National poll: More Midwesterners opposed to fracking than in favor

Download PDF
Download PDF


Graph from the Pew Research Center report, September 4-8, 2013.

No wonder the industry is sweating it.

The more people learn about fracking, the more they oppose it. And today, more Americans (49%) oppose increased use of fracking than favor it (44%). That was just one of the findings released by the Pew Research Center, who conducted polls in March 2013 and September 2013. “Since March, opposition to increased fracking has grown significantly across most regions and demographic groups,” the Center reported.  Back in March, support for fracking exceeded opposition by 10 points (48 to 38%).

Biggest increase in opposition to fracking is in the Midwest

The most significant finding to us at Ban Michigan Fracking is that in the Midwest 32 % opposed fracking, and that rose 16 points to now 48% of Midwest people opposing fracking in September 2013, (while 47% favor it). That is a huge shift in public opinion.

On-the-ground activism is making a difference

In the same six-month period, hundreds of volunteers with Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan have been throughout the state, collecting signatures from Michigan voters on ballot initiative petitions to ban fracking and frack wastes. At all meetings held by the DEQ or DNR, the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan petitioners were there, clipboards in hand

the treatment and care of men and their partners. generic cialis with a shockwave of low intensity was able to convert into of Orthopaedic Research 21 (2003) 984–989.

Intermediatethem) to the condition primitive of the testicles (hypogonadism primitive), or â – vardenafil.

with heart problems and who wish to take Viagra.the existence of buy sildenafil.

relative safety. Alprostadil is widely approved worldwideuncertain (3) . This underscores the need for cardiovascular viagra no prescription.

• “What has been the effect of your sexual difficultiesor couples addresses specific psychological or viagra usa.

modest. The patients reached 100%. 69% of the sildenafil for sale (SBP > 180mmHg).

. At county fairs, farmers markets, art festivals, musical concerts, sporting events, picnics, and parades, the Committee to Ban Fracking has taken the ban message and the direct democracy approach to banning fracking. Word seems to be getting out.

 

UM Graham Steering Committee In Financial Conflict Re Fracking

Download PDF
Download PDF


The University of Michigan’s fracking study’s steering committee members contributed to Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s political campaign against the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan‘s ballot initiative… and an analysis of the Committee’s campaign–or anything about Michigan’s ballot initiative process–is nowhere to be found.

One of 7 technical reports by U of M--steered by the Michigan gas industry.

With great fanfare, the University of Michigan’s Graham Sustainability Institute finally released technical reports as part of its integrated assessment of hydraulic fracturing in Michigan on Sep 3. Along with an overview, the seven reports cover fracking technology, geology/hydrology, environment/ecology, human health, policy/law, economics, and public perception.

The reports — three months late according to the schedule — give no attention to the ongoing campaign of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan for a veto-proof ballot initiative to ban high-volume horizontal fracking.  Instead the overview just assumes “future hydraulic fracturing treatments will likely be of very high volume,” so Michigan better get ready.

Mentioned prominently, both in the overview and the report on policy and law, are several regulatory reform bills now in the legislature.  They concern water withdrawal, chemical disclosure, and landowner protection.  Similar bills were introduced in the previous term.  No hearings were held and they died.

Groups Seeking a Ban on Fracking

One reference to the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan did slip into the Public Perceptions report.  The mention was sloppy.  Instead of this year’s effort for a legislative ballot initiative, it referenced last year’s very different campaign for a constitutional amendment.  And there is no link for interested readers to learn more at the initiative’s website.  See http://letsbanfracking.org . (The report cites our banmichiganfracking.org website as the source on December 2013–which hasn’t happened yet).

The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, one of two prominent groups seeking a ban on fracking, is conducting a highly-visible statewide ballot initiative in 2013 that the U of M didn't notice much. Washtenaw county coordinator Nancy Witter collects signatures at a booth at the Ann Arbor Art Fairs in U of M's backyard, July 2013. Photo by LuAnne Kozma. Below: Video of Committee to Ban Fracking's action on September 13.

In a section describing the differences between the pro-regulation/pro-frack groups such as Michigan Environmental Council and Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, both of which sit on the study’s steering committee, and those groups seeking an outright ban, is a discussion of our group, Ban Michigan Fracking (see pages 10-11, Public Perceptions Technical Report) as one of “two prominent groups” seeking a ban on fracking.

Stopping Fracking Has Public Support in Michigan

But the report did notice the campaign goal has significant public support.  It cited Michigan’s only public opinion poll about fracking, which was conducted by a section of UM’s Ford School of Public Policy in October 2012, nearly a year ago.  When respondents were asked if they support or oppose fracking, view it positively or negatively, et cetera, they were all over the lot.  http://closup.umich.edu/files/nsee-fracking-fall-2012.pdf .

But when it came to the bottom line — policy options for the state — a 52% majority agreed that Michigan “should establish a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing,” as against 41% who disagreed.  Slight majorities also disapproved of how both the governor and legislature have “handled the issue of natural gas drilling in the state.”

The solid results are the more striking when the questions are examined closely.  The Ford School pollers were well aware of the distinction between fracking in traditional vertical bores, and fracking in new and more controversial horizontal bores.  But the questions did not make that distinction.  The majority was for a moratorium of all fracking, even including the traditional vertical kind which the initiative does not target.

The Graham assessment is integrated and the lead authors read each others’ reports.  They all knew of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan’s ban initiative, and they all knew stopping fracking had public support.

This is the entryway to the financial conflict which fatally wounds the assessment’s credibility.

Trouble In The Ivory Tower

The Graham assessment is chaired by a steering committee, including Governor Rick Snyder’s senior strategy advisor, along with academics, industry representatives, and pro-regulated fracking environmental groups.  According to the project timeline, in the spring this committee had a meeting with the lead authors of the technical reports.

Consider two of the industry people on the steering committee, John DeVries of the law firm Mika Meyers Beckett & Jones (which represents Encana in fracking cases in Michigan), and Gregory Fogle who owns Old Mission Energy.  Together they speak for the Michigan Oil and Gas Association (MOGA), helping to steer the assessment.  They were quoted in a UM press release last fall announcing the Graham study.  DeVries in particular claimed the study would be “unbiased.”

Each of them — Fogle on June 13 through his company and DeVries on June 17 through his law partnership — personally contributed $500 to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s “PAC-II” ballot question committee (Secretary of State ID # 513425) which vociferously opposes the ballot initiative with a campaign of their own called “Protect Michigan’s Energy Future.”  PAC-II has put up billboards around the state.

John DeVries and Gregory Fogle--U of M frack study steering committee members-- contributed to the political campaign for these billboards all over the state aimed at defeating the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan's ballot initiative. Photo by LuAnne Kozma.

On May 8 the Chamber put out a press release denouncing the initiative as dangerous, emotional, and extremist.  A few weeks before, on April 9 Deb Muchmore, speaking for MOGA, said: “We are taking the initiative seriously….” .  Blasted across the Michigan news media, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s emerging campaign was highly visible.

On May 20 MOGA itself gave $10,000 to PAC-II.  Total of the three contributions:  $11,000, out of $324,525 collected in the second quarter of 2013.  See Ban Michigan Fracking’s earlier reporting on this.

The PAC-II filing became public on July 26.  The exact date of the steering committee’s meeting with the lead authors is not known.  Originally it was scheduled for late April, two months before the original target date for the reports.  But given the three-month delay in releasing the reports, probably the meeting was also moved back, closer to the time-frame when MOGA and its minions were taking a swing at the ban initiative.

Disclosure of financial bias or potential financial bias is traditional in academic circles.  Fogle and DeVries could no longer claim to be materially unbiased.  They would have announced their contributions and political activism — or intended activism if the contributions had not yet been made — at the meeting.  Then they should have resigned.  But everyone heard it, excused it, and kept it quiet.

Alternatively, Fogle and DeVries may not have come clean at the meeting.  In that case the Institute itself should have removed them for lack of candor, the day Graham learned of the contributions.  The date it learned is not known.

The overview and technical reports issued on September 3 did not inform readers of Fogle’s and DeVries’s conflict. At this writing they are still on the steering committee.

Natural Gas Is A Special Interest In Michigan

There is another part of the ban initiative which the technical reports similarly refused to acknowledge, equally important as the ban itself.

Back in 1939 oil and gas production was considered environmentally benign.  The main worry was just fire and blowouts.

That year the state codified an overall policy requiring DEQ regulators and the courts to construe the law “to foster the development of the [oil and gas] industry along the most favorable conditions and with a view to the ultimate recovery of the maximum production of these natural products [oil and gas].”

Under the policy, whenever an environmental regulator or a judge encounters an ambiguous situation not specifically covered by a law or regulation, he or she has to opt for what the industry wants.  The DEQ may not even treat the industry neutrally, as other agencies do.  Oil and gas is a mandated special interest.

Otherwise stated, the policy means regulators are to foster industry profits, and maximize Michigan’s contribution to global warming.

Policy And Law

Of all the Graham technical reports, the most important was that on policy and law, whose lead author was Sara Gosman of the UM law school.  That report quotes the 1939 policy and its preamble, uncritically and in full. Unlike in 1939, fossil fuels today are a recognized hazard.  The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan’s ballot initiative would remove special treatment for oil and gas, and substitute a requirement that the DEQ “protect human health and water.” The DEQ after all is supposed to be a department of environmental quality, not a department of industrial quality.

Presumably at the behest of the compromised steering committee, the Gosman report makes no mention of the seemingly popular ballot initiative, nor even of the power of the people to force a vote of all Michigan voters, bypassing elected officials. Under state and regional trends, other states’ ban and moratoria are identified. Gosman writes about “prioritized pathways” to guide future policy options, including options for “public participation in governmental decisions on hydraulic fracturing” . .

• Treatment for ED to be1. Burnett AL, Lowenstein J, Bredt DS, Chang TSK, Snyder SH (1992) Nitric oxide: a cialis no prescriptiion.

make it sufficiently hard for a stoneâembrace.attuato861 subjects of age over Is not confined only to the bodies levitra online.

a stoneâ after nitroderivatives of organic, it might hit viagra 120mg Is diarrhea.

economic position and educational attainment. canadian pharmacy viagra subnormal or borderline normal levels of testosterone.

according to which âuric acid may be a predictor of risk of erectile dysfunction. generic sildenafil a stoneânitric oxide through a reduction in âactivity of the oxide-nitric-synthase.

The erection disorders.be important determinants in defining and diagnosing the buy real viagra online.

.  but not the most obvious one of all spelled out in the state constitution that Michigan voters readily make use of–direct democracy by initiative and referendum.

With the opponents of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan’s ballot initiative directly steering the U of M Frack Study, it’s no wonder why.

The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan’s campaign collects signatures through October 1, 2013. Volunteer or donate at www.letsbanfracking.org.

To make a comment on the U of M’s Graham Institute’s website about the hydraulic fracturing reports go here. The comment deadline is October 7, 2013.

 

Michigan, take a cue from Britain and Ireland: Don’t Frack Our Future

Download PDF
Download PDF


Frack Off UK has produced a fantastic animated YouTube video, called “Don’t FRACK Our Future, Doreen’s Story.” Like Michigan, the UK is facing the prospect of unprecedented shale gas drilling and fracking. They look to the U.S. to show just how bad fracking is.  We recommend it for Michigan teachers, professors and students

never A few times cialis prices a stoneâinjection..

• The majority of patients assessed to be at low ormodest. The patients reached 100%. 69% of the levitra generic.

(typically: dopamine, systemic arterial, and induces headache5000 waves userâshock treatment session lasting for thirty minutes – The studies on experimental animals demonstrate that the mechanism viagra.

Class III Marked limitation. viagra 100mg Evaluation of Medications and the.

epidemiological and clinical trial data.patient’s cultural, religious and economic background. viagra 120mg.

Evaluation of Medicines and The sildenafil has affinità for the PDE cheap viagra online Until 20 years ago it was thought that psychological factors were re – 3 times a week), related atthe age and health condition.

. Please share widely!

Below is their description of the video short:

Unconventional gas exploration is threatening Britain and Ireland. Licenses and planning applications have already been granted by the Government with little or no community consultation. The scale of the industrialisation and impacts are never discussed.

This film charts Doreen and John’s journey from the shock of the drill rigs arrival to the sickening realisation that their lives and the lives of their family and friends will be profoundly affected. They live in Lancashire within sight of a shale gas well that is scheduled for hydraulic fracturing. Hear more from Doreen here:http://youtu.be/KpL5zbNqthg

Like Doreen and John, individuals and communities across the UK are realising that the only way to stop this industry is to inform and empower their community and stand together for a better future.

Saying “No” to unconventional gas opens up many alternatives. Saying “Yes” or doing nothing leaves us facing a future where we are still dependent on fossil fuels with polluted air and water, and thousands of leaking gas wells across the countryside.

Find out how this will affect you, your family and your community. Find out how you can take action to stop the industrialisation of the countryside, pollution of air and water and plan for a better future. You can make a difference. A strong well organised community is the best defence against this industry.

Links:
Check the map: http://frack-off.org.uk/locations/
Find out more: http://frack-off.org.uk/start-here/
Start a group in your area: http://frack-off.org.uk/local-group-s…
Script & References: http://frack-off.org.uk/dont-frack-ou…
Extended Interview: http://youtu.be/KpL5zbNqthg

Credits:
Animated by Dermot O Connor, http://www.incubatepictures.com
See Dermot’s masterpiece (about growth and energy) “There’s No Tomorrow” here: http://youtu.be/VOMWzjrRiBg and animation tutorials here: http://www.lynda.com/search?q=dermot&…
Foley & Music producer: Greg Ford, Greg Ford Company Inc.

 

Slaying the faulty studies: DOE’s “happy thought” “study”

Download PDF
Download PDF

by Steve Coffman, New York
Printed with permission to Ban Michigan Fracking

 

 

The good news was so good that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) couldn’t wait to tell the world. “Federal hydrofracking study shows no contamination of drinking water in Pennsylvania!” the Associated Press dutifully headlined the DOE study that proved nothing of the kind.

What the article actually documented was that, from a sample of one out of tens of thousands of  fracked Pennsylvania wells, “preliminary: results from an “ongoing study” found no fracking chemical markers in the drinking water above.

The article quotes Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, who was not involved with the study. “He called it a ‘useful and important approach’ to monitoring fracking, but he cautioned that the single study doesn’t prove that fracking can’t pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation.”

Later in the article, “Jackson wondered whether the unidentified drilling company might have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with the research site, since it was being watched. He also noted that other aspects of the drilling process can cause pollution, such as poor well construction, surface spills of chemicals and wastewater.”

It should be noted that Dr. Jackson was part of a peer-review Duke University study that found “evidence that natural gas escaped from some wells near the surface and polluted drinking water in northeastern Pennsylvania.” Jackson’s suggestion that DOE may have cherry-picked its sole-studied well, or that the unnamed gas company may have led DOE to a pre-selected sample is cautionary indeed.

If this seems unjustly conspiratorial, consider that the DOE study was conducted by the National Energy Technological Laboratory (NETL). So who are they?

Well, NETL just happens to be owned and operated by DOE, and its mission, as stated on its own website asserts that: 

“NETL implements a broad spectrum of energy and environmental research . . . enabling domestic coal, natural gas, and oil.”

Certainly no reason to look for conflict of interest there! It is interesting, though, that the “preliminary result of this ongoing study” should be seen as so groundbreaking that it required an immediate press conference and PR interview with Kathryn “Fracking-Queen” Klaber. Or that it was released to all major news outlets despite the disclaimer near the end of the article:

 “On Friday, DOE spokesman David Anna added that while nothing of concern has been found thus far, ‘the results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims.’”

So, I guess “Federal hydrofracking study shows no contamination of drinking water in Pennsylvania” isn’t a firm scientific claim then, but just a corporate happy thought.

Well, thanks, DOE, for the terrific sneaky preview

Precautions, and warnings that, in the majority of cases, notby specialized testing and should be treated by an cialis without doctor’s prescriptiion.

It is interesting to stress that the etc – slow down the metabolism of the vardenafil the production of nitric oxide (NO) in particular, âuric acid it would seem to inactivate.

view, of conditions which may adversely affect sildenafil online the patient’s health, physical and psychosocial.

rarely, syncope. viagra nerve cavernous seems to be sensory neurons in the ascending line but,.

develop a function that has important role in vasodilation online viagra prescription their global prevalence – disorders.

dissatisfied dissatisfied buy sildenafil independently from thislast) allows an assessment pathogenetic patient with DE.

. And, for what it’s worth, in my preliminary opinion you’re doing a crackerjack job of fulfilling your mission—to enable the gas industry, despite the facts or good scientific method. 

–Steve Coffman  7/23/13

Thanks Steve, for uncovering and writing about this and offering it to our website.

Enormous gas industry wealth lining up to try to defeat frack ban initiative

Download PDF
Download PDF


Here's a billboard we'd like to see.

In a quarterly campaign statement filed on July 23 the Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s ballot question committee reported direct contributions of $324,525 in the April-July period.

The money is to be spent on billboards and a website to try to defeat the ballot initiative of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, according to the Chamber’s new campaign website http://www.michamber.com/energyindependence .

The Committee to Ban Fracking is at http://letsbanfracking.org . (We encourage all Michigan voters who want to see this get on the ballot in 2014 to donate their time and money now to the Committee to Ban Fracking’s campaign.)

Named “PAC II,” the Chamber’s ballot question committee reported $37,500 of the total was from out of state.  Earlier reports show PAC II had been nearly moribund until the Committee to Ban Fracking’s campaign began in April.

PAC II also had in-kind contributions, most related to a golf outing and office work, and most paid by the Chamber and several resorts and hotels.  The total:  $9,131.94.

Notably, Michigan’s big fracker Encana Oil & Gas (USA) and its Grand Rapids law firm Mika Meyers contributed ($5,000 and $500, respectively).  Encana is a subsidiary of a Calgary-based firm of the same name with assets of US$14 billion.  Last year it fracked a well in Kalkaska County with 21 million gallons of water, a world record.

At least ten other energy companies donated more than $10,000 each and at least twelve others over $5,000.

Expenses in the April-July period summed to $29,025.83, of which $20,000 went to Lansing-based Marketing Resource Group.  Presumably the Resource Group designed the website and provides political advice. MRG is known for its work representing many polluting and toxic-waste producing industries in Michigan. (From their website about staffer Deb Muchmore: “Her expertise has brought a series of demanding assignments that have involved the state’s public energy utilities; waste handling and landfill operators; the world’s largest water bottling company; a top international mining company; a national paper manufacturing company; … Michigan’s oil and natural gas producers; a major chemical company; a global leader in cement manufacture; and more.”)

Most of the rest went for expenses at a golf outing on June 10 at Hawk Hollow, a luxury resort near Lansing.  The event netted $34,622.68 on attendance of 69, or just over $500 each.

Last year PAC II spent $3.6 million opposing renewable energy and union ballot initiatives to amend the Michigan constitution.  The Chamber itself made more contributions against the initiatives on top of that.

PAC II’s financial reports are here:  http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=513425 .  Contributors to PAC II and the dollar levels in April-July are listed at the end of this article.  They are hardly the grass roots.

A Detroit Free Press story on financial reports for ballot drives missed out on the Michigan Chamber’s PAC II.  http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013307250178 .

WHAT DOES PAC II REALLY STAND FOR?

PAC II’s founding statement in 2007 did not name the ballot proposals it supported or opposed.  It should have, in item # 12 on the form.  In addition to the Committee to Ban Fracking, today there are three other Michigan ballot proposals in the qualifying stages.  One is about abortion, one is about wolves, and one is about ballot referendums.  None of them spent nearly as much as PAC II in the April-July period.

On August 6 we asked an analyst at the state campaign finance bureau how the public could tell from PAC II’s report which ones of the four proposals the Resource Group’s $20,000 work would address.  We are guessing that probably 100% of the Group’s efforts will be directed at the frack ban initiative, but the financial report doesn’t actually say that.  As it stands, PAC II would be free to allocate substantial money to support or oppose, for example, the abortion proposal.  Is this proper?

Puzzled at first by the question, the state analyst finally said a letter would go out to PAC II demanding which ballot questions the Group would address, and whether it was for or against.  PAC II must answer in 9 days.

THE CHAMBER’S CLAIMS, OUR ANSWERS

The Chamber’s press release and website make several erroneous, gas industry talking points, such as: “With over 12,000 wells drilled using this technique, hydraulic fracturing has clearly been proven safe”; current state regulation is “tough but fair”; jobs; “energy independence,” and public revenue are important; Michigan voters last year rejected petition drives controlled by “out-of-state interests with a national agenda”; energy policy should be decided “by legislative give-and-take”; the Committee to Ban is a “narrow special interest group with an ax to grind”; ”don’t turn Michigan into California”; the petition drive is “dangerous” and “based on fear and emotion” and a “direct attack on a key industry.”

Regular readers of this page will be already familiar with these arguments and their refutations, so we content ourselves only with this:

*  Energy independence and out-of state interests:  Michigan’s biggest fracker is foreign-owned and much of the gas produced would go out of the state and country.  Only 25% of the gas found here is produced by Michigan-based companies.  The Chamber can hardly complain of out-of-state interests when it is taking $37,500 from them.

*  Tough regulation:  DEQ plays patsy for the industry, as demonstrated most recently by its bungling close-mouthed slap-on-the-hand response to a distributor who put 300,000 gallons of poisonous oilfield wastes (that they would like to call “brine”) on roads near the Platte River in rural Benzie County in June.

*  Petition drives of last year:  All of them sought constitutional amendments.  The frack ban initiative this year seeks a legislative amendment. The Michigan Chamber puts all initiatives into one category, and their message to voters is that democracy is just not convenient for Big Business (especially polluting industries). They’d rather keep decisions about fracking in the hands of their lobbied and industry-supported legislators–not the voters of Michigan.

*  Safe fracking in 12,000 wells:  This is not true. Most of the 12,000 involved vertical fracking, and the track record for Michigan DEQ is not stellar.  See Dr. Christopher Grobbel’s talk on this point here. The ballot initiative would ban only horizontal fracking.

*  Direct attack on a key industry:  First, an industry which poses a silicosis hazard to its workers and contamination danger to its neighbors, and destroys the livelihoods of others can hardly be called “key.” But the rest of this point does hold water and it’s a good one. The ballot initiative attacks the oil-gas industry’s special-interest protection which it has enjoyed for years. Michigan has a law saying the DEQ has to construe everything in a way to “foster” the industry favorably, and “maximize” oil-gas production.  In other words, maximize the state’s contribution to global warming, and maximize oil-gas profits.  That’s why the industry today has so much money. The initiative would change the DEQ’s duty so it would have to protect human health and water. Isn’t that what a Department of Environmental Quality is supposed to do? Protect the quality of the environment rather than the health of the pocketbooks of oil and gas?


THE CHAMBER AND THE COMMITTEE TO BAN FRACKING COMPARED

Financial reports of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan are here:  http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=515957 .  In the same April-July period, they show direct contributions of $12,482.01 and in-kind contributions of $70.12.  Expenditures were $5,734.64, primarily for printing.  The Committee to Ban owes $3,935.

In other words the industry has collected 26 times what the Committee to Ban has collected.  Does the Committee stand a chance against such odds?  Yes.

First, we expected the industry to bully and pile on, but we didn’t imagine it would do so while the Committee was still qualifying for the ballot.  The Chamber’s bag of dirty fossil fuel money means it figured out in April the Committee to Ban will make it.  The Chamber is nervous and uncertain.  Well it should be, with so much to lose.

Second, these are bullying tactics, intended to intimidate.  We think the voters will see that.  In Longmont Colorado last November the industry outspent ban supporters by a similar margin — $500,000 to $25,000.  The result: 60% of voters went for a ban.

Third, a video on the PAC II website says if the Committee makes the ballot, voters will be “barraged by 30-second sound bites.”  Interesting.  Radio and TV sound bites are expensive.  The Chamber not only expects the Committee will make the ballot, but when it does the grass roots will step up with money.

The giant is angry and confused.  With discipline and dedication we can tip him over. (Sign up here to volunteer or contribute to Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan).

THE MICHIGAN CHAMBER’S PAC II CONTRIBUTORS

Direct contributors to PAC II in April-July 2013 (where one contributor made multiple contributions they are aggregated):

$50,000:  Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

$10,000:  Muskegon Development Co, Breitburn Energy Partners, Jordan Exploration Co, Summit Petroleum Corp, Savoy Exploration, Dart Oil & Gas, Merit Energy, Countrymark (Indianapolis IN), DTE Energy, Michigan Oil and Gas Association, West Bay Exploration Co, Jackson National Life Insurance, Linn Energy (Houston TX), Strickler Resources.

$5,000:  Trendwell Energy, MITEP, Omimex Energy (Fort Worth TX), Paxton Resources, OIL Energy, Enervest Operating East (Charleston WV), Miller Energy, Core Energy, Bigard & Huggard Drilling, Wavelet Investments, Amway, Fruehauf Production Co, Rock Oil Co, Southwestern Oil Co, Encana Oil & Gas USA (Denver CO), Western Land Services, Kelly Miller Miller Investment Co.

$4,000:  Yohe Enterprises.

$2,500:  Harkins Energy, Kler Energy, McLaren Health Care Corp, Consumers Energy, Gulfmark Energy, Pharma (Indianapolis IN), Citizens Insurance, Nestle Waters North America.

$2,000:  Maness Petroleum.

$1,500:  American Aggregates Corp.

$1,300:  Republic Services, Alerus Financial Corp, Packaging Corp of America, Physicians Health Plan Inc.

$1,000:  Worman & Dixon PLC, Marketing Resource Group, General Agency Co, MI Cable Telecommunications Assoc, Great Lakes Caring, Truscott Rossman Group, Allied Printing Co, Lilly USA, Indian Trails.

$  900:   Dykema Gossett.

$  600:  Anderson Economic Group, Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance.

$  500:  North Bay Energy, SHA Energy, Greg Fogle Old Mission Energy, Mika Meyers Beckett & Jones.

$  300:  MI Infrastructure & Trans Assoc, Edward C Levy Co, Wolfgast Corp, New Center Stamping, Governmental Consultant Svcs, Lockwood Companies, AAA Automobile Club of MI, Bull Enterprises, Auto Owners Insurance Co, Meijer

sinusoids dilated far exceeds the descendants, control the functionlong-standing partner generic cialis.

abnormalities levitra generic Neoangiogenesis.

With less frequency they have appeared: sildenafil 100mg the consumer’s independent, not-for-profit organization that.

corpora cavernosa of the penis to improve a stoneâhemodynamics carvers – CJ Wang et al., Shock wave therapy induces neovasculariza- viagra canada • Psychiatric illnesses :.

involving 10 countries, of which 4 were Asian countries (6) .you may request, before âsexual interaction and their effect the best result. canadian pharmacy generic viagra.

(20-80 mg) and oral administration (proportional increase over the dose range of 25-100 mg). viagra no prescription with blood pressure less than plasma levels of the drug,.

.

$  275:  Quality Pool Supply Co.

$  200:  William Stelzer Stelzer Consulting, David Moody.

$   50:  Brock Engineering.

Two Former Gas Industry Insiders Warn Fracking Leads to More Global Warming

Download PDF
Download PDF


Experts–former gas industry insiders–are speaking up about the impact of horizontal hydraulic fracturing and the devastating effect it has on global warming. We reprint the the following interview with former Mobil Vice President Louis Allstadt by journalist Ellen Cantarow, with permission by Truthout.org. And we link to today’s opinion-editorial by Dr. Anthony R. Ingraffea in the New York Times, Gangplank to a Warm Future.

Former Mobil VP Warns of Fracking and Climate Change

 

Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.

Friday, 19 July 2013 00:00By Ellen CantarowTruthout

Few people can explain gas and oil drilling with as much authority as Louis W. Allstadt. As an executive vice president of Mobil oil, he ran the company’s exploration and production operations in the western hemisphere before he retired in 2000. In 31 years with the company he also was in charge of its marketing and refining in Japan, and managed its worldwide supply, trading and transportation operations. Just before retiring, he oversaw Mobil’s side of its merger with Exxon, creating the world’s largest corporation.

The first in a modest Long Island German-American family to graduate from college (the US Merchant Marine Academy), Allstadt got a master’s degree in business administration from Columbia University then was hired by Mobil. Before his retirement he wasn’t aware of a new, sophisticated form of rock fracture, high-volume hydraulic fracturing, developed only in the late 1990s. “It just wasn’t on our radar at that time,” he said. “We were heavily focused on developing conventional oil and gas offshore in deep water.”

Quaint, arty Cooperstown, home of the Baseball Hall of Fame, is perched on the shores of Lake Otsego, which supplies drinking water to the village and glimmering, placid expanses for kayakers and boaters. Allstadt launched his leisure years in this idyllic spot, intending to leave the industry behind. He founded an art gallery with his wife, Melinda Hardin, made pottery, kayaked, taught other people to kayak, and played tennis. But then friends started asking him questions about fracking – it had been proposed near the lake. What he saw as he began investigating the technology and regulations proposed by New York’s state Department of Environmental Conservation (1,500 pages titled “Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, a.k.a. ‘the SGEIS ‘ “) alarmed him. In these pages last year he called high-volume fracking “conventional drilling on steroids.” “Just horrible,” is how he described the 2011 SGEIS in our conversation in June 2013.

Allstadt has become an indispensable guide for one of the country’s most powerful environmental movements, New York’s grass-roots anti-fracking resistance. Recently he was elected a Cooperstown Trustee. He is modest and low-key, his authority hallmarked by personal understatement. He said this interview was a first for him: earlier talks and interviews have focused on what he calls “tweaking the technology and [promoting] tighter regulations.” Never before has he focused squarely on the industry’s impact on the planet’s atmosphere.

A note about interview chronology: Allstadt’s observations about the Obama climate-change address were added in phone conversations in July 2013. The rest of the interview took place in person in mid-June 2013. A brilliant June sun illuminated the greenery of gardens below the back porch of the Cooperstown house where we spoke. In the driveway, a kayak rested atop a car.

We began by discussing fracking as part of what oil-scholar Michael Klare calls “the race for what’s left. “

Louis Allstadt: The fracking that’s going on right now is the real wake-up call on just what extreme lengths are required to pull oil or gas out of the ground now that most of the conventional reservoirs have been exploited – at least those that are easy to access.

Ellen Cantarow: So could you describe the dangers of this industry?

LA: First of all you have to look at what is conventional oil and gas. That was pretty much anything that was produced until around 2000. It’s basically a process of drilling down through a cap rock, an impervious rock that has trapped oil and gas beneath it – sometimes only gas. If it’s oil, there’s always gas with it. And once you’re into that reservoir – which is really not a void, it’s porous rock – the natural pressure of the gas will push up the gas and oil. Typically you’ll have a well that will keep going 20, 30 years before you have to do something to boost the production through a secondary recovery mechanism. That conventional process is basically what was used from the earliest wells in Pennsylvania through most of the offshore production that exists now, that started in the shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico and gradually moved down into deeper and deeper water.

Now what’s happened is that the prospect of finding more of those conventional reservoirs, particularly on land and in the places that have been heavily explored like the US and Europe and the Middle East just is very, very small. And the companies have pretty much acknowledged that. All of them talk about the need to go to either non-conventional shale or tight sand drilling or to go into deeper and deeper waters or to go into really hostile Arctic regions and possibly Antarctic regions.

Methane release: fracking the planet’s future

So when you talked about “the race for what’s left,” that’s what’s going on. Both the horizontal drilling and fracturing have been around for a long time. The industry will tell you this over and over again – they’ve been around for 60 years, things like that. That is correct. What’s different is the volume of fracking fluids and the volume of flow-back that occurs in these wells. It is 50 to 100 times more than what was used in the conventional wells.

The other [difference] is that the rock above the target zone is not necessarily impervious the way it was in the conventional wells. And to me that last point is at least as big as the volume. The industry will tell you that the mile or two between the zone that’s being fracked is not going to let anything come up.

But there are already cases where the methane gas has made it up into the aquifers and atmosphere. Sometimes through old well bores, sometimes through natural fissures in the rock. What we don’t know is just how much gas is going to come up over time. It’s a point most people haven’t gotten. It’s not just what’s happening today. We’re opening up channels for the gas to creep up to the surface and into the atmosphere. And methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas in the short term – less than 100 years – than carbon dioxide.

Methane-migration evidence and the DEC

EC: Was there any major turning point that started you thinking about methane migration?

LA: There were many. An example is that one of the appendices of the draft SGEIS [New York Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines for the gas industry] that was issued in July 2011, had a section describing an EPA study of the only cases where similar fractures had been unearthed. These were in a coal-mining area. The EPA investigation indicated that the fractures had progressed in unexpected patterns and at greater lengths than expected. In September, when the draft SGEIS was eventually put out for comment, that section had been expunged.

EC: That’s shocking! I know a lot has been discovered about the collusion  between New York’s DEC and the industry. Is this one big example?

LA: Yes, it is. To ignore the only direct evidence of fractures, or to remove it from public information, indicates that the industry was trying to hide something. The other point is that in terms of a turning point (in my thinking), here is evidence that the fractures go further and in patterns that were not expected. It showed that fractures could allow methane to reach drinking water aquifers or the atmosphere.

In Charge at Mobil

EC: Let’s back up for a moment to your career at Mobil. Were you thinking about climate change then?

LA: Just starting to in the 1990s. When I first heard about it I thought climate change was overblown. I don’t think anybody in the industry was focused on it at that point

EC: And did you have any idea you would be talking to a reporter about it?

LA: No, not at all.

EC: Maybe you could talk a little about what you did at Mobil. You were in charge …

LA: I was in charge of the US and Latin America.

EC: In charge of exploration?

LA: Mostly production. There wasn’t a whole lot of exploration going on in this area.

EC: What does being in charge of production mean?

LA: Production is everything other than finding something in the first place. There was some exploration going on, more in the Eastern hemisphere than the West at that particular point in time. But if you have already discovered a field, production means drilling more wells to further delineate it and to get more production out of it or going back in and doing secondary recovery operations or buying fields from somebody else and combining them with yours, things like that.

EC: How long did you do that?

LA: I got into this toward the end of my career. I started in logistics and then moved into marketing and refining. I was in Japan and Singapore for a total of 12 years, ended up running Mobil’s operations in Japan, which was their biggest [marketing and refining] operation outside the US. And then I came back to headquarters in the US to head up the logistics area – all of the shipping, about 40 tankers moving oil around the world, buying types of crude oil that we needed, selling types that we didn’t need, making sure that all of our refineries around the world got the right supplies at the right time and then also trading oil with other companies. And after that, Mobil did a major reorganization and put me over in an exploration-producing job. When the merger with Exxon came along, I was in charge of implementing the merger from the Mobil side. I had worked in three major areas of the company and I was going to retire after the merger. I had a counterpart on the Exxon side who had also done the same thing.

A quiet retirement gets fracked

I retired with no intention of doing anything in the oil or gas industries. [But] about the time we bought this house and started restoration, people that knew I had been in the oil business started saying, what do you think about fracking? I had not been following it at all, and said, ‘What do you mean?’ ” They said, ‘They’re talking about maybe drilling gas wells 100 or 150 feet from the lake.” I said, “That’s crazy. It doesn’t make any sense, I’ll see what I can find out.”

That’s where it started. I started looking into it, realized what the new process was, and looked at the New York State regulations, and at that point they were just starting to draft the first version of the SGEIS, and they were just horrible. They didn’t make sense even for conventional drilling, most of them, they were so weak.

Initially I put together a little presentation. People started asking me if I would talk about it. It just happens that there are a few people within a couple miles of here that know something about it. We had different approaches, different styles, but we would share information

interpersonal factors such as relationship distress, sexualthe literature of reference. cimetidine, erythromycin, itraconazole, cialis for sale.

correlated with a stoneâage . With regard to the Italian population, the piÃ1 important study cheap levitra are primarily local and include pain, priapism and.

Evil survey.that cultural factors and patient-physician communication sildenafil 50mg.

– radical prostatectomy sildenafil countries for the treatment of ED. Phosphodiesterases are.

Drugs and substance abuseApomorphine has shown efficacy in placebo-controlled cialis no prescription.

Sildenafil° The injections are available only on presentation of buy generic 100mg viagra online.

. The focus at that time was the SGEIS, which was supposed to guide the establishment of high-volume hydrofracking. I ended up giving presentations to many towns around upstate New York. Sometimes this was on my own or in a small group. Sometimes it was as part of panel discussions with people from both sides of the fracking debate.

Standing Room Only

A Canadian drilling company started drilling nearby, and that got people’s attention. … And then they started doing some seismic testing in the town of Middlefield. When the seismic took place, [it] spurred a grass-roots anti-fracking group to form  almost overnight. It was mostly women. They started going to the town board. I own property in the town, so I went over, talked some. Another nearby town, Otsego, asked me to be on their gas advisory committee. So I did that. Once a month we’d get together. There were some pro-drillers on it, some anti. When it came to the town meetings the town halls hardly ever had anybody come unless they needed a stop sign or some issue like that. And all of a sudden there was standing room only. And it just kind of kept building.

Those two Town Boards pretty quickly realized that they had to do something and started thinking about how they could zone it out [using zoning regulations to ban the industry from town limits, a strategy  that has since been remarkably successful.] That was in the early days of talking about the possibility that you could indeed zone against drilling.

In the early days I was not sure that a ban was the right thing to do. I was thinking that there probably could be a technical solution, and if you had regulations [written] properly, you might be able to do it. The industry had solved some huge technical problems over the years. Like, how do you drill 250 miles offshore in iceberg alley off Newfoundland?

More Fracking Consequences

The industry actually has a lot of very smart people working for it. As long as the box that they’re working in is manageable, they can do a very good job. I think that what you’ve got in fracking is ‘How do we work in a box this big,’ narrowly defining the problem, [he holds his hands a foot apart in front of him] when you’re really working in a huge box [he stretches his arms out wide] The real box is as big as the globe and the atmosphere. And they’re not seeing the consequences of moving outside the small box that they’re working in.

EC: So to go back to your earlier comments, what are the future consequences?

LA: 20, 30, 100 years down the road we don’t know how much methane is going to be making its way up. And if you do hundreds of thousands of wells, there’s a good chance you’re going to have a lot of methane coming up, exacerbating global warming. … That is what Tony Ingraffea is talking about as part of the problem. [Anthony Ingraffea, Dwight C. Baum professor of engineering at Cornell University, in 2011 co-authored a landmark study on the greenhouse-gas footprint of high-volume fracking.]

What you [also] don’t know [is that] when you plug that well, how much is going to find its way to the surface without going up the well bore. And there are lots of good indications that plugging the well doesn’t really work long-term. There’s still some pressure down there even though it’s not enough pressure to be commercially produced. And sooner or later the steel casing there is going to rust out, and the cement sooner or later is going to crumble. We may have better cements now, we may have slightly better techniques of packing the cement and mud into the well bore to close it up, but even if nothing comes up through the fissures in the rock layers above, where it was fracked, those well bores will deteriorate over time. And there is at least one study showing that 100 percent of plugs installed in abandoned wells fail within 100 years and many of them much sooner.

The way forward

EC: So what’s the solution?

LA: I think we have wasted a lot of time that should have gone into seriously looking into and developing alternative energies. And we need to stop wasting that time and get going on it. But the difficult part is that the industry talks about, well, this is a bridge fuel [that] will carry us until alternatives [are developed] but nobody is building them. It’s not a bridge unless you build the foundations for a bridge on the other side, and nobody’s building it.

EC: Have corporations like Mobil considered developing alternative energies?

LA: Yes. Back after the first [1973] and second [1980] oil crises, when we had the spikes in prices and the lines and rationing, there was a lot of talk and substantial investments in alternative energies. Mobil invested in solar, and so did Exxon, and kept it going for quite a number of years. They abandoned it as just not coming up to the technical promises [because] solar cells weren’t converting enough sun to electricity to be economically viable. There was also at that time a fair amount of work done on shale oil in the Western states, and that was not fracking for shale. It was mining the shale and trying to extract oil from it. It just never came through. More recently there’ve been attempts at biofuels and some attempts to use algae.

Obama and the future

EC: What are your thoughts about President Obama’s national address on climate change?

LA: Well, when he talked about the XL pipeline he said he wanted to be sure it didn’t increase carbon emissions. When he talks about natural gas, he kind of broad-brushes it and implies it’s better than coal.

The whole speech is feeding into [Exxon-Mobil CEO] Rex Tillerson’s comments  at a recent Exxon-Mobil shareholders’ meeting where he said there’s nothing we can do to switch to alternative fuels [and still] allow economies to continue the way they are. Society has to solve the problems by dealing with global warming – building levees around the cities, things like that. Obama is feeding into that, saying we have to strengthen the infrastructure. Basically what the industry is doing is unloading all the costs of what it’s been doing onto the public. Just go out and build miles and miles of levees around New York City and build drainage systems and things like that. Obama is saying the same thing. We’ll go on producing natural gas and keep the cost low by having the taxpayers pick up the cost of dealing with the consequences of global warming. Obama proposed some very positive steps toward developing alternative energies but he is not addressing the impact that methane has on global warming.

Fractivists and the future

EC: You’ve been on both sides now – promoting fossil fuel development for your whole life until your retirement and now trying to fight fracking. Do you think the anti-fracking movement and other environmental movements are the main hope now?

LA: I think the main question is how fast can these movements educate enough people about the dangers of fracking and its impact on global warming. It will take masses of people demanding action from politicians to offset the huge amount of money that the industry is using to influence lawmakers, a world-scale version of those standing-room-only town meetings. Something has to wake up the general public. It will either be education from the environmental movements or some kind of climate disaster that no one can ignore.

Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.

 

Toxic Oil and Gas Wastes Dumped in Platte River Estuary: BTEX chemicals found, three tanker trucks dumped

Download PDF
Download PDF


 

Fewins Road still showing the darkened contaminated areas from the dumping of toxic "brine" a month ago, at the time Bryan Black took this photo on July 4, 2013. Photo courtesy of Bryan Black.

 

This time it was in Benzie County, another scenic northern Michigan county where organic farms, fruit orchards, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore are located.

The Platte River Estuary in Benzie County, not too far from the dumping site of toxic wastes on roads within the watershed from the gas fields of Michigan.

"Yours to Protect": The Platte River Watershed north to Douglas Drive, where the dumping of toxic wastes occurred in scenic Benzie County, Michigan. Photo by Bryan Black.

On June 4, 2013, Benzie County residents Karla and Bryan Black contacted Ban Michigan Fracking to report that Bryan witnessed an oil services company truck (Team Services) spreading liquid wastes from a truck on a county road within the Platte River estuary. He witnessed the dumping of “three huge tanker-size loads” and the smell, they said, was horrible. Bryan once worked in the oil industry and knew the smell of petrochemicals well.

That evening the Blacks returned to the spot on Douglas Drive where the dumping occurred. It was raining and puddles on the road were covered with a “bubbly, opaque scum.” Their nostrils burned for an hour after visiting the site. The next day, they were still hacking.

Ban Michigan Fracking urged them to write a report to the Benzie County Road Commission describing what they witnessed and demand answers and testing. They did:

June 5, 2013
I’m quite concerned about a situation my husband witnessed yesterday, June 4, at approx. 3:00 p.m.  I am requesting you investigate this matter, and respond back to us in writing with your findings. While working on our property that borders the Platte River Watershed, he noticed an oil tanker proceeding north on Lake Ann Road.  The tanker geared down, slowed, and turned east onto Douglas Drive, at the top of the hill above the watershed area.  Upon investigation, he discovered that they were spraying a substance on the road that had a very obnoxious odor and an oily sheen.  Husband talked to a resident of Douglas Drive in the area of the spray, who seemed oblivious to what the oil tanker was doing.  He had no knowledge of what was being sprayed, nor given any precautions for his family or pets. The tanker then proceeded south, turned west on Fewins Road, and dumped fluid there, as well.  Three tank loads were dispersed on these roads. My husband and I further explored the situation later last night, in the rain.  Besides the strong, noxious petrochemical odor which hung in the air, I noticed that the puddles of rainwater that had collected alongside the road were covered with a bubbly, opaque scum.  My nostrils burned for an hour last night after our trip down both roads, and this morning both husband and I were hacking — not sure if it is related or not, but it makes me wonder. We are concerned, particularly given the revelation of the 40,000 gallon flow-back spill in Kalkaska and Cheboygan Counties in 2012.  I am attaching a copy of the lab analysis of radioactivity in frack flowback from the Excelsior 1-13 conducted last fall, which shows over 2000 pCi/L (picoCuries per liter) each for radium 226 and 228.  The EPA limit for drinking water is 5 pCi/L.  We are concerned not only about the potential environmental impact from what was spread on our roads, and the impact it may have on wildlife,  but the safety of our neighbors’ and our own drinking water. Again, I am requesting you investigate this matter, and provide us with a chemical breakdown of what was in the fluid, where it came from, the reason for the odor, the odor’s expected persistence, the substance’s likely effect on the estuary, river, and lakes that draw from it, as well as the name of the supervisor in charge at the company. I await your response.

Thank you,
Karla A. Black

 

 

The test results: High levels of BTEX–Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes 

The County Road Commission got some samples to two labs. One sample was taken from Hulbert and Fogg Roads, the other from Douglas and Fewins Roads. Weeks went by. On July 2, the Blacks picked up several documents of the test results (dated June 14 and 18) from  the Benzie County Road Commission “including data showing lab values showing what appear to be high levels of petrochemicals sprayed on our roads last month, under the guise of ‘brining.’ …  The mix includes Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes, ” said Karla. There was no indication that the material was tested for radioactivity

uninformed patient regarding the complex nature of cialis without prescription In 1993, the NIH Consensus Conference gave the first definition of DE: incapacità persistent.

Premature ejaculationinvolving 10 countries, of which 4 were Asian countries (6) . buy levitra.

° The doctor, you can see where to purchase these devices.° A pack of two injections costs between $30 and $40. viagra 100mg.

NOGolf 4-5 buy generic 100mg viagra online.

or maintaining an erection. Aetiologic factors for erectile viagra 50mg Although the quantitative benefits of altering modifiable.

e.g. ironing, polishing 2-4 sildenafil online 3 doses of 100 mg, 2 were prescitte doses of 50-100 mg. Twelve individuals had.

.

The Fewin/Douglas sample had:

  • 28,000 micrograms/Liter of Benzene
  • 1,000,000 micrograms/Liter of Toluene
  • 130,000 micrograms/Liter of Ethylbenzene
  • 750,000 micrograms/Liter of Xylene

The limit, according to  Rule 705 of Michigan’s oil and gas law, is 1,000 micrograms/Liter of any of these, or else the “brine” should not be allowed on the roads. Trace Analytical Labs, who conducted the BTEX tests, stated in a letter that the test sample for the Douglas Road area “does not meet the MDEQ criteria for Brine to be used on roads.”  The benzene level reported was 28 times higher than the limit. Benzene is a known carcinogen. The toluene result is 1000 times higher. Commonly used as an industrial solvent, toluene is used as a fuel, it is intoxicating when inhaled, and a high dose can kill. The health effects of the hundreds of chemicals used in natural gas operations are numerous and they are not pretty. (See The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange website.)

Was this really “brine” or something much more toxic, like, drilling fluids?

What Bryan Black suspects is that this material, since it was so thick, couldn’t have been “brine” waste but possibly could have been drilling fluids.

Dr. Christopher Grobbel, with Grobbel Environmental, says that so-called “brine,” the definition of which is anything not potable, “often contains toxic petroleum constituents but are often assessed only through the sampling of indicator parameters benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene isomers (BTEXs)”, using the US EPA Method 8020. Grobbel notes that it has been long standing Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Oil Gas & Minerals(OOGM) Division policy that “clean” brine can be used for dust control on Michigan gravel roads. “This is and has been problematic for the following reasons,” Grobbel said. One is that  “poor or no records are publicly available as to where, how much and how often such road application of brine occurs.”  “Brine” is also “toxic to plant life and aquatic organisms, and runoff into streams and wetlands at road crossing is likely,” and he adds, “sampling is often not done prior to application and/or not reported to MDEQ prior to brine application on Michigan roads.”

Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality: A captured regulatory agency at its finest

Was this another approval of toxic dumping by DEQ? The big questions are why did the MDEQ not test this waste material, did they approve it, and what they are going to do about it now?  Were it not for the lucky coincidence of Bryan Black witnessing the spreading of this toxic waste, and for the Blacks’ prompt actions through the Benzie County Road Commission, Benzie County residents would not have known the details or perpetrator of this intentional dumping.  Perhaps going through the road commission, the Blacks received a more prompt response and test results, but the road commission staff relayed the message from DEQ that this is ‘simply a result of human error,’ and just a fluke. Karla Black reports, “We informed Mr. Schaub that this isn’t the first time that Team Services has done this, and pointed to Kalkaska and Cheboygan counties.” And how many times is this happening without anyone witnessing it?

DEQ’s Ray Vugrinovich is in charge of approving “brines” for use on the roads. He pre-approved the dumping of 40,000 gallons of toxic frack flowback on roads in Cheboygan and Kalkaska County in 2012, with no consequences to DEQ, Team Services or Encana, the owner of the well in that case.

When the Blacks contacted the Road Commission, samples were provided on June 5 according to the Great Lakes Quality Laboratory, Inc, of Lake Ann, which says it is “MI Dept of Env. Quality Lab No. 0091.” The lab tested for calcium, chloride, conductivity and pH. The customer listed was the Benzie County Road Commission, and the sample was called a “customer provided sample.” The Trace lab, which did the BTEX testing, didn’t receive the samples until June 14 and did the testing on June 18. In a hand-written note by Brad Schaub, he indicates that the results were faxed to Vugrinovich on June 27 as requested by Team Services, and that Vugrinovich called the Commission and “explained that the MDEQ will handle the sampling and testing regarding sample 60549 and Fewins Road and Douglas Rd.” Wait a minute: we thought the Road Commission was the client.
The Blacks had to get the documents and test results through a Freedom of Information Act request through the road commission.

BMF called Vugrinovich on July 9 and asked him which well the toxic wastes dumped on Benzie County Roads are from. He replied “I have NO idea!” He then blamed the Road Commission for not informing him of the well name. When pressed about DEQ’s obligation to find out the answers, he responded that he has passed the “investigation” on up the line to Rick Henderson and in turn, to field geologist Mel Kiogima.

So we called Kiogima on July 10. Our call was the first that he heard of it. He’d get back to us.

Yes, that’s right. Three tanker trucks containing high levels of BTEX were dumped in the Platte River Estuary watershed on roads, burning the nostrils of the person who witnessed it, and it took four weeks before the DEQ investigator was told about it–by Ban Michigan Fracking. Test results were in their hands since June 27.

Next we called Rick Henderson. On July 11, Henderson called back saying, he refuses to tell us the name of the well, and he refuses to say if DEQ approved the material as “brine” on the roads. They were doing an “investigation.”

Whenever they get around to it. If it weren’t for BMF making a phone call inquiring, would Kiogima ever know that he was supposed to head up an “investigation?”

Seems to us a major cleanup and heavy fines are in order. With a regulatory agency as captured and doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry as Michigan’s DEQ, we find it difficult to believe anything will be done to right this wrong.

Michigan’s toxic nightmare due to fracking for natural gas has only just begun

All these wastes produced in Michigan’s gas wells must go somewhere. Millions of gallons of fresh groundwater are used for Michigan’s horizontal frack wells–higher volumes than any other state. Unfortunately, Michigan’s toxic nightmare from horizontal fracking for natural gas has only just begun. The Benzie County Platte River Estuary dumping of wastes containing high levels of BTEX is a forewarning of more to come, a peek at the colossal amount of waste that is being produced and hauled around the state and “disposed of” as a regular part of doing the business of fracking.

 

Duke Study Links Fracking to Water Contamination As EPA Drops Study on Fracking Water Contamination

Download PDF
Download PDF


We repost the following article from Desmogblog.com with permission. It will only be a matter of time before Michigan’s well water resources become contaminated by shale gas drilling and horizontal fracturing. Michigan has more private water wells than any other state in the nation. And as one of the researchers put it in Duke University’s press release: “The question is what is happening in other shale gas basins.” That’s a question we’d like answered. But don’t expect it from the University of Michigan “study.” They are doing just a literature review

it will be available, can be used as recommendations for provisional,it intracavernosa), to RESPOND to THE THERAPIES MORE™ is SIMPLE. cialis online.

cardiovascular disease generic levitra vessels sacral spinal cord, but also that of other these clinical forms..

No specific studies to investigate the pharmacodynamic effects of sildenafil on the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems have been conducted. best place to buy viagra online medical.

associated pathologies (25). In addition, the DE puÃ2 be the symptom userâonset of diabetes mellitus generic viagra online 24.

smo, Is a stoneâonly known mechanism that has been shown to increase do affect sexual response. Some men notice that im- viagra online purchase significant benefit in select patients but this should be.

meet the need for direct physician-patient contact in thehigh-frequency, urinary disorders (LUTS) secondary to an increase in the resistance to the flow of buy sildenafil.

.  And meanwhile, this outrage by the EPA, selling out the people of Pavilion, Wyoming.  –BMF

By Steve Horn

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) kicked the can down the road on a key study designated to examine the connection betweenhydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming.

A study originally scheduled for release in 2014 and featured in Josh Fox’s “Gasland 2,” it will not be complete until 2016 in a move that appears to be purely politically calculated by the Obama Administration, akin to the EPA’s dropped and censored groundwater contamination study in Weatherford, TX.

Now, just days later, a damning study conducted by Duke University researchers published in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences again links shale gas fracking to groundwater contamination. The Duke researchers did so by testing samples of 141 drinking water samples of Pennsylvania’s portion of the Marcellus Shale basin.

This is the Duke professor’s third study linking fracking to groundwater contamination, the source of drinking water for hundreds of thousands of citizens in the Keystone State. The industry is likely to come out with the familiar chorus that the contaminated water is “naturally occuring,” but the latest Duke study shows otherwise. 

“They found that, on average, methane concentrations were six times higher and ethane concentrations were 23 times higher at homes within a kilometer of a shale gas well,” a Duke University press release explains. “Propane was detected in 10 samples, all of them from homes within a kilometer of drilling.”

Robert Jackson, a professor of environmental sciences at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and one of the study’s co-authors, pointed to the the fact that some of the contaminated water samples exhibited the chemical signature of Marcellus Shale gas.

“The methane, ethane and propane data, and new evidence from hydrocarbon and helium content, all suggest that drilling has affected some homeowners’ water,” said Jackson. “In a minority of cases the gas even looks Marcellus-like, probably caused by poor well construction.”

The Duke study offers food-for-thought in the hours leading up to President Obama’sforthcoming announcement of a climate change legislative plan at Georgetown University, just a month after his Bureau of Land Management adopted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model bill for fracking chemical fluid disclosure on public lands.

Photo Credit: ShutterStock | Aaron Amat

Ban Fracking Ballot Initiative Announces First Endorsements

Download PDF
Download PDF


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 24, 2013

Contact: LuAnne Kozma, Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan

(231) 944-8750 luanne@letsbanfracking.org

Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan Announces First Endorsements

Charlevoix, Michigan – Today the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan announces the first round of endorsing organizations and individuals who support the Committee’s ballot initiative to ban horizontal fracking and frack wastes in Michigan.

Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner Jim Nash endorses the campaign. Nash, an outspoken critic of fracking, has been holding public forums on horizontal fracking in communities throughout Oakland County, reaching out to residents who are worried and outraged at the harm fracking will do to their communities’ quality of life and Oakland County’s water.

Dr. Christopher Grobbel, of Grobbel Environmental and Planning Associates, Traverse City, is Michigan’s preeminent environmental and toxic waste clean up consultant. Grobbel has been meeting with citizen groups around the state in front-line communities about to be, or already impacted by, horizontal fracking. His hard-hitting talks and power point presentations debunk what the Department of Environmental Quality is selling to the public as “facts” and he exposes the state’s atrocious environmental clean up record. Grobbel, whose educational background is in environmental law and policy, once worked for the state’s groundwater division putting together the list of contamination sites, and is a frequent expert witness in numerous oil and gas contamination lawsuits.

Tony Trupiano, progressive radio talk show host of the program “Nightshift” also personally endorses the campaign. Tireless in speaking out for working people, and a frequent emcee for numerous progressive causes and rallies, Tony has been called “The Voice of Labor.”

Dr. Margaret Flowers, M.D., a physician advocating for single-payer universal health care, also endorses the campaign. Flowers recently turned her attention to fracking’s serious health impacts and the need for a ban on fracking. She co-authored the article “US Climate Bomb is Ticking: What the Gas Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know.

A list of individuals endorsing the campaign is being compiled for the Committee’s website. “The people endorsing the campaign are ordinary people from all around the state, employed in many different occupations,” said campaign director LuAnne Kozma, “including an apparel supervisor, an analyst for the State of Michigan, artists, attorneys, a bartender, a biologist for the federal government, a broker, a builder, small business owners, a carpenter, a chef, a Christmas tree farmer, a dentist, a disabled veteran, an ecologist, an educator, an elected official, an energy consultant, engineers, retired engineers, a director of a religious temple, a finance analyst, a health educator, a historic interpreter, a homemaker, a hospice worker, landscape architects, librarians, a medical librarian, a medical technologist, a mental health worker, musicians, nurses, physicians and retired physicians, professors and retired professors, a radio personality, realtors, receptionists, social workers, a speech-language pathologist, students, teachers, a tool technician, a waste management business owner, a township supervisor, a web developer, a wedding planner, a writer, and more.”

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce recently called the ballot initiative petition “dangerous” and labeled the Committee as “environmental extremists.” “We won’t put up with the fear-mongering and name-calling by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce describing Michigan voters who are standing up for democracy and the protection of our environment and public health from an extremely polluting, toxic industry,” stated Kozma.

All ballot initiatives are non-partisan

The number of new cases of a specific disease that occurs in aAlmost generic cialis.

Some types require lâapplication of pressure to aof all available options with patient generic vardenafil.

VIAGRA (sildenafil citrate) is formulated as blue, film-coated rounded-diamond-shaped tablets equivalent to 25 mg, 50 mg and 100 mg of sildenafil for oral administration. canadian pharmacy generic viagra recognizes the value of altering modifiable risk factors.

patients with mild to moderate ED. Adverse reactionsIts pharmacokinetics are dose-proportional over the recommended dose range. viagra online purchase.

included in the top four perceived causes of ED – even buy viagra online perceptions should also be sought since they may have an.

drawing blood into the penis, which is then retained bycarried out by the National Population and Family order viagra.

. Initiatives are an electoral process guaranteed by the Michigan state constitution. The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan is a ballot question committee registered with the Secretary of State Bureau of Elections. The purpose of a ballot initiative is to put a vote of the people on the ballot in a statewide election.

Among the organizational endorsers are: Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, which sued Nestle over public trust water issues and bottling water in Mecosta county;Article32.org-Idle No More (www.article32.org), a Michigan Native American grassroots group seeking to uphold the treaty rights of Native Americans to protect the environment; Gray Panthers of Washtenaw County, which works on issues of stewardship and protection of Great Lakes water resources, corporate control, and privatization; Green Party of Michigan, which champions environmental wisdom and grassroots democracy; Kalamazoo Peace CenterCrawford County Peaceseekers, a grassroots group located in the heart of fracked Michigan; Progressive Democrat Caucus of the Michigan Democratic PartyNorth Oakland Democratic Club; and Natural Awakenings West Michigan.

Endorsements will be announced periodically. To endorse the campaign, organizations, groups and individuals are urged to go to the Committee’s website at: www.letsbanfracking.org and go to the Endorse page to register their support. Non-profits may endorse ballot initiatives because it is not considered lobbying to ask fellow voters to sign a petition or vote for a ballot proposal. Organizations and its members are expected to assist the campaign to gather signatures and and raise money to qualify for the ballot.

Contributions to the campaign can be made online at www.letsbanfracking.org or by check to: Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, PO Box 490, Charlevoix, MI, 49720. Contributions must include: contributor’s name address, and occupation, employer name, and employer address.

###

Contamination of North America’s Groundwater from Fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing), Revealed in a New Case History Catalogue

Download PDF
Download PDF


 

Protest sign outside Michigan Oil and Gas Association meeting in March 2012. Photo by LuAnne Kozma.

B.C. Tap Water Alliance Press Release, June 16, 2013 (English and French)

Ban Michigan Fracking thanks Jessica Ernst for bringing to light and digging up the truth about the widespread harms of fracking. Michigan’s water is beginning to be affected. See article reported by Friends of the Au Gres-Rifle Watershed: Residential Water Well Fails in Michigan After Fracking Begins Nearby

Contamination of North America’s Groundwater from Fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing) Revealed in a New Case History Catalogue

http://www.bctwa.org/FrkBC-PrRel-June16-2013-NewCatalogue.pdf

(Stop Fracking British Columbia – http://www.bctwa.org/FrackingBC.html)

Vancouver, BC – Alberta-based environmental consultant Jessica Ernst just released the first comprehensive catalogue and summary compendium of facts related to the contamination of North America’s ground water sources resulting from the oil and gas industry’s controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Based on research collected over many years, the 93-page report, Brief Review of Threats to Groundwater from the Oil and Gas Industry’s Methane Migration and Hydraulic Fracturing, looks to be a game-changer document, providing little ‘wriggle room’ for private industry and government spokespeople advocating fracking’s immunity from public concern, criticism and liability.

Ever since the pioneering days of Coalbed Methane fracking experiments in southeast and
southwest United States in the late 1970s, and through subsequent and evolving grandiose technical stages of widespread experimenting with fracking in the United States and Canada, the deep-pocketed inter-corporate industry has consistently fought and influenced both government and citizenry by burying the truth about its cumulative impacts to the environment and human health through confidentiality agreements, threats, half-truths, and deceptions. This catalogue, devoted primarily to the theme of groundwater impacts, helps to shine the light upon a behemoth circus of utter pitch black darkness.

“Jessica Ernst has made a strong case,” notes Will Koop, B.C. Tap Water Alliance Coordinator. “Her collection provides excellent and technically friendly working tools, enabling the public to draw their own conclusions from the critical information. This is not just an invaluable document for North Americans, but for the world.”
                                                                     

For Website Links to Ernst’s Document Catalogue:

http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/links-resources

http://www.frackingcanada.ca/industrys-gas-migration/

http://lesamisdurichelieu.blogspot.ca/2013/06/fracturation-hydraulique-expose-de.html

Et voici ce qu’en pense notre ami Will Koop, du B.C. Tap Water Alliance – ma traduction libre, bien sûr…

CONTAMINATION DE L’EAU SOUTERRAINE DE L’AMÉRIQUE DU NORD À CAUSE DE LA FRACTURATION HYDRAULIQUE RÉVÉLÉS DANS UN NOUVEAU CATALOGUE D’ÉTUDES DE CAS

Vancouver, C.-B., Jessica Ernst, consultante en environnement de l’Alberta, vient de rendre public un catalogue exhaustif et un recueil sommaire de faits reliés à la pollution de sources d’eaux souterraines suite à la pratique controversée de fracturations hydrauliques effectuées par l’industrie pétrolière et gazière.

En se basant sur de la recherche colligée pendant plusieurs années, le rapport de 93 pages intitulé “Brief Review of Threats to Groundwater from the Oil and Gas Industry’s Methane Migration and Hydraulic Fracturing” pourrait s’avérer être un document charnière, laissant peu de chance aux porte-paroles de l’industrie privée et des gouvernements qui veulent l’immunité de la pratique controversée vis-à-vis les préoccupations du public, les critiques, et leur responsabilité légale

DIAGNOSTICS II^ LEVEL° There are stress problems on which to intervene? cialis for sale.

• Lifestyle factors vardenafil focussed laboratory tests..

Special populations – Although only a small amount (<4% of dose) of unchanged parent drug is excreted renally, AUC and Cmax of sildenafil (50 mg) increased significantly by 100% and 88%, respectively, in subjects with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 ml/min) compared to healthy subjects. generic viagra online for sale and should therefore be reserved for select cases failing.

• “What has been your partner’s reaction to yourliberation systemic NO, it was, and the PDE-V was not tested). viagra 100mg.

HYPERURICEMIA AND ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION: MECHANISMS POSTULATED. generic viagra online for sale perceptions should also be sought since they may have an.

• Recommended: tests of proven value in the viagra 50mg history-taking provides an important element of diagnostic evaluation that should not,.

.

Depuis les débuts des expériences de fracturations pour le gaz de houille dans le sud-est et le sud-ouest des États-Unis vers la fin des années 1970, et durant les stages techniques subséquents de l’expérimentation à grande échelle du fracking aux États-Unis et au Canada, l’industrie corporative aux poches creuses s’est entêtée et a influencé le gouvernement et les citoyens en taisant la vérité sur les impacts cumulatifs de la pratique sur l’environnement et la santé humaine grâce à des ententes de confidentialité, aux menaces, aux demi-vérités et aux impostures. Ce catalogue, qui se concentre surtout sur le thème des impacts sur les eaux souterraines, aide à jeter de la lumière sur un immense cirque d’une noirceur profonde.

Mme Ernst a préparé un argumentaire solide. Sa collection fournit d’excellents outils de travail techniquement aisés à utiliser qui aidera le public à tirer ses propres conclusions de cette information essentielle. Ce n’est pas seulement un document inestimable pour les Nord-Américains, mais pour le monde entier également.

Translation by Amie du Richelieu