Dateline: 23 February 2012
In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series about the February 20th board meeting I told you about the gas company public relations people who were invited to give an unannounced presentation to the town board. It was unannounced to the general public, but a large contingent of people in favor of hydrofracking seemed to know about it.
Don’t misunderstand ... I didn’t mind the presentation at all. I just wish the whole town had been invited so everyone had an opportunity to hear the public relations message by the gas industry representatives.
As noted in Part 2 of this report, I did ask questions of the gas industry representatives. I truly appreciated them coming because I feel it is my responsibility to ask some serious questions about the safety issues that surround hydrofracking.
I mentioned an alarming report by Slumberger, a well-known and well-respected player in the gas industry. The report was on a long-term study that indicated that, after 10 years about 40 percent of gas wells have cement failures, and after 30 years, about 60 percent of wells have cement failure. The cement being reported on is what surrounds the well casing. It makes up part of the seal between what is inside the well, the geology outside the well, and the underground aquifers that supply our drinking water.
I expressed my concern that all mechanical systems deteriorate with time and I’ve not been able to find any long term studies about the impact of current hydrofracking technology on little towns like Sempronius.
Mr. Jack Showers, Public relations man, started to speak but I had to raise my hand to stop him (my apologies, sir) because I was concerned if he started speaking, it would be for awhile, and I would never get a chance to finish my thought....
...which was that, as a town board member I must be skeptical of all claims to the safety of hydrofracking because there is conflicting information about this and some of the concerns about hydrofracking safety are coming from very reliable sources. I must be critical, I explained, because if hydrofracking is NOT done in Sempronius, I know that, in 30 years, this town will be much like it is now. But if hydrofracking is allowed in this town, I have no idea what impact it will have on the community. I have no idea how Sempronius will fare 30 years from now. All actions have consequences. Some are short term and some are long term. Both need to be considered.
I told Mr. Showers (and Mr. Haith, who was standing next to him) that his view of this issue and my view are not the same. As a gas company representative, he has a vested interest in presenting hydrofracking as all good, because that’s what he gets paid for. That’s not a personal attack on him. It’s just a statement of fact. But I don’t work for the gas industry. I work for the people of Sempronius and I have to look out for the best interests of the community I represent. So I have a responsibility to be skeptical.
I pointed out that if I just took their word that everything with hydrofracking was just fine, and didn’t ask hard questions, and didn't research this issue, and didn't try to understand the impact hydrofracking would have on my community, people would wonder about me. They would wonder why it is that I'm not skeptical.
I asked the gas men if that seemed reasonable, and they nodded, just a little. So, seeing as they nodded—just a little—I then asked them something to this effect, “And doesn’t is seem reasonable that a little town like Sempronius would want to enact a moratorium in order to study this issue and consider all the ramifications?”
But they did not agree with that.
Then I asked Jack if hydrofracking was getting safer all the time? (He seemed to insinuate that it was with an earlier comment he made.) He replied that, yes it was. So I asked the next logical question: If the technology is getting safer all the time then doesn’t it make sense that it will be much safer a few years from now? A split second after I asked that, Jack’s expression changed and he emphatically stated, “No. Its safe now!”
I brought up one of the few actual statistics I’ve been able to find on the subject of gas wells and serious accidents in Pennsylvania (I wrote about it HERE), which stated that out of all the gas wells drilled in Pennsylvania in the three years between 2008 and 2010, 1 out of 14 had experienced serious environmental accidents, like cement and casing failures, blowouts, and major spills of toxic fracking fluids.
One out of 14 wells has major accidents.
Jack had told the audience that it's typical to have one well pad per square mile. Sempronius is 29 square miles, and there are around 6 wells per pad, so that’s 174 wells. 14 goes into 174 twelve (plus) times. So, based on the statistics we have to work with (the only ones I’ve been able to find) Sempronius can expect 12 serious environmental accidents. Maybe, in reality, we wouldn’t have any. But maybe we would have more.
Keep in mind that the statistic of 1 out of 14 is for "serious" accidents. "Minor spills," erosion, etc. are not included in that statistic. Motor vehicle accidents involving heavy truck traffic are also not included.
Every serious environmental accident is an accident that may affect the health, safety and general welfare of people in this community. I'm talking about people who are our neighbors. They are not statistics to us. They are not business expenses to us. They are our friends, and neighbors and maybe even our own families. Remember, hydrofracking is a communal industrial activity. It impacts every person in the community where it’s done.
So, yes, I must be skeptical of this technology because it has a bad track record, and it affects innocent people, and it is my responsibility to do what is right and best for this community as a whole.
Show me a legitimate track record of safety. Show me a legitimate long-term study that indicates no problems 30 years down the road. Show me that and I’ll accept gas drilling into this community with open arms.
(Stay tuned for part 4)