I agree that we must ensure the proper protection of our resources, especially those critical to life. However, there is also a point to be made on taking too many precautions. Every human process carries a risk, and regulations in the past (Clean Water, Clean Air, etc.), although effective and necessary in their original forms, have become excessively burdened by constant updating due to political pressure (not necessarily based on science). Let me give a quick example…as technology has improved in regards to “sensing” chemical traces in water, so has the desire to put further restrictions on those chemicals. There are regulations that are concerned with “parts per trillion” which is an astronomically small number and in almost every case, useless. There is no way to possibly account for every trace chemical and still conduct any operation. Yet, the laws go this far and when someone has to ask for an exemption, there doesn’t seem to be anyone asking…”was the regulation important in the first place, or was it unnecessary?”

I believe that our motto of “do absolutely no harm to anything, ever” is unattainable. There are already huge restrictions on the shipping of chemicals, and yet there are still going to be accidents. Does it mean we stop shipping altogether? There are already restrictions in place to prevent industrial accidents, in fact there are several publishers and service organizations which are highly profitable in enhancing the current knowledge base. But, industrial accidents still happen every day. Does it mean we stop producing goods?

I agree with James in that we must be very careful. I also agree with Jim in that we must continue to forge ahead.

There is a middle ground. We all need to meet there instead of taking a position far to one side or the other. This is not to say this discussion has been in any way combative. It’s actually very refreshing to read and I hope it can continue.

Let me agree with you 100% on your point that, “Our drinking water is our life and our health, and once poisoned, there is precious little we can do.” I seriously doubt anyone will argue against common sense.

The thing that caught my eye in the Draft Scope from the DEC was the comment about 50 years of hydraulic fracturing used in this state with no contamination. I did quote it accurately–that indeed is what the DEC has said. And I believe what you’re saying is they are in error–such types of drilling have not been around for 50 years. Point taken–you may be right. Let’s assume you are right for the sake of argument.

The logic I use in this situation goes like this: I don’t want my family nor my neighbors to have contaminated water. Nobody wants that. But, we do have the opportunity to use homegrown energy and start to work away from dependence on foreign oil. That’s a good thing. The energy is there–in the form of natural gas. And there’s lots of it. We need it. Conservation like lowering the thermostat and installing energy saving devices only goes so far. The brutal truth we all must agree on is that we need more energy, and more sources of energy, than we have now.

The next line in my thinking goes like this: This type of drilling is happening across the U.S. in thousands of other places. I’m sure there are some cases of unscrupulous drillers, accidents, and so on. But if this type of drilling were fundamentally unsafe and unhealthy, and if it almost always resulted in pollution and contamination of the environment–in particular the groundwater–no amount of publicity and money could buy people’s silence. Not in this information age. It would become known and people would oppose it en masse.

Finally, with groups like yours and others around to sound the alarm and keep an eye on things (a counterbalance), I believe we can safely drill, in our area. Fear of “maybe this will happen” and “over there that has happened” should not keep us from exploring and using an abundant natural resource.

Safeguards? Sure thing. Controls on how the water is shipped, and how much gets used from local sources? You bet. Saying “forget it, it’s too risky”–no way! It’s too risky NOT to carefully, deliberatively, wisely go after the natural gas sitting under us right now.

Feel free to correct my logic.

Jim Willis

P.S. One small correction in your correction: The last name is Willis, not Wallis.

A second point is that by all best estimates such drilling uses between three and five million gallons of fresh water per well and fracking, not two; and the well may be fracked multiple times. Third, only about seventy percent of the produced water is recovered, leaving thirty percent per fracking undergound.

Fourth, the natural gas and toxic produced water may in time work its way upward to the aquifers through fissures in layers of rock and permeable soils. There are numerous examples of the gas, once freed, migrating to the surface to pollute water and soil and pose a threat to households.

A very important fifth correction concerns the wildly misleading statement that this drilling has been around for fifty years. The technology using these types of chemicals in horizontally drilled wells, to my research, has only been available since the mid nineties, and on September 10, 2008 at City Hall in NYC, Commissioner Grannis testified (according to my ears) that the DEC had a THREE YEAR history with this type of drilling, and to the best of my knowledge, they have been mostly vertical wells, not horizontal. Since the DEC has virtually no inspection staff and has performed no study, what does it know? Is three years enough to base anything on?

Our drinking water is our life and our health, and once poisoned, there is precious little we can do. The onus is on the NYS DEC, the Pa DEP and the River Commissions to prevent pollution, not to try to regulate it. It should be a proven fact that horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing with toxic chemicals will not pollute our water. If it is benign, why did the oil and gas industry need to be given major exemptions from the Federal Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air and Right to Know Acts?

Somebody give me a good answer to that please.

James Barth
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Inc.