Problems With Hydrofracking?

“Fracking our Foodshed,” Fracking Up Our Foodshed: Agriculture and Hydrofracking are NOT Compatible « Farmshed Nation - foodshed. The brochure includes a link to an excellent resource of extensive DOCUMENTS on the widespread dangers to agriculture, livestock, air, water, roads, etc. from all aspects of hydrofrackingactivities and from the toxic waste it produces, “Local Food Production and Gas Drilling: Are They ReallyCompatible?”, by Martha Goodsell, Jan. 7, 2011, https://acrobat.com/#d=nZsSXQ3jSFGOpOf41XyczQ . See list of Subject Headings in the BROCHURES section.

NATURAL GAS/METHANE: at least 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and ʻfrom cradle to graveʼ, from extraction and processing to final combustion, it is not the safe, cleaner fuel it is touted to be, “Just Hot Air?: Are Natural Gasʼs Environmental Benefits Overstated?” Scientific American, 3/2/11: http:// www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-natural-gas-eco-benefits-overstated . And see http://www.un naturalgas.org/hydraulic_fracturing_a-z.htm . “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations,” Cornell University report, 11/12/10, http://www.springerlink.com/content/ e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf .

See the chart on SLIDE 15 of the “Peak Oil Self Teach,” http://transitioninaction.com/forum/topics/ 2320371:Topic:1012 , concerning the relative greenhouse gas impacts of various fuel sources whenproduction, processing and final combustion (CO2) are all accounted for, ʻcradle to graveʼ.

See the chart in The Transition Handbook by Rob Hopkins, p. 52, for the comparative greenhouse gas impacts for a range of energy sources. ALL combustible fuels are very unattractive - and deadly.

Also see the chart, p. 51 in The Transition Handbook, which shows the “Energy Return On Energy Invested”, “EROEI”, for various sources of energy. Fossil fuels, especially the ones that are dirtier,slower, and/or harder to extract (oil shale, tar sands, shale gas, deep water drilling), are shockinglyconsumptive of and dependent on fossil fuel inputs. Some other sources are not as cost-effective and benign as we assume. (Also see the section, TRANSCENDING THE AGE OF FOSSIL FUELS.)

GALLONS OF WATER/FLUID NEEDED FOR FRACKING AND RE-FRACKING: http://www.un-naturalgas.org/Rev %202%20Truckloads+to+service+a+well+pad+-+DJC.pdf - has source documents for the figures. Minimum water needed, for just one well and one fracturing = 2-9 million gallonsMaximum water needed, for 20 wells and 6 fracturings over 30 years = .24 to 1.08 billion gallons

WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM: OUR water reserves, for free. Note that the attitude toward the free taking of our water, which is returned to us and the environment unfit to support life, is this: “Slickwater fracturing fluids are low cost since the base fluid is water,” http://www.nyserda.org/publications/ICF%20Task %201%20Report_Final.pdf , p. 10.

FLUID ADDITIVES CONTAINED IN THE ʻFLOWBACKʼ OR ʻPRODUCED FLUIDʼ FROM FRACKING: See the 2009 dSGEIS, CHAPTER 5: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap5.pdf , pp. 5-45 to 5-51 & pp. 5-104 to 5-106 respectively. See the 2011 prdSGEIS, CHAPTER 5: Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) , p. 5-54ff, “TABLE 5.7, CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN ADDITIVES” with many additional additives listed. See p.5-74, “Toxicity testing data is quite limited for some chemicals, and less is known about their potential adverse effects. In particular, there is little meaningful information one way or the other

about the potential impact on human health of chronic low level exposures to many of these chemicals, as could occur if an aquifer were to be contaminated as the result of a spill or release that is undetected and/or unremediated.” (See the 2011 prdSGEIS Map of Primary Aquifers and Marcellus Shale Extent for the limited number of aquifers that are granted any concern. Compare with the MAP of 21 primary and many principal aquifers (“greater than one square mile”) in CHAPTER 2, p. 2-22, Description of Proposed Action (PDF) , and with the MAP of protected aquifers, Map of Prohibited Drilling Areas .

The HEALTH IMPACTS OF CLASSES OF PRODUCTS - petroleum distillates, aromatic hydrocarbons, glycolethers, etc. - are summarized p. 5-75 to 5-78. “The total amount of fracturing additives and water used in hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells is considerably larger than for traditional vertical wells. This suggests the potential environmental consequences of an upset condition could be proportionally larger for horizontal well drilling and fracturing operations,” p. 5-78.

Also regarding the chemical additives in frack fluid, biocides and surfactants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hydraulic_fracturing , and Surface operations in fracturing, p. 134 surfactants/proppants, 139 additives ... - Google Books .

And from Halliburton, http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/ fluids_disclosure.html .

“Whatʼs in that Fracking Fluid?” 12/2008, The River Reporter CHART: http://www.wvsoro.org/news/ 2008/12_04_fracking.pdf .

Diesel fuels are supposed to be prohibited in hydrofracking according to the SDWA (see below), because they are acknowledged as carcinogens, but word is that these corporations are still being found to use it. See “House Inquiry Reveals Continued Use of Diesel Fuel in Hydrofracking,” ARTICLE by Emily K. Slagle, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 2/16/2011: http://www.vjel.org/news/NEWS100283.html .

Salts, radon, radiation, toxic substances FROM SUBTERRANEAN SHALE FREED BY FRACKING OPERATIONS:

Shale formations are ancient oceanic material which contain many compounds which are toxic and not suitable for our freshwater ecosystem and human habitat above ground. Fracking fluid and drilling mud and ‘cuttings’ come back to the surface contaminated with many of these poisonous substances, which are also found to react with fracking additives to form other toxic substances.

2009 dSGEIS, APPENDIX 13: NYS MARCELLUS RADIOLOGICAL DATA FROM PRODUCTION BRINE: http:// www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogsgeisapp1.pdf , scroll about ⅞ down. The 2011 prdSGEIS,

APPENDIX 13: RADIOLOGICAL DATA -PRODUCTION BRINE FROM NYS MARCELLUS WELLSFROM PRODUCTION BRINE appears to be the same, Appendices 10 through 18C (PDF) .

High salt content, see: http://www.tiogagaslease.org/images/BVW_11_06_09.pdf .

Test results charts for the contents of ‘flowback’ fluid, but only for the limited number of compounds selected for testing. Note barium, strontium, sodium: “The Science of Marcellus Shale: Marcellus Hydrofracture Flowback and Production Wastewater Treatment, Recycle, and Disposal Technologies,” http:// www.prochemtech.com/Literature/Technical/The_Science_of_Marcellus_Shale_Wastewater.pdf . See p. 7, regarding what might happen after ‘treatment’ of this waste water: “Reuse of this sludge as a raw material for production of cement has been proposed. Other potential uses would be as an acid soil neutralization reagent, a phosphate removal reagent in POTW [Publicly Owned Treatment Works], or as a replacement for limestone in fluidized bed boilers.”

The ‘produced fluid’ and mud usually or often contain: salts, barium salts, lead arsenic, benzene, bromide, chromium, 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide (4-NOQ) - i.e. poisons, endocrinedisruptors and carcinogens. The salt content is two or more times as salty as the ocean. (from a PRESENTATION by SUNY Oneonta chemistry and biochemisty professor Dr. Rob Bishop, given at Ulster County Community College, Stone Ridge NY, 5/25/11). And http://newyork.sierraclub.org/documents/ GasHandout_11_09.pdf .

“Hydraulic Fracturing and the Impact to Drinking Water Supplies,” http://www.robsonforensic.com/library/files/ Articles/Hydraulic%20Fracturing.pdf .

TEDX — Chemicals in Natural Gas Operations: Video and from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Conservation, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/ 14287?id=12588&typeid=1 .

FRACK FLUID -AMOUNT OF WATER TYPICALLY WITHDRAWN FROM WATER SOURCES AND SUBSEQUENTLY POISONED: http:// www.un-naturalgas.org/Rev%202%20Truckloads+to+service+a+well+pad+-+DJC.pdf . at 1 million gallons per fracking (minimum) x 80,000 pads x 8 wells per pad x 18 frackings per well = at 7 million gallons per fracking (maximum) x 80,000 pads x 8 wells per pad x 18 frackings per well =Add 25% more to these totals if there are 100,000 pads.

2011 prdSGEIS, CHAPTER 7, encourages the recycling of hydrofracking fluid “flowback”, to reduce theamount of fresh water consumed in the process by reusing it in subsequent fracking. While this mightreduce the total gallons of fresh water taken for fracking, this also means the TOXIC CONTENT of the frackfluid becomes an increasingly concentrated toxic disposal problem. See See CHAPTER 7, p. 7-42, Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) . And see CHAPTER 5, p. 5-122, on Reuse, Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) .

About problems and issues concerning FLOWBACK FLUID and about its recycling/reuse, see CHAPTER 5, p. 5-118, FLOWBACK WATER TREATMENT, RECYCLING AND REUSE SECTION (as above). Ultimately it must be disposed of - see p. 5-130, “FLOWBACK WATER requiring disposal is considered industrial wastewater, like many other water use by products,” and municipalsewage treatment facilities are listed as possibilities for disposal of it.

DRILLING FLUID AND FRACK FLUID “FLOWBACK” RETURNING TO SURFACE, HOW HANDLED: “Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in the United States,” http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/ ANL_EVS__R09_produced_water_volume_report_2437.pdf see p. 40 for NYS, where the DEC allows “road spreading of production brine for deicing and dust control purposed under its beneficial use determination program” (for vertical hydrofracking all along).

The 2011 Preliminary Review dSGEIS states: “However, the data available to date associated with naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) concentrations in Marcellus production brine is insufficient to allow road spreading under a BUD [BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION]. As more data becomes available, it is anticipated that petitions for such use will be evaluated by the Department [DEC/DMN]....a BUD petition would include analytical results from an ELAP- approved laboratory of a representative sample for the following parameters: NORM, calcium, sodium, chloride, magnesium, TDS, pH, iron, barium, lead, sulfate, oil & grease, benzene, ethylbenzene,toluene, and xylene.”” See CHAPTER 7, p. 7-62: Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) . And see CHAPTER 5, p. 5-141 on BRINE DISPOSAL.

STORED IN ON-SITE PITS: http://www.earthworksaction.org/pitpollution.cfm . 2011 prdSGEIS continues to allow the use of OPEN PITS. However, CHAPTER 7, p. 7-38 states that these would be for DRILLING FLUIDS - i.e. which have returned to the surface from drilling in the toxic deepshale environment - and specifies aspects of their construction and maintenance. Regarding the FRACK FLUID FLOWBACK, it appears that “the Department [DEC/DMN] proposes to require...that flowback water...be directed to and contained in covered watertight steel tanks” or tanks made of another approved material, and that reuse of the flowback should be explored. See CHAPTER 7, p.7-42, Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) . PIT FLUIDS are supposed to be removed within 45 days after drilling or fracking stops, but “the Department may also approve an extension if the fluid is to be used in subsequent operations…,” see pp. 7-75 to 7-76. CHAPTER 5, p. 5-141, states that “The storage of PRODUCTION BRINE in on-site pits has been prohibited in New York since 1984;” however on p. 5-141, the chart concerning FLOWBACK lists PITS. The 2011 prdSGEIS, CHAPTER 7, pp. 7-75 to 7-76, would permit: 300 feet between UNCOVERED HYDROFRACKING PITS and private wells 100 feet between FLOWBACK WATER TANKS and/or ADDITIVE CONTAINERS and private water wells

The drilling waste of rock chips and fragments (“cuttings”) that return to the surface can be kept in

LINED OPEN PITS, CHAPTER 5, Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) , p. 5-33 and CHAPTER 7 (see as above), p. 7-69. Drilling mud/waste is typically reused at the same site or at another.

Also see CHAPTER 8, in the SECTION on the recommendations of the non-profit organization,Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), concerning “Alphaʼs” specifications for PITS, p.8-3, 8-53, 8-55, Permit Process and Regulatory Coordination (PDF) .

About problems and issues concerning the recycling/reuse of FLOWBACK FLUID, see CHAPTER 5, p.5-118, FLOWBACK WATER TREATMENT, RECYCLING AND REUSE SECTION, Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) . Ultimately it must be disposed of - see p.

5-130, “FLOWBACK WATER requiring disposal is considered industrial wastewater, like many other water use by products.” See where it lists municipal sewage treatment facilities as possibilities for FLOWBACK water disposal.

2009 dSGEIS procedures allow the frack fluid to be hosed into OPEN PITS, where the VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) are free to evaporate into the air. See page 7-28ff, and pages 7-51 to 7-55: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap7.pdf . “The maximum leakage rate monitored between the two liner systems [of the pit]should not exceed 100 gallons per acre per day (based on a 30-day average),” i.e. leakage is OK.

TRUCKED to municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPS): 2011 prdSGEIS continues to designate many of our Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) as “Approved Pre-treatment Programs” that would receive for the frack fluid flowback and production brine, i.e. our normal, municipal Waste Water Treatment Plants throughout the state (and Kingston, Poughkeepsie, Beacon, etc. are still listed) plus “Mini Pre-treatment facilities” (and Arlington, Port Jervis and Wallkill are still listed. See the charts in the 2011 prdSGEIS, APPENDIX 21: Appendices 19 through 27 (PDF) . See 2011 prdSGEIS, CHAPTER 7, p. 7-65ff for some details, Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) . These POTWs would have a STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT (SPDES) that is supposed to provide “appropriate monitoring and effluent limits for this wastewater source.” p. 7-66.

About problems and issues concerning FLOWBACK FLUID and about its recycling/reuse, see CHAPTER 5, p. 5-118, FLOWBACK WATER TREATMENT, RECYCLING AND REUSE SECTION, Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) . Ultimately it must be disposed of - see p. 5-130, “FLOWBACK WATER requiring disposal is considered industrial wastewater, like many other water use by products.” See where it lists municipal sewagetreatment facilities as possibilities for FLOWBACK water disposal.

2009 dSGEIS named Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) in Kingston, Poughkeepsie, Beacon, etc. plus “Mini Pre-treatment facilities,” such as in Arlington, Port Jervis and Wallkill as being “Approved Pre-treatment Programs,” APPENDICES 21 and 22: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/ materials_minerals_pdf/ogsgeisapp3.pdf . POTWs are also discussed in 2009 dSGEIS, CHAPTER 7, “MITIGATION MEASURES”, page 7-57, which states that the POTWs listed in APPENDIX 21 are pre-approved: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap7.pdf . See the EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT (EPCRA), in the GOVERNMENT PROTECTION? section for industry exemptions to our right-to-know what goes on with these toxic wastes.

MAP of NY State WWTPs/POTWs where frack fluid waste could be accepted: http://frackaction.com/ content/fracking-waste .

Municipal WWTPS DO NOT and CANNOT restore frack fluid to drinking-grade water. The frack fluid is briny as well as poisoned by chemicals. Desalination is not cost effective, nor is reverse osmosis. If these were so cheap to do, regions of water shortage around the world would easily be turning toocean water and polluted waters for their needs.

What happens instead: Pennsylvania situation reported by NY Times/Fox News: YouTube - FOX 56 New York Times expose on hydraulic fracturing , Regulation Lax as Gas Wellsʼ Tainted Water Hits Rivers - NYTimes.com (Feb. 26, 2011) and Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste

- Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com (p. 375ff) about our conventional WWPTs beingunprepared for this type of ʻwaste,ʼ which also “has the capability of fouling the bugs in the treatment systems” - i.e. the bacteria necessary for normal processing, p. 379, and about what happens downstream from them when they take it.

“Natural Gas Drilling Polluted Wastewater Map,” INTERACTIVE MAP of WWTPs in Pennsylvania that take the wastewater from hydrofracking, where it is “partially treated, diluted and then dumped into rivers and streams” and where downstream drinking water intakes are. Times Tribune, 1/7/11: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/gas-drilling/natural-gas-drilling-polluted-wastewater map-1.1087350?parentPage=2.2127 . (See also Times Tribuneʼs News section which has a gas drilling/hydrofracking SECTION: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news , click the “Gas Drilling” tab at top left menu for these ARTICLES.)

NYTimes survey of contaminated wells and of river drinking water taken from downstream ofWWTPs that receive this hydrofracking wastewater “containing corrosive salts, radioactive and carcinogenic materials.” See article, “Toxic Contamination from Natural Gas Wells”: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html?ref=us .

“Fracking Wastewater Can't Be Sent To 15 Treatment Plants, Pa. DEP Says,” http:// www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/health/Fracking_Wastewater_DEP_Regulation_041911 , Associated Press, 4/19/11; and “Fracking waste water no longer accepted at Pennsylvania municipal treatment facilities,” 5/20/11, http://accident-injury-blog.com/2011/05/20/fracking-waste-water no-longer-accepted-at-pennsylvania-municipal-treatment-facilities/ .

2009 dSGEIS procedures allow dilution and dumping into rivers, “Regulation Lax as Gas Wellsʼ Tainted Water Hits Rivers,” see at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=2&hp And see Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com , p. 417, about howdilution DOES NOT reduce health risks.

DUMPING of frack fluid and waste, legal and illegal: The EPA established the “Natural Gas Drilling Tip Line for reports of dumping and other illegal or suspicious hauling and/or disposal activities.” See Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com , p. 17-18.

And see “PA Allows Dumping of Tainted Waters From Gas Boom,” 1/3/11: http://abcnews.go.com/ Health/wireStory?id=12529444 .

“Natural Gas Drilling Polluted Wastewater Map,” INTERACTIVE MAP of WWTPs in Pennsylvania that takethe wastewater from hydrofracking and dump it into waterways afterward. The map shows where downstream drinking water intakes are. Times Tribune, 1/7/11:http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/ gas-drilling/natural-gas-drilling-polluted-wastewater-map-1.1087350?parentPage=2.2127 .

SPREAD ON ROADS for deicing and dust control, as a “beneficial use” for this toxic waste: http:// www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL_EVS__R09_produced_water_volume_report_2437.pdf , see p. 40 for NY State. And see, “Team 4 Investigation: Brine,” Pittsburgh channel WTAE, 11/15/10: http:// www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/5334068/detail.html .

The 2011 prdSGEIS, APPENDIX 12 states the same as the 2009 dSGEIS APPENDIX 12 does, Appendices 10 through 18C (PDF) . However in CHAPTER 7, it states: “...the data available to date associated with naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) concentrations in Marcellus production brine is insufficient to allow road spreading under a BUD [BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION]. Note that here “production brine” clearly refers to fracking flowback fluidcontaminated by the deep shale, not the “production brine” mentioned in the 2009 dSGEIS, APPENDIX 12 (see next entry). “As more data becomes available, it is anticipated that petitions for such use will be evaluated by the Department [DEC/DMN],“ i.e., the DEC/DMN is open to considering its use for roadspreading. See CHAPTER 7, page 7-62: Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) .

In the 2009 dSGEIS, APPENDIX 12, “BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION (BUD) NOTIFICATION REGARDING ROADSPREADING”, it appears that there might be two kinds of brine; because there is production brine and then there is the briny produced water or frack fluid ʻflowbackʼ. APPENDIX 12 states,

“only production brines or brine from LPG storage operations may be used for road spreading. Drilling, fracing [sic], and plugging fluids are not acceptable for road spreading.” See about ⅚down the page at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogsgeisapp1.pdf .

STORAGE TANKS: http://poseidonconcepts.com /. The 2009 dSGEIS addresses above-ground tanks: http:// www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap7.pdf , page 7-55.

ʻRECYCLINGʼ of frack fluid, “Frack Fluid Recycling Plant Proposed for Owego,” 11/6/09: http:// www.tiogagaslease.org/images/BVW_11_06_09.pdf .

INJECTION WELL DISPOSAL of the frack fluid: West Virginiaʼs policy, http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/03/west virginias-policy-on-disposing-marcellus-drilling-wastewater-injection-wells/ .

See also: http://frackaction.com/content/quakes-study-arkansas-prompts-suspension-well-injection operations and http://arkansasmatters.com/news-fulltext?nxd_id=400346 - “Oil and Gas Commission Deputy Director Shane Khoury explains, "Based on preliminary information, we believe that there is a potential correlation between injection operations in two specific wells and the seismic activity in the area."

Underground storage of waste has issues in general. For indications on how underground chemistry,geological formations/layers, fracturing can compromise the storage of hazardous waste, hereʼs about storing radioactive waste at WIPP, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: http://www.cardnm.org/ repository_a.html .

See in the GOVERNMENT PROTECTION? section, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, concerning underground injections.

DRILLING MUD & WASTE FROM HYDROFRACKING IN THE MARCELLUS SHALE, AND WHERE IT GOES: http://dcbureau.org/ 201105101335/Bulldog-Blog/new-york-state-dismisses-radiation-threat-from-gas-drilling-cuttings.html . The radioactive materials of Marcellus Shale are NOT your average Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) to be disposed of at SOLID WASTE centers. This is a detailed discussion of what has and has not been looked at, and how our Marcellus shale drilling mud and drilling cuttings waste situation has not beenexamined properly by the NYS DEC. Also noted in the ARTICLE about ⅔ down page, is the fact that “The DEC plays with regulations. They’re not charged with looking after public health. They’re not trying to prevent disease.”

The drilling waste of rock chips and fragments (“cuttings”) that return to the surface is to be kept in LINED OPEN PITS or a “closed-loop tank system”, buried or disposed of in a Part 360 solid waste facility: 2011 prdSGEIS, CHAPTER 5, Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) , p. 5-33 and CHAPTER 7, Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) , p. 7-69. “Acid rock drainage” (ARD) of buried waste into groundwater is supposed to be mitigated by neutralizationwith carbonate materials. Drilling mud/waste is typically reused at the same site or at another.

TRUCK TRIPS FOR FRACKING: “Fracking Truck Convoys,” VIDEO by Chip Northrup and Jeff Reynolds, http:// my.brainshark.com/Fracking-Truck-Convoys-by-Chip-Northrup-and-Jeff-Reynolds-934651680 . Click “Table of Contents” in the area to the right to get the topics covered in the VIDEO.

See “Heavy Fraffic,” VIDEO, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZZQxe6FiGA , also posted at http://nyrad.org/ videos.html .

Torn up roads: http://sullivancounty.wnep.com/news/news/gas-drilling-trucks-banned-some-roads/57933 ."It turned our surface roads into dirt roads. It's really what it done, really tore them up."

TANKER TRUCK TRIPS REQUIRED PER WELL PAD FOR JUST THE FLUID REQUIREMENTS: http://www.un-naturalgas.org/ Rev%202%20Truckloads+to+service+a+well+pad+-+DJC.pdf .

Minimum, for just one well and one fracturing = 40-180 large fresh water tanker trucks hauling to thepad, 280-1260 smaller waste-materials tanker trucks hauling away from pad = 320 to 1,440 possible tanker truck trips for well pad lifespan.

Maximum, for 20 wells and 6 fracturings over 30 years: 4800-21600 large fresh water tanker trucks hauling to the pad, 33600-151,200 smaller waste-materials tanker trucks hauling away from pad = 38,400-172,800 possible tanker truck trips for well pad lifespan.

MIGRATION OF FRACK FLUID: “EPA also reported that in half the cases studied, fracturing fluids migrated farther than and in more complex patterns than predicted,” http://www.nyserda.org/publications/ICF%20Task %201%20Report_Final.pdf , p. 23. And http://www.propublica.org/article/hydrofracked-one-mans-mystery leads-to-a-backlash-against-natural-gas-drill/single .

PRE-TESTING OF PRIVATE WELLS: The 2009 dSGEIS only provides such testing in the near vicinity, see page 7-38: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap7.pdf . In the 2011 prdSGEIS, CHAPTER 7, private wells would be tested at operatorʼs expense only within 1,000 feet of the wellpad, and the would be testing discontinued “if no contamination is detected” for a period of one year after hydrofracking at a pad, i.e.cumulative impact over the longterm will be left unexamined; see pp. 7-46 and 7-47, Existing and Recommended Mitigation Measures (PDF) . The 2011 prdSGEIS, pp. 7-75 to 7-76, would permit: 300 feet between UNCOVERED HYDROFRACKING PITS and private wells 100 feet between FLOWBACK WATER TANKS and/or ADDITIVE CONTAINERS and private water wells

EMISSION OF GASEOUS POISONS, RADIOACTIVITY AND PARTICULATES 24/7, V.O.C.ʻS: Mayor Tillman of Dish, TX, explains air contamination toxin level impacts, VIDEO (15 min. in): http://frackno.com / . See his powerpoint slides at: Pipeline Safety powerpoints, 11-6-2009, see DAY TWO , scroll down to DAY TWO, breakout session speakers on “Local Government and Citizen Efforts to Understand Gas Drilling Impacts” - 2 other PRESENTATIONS also.