A permit application has been submitted for yet another injection well in Athens County. This one will allow up to 4000 barrels a day, which is more than 61 MILLION GALLONS A YEAR of toxic, radioactive frack waste (most from out-of-state) piped into our land.

This new K & H well will be less than a 1/2 mile from another owned by the same company that receives up to 1500 barrels/day (a barrel is 42 gallons). Both will use an unloading facility and storage tanks that were NOT included in the prior permit application so have had NO public scrutiny. SIX drinking water wells also like within a 1/2 mile from where these 83 million gallons will be pumped into our county land EVERY YEAR.

PLEASE WRITE ODNR today — the comment period ends Monday, Sept. 9, 2013. You may use this letter as a model. Be sure to include the application number and please state that Ohio law requires that the Chief grant a public hearing if ANY comments are substantive and relevant to health, safety, or good conservation practices. (Ohio Administrative Code 1501:9-3-06 (H) (2) (c)). Please cc your letter to State Senator Lou Gentile, State House Rep. Debbie Phillips, USEPA Region 5 Chief, Rebecca L. Harvey, and USEPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman. (PLEASE BCC acfanohio AT gmail.com.)

USEPA is coming to Ohio to audit its injection well program at the end of September in response to a petition by Teresa Mills of Buckeye Forest Council on behalf of Ohio citizens. We need to show USEPA how ineffective Ohio’s UIC program is in protecting its water, land, and residents from the toxic, radioactive waste being dumped in ever increasing volumes in our communities!

If you drink water in Athens County, you have standing. PLEASE BE SURE TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC RISKS OF THIS PARTICULAR WELL to you and our region — required in order that your comments be considered substantive and relevant. Please include your county of residence in your letter.

See ACFAN’s injection well page for the permit application, sample letters for previous applications, and links to research on the dangers of injection wells.

Although we did not get a public hearing for the last (Atha) injection well application, we have a strategy going forward that depends on you writing ODNR one more time. Help us show our state that we won’t be silenced.  We generated 98 comments on the Atha permit application. Please help us double that this time! Thank you  Deadline: Monday, Sept. 9.

Sample letter (longer and more detailed one HERE):

Via Electronic Mail to oilandgas@dnr.state.oh.us  and by US Mail

cc: Senator Lou Gentile c/o Steven.Blalock@ohiosenate.gov; Rep. Debbie Phillips c/o Rep94@ohiohouse.gov; harvey.rebecca@epa.gov; hedman.susan@epa.gov; bcc: acfanohio AT gmail.com

August 28, 2013

ODNR Division of Oil and Gas

2045 Morse Road Bldg F-2

Columbus Ohio 43229

Re:  Permit Application APATT022697

Dear Director Zehringer and Chief Simmers,

I am writing with great concern for the permit application APATT022697 submitted by K&H Partners of West Virginia.

After reviewing the very brief application, I note that this application is asking for a permit to allow a maximum of 4000 barrels of toxic waste a day to be accepted at their existing facility and injected into a second well near this site. K&H has a permit for their first well for an amount of 1500 barrels a day. That means there is a potential of 5500 barrels a day of waste that will be unloaded at this facility.

The first K&H permit application had no mention of an unloading and containment facility in its original submission. The containment facility was not available for review nor was about 70 pages of the application, until after the permit was approved by ODNR.

This application says the “K&H #1 Unloading and Containment Facility will be used for the #2 well.” There is no schematic or description of this facility and further it was built for the #1 well. So, how does this existing facility get evaluated by the public? How does the public know the facilities’ capacity for containment and mitigation?

Why is the facility not in this application for review? There is a possibility of 60 million gallons of toxic waste per year coming to this facility! This could be a low estimate as I calculated on 5 days a week of delivery. A possible estimate could be as much as 84 million gallons of toxic waste. This may then be the largest injection well site in Ohio!

There are no core samples or reports of porosity and permeability of the formation at 4990 ft. Is there data available to determine the structural setting of the reservoir? I do not even see a geologist’s report with any reference to the formation into which the waste will be injected. The assumption made by ODNR apparently is that whatever formation is in this permit application is already deemed safe with no explanation of why there would NEVER be any penetration of the formation by the toxic waste. This is a written response from ODNR to a written question asked  at an open house last November in Athens about how a rock formation is determined to be impermeable: “Rocks are designated as impermeable due to the minute size of pore spaces or lack of permeability that is typical of fine grained rocks. Low permeability rock typically restricts vertical or horizontal migration of fluids and/or gas and are known as confining zones.”

Can you provide the latest EPA reports on ground water surveys that have been conducted with the increase in the number of new injection wells in Ohio? Since there are no laws requiring monitoring wells for Class II wells, how is it determined that there is no contamination? The amount of toxic waste being received by the new Ohio wells is alarming. The public’s concern that millions upon millions of gallons of toxic waste can be injected into the ground, into two wells within less than 1/2mile of each other, as the K and H wells are, and not result in contamination is a substantive concern (“having substance: involving matters of major or practical importance to all concerned” — Miriam Webster Dictionary).

Ohio law requires the chief to determine if public objections or questions that relate to health, safety or conservation concerns are substantive in order to determine if a public hearing is required.  It is clear that ODNR believes that substantive concerns are only in regard to what the industry wants. I am sure that federal regulations governing the oil and gas industry INTENDED to involve the public by allowing our substantive concerns to be heard and put into the public record.  That has been the public’s right in regard to environmental law.

I am asking for a public hearing to be held in Athens County to record the public’s concerns of health, safety and conservation issues in regard to this K&H permit application.

Roxanne Groff, Amesville, Ohio 45711

PLEASE WRITE ODNR today — comment period ends Monday, Sept. 9. Be sure to include permit application number. Please address risks of this particular well to you and our region. Please state that Ohio law requires that the Chief grant a public hearing if any comments are substantive and relevant to health, safety, or good conservation practices. Please cc your letter to: Senator Lou Gentile c/o Steven.Blalock@ohiosenate.gov; Rep. Debbie Phillips: Rep94@ohiohouse.gov; and USEPA Region 5 UIC Chief Rebecca Harvey: harvey.rebecca@epa.gov, and USEPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman: hedman.susan@epa.gov. Please bcc acfanohio AT gmail.com. See ACFAN injection well page for permit application, more extensive model comments/letter, background materials, and more.

Federal Pipeline Hazard and Safety Administration conference refuses to hear concerns of Mayflower Arkansas residents. More…

Update 1-14-14 on Mayflower from MSNBC: ‘They have devastated Mayflower’. Residents’ struggles continue.

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

June 17, 2013

Dear President Obama and Secretary Kerry,

We are writing to urge you to once and for all reject the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline.

Like millions of others, we were buoyed by words in the President’s second inaugural address: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”  Mr. President and Secretary Kerry, this is an opportunity to begin to fulfill that promise. While there is no one policy or action that will avoid dangerous climate change, saying ‘no’ to the Keystone XL pipeline is a critical step in the right direction. Now is the time for unwavering leadership.

Climate change threatens all of us, but it is the world’s most vulnerable who are already paying for developed countries’ failure to act with their lives and livelihoods. This will only become more tragic as impacts become worse and conflicts are exacerbated as precious natural resources, like water and food, become more and more scarce.  Inaction will cost hundreds of millions of lives – and the death toll will only continue to rise.

Since we first wrote you, in September of 2011, the risks of tar sands oil and the threats of dangerous climate change have only become clearer. Tragic extreme weather events, including hurricanes, drought and forest fires in your own country, have devastated hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Recent tar sands oil spills in Kalamazoo, MI and Mayflower, AR, have served as a harsh reminder that shipping the world’s dirtiest oil will never likely be safe enough for human health and the environment.

Alberta’s oil sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution and emissions are projected to double over the next seven years. The International Energy Agency, among many other respected bodies, has found that in order to prevent catastrophic global warming of over two degrees centigrade we must leave two thirds of fossil fuels in the ground. In contrast, the expansion of the Alberta oil sands, as projected, is consistent with the pathway to global warming of six degrees centigrade.  The Keystone XL pipeline is critical to this rate of tar sands growth, as without it the industry is unlikely to be able to fulfill its plans of tripling oil sands production.

We recognize the extreme pressure being put on you by industry and the governments of Canada and Alberta, and note this pressure represents the interest of the largest, wealthiest corporation—and not the average Canadian. We applaud the Government of British Columbia for standing up to this pressure and calling for the rejection of another tar sands pipeline, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. On the other hand, acting against broad public opinion, the Canadian Government has abandoned its commitments both under the United Nations Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. The Canadian Government has also taken extreme measures domestically to gut environmental legislation and muzzle scientists in order to fast track tar sands pipeline development.

We also recognize the pressure from forces in your own country. The Keystone XL pipeline will not benefit or improve the lives of Americans, but nevertheless we understand that the politics of action on climate are not easy.  We believe you are the kind of leaders who can stand up to those interests when necessary, to do what is right for the world and for future generations.

You have both been clear that it is time for the United States to step up and do its fair share to fight the climate crises. We acknowledge the work and investment that is happening in North America to increase energy efficiency and clean energy, but unless we dramatically accelerate such efforts and move more quickly away from the use of fossil fuels – our other efforts will be rendered practically irrelevant.

Our shared climate cannot afford the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

As leaders who have spoken out strongly on these issues, we urge you, once again, to be on the right side of history and send a clear message that you are serious about moving beyond dirty oil.

Yours sincerely,

Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate (1976) — Ireland

Betty Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate (1976) — Ireland

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate (1984) — South Africa

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Laureate (1980) — Argentina

Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Nobel Peace Laureate (1992) — Guatemala

José Ramos Horta, Nobel Peace Laureate (1996) — East Timor

Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate (1997) — USA

Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate (2003) — Iran

Tawakkol Karman, Nobel Peace Laureate (2011) — Yemen

Leymah Gbowee, Nobel Peace Laureate (2011) — Liberia

– See more at Women’s Peace Initiative

Apache spill is one of Alberta’s largest pipeline ruptures

To the editor:

Last Tuesday, Ohio University hosted “Shale and Beyond”, a conference that gave the impression of bringing all stakeholders to the table.  Presenters congratulated participants for having a conversation that “speaks to the needs and opportunities that face all of us.” The implication was that communities have a voice and are being heard:  we’re all in this shale play together.

1)  Ohio is the cheapest place to drill and dump toxic and radioactive drilling wastes.

2)    Communities and individuals have no right to prevent drilling anywhere in Ohio.

3)    The fossil fuel industry is massively overvalued, with two thirds of its assets— known reserves—stranded and unusable (if they’re used, civilization is cooked).

4)    Energy conservation and a switch to renewable energy, deployed with wartime urgency, could prevent catastrophic climate change.

5)    Solar photovoltaic energy production creates over 32 jobs per megawatt, while shale energy production creates only 1.12 jobs per megawatt.

Will Ohio Be Fracking’s Radioactive Dumping Ground?

Wednesday, 05 June 2013  Mike Ludwig, Truthout

Language in Ohio Senate version of Kasich budget bill will create legal (illegal?) loophole for radioactive waste in state’s landfills…

As hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has boomed in Ohio, Pennsylvania and nearby states in recent years, waste wells in Ohio have absorbed millions of barrels of liquid waste from oil-and-gas drilling operations in the region. Environmentalists and other observers are now calling Ohio a “dumping ground” for the fracking industry. Drillers now want to dump potentially radioactive waste mud, drill cuttings and frack sand from fracking operations in municipal landfills in the state, and environmentalists are up in arms.

“I am not against fracking, I am against stupid,” said Julie Weatherington-Rice, a senior scientist at Bennett & Williams Environmental Consultants and an adjunct professor at Ohio State University. “I am seeing a lot a lot stupid and a lot of heads in the sand, and that’s what’s going to kill us.”

Fracking produces both solid and liquid wastes. The liquid wastes, known as “flowback” and “brine” in industry lingo, are laced with chemicals and can be radioactive from materials that occur naturally in the underground shale formations where oil and gas is extracted. In Ohio, brine is typically pumped into undergroundinjection wells.

Fracking also produces solid wastes such as drill cuttings, rocks, mud, dirt and usedfrack sand. These wastes can also be contaminated with radioactive material, especially if they come from Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus Shale formation at the heart of a fracking boom is known to contain considerable levels of radium-226 and other material. A truck carrying fracking waste was recently turned away from a landfill in Pennsylvania after setting off radiation alarms.

But the waste must to be disposed of somewhere, and Ohio’s 39 landfills may be the place.

Weatherington-Rice told Truthout that she is already aware of solid fracking waste dumps at landfills in Ohio, and several reports indicate that some landfills are already accepting waste. But a proposal in the state legislature would codify regulations for solid waste dumping and open the fracking waste floodgates, according to environmental groups.

“If passed, this proposed law would put a big, trashed-out ‘Statue of Radioactive Liberty’ on Ohio’s eastern border,” said Jack Shaner, deputy director of the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC).  “It would proclaim to the oil and gas industry: ‘Bring us your spent, cast-off, radioactive waste. It’s welcome in Ohio.’ ”

MORE…

In contrast to ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) injection well permitting — which requires no public or even local government input and takes three weeks from application to permit — this is what it might look like if Ohio’s authority over permitting of injection wells were revoked and USEPA put back in charge:

from USEPA: West Bay Class II Injection Well MI-075-2D-0009

For information on this permit application Anna Miller  (miller.anna@epa.gov) 312-886-70600 or 800-621-8431, ext. 67060

…West Bay Exploration Company of Traverse City, Michigan, applied for a permit to operate a Class II injection well for noncommercial brine disposal. The company wants to dispose of brine deep beneath the earth’s surface. EPA calls this a Class II non-hazardous brine disposal well. Class II wells are typically used to inject fluids that result from oil and gas production into the ground. There are about 144,000 Class II wells in the United States. About 20 percent are known to be used for brine disposal.

EPA is withdrawing the final permit issued for the West Bay #22 well.  EPA will prepare a new draft permit for this well.  EPA is taking this action under 40 CFR 124.19(j) which allows EPA to withdraw a permit and prepare a new draft permit before a certain stage of the permit appeal proceedings.

West Bay Exploration Company
Jackson, Michigan
Permit Number: MI-075-2d-0009

April 2013 Withdrawal of Permit by Regional Administrator (PDF) (2pp, 46K)

November 2012 EPA completed and posted the Response to Public Comments (PDF) (28pp, 207K) 

Documents

• EPA Response to Comments on draft permit (PDF) (28pp, 207K) February 2012
• Transcript of Public Hearing (PDF) (36pp, 825K) May 23, 2012
• Fact Sheet – Permit Process Reopened for Underground Injection Well (2pp, 108K) May 2012
• Public Notice (PDF) (20pp, 333K) January 2012
• Statement of Basis for UIC Permit MI-075-2d-0009 (41pp, 414K) February 8, 2012

Overview of UIC Permitting Process

The flowchart below shows the main steps that EPA follows to process a permit application from start to finish.

1. Receive the permit application. April 2011
2. Conduct a completeness review and technical evaluation. April 2011 – December 2011
3. Make a draft decision, announce the draft decision and public comment period and accept public input by mail and at public hearing.December 2011 – May 2012
4. Prepare responses to public comments. May 2012 – November 2012
5. Issue final decision and distribute responses to public comments. November 2012
6. If the final decision is appealed, process the appeal.

EPA is back at at step two to reevaluate the permit.

New documents show Exxon knew of dangerous contamination from their Arkansas tar sands spill yet claimed area was “oil free.”

Residents File Lawsuits against Exxon

Desmogblog, 06-02-2013  FARRON COUSINS

Residents in Mayflower, Arkansas, the site of the recent Pegasus tar sands pipeline rupture, have filed suit against pipeline operator Exxon for health issues and property damage that have arisen since the spill.

Those affected by the pipeline’s spill have complained of numerous, though mild,health problems including headaches, nausea, and breathing difficulties.  While these symptoms are relatively mild, it should be noted that it has only been a month since the spill, and more severe problems are likely to creep up in the coming months.

The main concern is that the neurotoxins and carcinogens within the tar sands, particularly those contained in the diluted bitumen (dilbit), will plague the residents for years to come.

MORE…

Letter from PA victims of fracking, admission by Illinois lawmakers that NONE had ever visited a fracking site, and more…

Fracking Showdown: PA and WI Victims Appeal to Illinois Lawmakers to Ditch Bill and Enact Moratorium

Posted at alternet.com by Jeff Biggers, May 28, 2013

The world is not just watching the unfolding fracking bill debacle at the Illinois state capitol.

As the Illinois General Assembly votes this week on the state’s increasingly suspect fracking bill, residents affected by similar operations in Pennsylvania and frac sand mining in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota took the extraordinary step today of releasing unprecedented letters warning of a “public health disaster” in the making, and called on Illinois lawmakers to set aside the flawed bill and “swiftly enact a moratorium.”

“We have learned the hard way that regulations–no matter how strict they sound on paper–do not provide adequate protection to human health or property, especially in tough economic times when the state agencies charged with enforcing the regulations are understaffed and underfunded,” states the letter signedby impacted Pennsylvania residents, released publicly this morning, along with links to a eye-opening “List of the Harmed” health registry of fracking-related afflictions.

As a powerful response to last week’s House Executive Committee hearing on fracking bill SB 1715, where every member on the committee made the breathtaking admission of having never visited a fracking site, the letter challenges exaggerated promises of jobs and revenue, and provides a firsthand look at the growing health, workplace and environmental costs of Pennsylvania communities “transformed into toxic industrial zones” over the past five years.

Speaking on behalf of “communities situated atop vast deposits of silica sand, which are a necessary ingredient in the fracking process,” neighboring residents in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota also underscored the need for Illinois lawmakers to reconsider the rushed fracking bill in their separate letter:

We are suffering greatly from the industrial strip-mining and processing of silica sand that has been the direct consequence of the ongoing shale gas boom in this nation. Our communities, our land, and our health are in the process of being literally destroyed by it. We beg you to declare a moratorium on fracking in Illinois, as we are sure that, should you move forward with this regulatory bill and open your state to large-scale fracking, the demand for frac sand will increase further, along with the price–and thus along with the pressure on our own political leaders to escalate further the devastating practice of frac sand mining and processing.

Key themes: Recklessness and liability.

Especially for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whose apparent backroom brokering of the fracking regulation bill without scientists orhealth expertinvolvement has already triggered statewide outrageand placed the controversial issue of fracking into next year’s gubernatorial race–just in time for cash-strapped counties to struggle “with infrastructure maintenance, much less improvements, expansions or hirings needed for schools and services once drillers and others associated with fracking start moving in,” according to a recent Chicago Tribune review of fracking tax gain.

read more….

The full letter is below.

May 28, 2013

Illinois General Assembly
Governor Pat Quinn
Attorney General Lisa Madigan
State House
Springfield, IL 62706

Dear Governor Quinn, Attorney General Madigan, and Members of the Illinois General Assembly,

We write today to urge you not to allow high-volume horizontal fracturing (‘fracking’) for oil and gas in Illinois. We, the undersigned residents of Pennsylvania, are among the many victims of fracking. Informed by extensive first-hand experience with the oil and gas industry and suffering from the impacts of fracking, we implore you with the greatest sincerity to protect the health and safety of the people of Illinois and swiftly enact a moratorium on fracking. We have learned the hard way that regulations–no matter how strict they sound on paper–do not provide adequate protection to human health or property, especially in tough economic times when the state agencies charged with enforcing the regulations are understaffed and underfunded. Also, regulations cannot prevent accidents, and this is an industry prone to accidents of an especially frightening nature and whose effects are not temporary.

The oil and gas industry promises that fracking is safe and that it will create jobs and bring your state riches, but Pennsylvania’s experience in the past five years tells a very different story. In short, water contamination has been widespread; our air has been polluted; countless individuals and families have been sickened; farms have been devastated, cattle have died, and our pristine streams and rivers have turned up dead fish; only a fraction of the promised jobs and revenue for the state have come to fruition; and our communities have been transformed into toxic industrial zones with 24/7 noise, flares, thousands of trucks, and increased crime. What’s more, the jobs have made many workers so sick that they can no longer work in the industry.

A week ago, the Scranton Times-Tribune revealed that oil and gas development from fracking damaged the water supplies of at least 161 Pennsylvania homes, farms, churches and businesses between 2008 and the fall of 2012, as indicated by state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) records. The Times-Tribune notes that this number is not comprehensive; an exhaustive analysis was made impossible by DEP’s lack of transparency, poor record keeping, potentially inadequate testing procedures, and lack of cooperation with the investigation. Regardless, with around 4,000 wells drilled during that four-year timespan, these 161 cases show how common and extensive water contamination is from fracking operations. These numbers are not surprising given the high rate of well casing failures. By the gas industry and the DEP’s own data, well casing failure rate in Pennsylvania is 6.2% (rising to 8.9% in 2012). Failures occur when the layers of cement and steel that encase the well–providing a barrier between the toxic fracking fluid and freshwater aquifers–are damaged or become corroded. Even with the most careful workmanship cement can shrink, crumble, and crack as it ages.

Because the chemicals used in fracking operations are highly toxic, water contamination is a very serious problem. Although the industry blocks attempts to know what chemicals and combinations are used, we know that it is a cocktail whose ingredients are selected from a possible menu of around 600 chemicals. Those include many known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. They include chemicals such as benzene, toluene, hydrochloric acid and petroleum distillates. In addition to the chemicals used by the industry, the operation releases many hazardous materials from the shale itself, including radium, uranium and radon, arsenic, and mercury. Cows that have consumed water contaminated with used fracking fluid (flowback waste) have quickly died, and land where it has spilled has been scorched.

For us, fracking has been a public health disaster. Victims experience symptoms ranging from headaches, dizziness, burning eyes, sore throats, rashes, hair loss, severe nose bleeds, nausea, blood poisoning, liver damage, intestinal pain, neurological damage, cancers and many more. Many fracking victims who have suffered these health symptoms sign legal agreements that force them to forfeit all rights to speak about what has happened to them in order to settle with multi-national oil and gas corporations. Although many cases have been hidden from the public eye through these non-disclosure agreements, we have compiled a ‘List of the Harmed’ that now well exceeds 1,000. Our efforts to create this lay registry of healthy problems in an attempt to compensate for the legally enforced silence of our medical community. After extensive lobbying by the oil and gas industry, the Pennsylvania State Legislature passed Act 13, which, among other things, places agag order on doctors who deal with victims of fracking and who wish information about the possible chemicals to which their patient may have been exposed.

The Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project– an initiative of medical experts – is working with Pennsylvanians affected by fracking and has concluded that health impacts are serious and that we still do not have enough scientific data to make an informed decision or to be able to claim that ANY regulations will protect public health.

One major, uncontrollable problem is hazardous air pollutants, which are emitted from wellheads themselves, as well as from flares, dehydration devices, compressor stations, and the thousands of diesel trucks that are needed to service each well. Silica dust–a known cause of lung cancer and silicosis–is also a problem in an around drilling and fracking operations. We live with the knowledge that our children are breathing in hazardous air, and are left to wonder what and how severe the ramifications will be in their future.

Our environment has been transformed seemingly overnight from beautiful countryside and farms into toxic, heavy industrial zones. Commutes that used to take 30 minutes now take two hours because of the truck traffic. Many of our schools and playgrounds are blanketed in carcinogenic silica dust. Towering flares light up the night sky, while health-damaging levels of noise penetrate our homes 24/7. Only a small fraction of the promised jobs and revenue have materialized, with most jobs going to out-of-state workers and most revenue accruing to a only few individuals. Meanwhile the community has had to pay for road and bridge damage, increased accidents and need for more emergency workers, and we’ve had to live with increased crime rates.

In addition to the water contamination, air pollution, industrialized communities, increased crime rates and ruined farms, we’ve also experienced countless spills, blowouts and disasters. Communities have been evacuated because of explosions and uncontrolled leaks and fires.

As we have experienced the horrors of fracking firsthand for years, we have also carefully followed the industry in other parts of the country and watched the science that has emerged. We have followed what is happening in Illinois with great dismay. We are certain that your proposed regulations will not protect the health of Illinois residents, your farms, communities, environment, and everything that makes Illinois special. Please, do not make this mistake.

If you allow fracking to go forward as planned, you will bring to your state the same horrific experiences we have suffered in Pennsylvania. The oil and gas industry cannot and must not be trusted. We implore you to enact a moratorium in order to take the time to visit areas with fracking, bring scientists and medical experts into the process, and undertake an environmental and public health study. This is the only responsible course of action, and far too much is at risk to do otherwise. We would be glad to speak with you, and we invite you to our homes and communities to see fracking and its impacts first-hand.

Speaking on behalf of a broad network of communities, sincerely,

Ron Gulla, Hickory, PA
Adam Headley, Smithfield, PA
David Headley, Smithfield, PA
Grant Headley, Smithfield, PA
Linda Headley, Smithfield, PA
Ray Kemble, Dimock, PA
Jenny Lisak, Punxsutawney, PA
Matt Manning, Montrose, PA
Tammy Manning, Montrose, PA
Randy Moyer, Portage, PA
Vera Scroggins, Silver Lake Township, PA
Craig L. Stevens, Silver Lake Township, PA