TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.06.2008
Drill First, Questions Later

Hannah Faddis is a legal intern with the Mountain Watershed Association.

This past April, The New York Times reported that gas companies are offering hefty sums to landowners in Pennsylvania and New York for the rights to drill for natural gas in the Marcellus shale formation, now that the combination of $100/barrel crude oil prices and new horizontal-drilling technology has made it profitable to drill 5,000 to 9,000 feet below the surface.

But at a local workshop on gas development in Somerset, Pennsylvania, on Monday, none of the 80 or so local landowners who showed up seemed to share this excitement. "Where were you when these vultures came around on January 1st," one questioner asked me. Although the Times reported that gas companies had been offering some families as much as $2,100 per acre for leases to their gas rights, most of the people at the workshop hadn't been offered anywhere near that amount, and many are overwhelmed negotiating with swarms of landsmen from competing gas companies, without reliable advice. Many landowners have caved to the pressure and signed leases for long periods of time—and relatively small sums.

This rush of gas development brings with it a host of new problems. While many landowners are familiar with the shallow gas wells that are common throughout this part of Pennsylvania—often occupying no more land than a small minivan—the wells for the Marcellus shale could leave footprints that span up to 20 acres. Few of the gas companies mention that fact. The Times's piece alluded to some of these concerns, but glossed over them fairly quickly:

Keith Eckel, 61, a grain farmer with 700 acres in northeastern Pennsylvania, said he had not decided whether to let the companies drill on his property. “Farmers have taken care of this land all their lives and don’t want to see it destroyed,” he said. …

But many farmers and retirees in rural Pennsylvania appear excited that their lives are about to change.

The destruction that Eckel mentions amounts to more than just deforestation, erosion, and surface occupation, though. The gas that's in the shale is contained in small pockets, and operators use a process called ‘fracing’—or, hydraulic fracturing—to crack open these pockets with pressurized water and sand. Each well can use anywhere from one million to three million gallons of water. Where the water will come from, and where the waste will go when it is pumped out of the wells, is often not even discussed with the landowners.

Already, it seems some operators are shrugging off environmental regulations and just taking water from local streams and putting it right back when they’re done. And, even where the waste water is being properly directed to local treatment plants, there's concern across the Marcellus region about what the ‘frac water’ might contain—"salt, metals and radioactive particles" have been mentioned as possibilities. For now, though, the boom continues unabated, as one gas heavyweight, Range Resources, announced Tuesday that it had signed a $175-million pipeline deal for the 1 million acres of Marcellus land it has already acquired.

--Hannah Faddis

Posted: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:12 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

singlespeed said:

Sad indeed especially when uninformed, dirt rich farmers get handed a sheet of paper to sign away their mineral rights with a big dollar royalty signs in their eyes. This has been happening in the West for along time and many town, ranchers and private landowners have been dealing with the mess, destruction, loss of land quality, and other environmental issues that go with natural gas drilling. Most of the royalties or assessed fees for impacts are so low that remediation hardly ever gets done and landowners are left with the scars caused by the well pad and access roads.

The other unknown about frac'ing is that in many instances the liquid mixtures that energy companies use are protected as proprietary and thus get little regulation by the EPA or DOE. So you have highly toxic chemical mixes being injected into under ground pockets forcing out gas and water. The later gets contaminated along the way and pumped onto the surface. The chemical mix used for frac'ing also has the chance to migrate through underground fissures to contaminate drinking wells. Natural gas may be cleaner than coal but it's extraction isn't exactly clean. Could it be better? Yeah. Treating the waste water in situ before release would be the right thing to do along with lower-impact well-pads but State and Federal regulators have to force that to happen because energy companies will do what they can to go the cheap route and with little regulatory over site as possible.

June 20, 2008 3:12 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Pretty sleazy stuff. Nice catch, good reporting.

June 20, 2008 5:02 PM

aeromonas said:

Shouldn't it be "fracking?"

June 22, 2008 7:01 AM

Environment and Energy said:

New York State is experiencing something of a wind boom—thanks to a 2004 law in which the public utility

August 18, 2008 12:43 PM

Environment and Energy said:

Michael Klare has a long essay on Putin's energy gambit in the Caucasus: "The ultimate prize

September 8, 2008 1:47 PM