracturing fluids: (i) major inorganic chemicals; (ii) stable isotopesignatures of water (18O, 2H); and (iii) isotopes of dissolvedconstituents (13C-DIC, 11B, and 226Ra). Based on our data(Table 2), we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow

wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturingfluids. All of the Na, Cl, Ca2, and DIC concentrations in

wells from active drilling areas were consistent with the baselinehistorical data, and none of the shallow wells from active drillingareas had either chloride concentrations >60 mg L1 or Na-Ca-Cl compositions that mirrored deeper formation waters (Table 2).Furthermore, the mean isotopic values of 18O, 2H, 13C-DIC,11B, and 226Ra in active and nonactive areas were indistinguish-able. The 226Ra values were consistent with available historicaldata (25), and the composition of18O and 2H in the well-waterappeared to be of modern meteoric origin for Pennsylvania(26) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). In sum, the geochemical and isotopicfeatures for water we measured in the shallow wells from bothactive and nonactive areas are consistent with historical dataand inconsistent with contamination from mixing Marcellus Shaleformation water or saline fracturing fluids (Table 2).

There are at least three possible mechanisms for fluid migra-tion into the shallow drinking-water aquifers that could helpexplain the increased methane concentrations we observed neargas wells (Fig. 3). The first is physical displacement of gas-richdeep solutions from the target formation. Given the lithostaticand hydrostatic pressures for 12 km of overlying geological stra-ta, and our results that appear to rule out the rapid movement ofdeep brines to near the surface, we believe that this mechanismis unlikely. A second mechanism is leaky gas-well casings (e.g.,

refs. 27 and 28). Such leaks could occur at hundreds of metersunderground, with methane passing laterally and verticallythrough fracture systems. The third mechanism is that the processof hydraulic fracturing generates new fractures or enlarges exist-ing ones above the target shale formation, increasing the connec-

tivity of the fracture system. The reduced pressure following thefracturing activities could release methane in solution, leading tomethane exsolving rapidly from solution (29), allowing methanegas to potentially migrate upward through the fracture system.

Methane migration through the 1- to 2-km-thick geologicalformations that overlie the Marcellus and Utica shales is lesslikely as a mechanism for methane contamination than leaky wellcasings, but might be possible due to both the extensive fracturesystems reported for these formations and the many older, un-

cased wells drilled and abandoned over the last century and a halfin Pennsylvania and New York. The hydraulic conductivity in theoverlying Catskill and Lockhaven aquifers is controlled by a sec-ondary fracture system (30), with several major faults and linea-ments in the research area (Fig. 2 and Fig. S1). Consequently, thehigh methane concentrations with distinct positive 13C-CH4 and2H-CH4 values in the shallow groundwater from active areascould in principle reflect the transport of a deep methane sourceassociated with gas drilling and hydraulic-fracturing activities. Incontrast, the low-level methane migration to the surface ground-

water aquifers, as observed in the nonactive areas, is likely a nat-ural phenomenon (e.g., ref. 31). Previous studies have shownthat naturally occurring methane in shallow aquifers is typicallyassociated with a relatively strong biogenic signature indicatedby depleted 13C-CH4 and

2H-CH4 compositions (32) coupledwith high ratios of methane to higher-chain hydrocarbons (33), aswe observed in Fig. 4B. Several models have been developed toexplain the relatively common phenomenon of rapid verticaltransport of gases (Rn, CH4, and CO2) from depth to the surface(e.g., ref. 31), including pressure-driven continuous gas-phaseflow through dry or water-saturated fractures and density-drivenbuoyancy of gas microbubbles in aquifers and water-filled frac-tures (31). More research is needed across this and other regionsto determine the mechanism(s) controlling the higher methaneconcentrations we observed.

Based on our groundwater results and the litigious nature ofshale-gas extraction, we believe that long-term, coordinated sam-pling and monitoring of industry and private homeowners isneeded. Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hy-

draulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level.Fracturing wastes are not regulated as a hazardous waste underthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, fracturing wellsare not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and only re-cently has the Environmental Protection Agency asked fracturing

Table 2. Comparisons of selected major ions and isotopic results in drinking-water wells from this study to data available on the sameformations (Catskill and Lockhaven) in previous studies (24, 25) and to underlying brines throughout the Appalachian Basin (18)

Active Nonactive Previous studies (background)

Lockhaven

formation

Catskill

formation

Catskill

formation

Genesee

group

Lockhaven

formation (25)

Catskill formation

(24)

Appalachian brines

(18, 23)

N 8 N 25 N 22 N 12 N 45 N 79 N 21

Alkalinity as HCO3

,

mg L1

mM285 36[4.7 0.6]

157 56[2.6 0.9]

127 53[2.1 0.9]

158 56[2.6 0.9]

209 77[3.4 1.3]

133 61[2.2 1.0]

150 171[2.5 2.8]

Sodium, mg L1 87 22 23 30 17 25 29 23 100 312 21 37 33,000 11,000Chloride, mg L1 25 17 11 12 17 40 9 19 132 550 13 42 92,000 32,000Calcium, mg L1 22 12 31 13 27 9 26 5 49 39 29 11 16,000 7,000Boron, g L1 412 156 93 167 42 93 200 130 NA NA 3,700 3,50011B 27 4 22 6 23 6 26 6 NA NA 39 6

226Ra, pCi L1 0.24 0.2 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.2 0.15 0.56 0.74 NA 6,600 5,6002H, , VSMOW 66 5 64 3 68 6 76 5 NA NA 41 6

18O, , VSMOW 10 1 10 0.5 11 1 12 1 NA NA 5 1

Some data forthe activeGenesee Group andnonactive LockhavenFormation arenot included because of insufficientsample sizes (NA). Values represent

means 1 standard deviation. NA, not available.

N values for 11B analysis are 8, 10, 3, 6, and 5 for active Lockhaven, active Catskill, nonactive Genesee, nonactive Catskill, and brine, respectively. N

values for 226Ra are 6, 7, 3, 10, 5, and 13 for active Lockhaven, active Catskill, nonactive Genesee, nonactive Catskill, background Lockhaven, and brine,

respectively. 11B normalized to National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Reference Material 951. 2H and 18O normalized to Vienna

Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW).

Osborn et al. PNAS May 17, 2011 vol. 108 no. 20 8175

ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF5http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF5http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF5


60/80

firms to voluntarily report a list of the constituents in the fractur-ing fluids based on the Emergency Planning and CommunityRight-to-Know Act. More research is also needed on the mechan-ism of methane contamination, the potential health consequencesof methane, and establishment of baseline methane data in otherlocations. We believe that systematic and independent data ongroundwater quality, including dissolved-gas concentrations andisotopic compositions, should be collected before drilling opera-tions begin in a region, as is already done in some states. Ideally,

these data should be made available for public analysis, recogniz-ing the privacy concerns that accompany this issue. Such baselinedata would improve environmental safety, scientific knowledge,and public confidence. Similarly, long-term monitoringof ground-

water and surface methane emissions during and after extractionwouldclarify the extent of problems andhelp identify the mechan-isms behind them. Greater stewardship, knowledge, andpossi-blyregulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future ofshale-gas extraction.

Methods

A total of 68 drinking-water samples were collected in Pennsylvania and New

York from bedrock aquifers (Lockhaven, 8; Catskill, 47; and Genesee, 13) that

overlie the Marcellus or Utica shale formations (Fig. S1). Wells were purged

to remove stagnant water, then monitored for pH, electrical conductance,

and temperature until stable values were recorded. Samples were collected

upstream of any treatment systems, as close to the water well as possible,

and preserved in accordance with procedures detailed in SI Methods.

Dissolved-gas samples were analyzed at Isotech Laboratories and water

chemical and isotope (O, H, B, C, Ra) compositions were measured at Duke

University (see SI Methods for analytical details).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Rebecca Roter, Peggy Maloof, and manyothers who allowed us to sample their water wells; Laura Ruhl and TewodrosRango for coordination and field assistance; Nicolas Cassar for thoughtfulsuggestions on the research; and Kaiguang Zhao and Rose Merola for helpwith figures. Jon Karr and the Duke Environmental Isotope Laboratoryperformed analyses of 18O, 2H, and 13C of groundwater samples. WilliamChameides, Lincoln Pratson, William Schlesinger, the Jackson Lab, and twoanonymous reviewers provided helpful suggestions on the manuscript andresearch. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from Fred andAlice Stanback to the Nicholas School of the Environment and from the DukeCenter on Global Change.

1. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the

next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968972.

2. Tour JM, Kittrell C, Colvin VL (2010) Green carbon as a bridge to renewable energy.

Nature Mater 9:871874.

3. Kerr RA (2010) Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science 328:16241626.

4. Raupach MR, et al. (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions.

Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:1028810293.

5. US Energy Information Administration (2010) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Pro-

jections to 2035(US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC), DOE/EIA-

0383; http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf.

6. US Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Hydraulic Fracturing. (US Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC), http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/

class2/hydraulicfracturing/.

7. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale:

Challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44:56795684.

8. Revesz KM, Breen KJ, Baldassare AJ, Burruss RC (2010) Carbon and hydrogen isotopic

evidence for the origin of combustible gases in water supply wells in north-central

Pennsylvania. Appl Geochem 25:18451859.

9. Zoback M, Kitasei S, Copithorne B Addressing the environmental risks from shale gas

development. Worldwatch Institute Briefing Paper 1 (Worldwatch Inst, Washington,

DC), http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-

Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdf.10. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas

Management (2010) 2009 Year End Workload Report. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environ-

mental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, Harrisburg, PA), http://www.

dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.

pdf.

11. Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M (2010) Natural gas operations from

a public health perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, in press.

12. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) Private Water Wells

in Pennsylvania. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA),

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/.

13. Eltschlager KK, Hawkins JW, Ehler WC, Baldassare F (2001) Technical Measures for the

Investigationand Mitigation of Fugitive Methane Hazards in Areas of CoalMining (US

Dept of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

Pittsburgh).

14. Schoell M (1980) The hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from

natural gases of various origins. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 44:649661.

15. Bernard BB (1978) Light hydrocarbons in marine sediments. PhD Dissertation (Texas

A&M Univ, College Station, TX).16. Jenden PD, Drazan DJ, Kaplan IR (1993)Mix ing of thermogenic natural gases in north-

ern Appalachian Basin. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 77:980998.

17. Laughrey CD, Baldassare FJ (1998) Geochemistry and origin of some natural gases in

the Plateau Province Central Appalachian Basin, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Am Assoc Pet

Geol Bull 82:317335.

18. Osborn SG, McIntosh JC (2010) Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of

microbial gas in Devonian organic-rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern

Appalachian Basin. Appl Geochem 25:456471.

19. Repetski JE, Ryder RT, Harper JA, Trippi MH (2006) Thermal maturity patterns in the

Ordovician and Devonian of Pennsylvania using conodont color alteration index (CAI)

and vitrinite reflectance (%Ro). Northeastern Geology Environmental Sciences

28:266294.

20. Martini AM, et al. (1998) Genetic and temporal relations between formation waters

and biogenic methane: Upper Devonian Antrim Shale, Michigan Basin, USA. Geochim

Cosmochim Acta 62:16991720.

21. Engelder T, Lash GG, Uzcategui RS (2009) Joint sets that enhance production from

Middle and Upper Devonian gas shales of the Appalachian Basin. Am Assoc Pet GeolBull 93:857889.

22. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) (Pennsylvania Dept of

Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA), Marcellus Shale, http://www.dep.state.

pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htm.

23. New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection

(2009) (New York State Dept of Health, Troy, NY), Comments, July 21, 2009, Supple-

mental Generic Environmental Statement on the Oil and Gas Regulatory Program

Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic-Fracturing to Develop

the Marcellus Shale and other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs; http://www.

riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-

3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdf .

24. Taylor LE (1984) Groundwater Resources of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Penn-

sylvania: Water Resources Report 58. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Resources-

Officeof Parks and ForestryBureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg,

PA) 139.

25. Williams JH, Taylor L, Low D (1998) Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the

Glaciated Valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania: Water Re-

sources Report 68. (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Deptof Conservation and NaturalResources, Harrisburg, PA) p 89.

26. Kendall C, Coplan TB (2001) Distribution of oxygen-18 and deuterium in river waters

across the United States. Hydrol Processes 15:13631393.

27. Van Stempvoort D, Maathuis H, Jaworski E, Mayer B, Rich K (2005) Oxidation of

fugitive methane in groundwater linked to bacterial sulfate reduction. Ground Water

43:187199.

28. Taylor SW, Sherwood Lollar B, Wassenaar LI (2000) Bacteriogenic ethane in near-

surface aquifers: Implications for leaking hydrocarbon well bores. Environ Sci Technol

34:47274732.

29. Cramer B, Schlomer S, Poelchau HS (2002) Uplift-related hydrocarbon accumulations:

the release of natural gas from groundwater. 196 (Geological Society Special Publica-

tions, London), 447455.

30. GeyerAR, WilshusenJP (1982) Engineering characteristicsof therocks of Pennsylvania;

environmental geology supplement to the state geologic map, 1982 Pennsylvania

Geological Survey. (Dept of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Manage-

ment, Harrisburg, PA).

31. Etiope G, Martinelli G (2002) Migration of carrier and trace gases in the geosphere:

An overview. Phys Earth Planet Inter 129:185204.

32. Aravena R, Wassenaar LI (1993) Dissolved organic carbon and methane in a regional

confined aquifer, southern Ontario, Canada: Carbon isotope evidence for associated

subsurface sources. Appl Geochem 8:483493.

33. Coleman DD, Liu C, Riley KM (1988) Microbial methane in the shallow Paleozoic

sediments and glacial deposits of the Illinois, USA. Chem Geol 71:2340.

34. Alexander SS, Cakir R, Doden AG, Gold DP, Root SI (2005) Basement depth and related

geospatial database for Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Open-

File General Geology Report 05-01.0. (Pennsylvania Dept of Conservation and Natural

Resources, Middletown, PA), http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile.

35. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) Online mapping, data access wizard, oil

and gas locations. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA),

http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=

OR&entry=PASDA.

8176 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100682108 Osborn et al.
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://wwweia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdfhttp://waterepa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/http://waterepa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/http://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://wwwdep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition=OR&entry=PASDAhttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfilehttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix-3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htmhttp://wwwdep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/http://wwwdep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/http://wwwdep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/http://wwwdep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/http://wwwdep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE.pdfhttp://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://blogsworldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental-Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdfhttp://waterepa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/http://waterepa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/http://waterepa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/http://waterepa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/http://wwweia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdfhttp://wwweia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdfhttp://wwweia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdfhttp://wwweia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdfhttp://wwweia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=STXThttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.1100682108_SI.pdf?targetid=SF1


61/80

Exhibit O


62/80


63/80

Exhibit P


64/80


65/80


66/80

Exhibit Q


67/80


68/80


69/80

NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011

VOL. 83 | NO. 9

Journal

Also in this IssueRetaliation Claims

Dismissal Motions

New Trust Laws

Did the Odds Change?

Attorney Professionalism

Forum

Homeowners andGas Drilling Leases:Boon or Bust?

By Elisabeth N. Radow

Exhibit R


70/80

the mortgage. The property owner can be particularlyvulnerable when the drilling process involves high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

For example, when Ellen Harrison signed a gas leaseagreement in 2008, the company representative made nomention of fracking. Harrison received no details, onlythe chance for a win-win with clean gas for the localsand royalties for her. Like most Americans, Harrison hasa mortgage loan secured by her home. All mortgages,Harrisons included, prohibit hazardous activity andhazardous substances on the property.

The ConundrumGas companies covet the shale gas deposits lying underhomes and farms in New Yorks Marcellus Shale regionand are pursuing leasing agreements with area propertyowners. Many homeowners and farmers in need of cashare inclined to say yes. In making their argument, gascompanies reassure property owners that the drillingprocesses and chemicals used are safe. Yet aside fromarguments about the relative safety of the extractionprocess are issues not often discussed, such as theowners potential liability and the continued viability of

POINT OF VIEW

Homeowners and Gas DrillingLeases: Boon or Bust?By Elisabeth N. Radow

Gas drilling in Dimock, PA

Reprinted with permission from the New York State Bar Association Journal, November/December 2011, Vol. 83, No. 9, published by theNew York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207.


71/80

NYSBA Journal | November/December 2011 | 11

ELISABETH N. RADOW ([email protected]) is Special Counsel tothe White Plains law firm of Cuddy& Feder LLP. Ms. Radow chairs theHydraulic Fracturing Committee forthe League of Women Voters of NewYork State. Ms. Radows Law Note,Citizen David Tames Gas Goliathson the Marcellus Shale Stage, waspublished in the 2010 Spring issueof the Cardozo Journal of ConflictResolution. This analysis and theassertions made in this article areattributable to the author alone.

Photographs courtesy of J Henry Fair.Mr. Fairs work has appeared in theNew York Times, Vanity Fair, Timeand National Geographic. His newbook, The Day After Tomorrow:Images of Our Earth In Crisis is a

series of essays and startling images.www.industrialscars.com.

Flight services provided by LightHawkhttp://www.lighthawk.org.

Tanker trucks filling water reservoir at hydo-frackinggas drilling operations near Sopertown, ColumbiaTownship, PA

Waste pond at hydro-fracking drill site, Dimock, PA

Overspray of drilling slurry athydro-fracking drill site, Dimock, PA


72/80

12 | November/December 2011 | NYSBA Journal

wastewater, with concentrated levels of these toxicchemicals, drilling mud, bore clippings and naturallyoccurring radioactive material, such as uranium, radium226 and radon, is released from the well into mud pits andholding tanks, then trucked out for waste treatment orreused. Reuse of frack fluid, currently the favored practice

because it spares the finite water supply, concentrates thewaste toxicity. The Environmental Protection Agencyestimates that 20%40% of the fracking wastewaterstays underground. The Marcellus Shale sits amid anintricate network of underground aquifers that supplydrinking water in New York and surrounding states viamunicipal water supplies, private wells and springs.Shallow private wells constitute the primary source ofdrinking water for the upstate New York residences andfarms where fracking for shale gas would take place,posing a cumulative threat to the states complex matrixof aquifers that source our groundwater.

The RisksThe use of fracking expanded in 2005 when Congressexempted it through statutory amendments fromcomplying with decades-old federal environmentallaws governing safe drinking water and clean air. (Thisexemption is now commonly known as the Halliburtonloophole.) Also in 2005, New York changed its compulsoryintegration law to pave the way for fracking.

According to the 2010 Form 10-Ks of ChesapeakeEnergy and Range Resources (both doing business in theMarcellus Shale region), natural gas operations are subject

to many risks, including well blow-outs, craterings,explosions, pipe failures, fires, uncontrollable flows ofnatural gas or well fluids, formations with abnormalpressures and other environmental hazards and risks.Drilling operations, according to Chesapeake, involverisks from high pressure and mechanical difficulties suchas stuck pipes, collapsed casings and separated cables.If any of these hazards occur it can result in injury orloss of life, severe damage or destruction of property,natural resources and equipment, pollution or otherenvironmental damage and clean-up responsibilities,1 allin the homeowners backyard.

American culture traditionally favors land usetha

onondaga nation comments on the 2011 hydrofracking sgeis

Documents