Comments by Amy Mall Subscribe

On The BLM Makes the Case for Banning Waste Pits, but Doesn't Ban Them

Dear Paul O: These are excellent questions. The contaminants in oil and gas wastes include carcinogens, radioactive materials, heavy metals, and more. There are substantial risks associated with pits to air, groundwater, surface waters, soil, wildlife, and human health. NRDC provided details about the contaminants and the risks in a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The petition can be found here: http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_10091301a.pdf

These wastes can be very toxic and cause dangerous air and water pollution. Whether the problems will resolve over time will depend on the extent and type of contamination. Groundwater pollution in particular  can remain harmful for centuries. Soil contamination can also be very long lasting.

On The BLM Makes the Case for Banning Waste Pits, but Doesn't Ban Them

Concerned Scientist:

Here is NRDC's latest statement on the role of natural gas in America's energy mix: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/energymixII.pdf

We work on a wide range of issues and our priority issue areas can be seen here: http://www.nrdc.org/issues/

On The BLM Makes the Case for Banning Waste Pits, but Doesn't Ban Them

Dear Concerned Scientist: All of the polluting industries you mention present very serious threats to human and animal health and the planet and need to be addressed. Let me know if you would like information on our work on harmful activities other than fracking. We don't rank them. While burning natural gas at power plants can be an improvement when compared to burning coal, that doesn't mean that natural gas producers shouldn't be required to clean up their act. They have the technology and economic ability to capture toxic air emissions, store waste in tanks instead of pits that leak and spill, install safer casing, stay away from schools, and more. Why should they get a free pass?

On More Fracking Tragedies for Farmers and Ranchers in North Dakota

Dear Concerned Scientist: You ask why I called these fracking tragedies and state that these problems would occur if the wells were not being fracked. While I agree that some problems would occur even if the wells were not fracked, I do not agree that all would occur. Take truck traffic. A conventional well does not come close to requiring the hundreds or thousands of truck trips required to haul fracking water and chemicals and then haul the wastewater. And while open pits might be required for conventional wells, there would not be nearly as many pits, pits as large as these are, or as much toxic waste without fracking. Fumes come from the flaring, as well as from pits. Fracking leads to emissions of hundreds of times the amount of toxic air pollutants when compared to wells that are not fracked during completion.

While North Dakota law provides for payments to a surface owner if there are damages, the amount of damages have to be agreed upon by the oil company. As you might imagine, surface owners are rarely if ever truly fully compensated for the harms they endure and cannot control on their own property.

On The latest science from Europe on fracking

Thanks for the comments. PublicEnvHealth Advocate: these are some of my recent posts, I have also posted a lot of other information from the last few years at: switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall

On Natural Gas Extraction Is Destroying Forests in Pennsylvania

NRDC agrees that renewable energy sources come with their own impacts and must be carefully sited and designed to minimize any harms to the environment. For more on NRDC's work on this topic, you can go to: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/default.asp

On Natural Gas Extraction Is Destroying Forests in Pennsylvania

Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, these industrial sites are generally kept clear and off limits for decades if not longer.

On More Evidence that Fracking Waste Is Poorly Regulated

Concerned Scientist: In many cases where groundwater may have been contaminated during hydraulic fracturing operations, the contamination has been attributed to other causes, such as faulty well structure or poor cementing, even if a well failed during the hydraulic fracturing process. In others, incidents of drinking water contamination where hydraulic fracturing is considered as a suspected cause have not been sufficiently investigated, either because scientists and regulators could not properly investigate (did not have the information or technology needed) or because they chose not to, even where signs point to hydraulic fracturing. However, in Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA's draft report concluded it was likely that ground water contamination was contaminated by the hydraulic fracturing process itself. The ground water there has been contaminated by chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, and those chemicals most likely reached groundwater through subsurface pathways.

On More Evidence that Fracking Waste Is Poorly Regulated

Dear Bobbi: Thanks for the note. This document explains NRDC's questions about propane fracking: http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_12041201a.pdf