Students join gas drilling protest
By: Andrew Bergman / For The Pitt News
Posted on 03. Nov, 2010 in News
Pitt students joined hundreds of demonstrators that gathered Downtown yesterday to protest Marcellus Shale drilling with music, marching and speeches.
The protesters gathered at Allegheny Landing on the North Shore around 10:30 a.m., where organizers distributed pamphlets, banners and signs with slogans like “shut them down,” “gas holes stink” and “Ed Rendell will go to hell,” among others.
By 11 a.m., the crowd began to grow substantially, and not just with college-aged protesters. Pittsburghers of many ages and dispositions participated in the protest and march, suggesting how pervasive the issue of natural gas drilling has become among Pennsylvanians.
The Pittsburgh Student Environmental Coalition, a conglomeration of student groups from Pitt, CMU, Chatham and Duquesne made up a considerable portion of the crowd.
Seth Bush, a representative from the coalition, said that he is not only opposed to the “fracking” process that has been so widely publicized, but also that “the water used for fracking is treated with chemicals that are carcinogenic.”
He also voiced concern that “water treatment facilities can’t handle [water from fracking], and so some of the chemicals end up in rivers and streams.”
Many environmentalists have taken up Bush’s concerns in the past weeks and months, organizing similar protest events and campaigns.
Travis Windle, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition said after the event, “The fluid used for hydrofracking is 99 percent water and sand” and that “the additives are similar to food additives, as well as biocides for killing bacteria.” He also said that these additives and other information about drilling technologies are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s website and that “there is a trend in misinformation about natural gas production.”
Mel Packer, a local Green Party affiliate and one of the emcees for the event, said that he was thrilled to see not only residents from Pittsburgh, but people from New York, Eastern Pennsylvania and West Virginia at the event as well.
On the North Shore, the gathered protesters listened to speakers and musical groups, which included Fox Club Forager, a folk-punk act from Boston, and The Raging Grannies, a trio of local grandmothers who strongly oppose shale drilling.
State Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Allegheny, an opponent of shale drilling, gave one of the principle speeches.
“We need to heed our state constitution, which says the people have a right to clean air, pure water and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment,” Ferlo said.
“I took an oath as an elected Senator to defend that constitution, and I’m going to fight to protect it,” Ferlo said.
Around noon, the protesters marched across the Rachel Carson Bridge toward the David Lawrence Convention Center, where the Developing Unconventional Fuels Convention was taking place. Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke at the event.
On the way to the convention center, some of 200 protesters attempted to hang a banner from a traffic light post that read, “Burn in Hell, Halliburton,” in reference to a corporation providing equipment and services to the drilling industry. Local police promptly removed it.
Aside from this incident, the protest was relatively peaceful, and the police on the scene seldom had to intervene.
At the convention center, the crowd heard from several speakers and performers ranging from Justin Sane of Anti-Flag to Pittsburgh City Councilman Doug Shields.
Before playing a song, Sane, in the anti-establishment rhetorical style for which his band is known, said that “the natural gas industry can just wave money at politicians and it makes it okay to harm the environment.”
He also said “the industry is not complying with the Clean Water Act.”
But, on Oct. 25, John Hanger, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said, “We have not had a single case of these [fracking] fluids coming back to the groundwater.”
Windle said that “Hydrofracking is not new; its been in commercial use since 1949, and it has been used 1.1 million times since then.” He also said, “[Hydrofracking] is one of the most tightly regulated methods in the industry.”
Shields, one of the most outspoken opponents of shale drilling in Pittsburgh, said that he is working to secure six necessary votes in the Council to ensure a veto proof affirmation of a drilling ban in the city.
Shields said that “the ban is going to engender a legal fight,” but that he hopes to send a message to other cities as well as the state legislature about banning shale drilling.
Pitt sociology professor Susan Staggenborg said that “these movements can show that there is a public opinion on the issue [of gas drilling],” and that “this issue is likely to get some support from politicians.”
20 Responses to “Students join gas drilling protest”
Leave a Reply
What a heartwarming story. Indeed, Hollowburton, Chesapig and all the others must go.
thanks for this article. i’m so disappointed that other large newspapers in the area chose to ignore this protest in favor of articles outlining the industry’s excitement about our new governor…
If you please, a little less bias would be nice. The facts of Shale drilling are a lot less than the public is led to believe, mostly because of one-sided reporting like this. An article detailing the facts of the frac process and one that actually talks to people in the drilling companies would be nice.
If you’ll kindly re-read the title of the article, “Students Join Gas Drilling Protest” I think you will see that the article is not about Marcellus Shale drilling or environmental policy. It’s an informative article covering the protest itself. And to be fair, there was a substantial section about the PA DEP.
There were also protests in Wilkes-Barre, PA…the Dallas metro area, TX, Little Rock, Arkansa, and Aotearoa, New Zealand. This is a global concern…fracking is not only done in 34 states in the U.S., but in Australia, New Zealand, Canada…all over the globe. I have a question that I would like to ask Mr. Windle…If fracking is so non-problematic and doesn’t contamination our water, land and air, why are the natural gas companies so opposed to following the regulations required by The Clean Water and Clean Air Acts? Why not just voluntarily agree to follow the regulations put forward in the Acts instead of spending so much money on the elections to make sure the right people are in place to keep from having to do that?? How about disclosing what chemicals you are using as additives to frack water, since they are so harmless. Oh yeah…they are like Burger King’s sauce..proprietary. That is a joke…one that is having disasterous results all across not only the U.S., but the whole earth. What are you back up plans when there is not enough clean water to go around. The next war will be fought over water…not oil! The gas companies have opened Pandora’s Box and all the evil things have slithered from it!!
I anyone wants to read the opinion of the drillers, they can pick up any newspaper, turn on any radio station, watch any tv channel, and read Democrat and Republican party blogs. The voice of the people has been squelched by politicians, corporations, and tongue-tied non-profits for too long. I’m so happy we were able to come out strong and speak our truths to power. Thanks Pitt News for standing up to papers like the Trib which didn’t cover the march at all.
“come out strong and speak our truths to power”
There is Truth. You can’t have your “own truths”. Or maybe you do, which is why you are in disagreement with the majority of citizens.
Maybe you can review the chemicals that would NOT be allowed if this industry was back under water/air regulations.
The statement that no cases of water damage exist is a lie. Google: fracking, water and fines. Ethical people, moms, parents, grandparents who have invested in this need to do their homework.
http://www.truth-out.org/david-sirota-follow-wyoming-fracking-regs64076
Follow Wyoming on Fracking Regs
Sunday 10 October 2010
by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Frank Sinatra once said that if he could make it in New York, he could make it anywhere. Thanks to new drilling rules, environmentalists can now say the same about Wyoming.
To review: Wyoming is as politically red and pro-fossil-fuel a place as exists in America. Nicknamed the “Cowboy State” for its hostility to authority, the square swath of rangeland most recently made headlines when its tax department temporarily suspended levies at gun shows for fear of inciting an armed insurrection. The derrick-scarred home of oilman Dick Cheney, the state emits more carbon emissions per-capita than any other, and is as close as our country gets to an industry-owned energy colony.
So, to put it mildly, Wyoming is not known for its activist government or its embrace of green policies.
But that changed last month when Wyoming officials enacted first-in-the-nation regulations forcing energy companies to disclose the compounds they use in a drilling technique called “fracking.”
Has anyone followed up on the Marcellus Shale Coalition spokesperson’s claim at the rally that the fracking chemical additive list is actually on the DEP site? I could not locate such a list there, and have e-mailed DEP to inquire.
If it is not, then this is an example of the “trend of misinformation” he mentioned- it’s certainly easy enough to actually follow up on these claims because if untrue it doesn’t speak well for industry credibility.
The industry has been extremely opaque about the fracking chemicals used, and this is the crux of the issue- if the additives are safe, there is no need to keep them secret (when pressed for this info, they have used the excuse that it’s a “proprietary secret” but shouldn’t public health risks trump this???)
You can find a short list of chemicals present in the drilling process here as released by the DEP:
http://www.fractracker.org/2010/07/components-of-hydraulic-fracturing.html
Although the MSC would have you believe this to be a comprehensive list, it is not since it does not account for the total dissolved solids (TDS) that come out of the well after the fracking process is complete. The list is also not useful for water testing because each frack job might utilize a different concentration or variation on this mixture.
Thank you for the link! I did find the link to the DEP doc on that page also. With all due respect to Mr. Windle, the list is certainly not a list of food additives (guar gum notwithstanding!) But of course he and the industry he represents know this.
Absolutely agree on the water usage front too- there seems to be no oversight of the big picture of water in PA, in terms of the combination of permitting unprecedented large withdrawals from the watershed along with the well waste water and fracking chemicals being dumped untreated into rivers that are not seeing their normal replenishment- especially in a drier than normal year like this one has been. The Mon River and other rivers are already showing the effects of high TDS in water quality testing, and yet it’s still so early in terms of the potential impact as drilling is relatively still just getting started.
AAAAhhh. More mis-information. My job is to run the centrifuges that remove all of the dissolved solids. Yes, all of them! Most are already inert but PA requires us to mix them with stabilizers before they are shipped to landfills. In other states they sometimes spread these on farmers fields, as they are good fertilizer. PA doesn’t allow this. Fracking water is then re-claimed to be used at other sites. Oil companies don’t get water free or even cheaply. Why would they throw it away in your rivers when they can use it over and over?
An additional thought on Mr. Windle, spokesperson for the Marcellus Shale gas industry and misinformation: this technology has NOT been in use since 1949 for deep well drilling. Deep well shale fracking is a NEW process that has only been used in the last few years (first used in PA in 2004), and involves massively greater amounts of water and chemicals in the process than previous shallow fracking techniques- so it does not have a long history of safety. In addition, while 99% of the fracking fluid is water, each well requires 1-4+ MILLION gallons of water to frack- so each well drilled requires several THOUSAND gallons of fracking additives- no small amount! An example of complete misinformation from an industry spokesperson.
Not to mention that 1-4+ million gallons of fresh, drinkable water used per frack (possibly many times that over the life of the well) comes from PA rivers and streams.
There has been talk of a looming water crisis for years, and now this?!!!
I can only speak to one company’s procedures here, so Range EQT and Chesapeake can’t really be included here. However, CNX Gas is very open about their additives and procedures. Frac water is 99.75% water. 75% of the additives are simple dish soap acting as a friction reducer. The remainder are bactericides and anti-scaling agents. Granted, these would not be good to get into the water, but that’s why the company double cases the well, and triple cases it near water folds. The spin here about percent to ppm is really all for naught because there isn’t any dumping into rivers. People aren’t in a mad dash for money, the gas companies want to give people their due money for use of their land, repair everything, and make the profit after paying the cost of good business. Like any industry, it won’t be good long term to piss everyone off, the companies want to keep a good face with everyone. The majority of people rallying are misinformed, and I feel bad saying that college educated people would stand up for something without knowing real facts, but it’s just the truth. Show me a company that uses Benzene and H2S as some people are claiming and I might just bake you cookies for a month.
Mike,
This is the list on the DEP site: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/Reports/Frac%20list%206-30-2010.pdf There are several carcinogenic compounds listed there. (Oatmeal cookies are fine by me.)
Are CNX’s material data safety sheets available publicly anywhere so citizens can find out if any of these are used by CNX?
As tono dumping in the rivers, it’s public record that at least thirteen municipalities in southwestern PA along the Monongahela River have been accepting fracked deep well discharge “residual waste” water for the past two years or so (no one is hiding this fact). Unfortunately, these municipal water waste treatment plants aren’t equipped to specifically treat the TDS and chemicals in the waste water- their method currently is “dilution”- to simply dilute these truckloads of waste with their regular municipal waste water- which is essentially no treatment- before releasing it into the river.
But I think you knew that.
I think a lot of the problem stems from activists using case studies where things have gone wrong, and a general lack of information about how drilling practices have changed in the last year, even. I, for one, would love to have a chat with some execs or managers at well sites and talk about what’s changed in the last few years. Know any way to help remedy the communication gap in a way that is accurate and doesn’t feel like industry or activist spin?
There’s really no communication gap with CNX. A group of Pitt Civil Engineering professors came out to a rig site 3 weeks ago. There are tours all the time for various groups (professors, investors, emergency responders from what I’ve seen) and the company is very open about what goes in the water. Granted, you can’t just go request a tour and be set, but if you set something through the university there wouldn’t be much tape. The other side comes from representation. Someone from EQT does not represent the views of Chesapeake, and someone from Range does not represent the views of CONSOL. The people need to trust the EPA to ensure that regulations are met. The organization is outside the governemnt and the gas companies, it can do as it pleases to meet its goal of protecting the people. The EPA isn’t corrupt, it does its job well, and while there are numerous laws and regulations in my opinion that are above what they need to be, the companies comply and this really isn’t an issue. Things go wrong, companies are reactive, not the best situation I know, but it teaches to be proactive and for each separate company to set their own bar higher. At the end of the day, it’s a business, the main result desired is money. If environmental compliance and protection are carried out externally, the profits will come, which is why it’s better for companies to focus on meeting the environmental demands and letting the profits flow from there.
That’s all really useful. Thanks for the info!
I’d like to make one final comment if I could: I agree that it’s easy to demonize the industry if we don’t have all of the facts, and speaking as a concerned lifelong southwestern PA resident, I sometimes find myself guilty of this. I think it would be FANTASTIC for all concerned if we learn that the industry is using best safe practices throughout and that public safety is paramount going forward- then everyone wins in development of this resource in PA.
That said, I don’t think protesters should be dismissed as being nutty or misguided, when many are simply reacting to what has been happening in real time throughout southwestern PA- in many cases we’re learning something new each day based on what is being reported by affected property owners in this area, including those who spoke at the rally.
For me, as I was reading the original article, the industry spokesman’s comments raised a red flag because there were some clearly misleading statements, as well as a dismissal of the protesters’ concerns.
I encourage anyone reading the article and wanting to know more to continue to learn as much as possible about this issue.
To follow up on the waste water being disposed of in municipal plants in PA, here is a link to some further info:http://www.marcellus-shale.us/drilling_wastewater.htm
This site does have some anti-industry bias, but scrolling down the page you’ll find a list of treatment plants and what they accepted from gas well drilling as of late last year.
Last month, National Geographic published what I thought was a pretty well encapsulated overview on this subject, including the positives and negatives:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-rush/