|
Sandra above Seneca Lake (provided) |
Sandra wrote this piece -- as she is doing for all her
pieces from jail -- on scraps of paper with stubs of pencil, from her head.
Nothing else.
April 22, 2013
TO: FRED KRUPP, Environmental Defense Fund
FRANCES BEINECKE, Natural Resource Defense Council
MICHAEL BRUNE, Sierra Club
PHILIP JOHNSON, Heinz Endowments, and
Other fellow leaders in the environmental community:
While confined in the Chemung County Jail, here in the
southern tier of upstate New York, I have had to think deeply and long about the
environmental community’s response to the boom in natural gas extraction from
shale via hydraulic fracking, which is now sweeping the nation, from west to
east. I write to share with you my insights regarding the split within our
community over whether to embrace a regulatory approach to fracking, or to
press for bans and moratoria.
I’ll begin by explaining why I am in jail. Last month, on
the west shore of Seneca Lake, I stood with other local residents on a driveway
owned by Inergy, LLC.
In so doing, we blockaded a gas compressor station site and
prevented a company truck, carrying a drill head in its truck bed, from going
where that truck wanted to go. When we refused to disband, we were arrested and
charged with trespassing. When three of us further refused, at our arraignment
on April 17th, to pay the resulting fine, we were each sentenced to 15 days in
jail. I am writing to you on day 6 of my incarceration.
As the nation’s largest energy storage and transportation
company, Inergy provides the infrastructure for fracking – including within
states like New York, where high-volume, horizontal fracking is not allowed.
Missouri-based Inergy has purchased more than 500 acres of lakeshore property
along the banks of our state’s largest and deepest lake. Seneca Lake is so
large and deep that it creates its own temperature stabilizing microclimate,
which provides the necessary ecological conditions for our state’s world-class
Riesling grapes. Wineries flourish on the hillsides about both banks of the Finger
Lake. Inergy is interested in neither the wine grapes nor our unique climate.
It does not care about Seneca Lake’s designation as the Lake Trout Capital of
the world, nor the tranquil views that draw tourists and fill summer cottages.
Nor, more basically, with the fact that Seneca Lake is the drinking water
source for 100,000 people.
Inergy’s interest is, instead, focused on the landscape
below the surface – namely the abandoned caverns left over from a century of
solution salt mining that lie 1,500 feet beneath and beside the lake shore.
Inergy’s plan is to repurpose these salt caverns to serve as storage for
billions of barrels of fracked gases, which will be brought to Seneca Lake by
rail and by truck from other states. However, these fuels will not be stored in
barrels. The caverns themselves will serve as the receptacle for the
pressurized, liquefied, explosive gases.
The Seneca Lake 12 – as we arrestees call ourselves – fear
that Inergy’s planned storage facilities pose serious risks, including calamitous
ones. As journalist Peter Mantius reports in DC Bureau, salt caverns
represented only 7 per cent of the nation’s 407 underground storage sites for
gas in 2002, but, between 1972 and 2004, they were responsible for all ten
catastrophic accidents involving gas storage. In Belle Rose, Louisiana, the
14-acre sinkhole that is now making headlines was caused by the collapse of a
gas-filled salt cavern. As a result, surface and groundwater have been
contaminated,and an entire community faces relocation.
In addition to the risk for outright catastrophe, we Seneca
Lake 12 object to the heavy industrialization of the pristine Finger Lakes
region that we call home. Along with the 24-hour light pollution from the
industrial lighting of the drill rigs and the 24-hour noise from the
compressors, this facility will fill our scenic highways with fleets of diesel
trucks and send train cars of hazardous, flammable cargo over our rickety rail
trestles. A 60-foot flarestack will send carcinogens and ozone precursors into
our air. (My home is 15 miles downwind; my eleven year old has a history of
asthma.) Our deepest concerns are for the water. Inergy’s hillside pits have
already leaked, salt geysers have already spewed, lake side vegetation has
already died and, in spite of the fact that Inergy’s discharges of effluent
chemicals into the lake have been out of compliance for the past twelve
consecutive quarters, Inergy applied for and received from the State of New
York a permit to discharge 44,000 additional pounds of chloride into the lake.
Every single day.
In a larger way, our act of civil disobedience - for which I
now wear an orange jumpsuit and reside in a six by seven foot cell – is
directed at the practice of shale gas extraction itself. This is why, with our arms
linked, we unfurled a banner with the words, “Our Future is Unfractured.”
Clearly, a massive build-out of fracking’s infrastructure – the storage
facilities; the pipelines, the compressors and condensers; the access roads;
the underground injection wells for the disposal of fracking waste; the
ethylene “crackers” that turn the byproducts of wet gas into ingredients for
the petrochemical industry – is a necessary precondition for fracking to occur.
As it boasts in its communiqués to investors and clients, Inergy intends to
serve the Marcellus shale gas boom by turning the Finger Lakes region into the
Northeast’s storage and transportation hub for the vaporous gases so obtained.
Thus, taking a stand against infrastructure projects that aid and abet fracking
not only draws attention to the public health and environmental harms created
by the projects themselves but also signals objection to fracking and, even
more fundamentally,to the further entrenchment of fossil fuel dependency in a
time of climate emergency.
To this end, there are many fracking infrastructure projects
near my home in upstate New York where I might have chosen to plant my flag as
a first-time civil disobedient. In Horseheads, there is a storage depot for
fracking chemicals headed for the gas fields of Pennsylvania. In Painted Post,
a processing facility for fracking sand. Near the jail where I am housed here
in Elmira, a landfill accepts radioactive drill cuttings from out-of-state
operations. So, why protest at a compressor station site? The answer, for me,
is highly personal. My son Elijah was born in a birth center on a hill
overlooking Seneca Lake, just down the road from the new compressor station.The
west shore of Seneca – where I walked when in labor – is a charmed place for
me. And the burial of explosive hydrocarbon gases beneath it is, for me, a
desecration.
But particulars aside, it’s the generic, cumulative,
systemic and ubiquitous impacts of drilling and fracking operations and their
associated infrastructure projects across the nation that is the first topic I
want to raise with you in this letter.
Fracking, and the multitude of corollary activities that
enable it, is turning this nation inside out. Consider that, by weight, the new
number one commodity sent beyond its borders by the State of Wisconsin – which
does not even engage in fracking – is silica sand. (Prized for its ability to
withstand the lithostatic pressure of the earth without crumbling, grains of
silica sand are shot into the shards of shale during fracking operations in
order to prop the cracks open, so that the oil or gas can flow out of them.) In
other words, Wisconsin is now exporting itself. The sand counties of Aldo
Leopold are being loaded onto barges, trucks, and railcars headed for the
fracking fields of America. Hills, bluffs, coulees: they are all going. Big
parts of formerly rolling Wisconsin are now, thanks to frack sand mining, as
flat as Illinois. In the process, surface water is silted, groundwater is
threatened, and air fills with silica dust – a known lung carcinogen and a
known cause of the disabling disease silicosis. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania,
drilling and fracking operations fragment millions of acres of intact, interior
forests – along with the ecosystem services they provide. Nationally, thanks to
fracking, energy extraction has become the number one land use; the U.S. has
more acreage leased for oil and gas than planted in wheat or soy.
Against this backdrop of epic transformation of the
landscape and mass industrialization of rural America, the policy discussions
about fracking emerging from your respective organizations are remarkably
narrow and conciliatory. Partnering with industry, Environmental Defense Fund
focuses on calculating methane emissions rates from well pads and, together
with the Heinz Endowments, promulgating voluntary standards for fracking based
on “best practices.” The dubious notion of “sustainable shale” aside (by what
definition of “sustain” can any non-renewable fossil fuel be described, let
alone the methane bubbles trapped inside the Marcellus Shale, whose recoverable
reserves have been re-estimated sharply downward by geologists and are now
believed to provide only six years worth of U.S. gas usage), the Center for
Sustainable Shale fails to consider the devastating collateral damage created
by all the corollary activities that necessarily accompany shale gas
extraction: strip-mining for sand, clear cutting of forests, and destruction of
productive farmland are just three. While you consider industry best practices
such as green completion, recycling of fracking fluid, and strict engineering
standards for well casings, you entirely ignore the massive amounts of steel
and cement – miles and miles of it for every well – that must be manufactured,
transported, and entombed in the Earth for the one-time,short-term,
un-recyclable use of shale gas extraction (in the case of the Marcellus Shale,
a one-time use for six years of gas).
Should Governor Cuomo decide to pursue full development of
shale gas via high-volume horizontal hydrofracking, the amount of steel alone
that would be buried in New York State will exceed, by 2.5 times, the entire
tonnage of the U.S. Navy Fleet(as calculated by Cornell engineer Tony
Ingraffea). To my knowledge, no one has estimated the amount of steel and
concrete consumed by the fracking industry on a national basis for use as well
casings and casing strings. Consider, however,that the production of both
materials is fossil-fuel intensive and that, on a worldwide scale, cement
manufacturing alone is responsible for six percent of total greenhouse gas
emissions. Those same resources – and the jobs they provide– could be directed
toward the construction of renewable energy infrastructures and the smart grid
they require.
The advocacy of “sustainable shale” is provincial not only
because it fails to consider radical alterations to land use wrought by
fracking and the costly sacrifice of carbon-intensive resources, but also
because it utterly ignores the ongoing fracking-driven transformation of our
materials economy. Fully 30% of natural gas is used not as a source of domestic
energy but in manufacturing, a big chunk of which is diverted for use in
petrochemical manufacturing. Fully 5% of the world’s natural gas supply is
consumed to make the petrochemical fertilizer anhydrous ammonia. Natural gas is
also the starting point for the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC
plastic). The “wet gases,” such as ethane, that are blasted out of the ground
with methane are used in the manufacture of other petrochemical plastics. And
these are just a few examples. As you know, the U.S. chemical industry is
experienced a parallel boom in activity as a direct result of cheap, abundant
shale gas.
Accelerated petrochemical manufacture brought on by fracking
has profound environmental and public health consequences. Cheap, abundant
agricultural chemicals undermine the local, organic food movement and keep our
nation’s farm system running onthe pesticide treadmill. Anhydrous ammonia
fertilizer is responsible for the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the
destruction of aquatic ecosystems throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and
contamination of groundwater aquifers throughout rural America. Last Thursday’s
deadly explosion at the West Fertilizer Company in Texas – which destroyed
lives and homes across a vast swath of land – reveals the inherent dangers of
relying on volatile petrochemicals as a source of agricultural nitrogen. Once
again: natural gas is the starting point for anhydrous ammonia manufacture (say
what you will about downsides of sustainable agriculture, but green manure,
compost tea, and crop rotation never blew up a nursing home). In sum, the
fracking boom – whether regulated or unregulated, guided by best practices or
worst – further deepens the dependency of our nation’s food system on
non-renewable fossil fuels at precisely the moment when we desperately need to
be calling for its emancipation. In this, natural gas is not a bridge but a
perilous detour.
Likewise in chemical manufacturing, fracking, by making
petrochemicals cheaper and more abundant, undoes gains in toxic chemical
reform, green chemistry, and green engineering.The plastics that will be
created by a proposed new cracker facility in Pittsburgh from the wet gases of
fracking solve a waste disposal problem of the energy industry – and make
fracking more profitable – but, at the same time, add to the burden of
unbiodegradable materials that we are, as individual citizens, encouraged to
reduce, reuse, and recycle. Inevitably, much of this fracked plastic will end
up in the oceans, adding to garbage patches and contaminating aquatic food
chains. Meanwhile the cracking facility itself will add ground-level ozone
(smog) to a Pennsylvania community already in non-attainment for ozone, and
thus add to the community’s burden of asthma, heart attack, stroke, and preterm
birth. How is this sustainable?
In my home state of Illinois – where no fracking is
currently occurring – the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council has
joined hands with industry to draft model regulations for fracking (which are
not as strict as those that we rejected in New York). The Sierra Club’s
subsequent endorsement of the fracking regulatory bill now under consideration
by the State legislature has allowed pro-fracking forces in both government and
industry to claim that Sierra Club has endorsed regulated fracking. In separate
conversations this year with both Frances Beineke of NRDC and Michael Brune of
Sierra Club, I was told that a nation-wide ban on fracking – or even moratoria
in all states – would be “unrealistic” for political reasons. What seems to me
less realistic – politically – is to imagine that the oil and gas industry,
which has already exempted itself from federal laws and surrounds itself with
secrecy, would willfully follow any regulations or voluntary standards of any
kind. Ironically, the very states that are most vulnerable to fracking for
reasons of economic desperation are those least able, because of massive budget
cuts, to enforce regulations and provide oversight for an industry whose wells
and infrastructure will be distributed across the landscape.
Meanwhile, land in Missouri and up and down the Illinois
River is being readied for sand stripmining in anticipation of fracking’s debut
in Illinois, and the Shaunee National Forest, a haven of biodiversity, in
southern Illinois, is being opened for drilling activity. The results will
neither be sustainable nor regulatable.
With fracking, the mainstream environmental community has
lost its way, aligning itself with those who believe that now is not the time
to embrace renewable energy and declare the fossil fuel party over.
The voices that cry “wait” and capitulate to powerful
industry forces through their willingness to trade one fossil fuel for another
are taking us down a perilous path. It is time to say now – grassroots groups
and big green groups together – that the unholy trinity of coal, oil and gas is
part of a ruinous past and; that further investments in new techniques to blast
these deadly fossils from the bedrock are a waste of time, money, water, air,
trees, health and farmland; and that well-intentioned attempts to regulate and
police the resulting mess is a waste of human ingenuity that could be better
spent re-imagining and retooling our economy and our culture for the
post-carbon age. We don’t need to design
filters for cigarettes – they provide only false assurances of safety and only
delay the initiation of entirely new habits and attitudes. Because I have now
run out of paper –
With respect and toward the unfracked future,
Sandra Steingraber