BREAKING: Delaware to Vote No on Fracking!
Big news from Governor Markell’s office. Here is the press release, plus Gov. Markell’s letter to in opposition:
“Fracking” Proposal Currently Lacks Sufficient Health and Safety Protections
Delaware will vote “No” at Monday meeting of the Delaware River Basin Commission
WILMINGTON – The proposed regulations that would authorize drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to begin in the Delaware River Basin lack critical details on how public health and safety would be protected, Governor Jack Markell wrote today in a letter to the other voting members of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
In the letter, Markell made clear that Delaware’s representative would vote against the Natural Gas Development Regulations at the Commission’s meeting in Trenton this Monday.
“Instead of beginning the exploration in the Delaware River Basin and hoping we get a proper regulatory framework in place after-the-fact, it is Delaware’s view the Commission has an obligation to ensure that critical issues regarding well construction and operation are finalized first and not subject to subsequent dilution,” Markell wrote.
Over 3,000 wells have already been drilled in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to harness natural gas out of the Marcellus Shale. While the watershed area that would be opened up to drilling under the Commission’s proposed regulations covers only a small portion of the Shale, it serves as the primary water supply source for at least two-thirds of Delaware’s citizens.
“By far, the single most important issue for a downstream state like Delaware is whether the wells are being drilled, constructed, and operated in a manner that adequately protects our public and private water supplies. Once hydrofracturing begins in the basin, the proverbial “faucet” cannot be turned off, with any damage to our freshwater supplies likely requiring generations of effort to clean up. In this case, it is more important to get it right, than to be fast,” Markell wrote.
Markell made clear that he believes the nation can pursue the promise of this important domestic energy source without compromising the quality of our water supply. However, doing so demands the close coordination of multiple regulatory bodies including the state and local governments of Pennsylvania and New York, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commission. Some of these regulatory offerings under consideration in each of these jurisdictions have (1) yet to be finalized; (2) have just been finalized but not fully evaluated; or (3) are final but inadequate to protect public safety.
For example, Pennsylvania’s legislative bodies are currently debating the science that underlies two separate pieces of legislation that would strengthen the rules regarding well construction and operation. In New York, scientists and citizens are still reviewing and commenting on New York’s draft regulations regarding well construction. Because those and other regulatory debates are still underway, Markell continues “to have significant concerns that the regulations may not adequately safe guard our regional water supply by adopting best practices for water withdrawal, siting and setback requirements, drilling and construction standards, ongoing operational protections, and clean up protocols and financial assurances should a release occur.”
The text of the letter is below.
November 17, 2011
The Honorable Governor Chris Christie
Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
The Honorable Governor Thomas W. Corbett
Office of the Governor
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
The Honorable Governor Andrew P. Cuomo
Office of the Governor
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
Colonel Christopher J. Larsen
Army Corps of Engineers
North Atlantic Division
302 General Lee Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11252
Re: Delaware River Basin Commission’s Natural Gas
Development Regulations
Dear Commissioners:
The Delaware River Basin Commission (the “Commission”) is scheduled to vote on the revised draft Natural Gas Development Regulations this Monday, November 21, 2011. This is an important issue and many of you have asked about Delaware’s intentions. This letter outlines Delaware’s position in advance of Monday’s meeting and the rationale for that position.
It is without question that the decisions we make regarding this issue can have a profound impact on the Delaware River Basin for generations to come. While I believe our nation can pursue the promise of this important domestic energy source without compromising the quality of our water supply, doing so in this case requires a thoughtful regulatory balance and coordination between several states, the federal government and the Commission. For the reasons stated below, I am not convinced we have yet struck that balance or have demonstrated that coordination, and that is why, after careful and deliberate consideration, Delaware will vote no on the adoption of the Commission’s draft regulations at this time.
On one hand, the Marcellus Shale formation offers the promise of providing a critical source of domestic energy, with its enticing potential to provide local, low-emission, and cost-effective energy. In addition, hydrofracturing in the Delaware River Basin has the potential to create significant numbers of direct and indirect jobs in Pennsylvania and New York, not to mention potential tax revenue for states struggling to meet budget shortfalls. On the other hand, as Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley of Pennsylvania has stated, “no amount of economic benefit would justify the degradation of our land, air and water.”
For the past seventeen months of the Commission’s rulemaking process, Delaware’s interest has been simple. As a downstream state that could be adversely affected by poorly crafted and/or executed regulations, Delaware is focused on protecting the water quality throughout the Delaware River Basin. While this watershed only covers a small portion of the Marcellus Shale, it serves as the primary water supply source for at least two-thirds of Delaware’s citizens. For this reason, we have worked to ensure the Commission’s regulations strike an appropriate balance between potential economic development and responsible stewardship of our precious natural resources.
Striking this balance has proven to be very difficult and complicated because it requires the close coordination of multiple regulatory regimes: the state and local governments of Pennsylvania and New York; coupled with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and this Commission. Some of these regulatory schemes have (1) yet to be finalized; (2) have just been finalized but not fully evaluated; or (3) are final but inadequate. As such, we continue to have significant concerns that the regulations may not adequately safe guard our regional water supply by adopting best practices for water withdrawal, siting and setback requirements, drilling and construction standards, ongoing operational protections, and clean up protocols and financial assurances should a release occur.
One only has to look at the prior experience in Pennsylvania to determine that the Commission should not adopt regulations without fully addressing critical issues regarding well construction and operation. After Range Resources announced it had discovered a large gas field in southwestern Pennsylvania in late 2007, businesses big and small inundated small towns in Pennsylvania, seeking permits to drill in the Marcellus Shale. More than 3,000 wells were drilled in just over three years, and only after the fact, in 2011, did scientists, environmental and business leaders convene as part of Governor Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission and offer recommendations regarding the safe, efficient and environmentally responsible extraction and use of natural gas reserves in Pennsylvania. In its final report, the Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission noted several high profile incidents that underscore the potential impacts on ground and surface water caused by irresponsible hydrofracturing. As a result of its comprehensive and thoughtful review, the Commission offered 43 separate recommendations in July 2011 on how to better protect the public health and environment in Pennsylvania, many of which are not yet adopted by law, regulation or policy.
Instead of beginning exploration in the Delaware River Basin and hoping we get a proper regulatory framework in place after-the-fact, it is Delaware’s view the Commission has an obligation to ensure that critical issues regarding well construction and operation are finalized first and not subject to subsequent dilution. By far, the single most important issue for a downstream state like Delaware is whether the wells are being drilled, constructed, and operated in a manner that adequately protects our public and private water supplies. If the Commission is going to rely on the regulatory schemes of state and local governments on such issues, the Commission must review and evaluate such schemes in each of those states.
Otherwise, as EPA Regional Administrators Garvin and Enck properly noted in comments to this docket, the Commission should establish a minimum set of standards that any state requirements must meet. Because these state standards are still under development, Delaware has worked to improve the regulations with additional requirements for monitoring, financial assurance, site investigation following a release and remedial action; however, many smaller drilling operations will fall below the DRBC thresholds and will thus be governed by state regulations that are not yet final. Without a clear understanding of the legal and regulatory requirements regarding well construction and operation in New York and Pennsylvania, either through finalized and/or enacted state law or regulation, or through the Commission establishing minimum standards that must be met, I cannot conclude that the water resources in the basin will be adequately protected.
This does not mean that Delaware will refuse to move forward under any circumstances. In fact, I agree with Governor Corbett that the decision makers at all levels of government with respect to hydrofracturing should be guided by science, not emotion or desire for profit. But in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth’s legislative bodies are currently debating the science that underlies two separate pieces of legislation that would strengthen the rules regarding well construction and operation. Further, in New York, scientists and citizens are still reviewing and commenting on New York’s draft regulations regarding well construction. Thus, the very efficacy of the Commission’s regulations depend heavily on state law or regulation but the decision makers in each state have yet to determine whether sound science will ultimately prevail. As such, this Commission is simply not able to properly evaluate these regulations based on the science at this time.
One final note on the process moving forward: the DRBC regulatory process has been a deliberate and thoughtful seventeen month process in which multiple public comment sessions were held, and more than 68,000 public comments were received and reviewed.
The Commission’s rulemaking process and the intense public interest on both sides of this issue reflect the importance of the decision the Commission will make. Delaware has repeatedly raised the issue of ensuring that the public has the opportunity to review and comment upon significant revisions to the draft regulations. However, the regulations presented for adoption on Monday, were released publicly on November 8 with very significant substantive changes upon which the public should have the ability to comment. Indeed, as recently as November 16, additional changes were made, and it is doubtful the public will have an opportunity to review them, let alone comment, before the public meeting. In the end, if we want the residents of our four states to have confidence in the final product, we must be completely transparent, including providing sufficient public comment opportunities in a manner similar to Federal and state regulatory processes.
In closing, the decision whether to allow hydrofracturing in the Delaware River Basin is a decision that will affect multiple generations of Delawareans. Once hydrofracturing begins in the basin, the proverbial “faucet” cannot be turned off, with any damage to our freshwater supplies likely requiring generations of effort to clean up. In this case, it is more important to get it right, than to be fast. As New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated, “[b]ecause full-scale development of natural gas exploitation in the watershed could degrade water quality, a rush to regulate and drill risks the long-term viability of one of the most important drinking water sources in the United States.” This risk is a significant concern for Delaware and therefore, until we have confidence that the Commission’s Natural Gas Development Regulations, coupled with the state and local regulations upon which they rely, are adequately protective of this water supply, I have a duty to current and future generations of Delawareans to vote no.
Sincerely,
Jack A. Markell
Governor
Dear Pennsylvania,
How’s that dredging workin’ out for ya?
Governor Markell
xoxo
Seriously, this is awesome news. This fracking business is such a massive unknown and no matter what the drillers tell you, there is simply no way that they are doing this work that doesn’t eventually contaminate aquifers. The thing I’d *really* like to see is an effort in Congress to tell states that they are utterly on their own for cleanup after this mess.
Its only awesome news if he can convince the others on the commision. Anyone know where NJ, PA, NY and the Army CoE stand on this? NJ and PA are both Republican so watch out.
“it is more important to get it right, than to be fast.”
If only he applies this same logic to education reform. A+ on Fracking, D- on Education.
So if the regulatory regime had been consistent and already in place, Gov Markell would have supported fracking our water supply? I’m glad he has a threshold and I’m thrilled that it happens to turn out that his threshold has not been satisfied under the current proposals, but I would rather that his position was no fracking period end of story. Why take.ANY chances with the water supply however strict the regulatory regime is? It sounds like to me that Markell is still at the bargaining table waiting for a better deal.
why take any chances with the water supply? ITS COLD! people need to make sure their houses are a toasty 76 degrees all winter!
Unlike Obama, who just seriously caved on smog control, Markell took a stand, the right stand, and placed the full weight of his Administration behind it.
As critical as I’ve been of Markell on many things, he has put Colin O’Mara and Tommywonk and a strong environmental team in place, and has generally been very good on the environment.
Give credit where credit’s due.
The Civic League for New Castle County met Tuesday night and unanimously passed this Resolution:
N.C.C. Civic League Resolution # 11-11-02
Adopted – November 15, 2011
Regarding the proposed Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) regulations for hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Valley
WHEREAS, the Delaware River Basin Commission’s proposed fracking regulations utilized by oil and gas industries are unacceptable because of the absence of sufficient controls over the chemistry of liquid and gaseous injectants and because of the absence of appropriate controls to prevent the escape of natural gas into the water table
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CIVIC LEAGUE FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY stands in opposition to the proposed Delaware River Basin Commission’s authorization of hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Valley until appropriate regulations and oversight are required and guarantees are established, to protect the water quality of the basin from unforeseen contamination by the industry.
Chuck Mulholland, President
Civic League for New Castle County
Props to Markell. Our children’s children will thank him for generations.
I wonder, did Maryland get a vote on their upstream fracking?
Look who is all for fracking and endangering Delaware’s water supply:
http://www.caesarrodney.org/pdfs/Delaware_Should_Approve_Natural_Gas_Fracking_Rules2.pdf
When you’re drinking the bottled stuff from France, why would you care?
Aside: I happened to be in Oklahoma City during the last earthquake. Because Oklahoma has zero history of earthquakes, the recent seismic activity is widely assumed to be caused by fracking.
Aside to the aside: The liberal surviv-o-plex rests atop the Marcellus shale and stands to make a little cheddar when… yes I said when… (let’s face it PA is bending over like a Republican Congressman in an airport bathroom stall) the gas money starts to flow.
Irony is ironic.
WGMD is reporting that the meeting scheduled for Monday has been cancelled? Is this true?
The NJ is reporting the same thing — that the meeting has been postponed.
The meeting has indeed been postponed but be aware that is only a temporary relief. We still have four more entities to convince to oppose Fracking in the Delaware River Basin and I respectfully request that you login to:
and sign the petition which will be forwarded to Gov. Corbett (PA),Gov. Christie (N.J.), Gov. Cuomo (N.Y.) and Colonel Christopher Larsen (Army Corps of Engineers). These are the other four voting members of the Delaware River Basin Commission and not all are predisposed to vote no. This is a matter of high urgency.
Thank you,
John Kowalko
Please excuse the ommission of the site—866 signatures and counting in less than three days.
Petition site is– http://signon.org/sign/say-no-to-fracking-in
No fracking way!
You can thank Collin for that one.
Also be aware that the “Caesar Salad Institute” has been supportive of “fracking” and a yes vote so that reasoning alone should motivate some of you to click on and sign the petition.
John Kowalko
One has come to expect Jason and Cassandra to come to their uneducated postions based on nothing more then sheer emotion.
Much more is expected of elected officials.
First, the shale that contains natural gas lies below thousands of feet of impermeable rock so that the fracking process itself will not contaminate drinking water aquifers that are generally only a few hundred feet below the surface at most. A 2010 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report “concluded that no groundwater pollution or disruption of underground sources of drinking water have been attributed to hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations.”
On the other hand, the drilling companies did their industry no favors by keeping their proprietary fracking fluid formulas secret. The cloak-and-dagger approach alarmed the sorts of folks who are easily alarmed. The fracking fluids are actually 99.9 percent water and sand. The small amounts of added chemicals reduce friction, fight microbes, and prevent scaling. In any case, many states are now requiring companies to reveal their formulas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to issue a report on the safety of fracking in 2012. In the meantime, the Obama administration appointed a new panel to look into fracking and make recommendations on how to improve on the safety of the technique. It is unlikely that whatever new regulations that emanate from these bureaucracies will derail the shale gas industry.
Just as for conventional wells, it is possible that natural gas can escape into aquifers if the wells are not properly sealed using steel and cement casings. A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found elevated levels of natural gas in groundwater wells within 3,000 feet of active gas well sites. The researchers conclude that the source is likely leaky casings.
Come back when you’ve gotten your information from a better source than the CRI.
Some of us here do this kind of work all day long and you are being had. But then, that’s why you’re here pretending to something you don’t know.
“The small amounts of added chemicals reduce friction, fight microbes, and prevent scaling.”
That darned scaling! That’s the only reason we have to add the carcinogens.
JG, you have no idea — none — what else is in that fluid. And you don’t know much about contamination if you think that 0.1% (by what: weight? volume?) of “other ingredients” means it’s automatically hunky-dory with your endocrine system. There are lots of other problem with current practices, too, but they probably weren’t covered in your ExxonMobil Report.
I don’t know much about fracking, I do know they pump a slurry thousands of feet below the ground to effectively blow up the shale to release the gas. That sounds like an environmental nightmare to me.
Mr. Galt,
My position is, by no stretch of the imagination, uneducated. It is based on a thorough research of facts and is as far removed from sheer emotion as the CRI position is from reality. I make decisions based on educated fact-finding (I owe that to my constituents)and I hope CRI and you can find an equivalent level of honest reality in your positions before you bring them to the discourse.
Representative John Kowalko
Dear John, (yes, this is a Dear John Letter)
I actually AM a content knowledge expert on chemicals, and have been for well over 20 years and specifically in hazard mitigation caused by “incidents” involving them.
WOW, imagine that!
without immersing everyone here in a lot of technical talk, I will say simply this –
Back in the day:
Arsnic was used in power make-up
lead was used in paints
DDT was sprayed liberally
Agent Orange was used to defoliate
Thalydimide was a “good” drug
cigarettes were not harmful either
and off-shore drilling was safe
and the Government/Corporations said it was all improving our lives (at the time, based on the information they had and the studies available)
I think we all know better now tho. Questions??
Dear John Also,
Let me add one case on point. The deadly effect of asbestos exposure was known in the 1940’s-1950’s (Johns Mansville internal memos still exist as proof). This was not publicly acknowledged at the time (by the industry’s involved in production and sales and use of asbestos based products) since the incubation periods for Mesothelioma was often decades afterwards and the other symptoms/diseases (emphysema for one) caused by asbestosis were difficult to directly connect to exposure. As an individual with asbestosis (proven to be caused by exposure when I was 17 years old working at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard) I have been forced to “educate” myself on this insidiously destructive product. Scant few of the men I worked with survived to my age (experienced medical professionals have told me that is luck of the draw—so far). But the real point of this, if I may Mr. Galt, is to point out that the Federal Government (The Philadelphia Navy Yard) cannot be legally held liable and most if not all of the companies who deliberately and knowingly doomed hundreds of thousands of people to a short, often miserable life got to enjoy bankruptcy protections and other manipulative practices to insulate themselves. Billions of dollars were awarded but pennies were paid and this was even after it was determined that these companies were well aware of the poison they were peddling. So let me summarize. I have educated myself with documents, testimony, and life experiences in these matters. It is certainly difficult to separate the emotion of watching friends and co-workers die agonizingly and slowly from the reality that families I represent can and probably will be harmed similarly by the excesses of corporate indifference and greed. But I promise you I will never allow the emotions to distract from the horrid practices that continue unchecked and unregulated in the name of “free-enterprise” and I will not allow my anger at the “uneducated” and unadulterated “propaganda” being spewed by some to stop me from trying to protect those 15 million residents, in the Delaware River Basin, who could be harmed by casting a blind eye at reality. I believe that is what is expected of me as an “elected official”
Respectfully,
Representative Kowalko
John Kowalko for President.