DEP offices in Meadville, Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport and Pittsburgh have received “many dozens” of applications for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to build plants to treat waste water produced in the Marcellus Shale to “clean it” before it is returned to the environment.

One of those applications belongs to Somerset Regional Water Resources, based in Tunkhannock, which has proposed a plant along the Chemung River in Athens Township. Somerset plans to build a treatment plant on a lot in the Valley Industrial Park.

via Treatment plant for gas drilling waste water subject of Athens Twp. hearing tonight – News – Daily Review.

The state Department of Environmental Protection is reviewing permit applications associated with at least 12 different proposals to build treatment plants for chemical-tainted wastewater from natural gas drilling operations in northern Pennsylvania.

Ten of the plants are proposed in DEP’s 14-county north-central region, which is centered on Lycoming and Clinton counties.

via Twelve Marcellus Shale gas drilling wastewater treatment plants proposed in northern Pennsylvania | Breaking Midstate News with The Patriot-News -.

Je n’arrive pas à choisir la fabrique à délinquance entre et Think different’s moral
(Couvre-feu 0 – Nicotine 1)

via Environmental Dangers of Hydro-Fracturing.

Over the past year, I have watched the hydro-fracturing industry rapidly expand into central Pennsylvania, and I have been disgusted by the consequences. The state forests, where generations of Pennsylvanians have hunted, fished, and hiked, have been defaced by a growing network of well pads. But even more disturbing are the effects that we can't see. Unknown chemicals are being pumped thousands of feet underground. The extreme pressures involved in the hydro-fracturing process are forcing methane gas into people's homes and into their water supplies. It's clear to me that hydro-fracturing is the single biggest environmental threat to Pennsylvania that this generation faces. I should say up front that I am not a scientist, nor am I an expert on this issue. What I've done here is try to sort through conflicting claims in order to present objectively the facts on the effects of hydro-fracturing.

Just Water and Sand
The natural gas industry would like us to believe that the fluid used in hydro-fracturing is harmless.  Energy in Depth (a public relations organ of the oil and natural gas industry) has prepared “A Fluid Situation” that shows a “typical solution” used in fracking.  According to this document, fracking solution is 95.51% water and sand, with only a few harmless chemicals thrown in (for example, citric acid and table salt).  I’ve been at industry presentations where representatives passed around a vial of sand to show how benign the process was.

However, the list of chemicals in “A Fluid Situation” is far from complete.  Pennsylvania is one of the few states that requires drilling companies to list the chemicals that they will be using in hydro-fracturing operations (PA DEP, “Summary of Hydraulic Fracture Solutions-Marcellus Shale“).  But even this list is not comprehensive.  Some of the hazardous components are listed as “proprietary,” and, as the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) points out, the companies’ Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) rarely list 100% of the composition of their products–in some cases only 10% of the composition is listed.  But even the chemicals they do include are alarming.  A few worth mentioning are ammonium bisulfite, ethylene glycol, isopropanol, formaldehyde, and methyl-4-isolthiazolin.  According to TEDX (which thoroughly documents its claims with scientific studies), many of the chemicals on Pennsylvania’s list have been linked to cancer or other health problems (respiratory, reproductive, brain and nervous system, kidneys, immune system, gastrointestinal and liver, endocrine, developmental, cardiovascular, and blood) (TEDX, “Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracturing Operations: Pennsylvania.”  A spreadsheet of the data is also available).

A Nurse’s Story
The potential dangers of fracking fluid can be seen in the story of Cathy Behr, an Emergency Room nurse in Durango, Colorado.  In April 2008 Ms. Behr was exposed to hydro-fracturing fluid that was on the clothing of a natural gas industry worker who had come to the hospital after a spill.  She subsequently spent 30 hours in intensive care after her liver, heart, and lungs began to shut down (Durango Herald, “Nurse Sick After Aiding Gas Worker” [7/17/08]).  The drilling company, Weatherford, did not verbally refuse to disclose the composition of ZetaFlow, the drilling fluid, (as was originally reported), but, as of August 2008, Behr and her doctor were still seeking information about the exact chemicals that were in the fluid (“Nurse Says Company Didn’t Refuse to Help“).  The natural gas industry’s response to this incident alleges that “it is not clear whether Ms. Behr was ever exposed to frac fluids.”  This claim is based on the word of the worker, who insisted that he removed his protective clothing before he went to the hospital (Energy in Depth “Frac versus Fiction“).  I suspect that most health-care and emergency personnel in Pennsylvania will not be comforted by the industry’s defense.

Contaminated Water and Exploding Houses
The natural gas industry would insist that none of this is relevant because the fracking fluid is thousands of feet underground, safely barricaded from aquifers by cement casings.  Energy in Depth’s “Frac versus Fiction” claims that opponents of hydro-fracturing have been trying to establish “a credible (and growing) track record of danger.  Unfortunately for them, in hydraulic fracturing they’re running up against a technology that in 60 years of service has yet to be credibly tied to the contamination of drinking water.”

Unfortunately, this just isn’t true.  There have been many incidents of water contamination and even buildings exploding because of natural gas hydro-fracturing operations. The most common problem is methane migration.  According to the Pittsburgh Geological Society’s article “Natural Gas Migration Problems in Western Pennsylvania” methane migration occurs when natural gas escapes “from the reservoir rock, coal seam, pipeline, gas well, or landfill.  If the gas migrates through the bedrock and soil, it can result in an explosion capable of damaging property and causing loss of life.”

• In April 2004 the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) fined Encana Oil and Gas a record $371,200 for contaminating water supplies in West Divide Creek, Colorado.  COGCC found methane, benzene, toluene, and m,p xylenes in wells, and  blamed Encana  for “inadequate cementing of the well,” which “resulted in a loss of well control” (COGGC, “West Divide Creek Gas Seep” (4/14/04), COGCC, “Notice of Hearing” [8/04]).

• In December 2007 the basement of a home in Bainbridge Township, Ohio exploded.  Fortunately, the owners, Richard and Thelma Payne, who were asleep upstairs, were not injured.  Subsequently, 19 area homes were evacuated because of natural gas.  The Report by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (9/1/08) concluded that the explosion and contamination was caused by “inadequate cementing of the production casing” by the drilling company, Ohio Valley Energy Systems, which led to migration of natural gas into natural fractures in the bedrock below the drilling casing.

• In February 2009, the Pennsylvania DEP charged Cabot Oil & Gas with several violations for activities that resulted in methane contamination of nine water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania.  Methane built up in the well of Norma Fiorentio and when the pump switched on, it blew up the concrete foundation of the well house  (ProPublica “Officials in 3 States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling” [4/26/09];  PA DEP “Notice of Violation” [2/27/09]).  On March 27th, DEP released a statement saying that their investigation has ruled out “gas drilling and hydro fracturing” as the cause (“DEP Continues to Analyze Dimock Water Supplies“).  However, the DEP has not exonerated Cabot; the explosion might have been caused by faulty casing and cementing of gas wells (vs. drilling).  In either case, it seems clear that the activities of Cabot are responsible for the contamination.  Even Energy in Depth’s “Frac versus Fiction” notes that “It remains entirely possible the DEP will eventually conclude the operator in question had something to do with the methane infiltration in Dimock Twp.”

• The Pennsylvania DEP is currently investigating complaints of water contamination in Roaring Branch, Lycoming County.  Four homes are being provided with drinking water, 18 are being tested, and one home has been evacuated after residents complained that two nearby creeks were bubbling with methane gas.  Officials suspect a failed well casing on a natural gas well drilled by East Resources (Wayne Independent, “Methane Contamination Linked to Drill Site” [7/30/09];  ProPublica, “More Gas Contamination Affects Pennsylvania Residents” [8/04/09]).

But methane migration isn’t the only threat to our water supply.  There have also been documented cases of unauthorized withdrawal of water from streams, and surface spills that have resulted in contamination:

• In February 2009 Cabot spilled 100 gallons of diesel fuel at Dimock, PA (WGNB News, “100 Gallons of Diesel Fuel Spilled” [2/6/09]).

• In May 2009, the Pennsylvania DEP ordered Range Resources and Chief Oil & Gas to suspend operations at two sites in Lycoming County for violating PA’s Clean Stream Law.  The companies were withdrawing water from Hoagland Run and First Fork Larry’s Creek without having obtained the required permits (PA DEP “DEP Orders Partial Shutdown” [5/30/09]).

• In June 2009 a leaking waste water pipe from a Range Resources gas well polluted a tributary of Cross Creek Lake in Washington Country, PA.  The spill killed fish, salamanders, crayfish, and aquatic insects (Pittsburgh Post Gazette “Waste from Marcellus” [6/05/09]).

• On September 16, 2009 Cabot Oil & Gas spilled up to 8,400 gallons of fracking lubricant into Stevens Creek and a nearby wetland near Dimock, PA.  Cabot representatives were unable to identify the chemical composition of the liquid.  This is Cabot’s third chemical spill in the Dimock area since the spring of 2008. (Ithaca Journal “State Probes Spill” [9/17/09]).

Despite these incidents, industry representatives continue to insist that hydro-fracturing has never been linked to water contamination or exploding buildings.  Energy in Depth’s “Frac versus Fiction” concludes about the Bainbridge incident, “Allegations suggesting the Bainbridge incident was caused by hydraulic fracturing are simply not supported by either the facts on the ground or DMRM’s report.  Instead, this incident was the direct result of several poor decisions made by the operator.”  But, as the record above indicates, operator failure in hydro-fracturing operations is an increasingly common occurrence.  And if the end result is polluted water or exploded houses, it raises questions about the safety record of hydro-fracturing.

Studying the Studies
The natural gas industry often cites studies that affirm that hydro-fracturing is safe (Energy in Depth “Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids“).  However, closer analysis reveals that these studies have been tainted by the industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s 2004 report concluded that hydro-fracturing “poses little or no threat to drinking water” (“Conclusions” p. 7-5). However, the report did recognize that “natural fractures, and poorly constructed, sealed, or cemented wells used for various purposes, may provide conduits for methane to move into shallow geologic strata and water wells, or even to surface water” (“Conclusions” p. 7-2).  Even more troubling are allegations that the report was heavily influenced by the natural gas industry (Earthworks, “Inadequate Regulation“).  Weston Wilson, an environmental engineer who worked for EPA, has claimed that “EPA’s conclusions are unsupportable. EPA has conducted limited research reaching the unsupported conclusion that this industry practice needs no further study at this time. EPA decisions were supported by a Peer Review Panel; however five of the seven members of this panel appear to have conflicts-of-interest and may benefit from EPA’s decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions” (Earthworks “Letter from EPA Fracking Study Whistleblower” [10/08/04]).

Even more compromised is the April 2009 report of the Groundwater Protection Council.  Their report concludes, “Hydraulic fracturing has been a key technology in making shale gas an affordable addition to the Nation’s energy supply, and the technology has proven to be a safe and effective stimulation technique” (GPC, “Modern Shale Gas” p. 76).  However, they are far from objective.  The organization’s original purpose was “to develop a strong public outreach/education program to inform the public about the safety of the national [Underground Injection Control] program and to develop information that could be used by the states to enhance this effort” (“Organizational Description“).  In other words, they are organized to promote hydro-fracturing.  As a nonprofit 501, the GPC has also been busy with lobbying efforts, spending between $10-60 thousand per year since 1998 (Open Secrets, “GPC“).

You might recall the studies financed by the tobacco industry that claimed that cigarette smoking was not harmful.

I Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself
Allow me to conclude with a summary of the risks of hydro-fracturing by someone who should know.  In May 2006, Range Resources Corporation, the biggest hydro-fracturing company in Pennsylvania, provided the SEC with a prospectus.  In a surprisingly forthright moment, Range Resources explained to potential investors the risks of hydro-fracturing: “Our business is subject to operating hazards and environmental regulations that could result in substantial losses or liabilities.  Oil and natural gas operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, craterings, explosions, uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, formations with abnormal pressures, pipeline ruptures or spills, pollution, releases of toxic natural gas and other environmental hazards and risks. If any of these hazards occur, we could sustain substantial losses as a result of:

 

 

• Injury or loss of life;
• Severe damage to our destruction of property, natural resources and equipment;
• Pollution or other environmental damage;
• Clean-up responsibilities;
• Regulatory investigations and penalties; or
• Suspension of operations.

 

As we begin drilling to deeper horizons and in more geologically complex areas, we could experience a greater increase in operating and financial risks due to inherent higher reservoir pressures and unknown downhole risk exposures” (Range Resources “Prospectus” p. S-13 [5/18/06]).

What Can You Do?
If you are convinced that the drilling in the Marcellus Shale is indeed a major threat to the environment of central Pennsylvania, please contact your elected officials and express your support for increased protection of our state’s resources.  I think that hunting and fishing groups would be an especially powerful voice in this debate.  Actions that lawmakers might take include the following:

1. Ban any additional hydro-fracturing on state forest land.  In 2008 the Pennsylvania Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources opened up 75,000 acres of the state forest to natural gas drilling (DCNR “DCNR Issues Balance Approach” [4/01/08]), and from my perspective, the results have been devastating.  In July, Pennsylvania House Republicans revealed their “Energize PA” plan that calls for an additional 390,00 acres to be leased (PA House Republican Caucus “Energize PA“). The DCNR has objected that  “Rampant, unplanned leasing of forest lands would severely jeopardize DCNR’s ability to retain its third-party certification and, perhaps more importantly, maintain ecologically sound forest management, jeopardizing the future health of our forests” (DCNR “Numbers in House Republican Proposal” [7/10/09]). Unfortunately, the Republican proposal has been incorporated into the latest budget compromise, which calls for 200,000 additional acres leased to the gas companies; no severance tax; and the elimination of the Oil & Gas Fund, which directed money from leasing to DCNR.  Thus, it is especially critical to contact your state legislators immediately.  If you hunt or fish, mention that–many of the supporters of this plan depend upon votes from sportsmen and sportswomen.
2. Eliminate the hydro-fracturing exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act.  A bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and House that would do this: the FRAC-ACT.  Even though the industry insists that there is nothing harmless in fracking fluid, they have bitterly opposed this bill (ProPublica “FRAC Act” [6/9/09]).
3. Impose a severance tax on natural-gas extraction.  I am less excited by this measure because it implies that as long as we can profit from hydro-fracturing, it’s acceptable for it to continue.  Nevertheless, it would provide some funds to repair the damage to the infrastructure caused by the natural gas industry (PA Budget & Policy Center “Severance Tax” [5/27/09]), and it represents an alternative to a massive increase in state forest leases.  Not surprisingly, the Pennsylvania natural gas industry opposes the severance tax (Marcellus Shale Committee “Statement” [02/05/09]).

To contact your elected officials, use the links below (if you are uncertain who your state legislators are, go to the Find Your Legislator Page):

• Governor Edward G. Rendell’s Email: Gov. Rendell has allowed natural gas drilling in the State Forests; he attempted to transfer $174 million of the lease money generated by that drilling from the DCNR to the general budget (Scranton Times 12/10/09); and he has called for a severance tax on natural-gas extraction (Philadelphia Inquirer “Rendell Plan” [5/09/09]).
• U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.’s Contact Page: Sen. Casey is a co-sponsor of the FRAC-ACT.
• U.S. Senator Arlen Specter’s Contact Page
• U.S. Congressman Glenn Thompson’s Contact Page: Rep. Thompson has emerged as a spokesperson for the industry, and he opposes the FRAC-ACT (see editorial in Lock Haven Express 8/16/09). According to www.opensecrets.org, during his 2008 campaign, Rep. Thompson received $4800 from Kriebel Minerals, a company that acquires natural gas reserves and operates natural gas wells, and $5000 from  Honeywell International, who recently acquired the German company RMG, a specialist in natural gas equipment.
• State Representative (#76th) Mike Hanna’s Contact Page: Rep. Hanna has said that “we firmly believe that we should move forward with extraction of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, but that we move cautiously.”  He supports the severance tax (“Working to Protect Pennsylvanians” [7/16/09]), and recently he joined the House lawmakers who are concerned about the environmental implications of the budget compromise (LH Express “More State Land” [9/26/09]).
• State Representative (#84th) Garth Everett’s Email: Representative Everett recently defended his support of additional drilling in the state forest: “I think some people get confused between (the words) ’state forest land’ and ’state park.’  There is just miles and miles and miles of state forest land that nobody sees.  You can’t get to it right now.  There is a humongous amount of state land in Pennsylvania that can be developed responsibly and I think it should be” (LH Express “Groups Disapprove” [9/14/09]). In 2008, Rep. Everett received $500 from Anadarko Petroleum (Follow the Money).
• State Senator (#23rd) Eugene Yaw’s Contact Page: Senator Yaw recently defended his support of additional drilling in the state forest: “Once drilling is completed, those sites are reclaimed.  The ones I’ve seen are grass” (LH Express “Groups Disapprove” [9/14/09]). In 2008, Sen. Yaw received $1000 from Anadarko Petroleum (Follow the Money).
• State Senator (21st) Mary Jo White’s Contact Page:  A former oil industry employee, Sen. White has emerged as one of the leading spokespersons for the natural gas industry.  She has objected to DEP over-regulation (“State Seen“), and in February she called for additional leasing in the state forest (PA Rep News).  In 2008 she received $2500 from the oil and gas industry (Followthemoney).
• State Senator (#35th) John N. Wozniak’s Email:
• Clinton County Commissioner Adam Coleman’s Email: Commissioner Coleman, a member of the County Commissioners Association of PA task force on natural gas drilling, has been a strong opponent of regulation.  He indicated that he would be lobbying to have state agencies loosen restrictions on natural gas drilling, arguing, “We need (DEP) to get out of the way.”  He pointed out that he favors saving the environment, but asked, “Is it worth keeping a stream 100 percent pristine to block $100 million worth of injection into the local economy?”  (LH Express 11/21/08).
• Clinton County Commissioner Tom Bossert’s Email: Commissioner Bossert is another opponent of the minimal regulation that currently exists.  In November 2008 he argued, “DEP needs to recognize they are holding central Pennsylvania and Clinton County residents in a choke-hold.  We understand their purpose, but… they don’t have to slow everything down to a snail’s pace… We can do it with environmental concerns met.” (LH Express 11/21/08).
• Clinton County Commissioner Joel Long’s Email
• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Email: The acting secretary of the DEP has recently said, “You can’t do a large amount of drilling and have zero impact.   There’s going to be a lot of good that comes from drilling in Pennsylvania, but there are also going to be some problems.”  When asked about fracking fluid, he responded, “Some of these chemicals are things you couldn’t drink. There’s no doubt about that.  We have processes that go on in our lives all the time that involve these chemicals, and we run a certain amount of risk because of the benefits” (Reuters “PA Says Natgas Risks Inevitable” [03/20/09]).  On August 26th, I emailed the DEP a series of questions about the chemicals in fracking fluid.  They have yet to respond, but (coincidentally no doubt), three hours later I received an email from a public relations representative of Anadarko, a company that I specifically mentioned in my request.
• Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Contact Page

For More Information on Hydro-fracturing:

• EARTHWORKS–Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells: EARTHWORKS is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral development, in the U.S. and worldwide.  This site offers much useful information about the threats to water quality and the inadequate regulation of hydraulic fracturing.  Especially useful is their free publication, Oil & Gas at Your Door?  A Landowner’s Guide to Oil and Gas Development.
• Damascus Citizens for Sustainability: A grassroots organization that has been in the forefront of recognizing and protesting against the hazards of oil/gas drilling in the upper Delaware River valley. According to the site, “Overwhelming evidence and much science now exists that the type of gas drilling proposed for this region – made possible by total federal deregulation–is a danger to the public health, causes contaminated drinking water, carcinogens in the farmland and food chain, torn-up roads, air pollution, plummeting home values, and noise pollution.”
• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection–Marcellus Shale: A collection of links to FAQs, maps, industry resources, and agency contacts. DEP “is responsible for reviewing and issuing drilling permits, inspecting drilling operations and responding to complaints about water quality problems. DEP inspectors conduct routine and unannounced inspections of drilling sites and wells statewide.”
• The Susquehanna River Basin Commission–Marcellus Projects: In addition to information on regulations, and presentations by the SRBC on Marcellus drilling, this site includes a list of approved requests by the gas companies for consumptive water use (in millions of gallons/day).
• The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources–Marcellus FAQs: A few FAQs on the Marcellus.  See also DCNR–Oil & Gas on State Forest Lands, which contains their position statements on why they have allowed drilling on state forest lands.
• The Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club: The SC’s position on natural gas is as follows: “When compared to oil, natural gas may be cleaner and more accessible, but the extraction of natural gas causes many of the same problems as the extraction of any other fossil fuel.  The Sierra Club supports natural gas that is extracted in an environmentally acceptable fashion, but in Pennsylvania, the extraction and delivery of natural gas produces a number of environmentally unacceptable side effects, many of which affect public lands and may simply prolong our expensive and destructive dependence on fossil fuels.”
• Trout Unlimited:  TU’s mission is “to conserve, protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.”  The Winter 2009 issue of Trout features the article “Fractured Landscape,” by Morgan Lyle, which notes that “Trout Unlimited is working at the state and national level to help assure that valuable trout resources in the Northeast are protected from the Marcellus Shale Development.”
• Penn State Cooperative Extension–Natural Gas Impacts: An excellent site with much useful information for landowners, local government, businesses, and the general public.
• Green Party of Pennsylvania Position Paper on the Marcellus Shale: The Green Party of Pennsylvania “believes that despite the apparent short-term economic benefits, Marcellus Shale gas drilling will have a net negative economic and environmental impact for Pennsylvania.”
• Energy Justice Network–Natural Gas Health and Environmental Hazards: “Natural gas is a fossil fuel that is often promoted as “cleaner” than coal, but which has its own serious environmental hazards.”

Last updated by Robert Myers on 09/28/2009

via Environmental Dangers of Hydro-Fracturing.

Law enforcement officers and biologists with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) will begin conducting field inspections of active drilling sites for Marcellus Shale gas wells beginning next month, the agency announced today.

“Until now our agency has only reacted to those drilling sites where a problem resulted in material entering a waterway or wetlands,” said Dr. Douglas Austen, PFBC executive director. “We are now taking a proactive approach to identify possible problems at a drilling site and to work with the company to ensure necessary measures are in place to minimize the possibility of damaging nearby waterways.”

via Fish & Boat Commission to Inspect Marcellus Shale Drilling Sites – North Eastern Fly Fishing Forums.

If you drink water from a well located within a mile of this Farragut gas well or any other, having your water tested BEFORE the gas well is drilled is a must. If you are ever to file a claim for well water contamination, you must have proof that your drinking water was once pure.

Locally, Seewald Labs (570-326-4001) is able to do the testing. Be sure you also have the lab draw the sample, for if you collect and deliver the water sample yourself, there will be no validated chain of custody; and you’ll be out of luck in court.

via Hydrofracking Farragut | Freshlife.

◊

Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I installed custom spas.

One of these was in a condominium basement where space for the equipment was at a premium. So we mounted the air blower (you know, the thing that makes the water fizz like a carbonated cola) on the wall in the adjacent underground garage.

Not long after the tenants began moving in, an old woman, who bore a striking resemblance to Yoda in both appearance and syntax, complained, “stinks like GAHbage the jacuzzi.”

We had unknowingly mounted the blower directly above what turned out to be the location of the building’s dumpsters. It was sucking in the not-so-fragrant aroma wafting up from all manner of refuse residing below, infusing the spa with its essence.

Now, you don’t have to hail from another planet to know that water can carry contaminants. Just ask any parent who has placed her young child in the neighborhood swimming pool. That yellow water ain’t lemonade, folks.

Well, maybe it was at one time.

Transporting contaminants is one thing; but can water create them as well? What happens when you add water, a “natural” substance, to “natural” shampoos, called such because they contain, among other things, no preservatives?

“Natural” Water + “Natural” Shampoo = Contaminated Product

Eventually, that is.

Nature is the original recycler. Simply stated, water contains bacteria. Bacteria feed on plant and animal matter. It’s one of nature’s ways of breaking matter down to its primary components.

At the basic, molecular level all living things are recycled. Thus, when any living thing dies, including our bodies, the molecules of minerals and other elements that comprise it are gradually deconstructed through decomposition, to eventually become reconstructed as a part of some other living thing, plant or animal.

All shampoos (and conditioners) contain some form of plant matter; some even use animal protein. Add water, and the bacteria, like swarms of ravenous piranha, begin their feeding frenzy; the decomposition begins.

By the way, foreign matter, like dirt and hair, also carries those hungry little buggers, and when introduced into undiluted shampoo can likewise cause contamination.

Some shampoo manufacturers add a preservative, a natural or synthetic chemical that prevents bacterial spoilage. Unfortunately, many preservatives release formaldehyde, that fluid of funerial fame, which, incidentally, is used as a preservative to prevent bacterial spoilage of the human body.

Thus, while an unopened jug of “natural” shampoo may have a 3-4 year shelf life, when mixed with water it may only last 3-4 days, at best.

How can you tell when something has gone bad? The nose knows. Odor is a byproduct of decomposition. When the shampoo begins to smell like GAHbage or the conditioner reminds you of Jaba the Hutt’s breath just discard it.

The best adage is “when in doubt, throw it out.” No use risking a bad reaction from the your bather or the bathee just to save a few pennies worth of product.

Message in the Bottle

While there is much controversy over what may or may not leach out of plastic containers, plastic’s porosity means substances, like bacteria, can also be absorbed into the containers.

Bacteria can thrive in virtually any container under the right conditions.

Just ask Cody, who works in our warehouse. This past summer he left a large cup of a “natural” fruit smoothie in the office refrigerator over a weekend. The following Monday, seeking a refreshing respite from the sweltering heat, he slugged down a swig of the leftover nectar, only to notice a peculiar taste sensation.

Removing the lid to the cup he discovered that the surface of the drink had errupted into a putrid carpet of furry foam that was creeping up the outside of the straw like some alien life form.

Now, you probably don’t refrigerate your shampoo. But, if you have been careful to avoid spoilage, yet continually contend with contamination, the container could be the culprit. This can be especially troublesome to self-serve dog washes, where plastic bottles are repeatedly refilled with mixed shampoo.

Many helpful sites on the internet, such as eHow.com or howtocleanstuff.net (yes, a real web site), offer effective cleaning tips for plastic containers. Bleach, baking soda, and white vinegar are some of the more commonly recommended methods.

Of course, there comes the time in every plastic bottle’s life when you just have to apply the “when in doubt” rule mentioned earlier.

Plastic bottles are not immortal.

Neither are natural shampoos. Following a few simple safeguards, though, can help prevent irritated pets and irate customers.

You certainly don’t want bacterial gunk –or an angry Ms. Yoda –on your hands, do you?

◊

◊

About the Author: Randy Pate, the managing partner of WAGS, although not a micro-biologist, is no stranger to odor. He showers almost regularly, mostly at the insistence of his wife.

◊

Dunkard Creek photos from September 24, 2009 combined with other photos of Marcellus Shale gas drilling activities including Residual Waste tankers and gas well flaring.

Compressor stations are causing a lot of problems in Pennsylvania. This video was taken after a release of an oily substance from Steckman Ridge Compressor in Clearville, PA, on August 23, 2009. The owners of this farm are fearful that their land is hopelessly contaminated, and they don’t know what is in the oily substance they found sprinkled all over everything: their farm equipment, the hay wagon, their crops and plants, their pasture land, their blueberry bushes, their springfed pond. They found soot on their roof. The pond has an oily scum on it. Their plants wilted after this incident. They are asking: Is our farm safe or not?Clearville farmers have watched their animals die- two cows, a horse, many cats, and all of their hens. There are three compressor stations, all within 10 miles. According to the DEP, air tests are not done around compressor stations, despite many requests from residents who live near them. Is the air safe in Clearville? The residents are worried.

Dead fish float in a once-pristine stream. Algae thrives. Lovers of the outdoors are heartsick, and everyone wants to know what happened.

The scenario is playing itself out this autumn on the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border, and a Harrisburg-based agency wants to be ready in case the same scenario unfolds in its jurisdiction.

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission wants to put 30 real-time, water-quality monitoring stations on streams and creeks across the part of the Susquehanna Basin where natural gas companies are drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation.

via Agency wants to keep watch over waterways | Penn State News | Local – Centre Daily Times.

Wright Township officials last week put off a vote on a request by Baker Hughes oil field services for a conditional use and zoning waiver that would allow the company to receive, store and ship radioactive material at a site in the Crestwood Industrial Park. Though the matter was on their agenda, supervisors said they wanted more information before voting on the zoning waiver. The issue could come up for a vote in December.

At a zoning hearing on Nov. 2, representatives of Baker Hughes said the company wants to receive and store tritium, cesium and americium for use in mining operations on the Marcellus Shale. They assured supervisors the radioactive material will be safely handled and poses no environmental risks. The materials will be tracked closely during delivery to and from the Crestwood site, and sealed on-site in bunkers nine feet underground with no chance of environmental impact, they said.

via Community News – Citizens Voice.

Can the use of “fracking” to extract natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania pollute private wells?

A Texas-based law firm thinks it can and it’s actively searching for affected property owners to represent in law suits against drilling companies.

via EnviroPolitics Blog: Law firm trolling for Marcellus water cases.

Gas drilling companies will try to convince you that using up to 6-million gallons of water for fracing one gas well doesn’t amount to a massive amount of water. Even if they are successful in making that argument with you, the next topic becomes flowback or brine. What do you do with the crap that comes back out of the ground?

Somewhere between 30% and 70% of the water used for hydro-fracing a gas well returns to the surface as flowback. In addition to the frac fluids added by the gas drilling companies, this water picks up other contaminants from deep in the Earth (~ 7,000 feet deep) with one of the most notable being salt.

These fluids contain sodium and calcium salts, barium, oil, strontium, iron, numerous heavy metals, soap, radiation and other components. This fluid combination becomes brine wastewater, and tanker trucks hauling it are labeled with a RESIDUAL WASTE placard. Treated brine is also sold for deicing and other applications that utilize calcium chloride, often being applied to roadways.

RESIDUAL WASTE placard

Brine wastewater is difficult and expensive to treat, one of the same reasons we aren’t using much ocean water for agriculture and residential applications. The saltiness of this wastewater creates a high level of TDS (total dissoved solids). Incomplete processing of this brine wastewater, especially when dumped into rivers used for drinking water, creates a high TDS situation that causes drinking water treatment plants problems, like Trihalomehtanes. High TDS water reacts with chlorine when it is processed.

In other parts of the United States, gas drilling operations dispose of their wastewater deep in the ground, by using deep injection wells. However, the geology around Marcellus Shale doesn’t lend itself as well to accepting deep injections, so the wastewater gets dumped back into Pennsylvania watersheds. Early on in Marcellus drilling, many municipal treatment plants were accepting this briny wastewater that weren’t equipped to process it. Add that situation to low river levels due to drought and you begin to have real problems.

via Marcellus Shale Wastewater Treatment in Pennsylvania – Flowback and brine processing from fracking.

The DEC has yet to address any of these questions. But New York's Health Department raised concerns about the amount of radioactive materials in the wastewater in a confidential letter to the DEC's oil and gas regulators in July.

“Handling and disposal of this wastewater could be a public health concern,” DOH officials said in the letter, which was obtained by ProPublica. “The issues raised are not trivial, but are also not insurmountable.”

The letter warned that the state may have difficulty disposing of the drilling waste, that thorough testing will be needed at water treatment plants, and that workers may need to be monitored for radiation as much as they might be at nuclear facilities.

via New York Gas Drilling Is Fracking Out | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural.