Emily DeMasi
SocialFunds.com reports today that the EPA will revisit the issue of hydraulic fracturing announcing that the EPA will conduct a new scientific study of the effects of the practice. This is an acknowledgement on the EPA’s part of increased public concerns about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water supplies. Investors show concern also by filing shareholder resolutions with 12 companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing requesting that companies report on the environmental impact of fracturing operations. This only two days after “Don’t Frack With Pittsburgh,” was the rallying cry outside the Pittsburgh City-County Building before a public hearing on Marcellus Shale drilling.
Last week I posted about Range Resources announcing their commitment to voluntary disclosures concerning hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale natural gas resource in Pennsylvania. Monday night I was reminded what a heated debate the Marcellus Shale drilling continues to be for those most affected by the outcome of this discussion as I watched footage of drilling protesters on all the local evening news stations. The overwhelming concern of protesters is that of health concerns caused by contaminated water and air due to hydraulic fracturing.
Today I was relieved to see investor and protestor concerns being addressed with EPA plans to initiate a new study on the effects of hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has already insisted on a 30 day response from nine natural gas companies on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at their hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of sites where fracturing has been conducted.
However the study is planned to begin in early 2011 with initial study results available by late 2012. What will be done in the meantime to protect those sites and communities already being drilled? As one Pittsburgh protester suggested, shouldn’t we wait for results before any more hydraulic fracturing is undertaken?
Image Credit: arimoore via Flickr under CC license.
The headline on the fraccing blog is incorrect. The origins of the EPA study are independent of the investor campaign. As noted in the socialfunds.com article, investors support the life cycle approach of the EPA study and support this focused effort to develop useful facts in a systematic fashion.
For more on investor views, visit the fraccing page at http://www.iehn.org.
Thanks for taking the time to comment Richard. Looking back, I did represent the shareholder resolutions as more causal to the study than perhaps they were. I edited the headline to read, “Shareowner Resolutions and a New EPA Study on Hydraulic Fracturing,” as well as editing the first paragraph of the post to better reflect the facts in the socialfunds.com article. The clarification was needed and is appreciated!