The sign at the end of Jill Wiener's driveway simply reads "No Frack." The declaration reflects her two-year effort to keep natural gas wells off her and her neighbors' property.
Wiener lives in Sullivan County, New York, 9 miles east of the scenic Delaware River near the Pennsylvania border. Tourism and agriculture drive the region's economy. "It's very mellow and beautiful," she says, the kind of place "where people sit outside to watch the fireflies at night."
Now the bucolic landscape may be under threat, Wiener muses, due to the "domino effect" of a new drilling method spreading eastward across the United States.
Sullivan County overlies the Marcellus Shale formation that stretches 150,000 square miles from New York across most of Pennsylvania, through parts of Maryland, Ohio and West Virginia.
The formation contains enough natural gas to heat the nation for two decades or more. Improved recovery technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has made the resource economical to extract in recent years, fueling a drilling frenzy as well as highly publicized environmental concerns.
Recent reports reveal that wastewater from the practice contains radioactive material and is being dumped in public waters. Gas companies say fracking is safe.
The heart of the action is in Pennsylvania for now. Wiener's state of New York has a fracking moratorium until July 3, though many upstate residents have already signed leases with gas companies. Wiener says she isn't taking any chances.
For two years she has worked to educate her community about potential air and water pollution through a group called Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy. The volunteer organization confronts gas industry representatives at town meetings and set up screenings of the anti-fracking documentary "Gasland."
"We really feel the key to success in defeating fracking as an option for gas extraction is education," she says. "[I'm] all about pushing information forward, and being cautious."
The most powerful learning tool for advocates in areas unaccustomed to gas exploration may be the Web.
Thanks to a series of social networking tools called ExtrAct developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Wiener has connected online with citizens who have lived for decades among the gas fields. A small but growing group of users shares personal stories of drilling impacts such as contaminated water wells and health problems.
"It sure is nice to be able to see what people in other places have experienced," says Wiener.
Empowering Landowners
ExtrAct was founded three years ago at MIT's Center for Future Civic Media in the midst of the Marcellus boom to empower anxious landowners in their dealings with industry leasing agents, or "landmen," who offer tough-to-resist deals.
In Pennsylvania, natural gas companies have already leased about 7 million acres of public and private property — about one-quarter of the state's entire land mass — according to state authorities. Landowners can rake in millions with the initial lease and ensuing royalties.
"We have a lot of information [about drilling] from the industry, and from the states," explains Chris Csikszentmihályi, director of the Center for Future Civic Media, "but very little info from actual people who encounter the industry as regular citizens."
This is one of those "key moments when information will make a big difference," Csikszentmihályi adds.
I guess MIT missed this story from Sullivan County about gas
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110424/NEWS/104...
Could all the hubbub about gas drilling in Sullivan County be much ado about nothing?
The geologist who first calculated the enormous amount of natural gas in the Marcellus shale — part of which sits beneath Sullivan — sure thinks so.
"It's not going to happen. Sullivan is completely off the table. No one has to get excited about contaminated New York City drinking water," says Terry Engelder, Penn State professor of geosciences in the university's Appalachian Basin Black Shales Group.
So not only is there nothing to fear about shale gas, there is nothing to fear about it anyway.
On the same subject, from the MIT link which is described above as
Part two of ExtrAct, the News Positioning System, was released in early 2010. The simple website posts news articles onto a map of the United States, creating a database of stories by location.
It allows people to find out what's happening in other parts of the country, says Tara Meixsell, a western Colorado activist, and "to really understand they're not alone."
Yet the lead story http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_17924693#ixzz1KvbmZQfC
Is about
1. California: Not home to one single shale gas well
2. It's about oil. Not gas
3. And what is this shocking story? Forty, count 'em, four zero gallons of oil were spilled. That's awful. What an environmental catastrophe! Right up there with the Exxon Valdez for sure. Would I want that to happen in my neighborhood? Of course not. But I wouldn't want to spill forty gallons of milk either and I'm sure I've done that over the years.
MIT should read their own stuff on shale gas instead of confusing molehills with catastrophe.
http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/natural-gas.html
“Much has been said about natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future, with little underlying analysis to back up this contention. The analysis in this study provides the confirmation — natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future,” said MITEI Director Ernest J. Moniz in introducing the report.
I'm not saying that accidents don't and even will, happen. But what we need more than anything is some perspective and some rationality and a little less gullibility and emotion mongering.
If our national, state and local policy is to allow an industrial process to occur in a way that damages the property and health of citizens, then those citizens should be compensated by the industry—and maybe policy-makers—for their losses. If you do not have drinkable water on your property you can't sell it. For average people, our property is our life's investment, and if you lose the value of your property or your health, you lose everything. Gas industry activity is creating a new refugee class across our nation, only these refugees have little choice but to stay in their ruined homes.
Much like eminent domain was used during WWII to build steel mills in the interest of national security, if we as a country choose to buy the gas lobby's claims that we need this "safe" "transition" fuel for our energy security, then do the right thing and allow those whose health and property value will be destroyed to move away and be compensated at market value for their loss. Then the gas companies can be free to destroy—I mean,develop—that land, and their supporters left behind can live with the results, or move out too if necessary, with their newfound riches.