Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition
Water on Fire - Marcellus Shale Reality Tour Part 1 - Fracking
updated
On the other hand, the push by Congressman Rob Bresnahan and Trump’s EPA head, Lee Zeldin, to lift the fracking ban in the Delaware Watershed shows a continuation of the pro-fossil fuel stance associated with Trump-era policies. If they succeed, it could open up new fracking opportunities in a region that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
It’s a stark contrast in the Trump administration—one side arguing that fracking is making people sick, and the other pushing for deregulation to expand it. Given the history of fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, it’s likely to be a heated debate, especially in communities already dealing with contamination.
This video contains the raw footage interviews from RFK’s visit to Dimock.
On the other hand, the push by Congressman Rob Bresnahan and Trump’s EPA head, Lee Zeldin, to lift the fracking ban in the Delaware Watershed shows a continuation of the pro-fossil fuel stance associated with Trump-era policies. If they succeed, it could open up new fracking opportunities in a region that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
It’s a stark contrast in the Trump administration—one side arguing that fracking is making people sick, and the other pushing for deregulation to expand it. Given the history of fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, it’s likely to be a heated debate, especially in communities already dealing with contamination.
This video contains the raw footage interviews from RFK’s visit to Dimock.
On the other hand, the push by Congressman Rob Bresnahan and Trump’s EPA head, Lee Zeldin, to lift the fracking ban in the Delaware Watershed shows a continuation of the pro-fossil fuel stance associated with Trump-era policies. If they succeed, it could open up new fracking opportunities in a region that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
It’s a stark contrast in the Trump administration—one side arguing that fracking is making people sick, and the other pushing for deregulation to expand it. Given the history of fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, it’s likely to be a heated debate, especially in communities already dealing with contamination.
On the other hand, the push by Congressman Rob Bresnahan and Trump’s EPA head, Lee Zeldin, to lift the fracking ban in the Delaware Watershed shows a continuation of the pro-fossil fuel stance associated with Trump-era policies. If they succeed, it could open up new fracking opportunities in a region that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
It’s a stark contrast in the Trump administration—one side arguing that fracking is making people sick, and the other pushing for deregulation to expand it. Given the history of fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, it’s likely to be a heated debate, especially in communities already dealing with contamination.
This video contains the raw footage interviews from RFK’s visit to Dimock.
On the other hand, the push by Congressman Rob Bresnahan and Trump’s EPA head, Lee Zeldin, to lift the fracking ban in the Delaware Watershed shows a continuation of the pro-fossil fuel stance associated with Trump-era policies. If they succeed, it could open up new fracking opportunities in a region that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
It’s a stark contrast in the Trump administration—one side arguing that fracking is making people sick, and the other pushing for deregulation to expand it. Given the history of fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, it’s likely to be a heated debate, especially in communities already dealing with contamination.
This video contains the raw footage interviews from RFK’s visit to Dimock.
On the other hand, the push by Congressman Rob Bresnahan and Trump’s EPA head, Lee Zeldin, to lift the fracking ban in the Delaware Watershed shows a continuation of the pro-fossil fuel stance associated with Trump-era policies. If they succeed, it could open up new fracking opportunities in a region that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
It’s a stark contrast in the Trump administration—one side arguing that fracking is making people sick, and the other pushing for deregulation to expand it. Given the history of fracking-related pollution in Pennsylvania, it’s likely to be a heated debate, especially in communities already dealing with contamination.
This video contains the raw footage interviews from RFK’s visit to Dimock.
On February 22, residents in Lawrenceville, Georgia reported to a local gas company a gas smell. This led to finding diesel fuel running into a storm drain from a leaking Products Pipe Line 26 inch line. It was unknown how long the pipeline had been leaking.[3]
On June 29, Energy Transfer Partner’s Mid Valley Pipeline ruptured when a secondary party damaged the transmission pipeline carrying crude oil, in Henderson, Tennessee. The damage resulted in the discharge of approximately 4,800 barrels of crude, equivalent to 201,600 gallons into the surrounding area, including a local creek.[4]
On September 20, a contractor's digging equipment hit & ruptured a crude oil gathering pipeline in Williams County, North Dakota, spilling about 8,400 gallons of crude oil.[5]
An initial crime scene investigation last week into what caused the gas leaks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines reinforced suspicions of “gross sabotage.”
As investigations continue, many in Europe suspect the incident was the result of an attack, particularly as it occurred during a bitter energy standoff between the European Union and Russia.
The Kremlin has repeatedly dismissed claims it destroyed the pipelines, calling such allegations “stupid” and “absurd,” and claiming that it is the U.S. that had the most to gain from the gas leaks.
The White House has denied any involvement in the suspected attack.
What happened?
On Sept. 26, a flurry of detonations on two underwater pipelines connecting Russia to Germany sent gas spewing to the surface of the Baltic Sea. The explosions triggered four gas leaks at four locations — two in Denmark’s exclusive economic zone and two in Sweden’s exclusive economic zone.
The magnitude of those explosions was measured at 2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter scale, respectively, Swedish and Danish authorities said, and likely corresponded to an explosive load of “several hundred kilos.”
Neither of the Nord Stream pipelines was transporting gas at the time of the blasts, although they both contained pressurized methane — a potent greenhouse gas.
Remarkably, the signature of the gas bubbling at the surface of the Baltic Sea could be seen from space.
A satellite image of the Nord Stream leak in the Baltic Sea, captured on Sept. 26, 2022.
A satellite image of the Nord Stream leak in the Baltic Sea, captured on Sept. 26, 2022.
Planet
Climate scientists described the shocking images of the methane erupting from the burst as a “reckless release” of greenhouse gas emissions that, if deliberate, “amounts to an environmental crime.”
At the time, Denmark’s armed forces said video footage showed the largest gas leak created a surface disturbance of roughly 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) in diameter, while the smallest leak caused a circle of approximately 200 meters.
The Nord Stream gas pipelines have become a focal point of tensions between Russia and Europe in recent months, with Moscow accused of weaponizing gas supplies in a bid to gain sanctions relief amid its onslaught in Ukraine.
Who’s to blame?
Sweden’s national security service said Thursday that detonations caused “extensive damage” to the pipelines and “strengthened suspicions of gross sabotage.”
Sweden’s Security Service said certain seizures had been made, without offering further details, and that these would now be reviewed and analyzed.
“The continued preliminary investigation must show whether someone can be served with suspicion and later prosecuted,” Sweden’s Security Service said.
Sweden’s prosecutor’s office said in a separate statement that the area was no longer cordoned off.
Fracking damages the environment, threatens public health, and affects communities in ways that can impose a multitude of costs:
Drinking water contamination – Fracking brings with it the potential for spills, blowouts and well failures that contaminate groundwater supplies.
Cleanup of drinking water contamination is so expensive that it is rarely even attempted. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent $109,000 on systems to remove methane from well water for 14 local households, while in Colorado, cleanup of an underground gas seep has been ongoing for eight years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
The provision of temporary replacement water supplies is also expensive. Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent at least $193,000 on replacement water for homes with contaminated water in Dimock, Pennsylvania.
Health care costs – Toxic substances in fracking fluid and wastewater – as well as air pollution from trucks, equipment and the wells themselves – have been linked to a variety of negative health effects.
Residents living near fracking sites have long suffered from a range of health problems, including headaches, eye irritation, respiratory problems and nausea – potentially imposing economic costs ranging from health care costs to workplace absenteeism and reduced productivity.
Fracking and associated activities also produce pollution that contributes to the formation of ozone smog and particulate soot. Air pollution from gas drilling in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale region imposed estimated public health costs of more than $10 million in 2008.
Habitat destruction and natural resources impacts – Fracking converts rural and natural areas into industrial zones, replacing forest and farm land with well pads, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure, and damaging precious natural resources.
The clearance of forest land in Pennsylvania for fracking is projected to lead to increased delivery of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, which already suffers from a vast nutrient-generated dead zone. The cost of reducing the same amount of pollution as could be generated by fracking would be approximately $1.5 million to $4 million per year.
Gas operations in Wyoming have fragmented key habitat for mule deer and pronghorn, which are important draws for the state’s $340 million hunting and wildlife watching industries. The mule deer population in one area undergoing extensive gas extraction dropped by 56 percent between 2001 and 2010.
Impacts on public infrastructure and services – Fracking strains infrastructure and public services and imposes cleanup costs that can fall on taxpayers.
The truck traffic needed to deliver water to a single fracking well causes as much damage to local roads as nearly 3.5 million car trips. The state of Texas has approved $40 million in funding for road repairs in the Barnett Shale region, while Pennsylvania estimated in 2010 that $265 million would be needed to repair damaged roads in the Marcellus Shale region.
The need for vast amounts of water for fracking is driving demand for new water infrastructure in arid regions of the country. Texas’ official State Water Plan calls for the expenditure of $400 million on projects to support the mining sector over the next 50 years, with fracking projected to account for 42 percent of mining water use by 2020.
Fracking can leave lasting negative economic impacts Fracking can undercut the long-term economic prospects of areas where it takes place. A 2008 study found that Western counties that have relied on fossil fuel extraction are doing worse economically compared with peer communities and are less well-prepared for growth in the future. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Fracking damages the environment, threatens public health, and affects communities in ways that can impose a multitude of costs:
Drinking water contamination – Fracking brings with it the potential for spills, blowouts and well failures that contaminate groundwater supplies.
Cleanup of drinking water contamination is so expensive that it is rarely even attempted. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent $109,000 on systems to remove methane from well water for 14 local households, while in Colorado, cleanup of an underground gas seep has been ongoing for eight years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
The provision of temporary replacement water supplies is also expensive. Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent at least $193,000 on replacement water for homes with contaminated water in Dimock, Pennsylvania.
Health care costs – Toxic substances in fracking fluid and wastewater – as well as air pollution from trucks, equipment and the wells themselves – have been linked to a variety of negative health effects.
Residents living near fracking sites have long suffered from a range of health problems, including headaches, eye irritation, respiratory problems and nausea – potentially imposing economic costs ranging from health care costs to workplace absenteeism and reduced productivity.
Fracking and associated activities also produce pollution that contributes to the formation of ozone smog and particulate soot. Air pollution from gas drilling in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale region imposed estimated public health costs of more than $10 million in 2008.
Habitat destruction and natural resources impacts – Fracking converts rural and natural areas into industrial zones, replacing forest and farm land with well pads, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure, and damaging precious natural resources.
The clearance of forest land in Pennsylvania for fracking is projected to lead to increased delivery of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, which already suffers from a vast nutrient-generated dead zone. The cost of reducing the same amount of pollution as could be generated by fracking would be approximately $1.5 million to $4 million per year.
Gas operations in Wyoming have fragmented key habitat for mule deer and pronghorn, which are important draws for the state’s $340 million hunting and wildlife watching industries. The mule deer population in one area undergoing extensive gas extraction dropped by 56 percent between 2001 and 2010.
Impacts on public infrastructure and services – Fracking strains infrastructure and public services and imposes cleanup costs that can fall on taxpayers.
The truck traffic needed to deliver water to a single fracking well causes as much damage to local roads as nearly 3.5 million car trips. The state of Texas has approved $40 million in funding for road repairs in the Barnett Shale region, while Pennsylvania estimated in 2010 that $265 million would be needed to repair damaged roads in the Marcellus Shale region.
The need for vast amounts of water for fracking is driving demand for new water infrastructure in arid regions of the country. Texas’ official State Water Plan calls for the expenditure of $400 million on projects to support the mining sector over the next 50 years, with fracking projected to account for 42 percent of mining water use by 2020.
Fracking can leave lasting negative economic impacts Fracking can undercut the long-term economic prospects of areas where it takes place. A 2008 study found that Western counties that have relied on fossil fuel extraction are doing worse economically compared with peer communities and are less well-prepared for growth in the future. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Meeting presenters:
Scott Cannon, Environment Steward, Luzerne County Resident and Business Owner
Mr. Cannon is a corporate and industrial video producer that has been documenting the negative affects of the natural gas infrastructure in our region for over a decade. His videos have been featured on television shows on the National Geographic and the Weather Channels, and have been used in documentaries from around the world. He hosts a YouTube Channel with a series of videos about people’s struggles with the gas industry called “The Marcellus Shale Reality Tour”.
Susan Volz, Clean Air Council
Susan Volz has a Master’s of Science Degree from Drexel University. She designed and researched a case study as a graduate thesis entitled, "Fracking regulation in Pennsylvania and Recommending Policy Change: An Examination of organizational factors in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia. She have extensive knowledge about industrial air pollution.
Barbara W Brandom, MD, Concerned Health Professionals of Pennsylvania
After retiring from pediatric anesthesiology, Dr. Barbara Brandom studied climate change and environmental pollution, focused on Pennsylvania. She is a member of the Steering Committee of the Concerned Health Professionals of Pennsylvania. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Fracking damages the environment, threatens public health, and affects communities in ways that can impose a multitude of costs:
Drinking water contamination – Fracking brings with it the potential for spills, blowouts and well failures that contaminate groundwater supplies.
Cleanup of drinking water contamination is so expensive that it is rarely even attempted. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent $109,000 on systems to remove methane from well water for 14 local households, while in Colorado, cleanup of an underground gas seep has been ongoing for eight years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
The provision of temporary replacement water supplies is also expensive. Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent at least $193,000 on replacement water for homes with contaminated water in Dimock, Pennsylvania.
Health care costs – Toxic substances in fracking fluid and wastewater – as well as air pollution from trucks, equipment and the wells themselves – have been linked to a variety of negative health effects.
Residents living near fracking sites have long suffered from a range of health problems, including headaches, eye irritation, respiratory problems and nausea – potentially imposing economic costs ranging from health care costs to workplace absenteeism and reduced productivity.
Fracking and associated activities also produce pollution that contributes to the formation of ozone smog and particulate soot. Air pollution from gas drilling in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale region imposed estimated public health costs of more than $10 million in 2008.
Habitat destruction and natural resources impacts – Fracking converts rural and natural areas into industrial zones, replacing forest and farm land with well pads, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure, and damaging precious natural resources.
The clearance of forest land in Pennsylvania for fracking is projected to lead to increased delivery of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, which already suffers from a vast nutrient-generated dead zone. The cost of reducing the same amount of pollution as could be generated by fracking would be approximately $1.5 million to $4 million per year.
Gas operations in Wyoming have fragmented key habitat for mule deer and pronghorn, which are important draws for the state’s $340 million hunting and wildlife watching industries. The mule deer population in one area undergoing extensive gas extraction dropped by 56 percent between 2001 and 2010.
Impacts on public infrastructure and services – Fracking strains infrastructure and public services and imposes cleanup costs that can fall on taxpayers.
The truck traffic needed to deliver water to a single fracking well causes as much damage to local roads as nearly 3.5 million car trips. The state of Texas has approved $40 million in funding for road repairs in the Barnett Shale region, while Pennsylvania estimated in 2010 that $265 million would be needed to repair damaged roads in the Marcellus Shale region.
The need for vast amounts of water for fracking is driving demand for new water infrastructure in arid regions of the country. Texas’ official State Water Plan calls for the expenditure of $400 million on projects to support the mining sector over the next 50 years, with fracking projected to account for 42 percent of mining water use by 2020.
Fracking can leave lasting negative economic impacts Fracking can undercut the long-term economic prospects of areas where it takes place. A 2008 study found that Western counties that have relied on fossil fuel extraction are doing worse economically compared with peer communities and are less well-prepared for growth in the future. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Fracking damages the environment, threatens public health, and affects communities in ways that can impose a multitude of costs:
Drinking water contamination – Fracking brings with it the potential for spills, blowouts and well failures that contaminate groundwater supplies.
Cleanup of drinking water contamination is so expensive that it is rarely even attempted. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent $109,000 on systems to remove methane from well water for 14 local households, while in Colorado, cleanup of an underground gas seep has been ongoing for eight years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
The provision of temporary replacement water supplies is also expensive. Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent at least $193,000 on replacement water for homes with contaminated water in Dimock, Pennsylvania.
Health care costs – Toxic substances in fracking fluid and wastewater – as well as air pollution from trucks, equipment and the wells themselves – have been linked to a variety of negative health effects.
Residents living near fracking sites have long suffered from a range of health problems, including headaches, eye irritation, respiratory problems and nausea – potentially imposing economic costs ranging from health care costs to workplace absenteeism and reduced productivity.
Fracking and associated activities also produce pollution that contributes to the formation of ozone smog and particulate soot. Air pollution from gas drilling in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale region imposed estimated public health costs of more than $10 million in 2008.
Habitat destruction and natural resources impacts – Fracking converts rural and natural areas into industrial zones, replacing forest and farm land with well pads, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure, and damaging precious natural resources.
The clearance of forest land in Pennsylvania for fracking is projected to lead to increased delivery of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, which already suffers from a vast nutrient-generated dead zone. The cost of reducing the same amount of pollution as could be generated by fracking would be approximately $1.5 million to $4 million per year.
Gas operations in Wyoming have fragmented key habitat for mule deer and pronghorn, which are important draws for the state’s $340 million hunting and wildlife watching industries. The mule deer population in one area undergoing extensive gas extraction dropped by 56 percent between 2001 and 2010.
Impacts on public infrastructure and services – Fracking strains infrastructure and public services and imposes cleanup costs that can fall on taxpayers.
The truck traffic needed to deliver water to a single fracking well causes as much damage to local roads as nearly 3.5 million car trips. The state of Texas has approved $40 million in funding for road repairs in the Barnett Shale region, while Pennsylvania estimated in 2010 that $265 million would be needed to repair damaged roads in the Marcellus Shale region.
The need for vast amounts of water for fracking is driving demand for new water infrastructure in arid regions of the country. Texas’ official State Water Plan calls for the expenditure of $400 million on projects to support the mining sector over the next 50 years, with fracking projected to account for 42 percent of mining water use by 2020.
Fracking can leave lasting negative economic impacts Fracking can undercut the long-term economic prospects of areas where it takes place. A 2008 study found that Western counties that have relied on fossil fuel extraction are doing worse economically compared with peer communities and are less well-prepared for growth in the future. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
They say the plant, which will convert natural gas into gasoline, will become a nuisance when it's built. They're afraid the plant will have adverse effects on the health of residents there, along with the environmental impact to soil, water, trees and other vegetation. Charlotte Santry Sopka says her family has called the area home since 1917. She's opposed to the gas plant and isn't afraid to speak up against it.
"I just hate to see it go back to the way King Cole ran it because that's exactly what's going to happen," she said. "You're going to lose your night sky, the dirt, the filth, the pollution when they bring the construction workers in from out of town, which they will do. Along with that will come all the gambling, drinking, drugs, prostitution, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera."
She spoke at the Newport Township Commissioners meeting saying her family lived through the anthracite coal industry, as well as the environmental after effects once the company declared bankruptcy, eventually leaving town.
In response, Newport Township Commissioners released a statement saying the land has been an environmental concern of theirs for years, citing both acid mine drainage and illegal dumping as the two main factors.
"Nacero is committed to reclaiming the scarred landscape and being a strong environmental partner with Newport Township as we continue our historic work with the Earth Conservancy to reclaim abandon mine lands and preserve pristine forest lands in the Pinchot State Forest," according to a statement released by Newport Township Commissioners regarding the Nacero project. "as Nacero proceeds through a lengthy permitting and construction process, the Newport Township Commissioners will be an active participant in the process to ensure the project meets every environmental safety standard required by federal, state. and local laws. However, it is premature, at-this-time, to weigh-in on an environmental permit process that has yet to begin."
We're told the the construction of the gas plant will employ more than 35-hundred building trade workers, as well as 450 full-time workers once the plant is operational. Newport Township Commissioners say their excited that the company has selected the township for their new facility, which they tout as the largest economic development project in northeast Pennsylvania history. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
A Texas-based energy company announced plans in October to construct a $6 billion facility in Newport Township.
Creating thousands of jobs, but residents claim their concerns are being ignored.
“I’m very concerned about the noise pollution. There’s a whole bunch of questions that we have that need to be answered,” said Laura Keener, Newport Township.
Laura keener lives in the Ridge View neighborhood in Newport Township. The proposed natural gas processing facility would be located near the neighborhood.
“Is the property values going to go down? Are there going to be construction vehicles everywhere? It’s just not why we moved here. The beauty, peace, and quiet bares around all of that,”
In October, Texas-based Nacero announced it wants to build a $6 billion facility on 3000 acres of reclaimed coal mining land in Newport Township, near Nanticoke.
The facility would turn natural gas into gasoline that can be used for vehicles. Nacero claims the gasoline would have zero sulfur admissions and 50 percent less CO-2 emissions.
Around 4,000 construction jobs would be created and 500 high paying permanent jobs. The project is being touted as one of the biggest economic projects in the history of Luzerne County.
“Residents are right to have some questions. We’re going to have a very public process. Nacero has been very open and transparent in the early stage of this process. We recognize it’s going to take several years before this project is up and running,” said Senator John Yudichak, 14th District.
Newport Township officials say they too are gathering information about the proposal.
“As of this date no permits have been pulled and no paperwork yet. That’s all we know,” said Joe Hillan, Newport Township Manager
“We know absolutely nothing as if and when it’s going to come or have we do not know yet until we get paperwork stating that it will be here,” said John Vishnefski Newport Township Commissioner.
Scott Cannon is an environmental activist who says his group, Action Together, is closely monitoring the Nacero project.
Community hopes for bright future with regarding Nacero facility
“Nobody knows what a plant like this is going to bring to the area and people need to start asking questions,” said Cannon.
In October I asked the Chairman of Nacero, Tom Tureen, about residents’ concerns at that point in time about the safety of the facility.
“We are very attuned to safety as we are to the environment. But today when we build something for example or tanks are self-extinguishing functions. If a fire starts it’s put out in 90 seconds,” said Tureen.
Nacero has yet to file any paperwork such as permits with any federal, state, or local agencies such as the State Department of Environmental Protection, the D.E.P.
We reached out to the company today and have not heard back. In October, Nacero says they hope to begin construction in two years. It would take four to six years to complete. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
November 2, 2021
Contact Information
EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov)
WASHINGTON (Nov. 2, 2021) Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took an important step forward to advance President Biden’s commitment to action on climate change and protect people’s health by proposing comprehensive new protections to sharply reduce pollution from the oil and natural gas industry – including, for the first time, reductions from existing sources nationwide. The proposed new Clean Air Act rule would lead to significant, cost-effective reductions in methane emissions and other health-harming air pollutants that endanger nearby communities. As part of today’s action, to inform a supplemental proposal, EPA is seeking comment on additional sources of methane to further strengthen emission controls and increase reductions from oil and gas operations. EPA is issuing the proposal in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.
"As global leaders convene at this pivotal moment in Glasgow for COP26, it is now abundantly clear that America is back and leading by example in confronting the climate crisis with bold ambition,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “With this historic action, EPA is addressing existing sources from the oil and natural gas industry nationwide, in addition to updating rules for new sources, to ensure robust and lasting cuts in pollution across the country. By building on existing technologies and encouraging innovative new solutions, we are committed to a durable final rule that is anchored in science and the law, that protects communities living near oil and natural gas facilities, and that advances our nation’s climate goals under the Paris Agreement.”
One third of the warming from greenhouse gases occurring today is due to human-caused emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps about 30 times as much heat as carbon dioxide over 100 years, and sharp cuts over the next decade will have a near-term beneficial impact on the climate. In the United States, the oil and natural gas industry is the largest industrial source of methane emissions, emitting more methane than the total emissions of all greenhouse gases from 164 countries combined. Oil and natural gas operations also emit smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air pollutants such as benzene that harm public health. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Taken at a area of ground water contamination. To see the interview with the owner of the property describing issues, look up : "FROM THE FRONTLINES", Dave Bohlander This video is related to fracking, natural gas production energy, climate change, and pollution of our ground waters. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Hosts: Colton Brown, DEP, and Ngani Ndimbie, PennDOT
Speakers: David Landis, EPIC Metals, Rankin, PA; Steven Moelk, IKEA, Conshohocken, PA; Dale Kitchnefsky, OBX Property Management LLC, Tunkhannock, PA The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Hosts: Colton Brown, DEP, and Ngani Ndimbie, PennDOT
Special Guest Speaker: DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell
Speakers: Electric vehicle experts and fans from DEP, PennDOT, Eastern Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Transportation, Pittsburgh Region Clean Cities, Duquesne Light Company, PECO Energy Company, ChargePoint, Electrification Coalition, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, ChargEVC, Charge Forward LLC The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL062539BFB8A2B2D4&feature=view_all
Please read this before saying methane migration doesn't exist. It's a proven fact: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/sunday-times-review-of-dep-drilling-records-reveals-water-damage-murky-testing-methods-1.1491547
Sherry Vargson gave the group a tour of her farm in Granville Township, where Chesapeake Energy has drilled one well and installed compressor and metering stations and a gathering pipeline. She said her water became contaminated with methane after maintenance activities at the site in June 2010, and lit water from her tap for trip attendees and the media. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
construction, oil field life, oil field, pipeline equipment, drill baby drill, pipeline life, construction equipment, pipeline construction, oil and gas life, oilfield strong, pipe, pipeliner, oil field family, natural gas, equipment, oil, steel, oilsands, ope, oryx pipeline equipment, oil country media, drilling rigs, Texas oilfield, hitch oilfield, bhfyp, fracking, oil and gas, drilling, oilfield, oil and gas industry, oil, oilpatch, midland, petroleum, energy, oilfield strong, schlumberger, climate change, west texas, Permian basin, equipment, oilpatch nation, contractors, fracking insurance, oilfield insurance, energy insurance, group health, umbrella insurance, life insurance, contractor insurance, equipment insurance, commercia linsurance, workers comp, odessa, bhfyp, MarcellusShale, dimock, josh fox The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
The Build Back Better Plan is a projected $7 trillion COVID-19 relief, future economic, and infrastructure package proposed by President Joe Biden. It will include investments in infrastructure, and is projected to create 10 million clean-energy jobs. Expenditures would also include government funds on housing, education, economic fairness and health care.
The plan is divided into three parts: the American Rescue Plan, a COVID-19 relief package, which passed in March 2021; the American Jobs Plan, a proposal to rebuild America’s infrastructure and create jobs; and the American Families Plan, a proposal to invest in areas related to childcare and education. As of August 1, 2021, the American Rescue Plan is the only plan that has been signed into law, though proposals featured in the American Jobs Plan has been passed in the Senate through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Please like and subscribe to this channel.
This is the letter received by the woman in the video explain that her water was contaminated by fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/EAST/CO272604_Redacted.pdf
Here is the PA DEP link requiring them to send a letter to each homeowner affected by contaminated water from fracking. Names and addresses have been redacted to protect the home owner. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf
Here is the full video from which this clip came. Marcellus Shale Reality Tour Part 1. youtu.be/g5QqidiEEHw
Here is the full playlist from the Marcellus Shale Reality Tour Part series youtube.com/playlist?list=PL062539BFB8A2B2D4 The entire list of Pennsylvania water contaminations from fracking. files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf


