PITTSBURGH—Around suppertime on June 3 in Clearfield County, Pa., a geyser of natural gas and sludge began shooting out of a well called Punxsutawney Hunting Club 36. The toxic stew of gas, salt water, mud and chemicals went 75 feet into the air for 16 hours. Some of this mess seeped into a stream northeast of Pittsburgh.

Four days later, as authorities were cleaning up the debris in Pennsylvania, an explosion burned seven workers at a gas well on the site of an abandoned coal mine outside of Moundsville, W.Va., just southwest of Pittsburgh.

The back-to-back emergencies were like a five-alarm fire for John Hanger, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. For a brief moment, the cable news channels turned their attention away from the BP PLC oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico to the apparent trouble in the nation's expanding onshore natural gas fields.

The events added force to a tough public debate in Pennsylvania and New York and across northern Appalachia about how the environmental impacts of gas drilling balance against the economic benefits of gas and the role it could play in helping electric utilities transition to cleaner fuels.

When used to fire up a power plant, natural gas produces less air pollutants and half of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by conventional coal plants. But extracting the gas from deep sedimentary rock and shipping it to consumers is an industrial process. It requires massive amounts of water and reliable cement and pipe jobs. It also has wastewater-disposal issues and generates air pollution.

"This is a test for people in public life," Hanger says. "Do you get into public service to treat the gas industry fairly and protect our resources, or not? You don't have to choose between producing the gas and protecting our water."

The extent to which U.S. utilities will burn natural gas to slash carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming is a national issue. But on the ground, where it's being produced, all politics is very local.

Regulators 'over their heads and drowning'?
Hanger is a contentious figure in Pennsylvania. He personifies the state's willingness, or lack thereof, to police drillers operating in the Marcellus Shale natural gas basin under Pennsylvania. At public forums where residents bring their environmental concerns, Hanger's name and the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) attract a mixed bag of praise and frustration.

"They need to admit that they're over their heads and drowning," says Jon Bogle, founder of the Responsible Drilling Alliance, a citizens group in northeastern Pennsylvania, the epicenter of Marcellus drilling activity so far this year. "They are trying. They've toughened their position. They just don't have the personnel to do the job."

To some residents, Hanger has shown in recent months he's serious about getting compliance from drillers by fining companies and forcing them to plug poorly constructed wells. To others, development is rapidly outpacing environmental safeguards. The geyser in Clearfield County, the fire in West Virginia and high-profile cases of groundwater contamination in Dimock, Pa., underscore their belief that regulators in the Northeast have been outmanned and outmaneuvered by a powerful industry imported from the friendlier confines of Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're not running a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil regulatory apparatus here," Hanger responds. "We're working on rules and regulations that should have been addressed a decade ago."

A hangover from the impacts of coal mining
Pennsylvania's struggle with gas production is tied as closely to coal as it is to anything else. Coal mining is built into the social topography of Appalachia and the Ohio River Valley. Centuries of mining, from southern Illinois to the Allegheny Mountains, fortified the rural economies but fostered acrimony and distrust among landowners, conservationists and coal companies. Pennsylvania struggles to control acid mine runoff from abandoned coal mines.

"One of the greatest challenges is convincing people that we are not the second coming of coal," says Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for gas producer Range Resources.

Coal informs discussions about the gas rigs and leases cut into the forests and farmland. And the recent flurry of environmental disasters in oil and coal fields has fueled fears about the impact the gas boom will have on aquifers, fragile ecosystems and public health.

BP's Gulf disaster stiffened the resolve of environmental groups in Pennsylvania and New York to challenge industry guarantees about the safety of modern hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") technology used to crack deep deposits of gas-rich shale rock.

The collapsed coal-ash containment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tenn., raised questions about leaks at similar waste pits located on gas drilling sites. And the explosion in April that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia offered a bleak reminder of the dangers of this kind of work.

Gas producers maintain that the use of horizontal drills to extract gas from under neighboring plots means drillers require less land for well pads and equipment. They argue that chemicals pumped into the ground are benign, aquifers are protected by steel and concrete, drilling requires less water than nuclear power or a coal-fired power plant, and companies can dispose of salt water without poisoning streams.

The hotbed of environmental protest about the potential impact of drilling is in New York, where the source of New York City's drinking water is the Catskill Mountains and Delaware River watershed on the eastern edge of the Marcellus Shale. The water supply is fed by underground aquifers and the area's rivers and streams, and the water is pristine enough to flow unfiltered through a system of aqueducts to 9 million New York residents.

Public distrust spreads from N.Y.
There, public distrust of gas companies has engendered less tolerance for political equanimity. Polluting the aquifer and using too much of the water are the central concerns. A de facto moratorium on drilling the shale already exists, but lawmakers in Albany are considering codifying a one-year moratorium until regulators finish environmental impact studies.

As public protests mounted last fall, Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon extended an olive branch and promised not to drill his leases in the watershed. In January, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Gov. David Paterson (D) to put the water supply ahead of the economic benefits to a state $7 billion in the red.

"July 14 may be the most important date this summer in the Delaware River Watershed!" shouts a recent e-mail blast from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. "Moratorium is needed on all gas projects!"

The group, which targets water pollution in the basin at the confluence of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, regularly petitions the Delaware River Basin Commission. July 14 is the date of the commission's upcoming meeting. The region's governors are members of the commission, and it sits far enough from politics and the day-to-day lobbying in Harrisburg and Albany to act boldly on petitions to stop drilling in protected areas of the water basin.

In the past few months, the commission has done just that. One pending project, a Stone Energy Corp. plan to develop a gas well in Wayne County, Pa., garnered 2,000 written comments, many of which urged the panel to call a development time-out. To that end, the commission has issued sweeping directives since May forcing gas project sponsors, including Stone, to be permitted before drilling production or exploratory wells. And the panel has said it plans to set aside most applications until it adopts regulations for gas drilling in the Marcellus.

Regulate first, drill later
"Your pro-gas drilling forces might see us as impeding the process, and state regulations are sufficient," said commission spokeswoman Katharine O'Hara. "But we are the states," she added. "We're not trying to stymie the industry or overstep. Our goal is to ensure this is done in a responsible way and that it doesn't harm or degrade the resources in the basin."

Pennsylvania politics doesn't separate pro-growth politicians from their environmental opponents with neat lines of demarcation. The state continues the search to find middle ground.

But increasingly, in some corners, the measured debate in Penn's Woods has been drowned out by hyperbole and accusations that the other side is being disingenuous. And the New York glare from "Gasland," an HBO documentary by filmmaker Josh Fox, has stirred passions on both sides.

In it, Fox raises the specter of unchecked corporate power as gas rigs proliferate across the Pennsylvania landscape, poisoning the groundwater and ruining people's lives. The gas industry has condemned the film as environmental propaganda and wildly exaggerated.

The tone of the film aside, the Marcellus debate in Pennsylvania still rests in the middle and is almost entirely about the still-evolving science of hydrology.

"We're all affected by what happens in the watersheds," said Jeanne VanBriesen, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and director of the Center for Water Quality in Urban Environmental Systems. "Water here moves in and out of urban and rural environments."

Salty water and fish kills
Climate change and recent gas drilling-related events have illuminated the difficulties scientists face in pinpointing sources of pollution and the way water flows through the complex watershed.

"Water predictions are based on historical records on what's happened in a watershed," she explained. "Global climate change is really a game changer for hydro-modeling. The climate is changing in a way that is unsuitable for future predictions."

Like coal, the rapid industrial development of natural gas adds to concerns about water usage and disposal. "To understand what it means to use the water for Marcellus development," VanBriesen said, "we need to understand where it goes. If you think we know where all the water is going, you're wrong."

In September 2009, a toxic algae bloom killed a massive amount of fish and aquatic life along a 43-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek on the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border. By year's end, a U.S. EPA report had fingered the legal practice of dumping wastewater from a Consol Energy coal mine into the creek as one of the most likely causes, but not the only cause.

Discharges into the creek, according to EPA, included a high level of total dissolved solids (TDS) that probably created the salty conditions needed for the poisonous algae to bloom. TDS measures amounts of sodium, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, carbonates and other minerals, and while they aren't considered major pollutants, they can foul fresh water. Water quality specialists consider TDS levels to be an indicator that other chemical contaminants are in the water.

After the fish kill, environmental activists said the high TDS levels could just as likely come from gas drilling in the area, which also extracts huge amounts of salt-laden, high-TDS water from the ground. As much as half of the millions of gallons of water injected into the earth when companies drill or fracture the shale returns to the surface contaminated and extremely salty. Coal and gas companies are supposed to strip out the metals before disposing of the water. The region's geology makes it difficult to re-inject water, and recycling is not yet widespread, in part because of the cost of the process.

Investigators are still looking at what caused the fish slaughter at Dunkard Creek, but VanBriesen said there's strong support for the conclusion that algae thrive in salty conditions.

"The impact of total dissolved solids more broadly on watersheds and ecosystems is less well understood," she said. Still, she asserted, "allowing rivers and creeks to get very salty is not good for the ecosystem."

Dimock, a northeastern Pennsylvania township where residents accused Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. of poisoning their water wells, has become a well-known symbol of the troubles in gas country.

Busted gas wells and the migration of methane into water wells put the challenge to Hanger. In April, the DEP ordered Cabot to plug three wells believed to be the source of migrating gas. The agency ordered Cabot to suspend the drilling of new wells for a year in and around Dimock, and it fined Cabot $240,000.

13 Comments

1. 1. jtdwyer 04:23 PM 7/9/10

   How long before potable water is more precious than methane?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sethdayal 02:06 AM 7/10/10

   When potent GHG gas from distribution leakage is added in Natural Gas actually produces more GHG's than coal.
   
   http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44113

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. JamesDavis 08:47 AM 7/10/10

   These deadly disasters in oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and the sacrificing of our childrens' health and lives are just small acceptable risks in producing a hand-full of dirty filthy jobs and balancing the local red budget brought on by stupid politicians who pay hundreds of times more for products than what they are worth. For good jobs and keeping the electricity on, you got to make sacrifices; what better to sacrifice than a renewable product like our children...you CAN'T create new jobs, but you can create new worker children to fill the vacancies created by company mistakes and accidents.... At least that is the reasoning in West Virginia where we lead the nation in chronic childhood diseases caused by coal and natural gas pollutions in our air, water, and land. But Hay! You got to keep the electricity on!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. M. Sweeney 09:37 AM 7/10/10

   I grew up in coal country in PA, and I now live above the Marcellus and Utica Shales in NY. I have spent the last two years learning all that I can about shale gas extraction. The number of potential problems is truly amazing: air pollution due to heavy truck traffic, water pollution from chemical spills, explosive & flammable drinking water, significant greenhouse gas contributions from the extraction and production of shale gas, possible long-term damage to aquifers from fracturing chemicals, huge volumes of waste water and no safe way to dispose of same, loss of green space, short- and long-term public health threats from toxic fracturing chemicals, habitat fragmentation, the possibility of gas well fires and blowouts in populated regions, introduction of invasive species to forest areas and aquatic environments, devaluation of residential property near gas wells and pipelines, extensive damage to the landscape, dangerous pollutants (like heavy metals & naturally occurring radioactive materials) dredged up from the depths of the earth in drill cuttings and in the flowback fluid that comes out of the wells, extensive damage to roads, leakage of VOCs from gas wells and compressor stations, extremely high noise levels that continue around the clock for years--the list goes on and on and on. And those are just the predictable problems. The inevitable "surprises" are sure to occur as well.
   
   Is this really the best this nation can do? We have before us the horrible example of the ever-growing BP nightmare. Before we create still more gas/coal/oil nightmares all across the country in a last-ditch scramble for fossil fuel, wouldn't it make a great deal of sense for us all to start acting like responsible adults by cutting subsidies to fossil fuel industries, getting deeply serious about energy conservation, and making an all-out effort to get more and more and more of our energy from clean, safe, renewable sources????

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. OtegoNY 10:33 AM 7/10/10

   There are proponents of natural gas drilling who like to argue that "crossing the street isn't safe, but nothing is 100% safe and the drilling opponents are simply obstructionists and extremists."
   
   I'd submit to them that crossing the street while defiantly closing your eyes and not looking both ways and waiting for traffic to stop is a lot dumber than waiting until it is safer.
   
   It's a matter of degree, of how myopic you intend to be.
   
   At this point, the level of safety for high-volume horizontal fracturing is unreasonably low.
   
   The "America needs the energy" ploy is also a red-herring. There is a glut of natural gas on the market now. Why not wait to drill more when the technology is mature, and the people and processes that decide if we will use it are more mature? Won't America still need the energy then?
   
   Expediency is the mother of disaster.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. JamesDavis in reply to M. Sweeney 12:54 PM 7/10/10

   "Sweeney", now you're just talking nonsense. You know that the gas companies are not fracking you every time you turn around. So, go ahead and pick up that bar of soap. The time and money we have spent trying to get these thoughtless gas, coal, nuclear, and oil companies to adhere to the rules, this country could be enjoying a clean-never-ending energy source of power...geothermal. There are 14 states in the U.S. that use clean, renewable geothermal power and they have not had not one accident or earthquake - and, they are not polluting their environment.
   
   Greedy and stupid people are the only ones who want to continue with fossil fuels and claim that they are clean, safe, non-polluting, and never-ending. They also claim that our scientists are so stupid that they do not know how to build a battery for electric cars that can get you any further than your neighbors driveway and it will take you eight hours to recharge it if you are able to get to your neighbors driveway. Is America really that stupid or is it just the people who has more money than brains that is that stupid?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. jtdwyer in reply to OtegoNY 12:59 PM 7/10/10

   OtegoNY - Yeah, the smart money's on the 57th floor, betting on whether you'll get hit crossing the street...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. lakota2012 04:40 PM 7/10/10

   If everyone knew the toxicity of these fracturing chemicals that the fossil fuel industry is using to extract deeper and increasingly difficult fossil fuels, the public would be in a huge uproar and campaign against the entire industry.
   
   Is it worth destroying all of our aquifers providing drinking water, just to extract fossil fuels to burn, which in turn are destroying our atmosphere at an alarming rate?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. lakota2012 in reply to M. Sweeney 06:04 PM 7/10/10

   sweeny says, "Is this really the best this nation can do?....
   Before we create still more gas/coal/oil nightmares all across the country in a last-ditch scramble for fossil fuel, wouldn't it make a great deal of sense for us all to start acting like responsible adults by cutting subsidies to fossil fuel industries, getting deeply serious about energy conservation, and making an all-out effort to get more and more and more of our energy from clean, safe, renewable sources?"
   *****************
   
   Certainly makes you wonder how we got into this one-sided energy predicament, until you total the massive and record profits of the fossil fuel industry, and the hordes of lobbyists they have to keep the status quo.
   
   Yes, I certainly agree that we need to immediately cut all subsidies to the well-entrenched fossil fuel industry, get serious with energy conservation and efficiency since we use much more energy per capita than anywhere else in the world, and begin a 21st century energy policy that moves us totally away from finite fossil fuels while embracing clean renewables and 4th generation nuclear energy.
   
   Anything short of that is just not acceptable.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. 2008RealityCheck in reply to JamesDavis 07:45 PM 7/15/10

    Are you referring to renewable energy such as wind turbines that require 2 tons or rare earth elements (REE) to make? Where are you going to get the REEs? China has the monopoly and will not sell REE containing semi-finished components after 2012. And the manner in which China mines and refines REEs is extremely toxic to the air and in the waste that flows into the Pacific. REEs also are required for electric cars, hybrids, PV cells, fiber optics, lasers, etc. WHAT clean technology do you think has no adverse environmental effect???
    
    To understand why green technology is held hostage by China, read: Chinas Rare Earth Elements Industry: What Can the West Learn, a report by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) www.iags.org/rareeartIAGSh0310hurst.pdf.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Ann McG 08:48 PM 7/15/10

    This sounds so similar to what is happening in Queensland's(Australia) Darling Downs. Is anyone doing a comparison?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. bucketofsquid 12:30 PM 7/16/10

    I remember the original Battlestar Galactica where "frack" was a very dirty word. It seems the new meaning isn't very different. With advances in solar and wind technology the eco-footprint is decreasing and the out put is increasing. My guess is that within a decade these two will be able to compete evenly with fossil fuels. I guess we will see if we are still around by then.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. geobill 02:16 PM 5/25/11

    the only reason we all use petroleum is because it is cheap and convenient...Period! Not cause of conspiracy topics and subsidies etc. Come on grow up.
    
    The reason it is cheap and convenient is because it is found in large deposits making collection and distribution easier and cheaper. Plus you don't have to grow it just process it. It is cool stuff. Sure if there is cleaner and cheaper stuff then bring it on...but the market, not subsidies have said they want cheap energy.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this