Fracking: A Tale of Two Countries

Journalist Dimiter Kenarov ’04.5 speaks on shale gas fracking in Poland and Pennsylvania

Journalist Dimiter Kenarov ’03.5 speaks on shale gas fracking in Poland and Pennsylvania.

Journalist Dimiter Kenarov ’03.5 has covered the hunt for a Macedonian serial killer and Baghdad’s Explosive Ordnance Disposal training program (think “Hurt Locker”) but says of his current assignment, “It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done.” The young Bulgarian writer, now a resident of Istanbul, returned to Middlebury recently to talk about the complexities of “Shale Gas: From Poland to Pennsylvania” at the Franklin Environmental Center at Hillcrest. The widely published Kenarov is partially supported in this project by the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, a clue to how combative the issue of drilling for this so-called “energy game changer” has become.

The affable Kenarov began, at the audience’s request, with a brief presentation explaining what shale gas is and how drillers recover it from rock through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Small-scale shale gas drilling has gone on for years, but new horizontal drilling technology puts gas on the leading edge of the “unconventionals,” or fuels (tar sands, ultra deepwater oil, coalbed methane, etc.) being developed now that supplies of the world’s “cheap and easy” fossil fuels are waning. One benefit of shale gas, he noted, is that it’s found worldwide and doesn’t require expensive exploratory drilling.

After Kenarov outlined some of the risks and costs, however, it was hard to understand why Poland was leading the shale gas charge in Europe and how the practice has already achieved such a foothold in the U.S. As Kenarov explained, horizontal fracking wells cover a large surface area. To force and keep open the shale fissures and release the gas within, drillers inject at high pressure from three to seven million gallons of fresh water per well, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals such as benzene and lead. Some of that water is then recovered as “flowback.” “Then what do you do with it?” Kenarov asked. Much of Pennsylvania’s flowback is sent for underground disposal to Ohio. “The water picks up 200 times the salts contained in seawater—in the Marcellus Shale [in the U.S. Northeast] it’s 3,000 times more,” he said. The water also carries as much as 1,000 times the safe drinking levels of radioactivity from its travels through the rock. Chemically tainted water from the wells can seep into underground aquifers; if pumped out and sent to standard water treatment plants, which are not equipped to decontaminate this flowback, the water seeps into rivers, water tables, and food chains.

Then there are the noise and air pollution of huge trucks needed to move water and drilling rigs; the methane released from the wells that cancels out natural gas’s comparatively modest carbon footprint; the quick decline of many of the wells, which prompts more drilling; and the pipelines extending for thousands of miles through previously scenic farmland.

In Poland, one word explains an enthusiasm countered by many other European countries’ fracking moratoriums: Russia. Poland’s longtime nemesis provides two thirds of Poland’s natural gas, and while gas comprises only 13 percent of Poland’s energy mix, many Poles want to make sure it’s “Polish gas.” The writer noted that only eight percent of Europeans overall support shale gas, but any Pole questioning gas development is branded a “national traitor” supporting Russian interests. Despite the U.S. State Department’s technical support for fracking in Poland, and the fact that the state, not farmers, owns subsurface mineral rights, “Poland doesn’t have the infrastructure,” Kenarov said. “The economy of scale doesn’t exist in one small country.” In response, Exxon has withdrawn its interests.

Scale limitation is not the problem in the U.S., where millions of square miles are mapped for fracking and half a million active wells exist. Kenarov described coming into Pennsylvania to report on fracking as “going into a mosh pit at a punk rock concert.” In northern regions of the state that lie over the Marcellus shale gas play, towns are dealing with higher crime rates, accidents caused by huge trucks, and tensions between neighbors on either side of the issue. Struggling dairy farmers who sold their mineral rights for additional income have found their supply chains collapsing as businesses shift to ride the gas wave. Vegetable farmers are either concerned about their water quality or are discovering that their customers, wary of toxicity, are buying elsewhere. (As Kenarov noted, thousands of contamination accidents caused by faulty well casings and other mishaps throughout the U.S. have been registered with the Environmental Protection Agency.)

Still, enough interests are benefiting that the shale gas drive continues (Audience members noted that Vermont is the first and only state so far to ban fracking). Kenarov commented as he showed aerial photos of vast expanses of well clusters that looked more extraterrestrial than Texan, “the scale of development is striking.”

Comment Policy

We hope to create a lively discussion on and invite you to add your voice. Please keep comments civil and relevant to the news item at hand. may remove comments that do not follow these guidelines.

Leave a comment »

  1. While it is true that Vermont has banned fracking the current governor (along with business interests including Middlebury College) apparently have no problem supporting fracked Canadian gas running through Vermont on its way to International Paper in New York. The small communinities of Monkton, Ferrisburgh, Cornwall and Shore face irrevocable changes in their landscape and identity while being offered NO access to the gas as it makes its way to IP. Historic homes, public trees and overall public safety are greatly endangered as VT Gas (a subsidiary of Canadian owned Gaz Metro) runs roughshod over Vermont taxpayers. It has been proposed that these transmission lines (carrying fracked Canadian gas) could run within SEVERAL FEET of homes, making

    View More
    them inherently worthless. The ban on fracking within the state is a move to be applauded but Vermonters still face the ugly pressures of having fracked Canadian gas threatening their health and homes.

    View Less
  2. I work down in Houston now in oil and gas (I can already feel the disappointment from the Midd community). I get to hear both- often extreme- sides of the story, with fracking being a common subject. It is pretty exhausting and now I just ask for the facts that would make a complicated argument a lot more simplified.

    For instance, what is the methane’s carbon signature pre and post drilling? What are the microseismic monitoring trend values for the area pre and post drilling? What are the water radioactivity readings pre and post drilling? Has the air been tested for methane? Why would methane just stop at the water table and skip the last few 100 meters to the

    View More
    surface if it’s made it’s way all the way up from the very deep subsurface? Are faulty well casings just limited to hydrocarbon exploration wells only and not the thousands of water wells across the US?

    Also of further puzzlement, why would an oil/gas company want their precious hydrocarbon to escape to the surface? The practice is to drill perpendicular to fracture direction to create a pressure differential for flow TOWARDS the well. Why are only methane and toxic chemicals making their way to the surface then?

    Most importantly, what’s the geology of the area?

    There are observations made but they are not scientifically linked to fracking. If these questions were answered, I’m happy to concede but not to something that has echoes of “Gasland”.

    I will admit we do a terrible job at educating the community with the facts that we have on hand. However, there are open sources of geology and geophysics literature readily available for anyone wanting further edification on the issue.
    (Feb. 2012, “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development” by Charles G. Groat, Ph.D., Principal Investigator. Also see:

    View Less
  3. “Also of further puzzlement, why would an oil/gas company want their precious hydrocarbon to escape to the surface?”

    Maybe we could ask BP. Plenty of their precious hydrocarbons escaped to the surface because of slipshod practices in extreme environments. Why do any of the other numerous spills happen (1.3 million gallons annually from pipelines alone, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, and that’s just routine spills, not major ones)?

    Frankly. a farmer with dead sheep has a lot more credibility than any of the oil and gas PR flacks who make their livings denying the damages of fracking.

  4. As long as there’s proof that dead sheep weren’t a comparative occurrence before and there’s a direct link between cause of death to the chemical signature of the associated fracking material. These studies haven’t been conducted.Maybe someone should. Would be very compelling proof. Facts first, assumptions later.

  5. Also, BP’s spill wasn’t due to fracking. I was referring to the method of drilling used to enhance recovery and I’m pretty sure BP’s intent wasn’t to lose their HC’s. Once again, while that was a terrible and unfortunate and hopefully-never-ever-repeated event, it’s not relevant to the question I laid out.

    The 1.3 million gallon estimate: What’s the estimate for naturally-occurring seeps per year? And what were those effects and what did anyone do or report about it?

    If fracking is bad, it’s bad. If it’s okay, then it’s okay. I am only interested in an accurate path to either conclusion.

  6. No, BP’s spill wasn’t due to fracking, and I didn’t assert it was–rather, it was due to slipshod practices based on profit (the rig BP rented for that drilling disaster, the Deepwater Horizon, cost $1 million/day and they were running over budget and schedule).

    If you’d like more information on how the rush to drill for gas pushes past what science knows about the limits of what aquifers and rock formations can handle, and how known limits are often ignored, I suggest Scientific American’s June 2012 cautionary story: A sample:
    Regulators say redundant layers of protection usually prevent waste from getting that far, but EPA data shows that in the three years analyzed by ProPublica, more than

    View More
    7,500 well test failures involved what federal water protection regulations describe as “fluid migration” and “significant leaks.”

    Also, about chemical signatures of methane from drilling rather than any ambient sources:
    *Finally, let’s not forget the 2011 Duke University study proving that drinking water wells near fracking sites have 17 times more methane than wells not located near fracking, and that this extra methane has a chemical fingerprint which shows it’s coming from deep drilling. Fracking operations have generated billions of gallons of radiation-laced toxic wastewater that weren’t managed properly and fracking has forced families to abandon their homes after they were poisoned by dangerous levels of arsenic, benzene and toluene.
    More such information from January of this year:

    As for natural oil seeps, yes, they can be significant in marine environments, due to natural releases. All the more reason not to add to them with the kind produced by inevitable human error.

    View Less
  7. I am a graduate of Middlebury College and I find their support of the fracking pipeline to be the ultimate hypocrisy. I live in PA. Come see the fracking mess. My family has lived in Vermont since 1972 and we have all seen the real Vermont. Middlebury College is not real Vermont. Vermonters depend on tourism and the beauty of our state should be nourished and cherished.

Comment Policy

We hope to create a lively discussion on and invite you to add your voice. Please keep comments civil and relevant to the news item at hand. may remove comments that do not follow these guidelines.

Leave Comment