OTSEGO 2000

INTRODUCTION

The following memoranda provide summaries of media publications on the issue

of hydraulic fracturing as a means of extracting natural gas from underlying rock
formations and the risks to our communities. These memoranda are not exhaustive in
terms of the potential impact of fracturing, nor the areas already adversely affected.

I. Dimock, PA ………………………………………………………………. 2

II. Dish, TX…………………………………………………………………… 6

III. Shreveport, LA…………………………………………………………….. 9

IV. DeBerry, TX……………………………………………………………….. 12

V. Pavillion, WY……………………………………………………………… 15

VI. Farmington, NM…………………………………………………………… 18

VII. Silt, CO…………………………………………………………………….. 22

VIII. Copyright Notice……………………………………………………………25

1
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: Dimock, PA

Fifteen families in Dimock, PA have sued Cabot Oil & Gas. Dimock, PA is a small, rural
town located in Susquehanna County in the Northeastern region of Pennsylvania. The
Marcellus Shale, a rock formation infused with natural gas, underlies this region.1 Gas
companies use a technique known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” where huge
volumes of water, mixed with sand, chemicals and gels, are injected at high pressure to
break the shale and allow natural gas to flow out.2 The families seek a permanent
injunctive order to ban the drilling processes blamed for contamination of their well
water. The families claim that Cabot Oil contaminated their water wells with toxic
chemicals and known carcinogens.3 The same families had signed land leases with Cabot
Oil & Gas Company in 2006.4

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Scranton, PA. The Dimock residents,
named in the lawsuit, say they have suffered neurologic, gastrointestinal, and
dermatologic symptoms from exposure to tainted water and seek compensatory damages
in the form of a trust fund to cover their medical expenses. They also claim that they
have had blood test results documenting exposure to heavy metals. Cabot's drilling
allowed methane to escape into private water wells, and in two cases, caused wellhead
explosions due to gas build-up, according to the initial complaint filed by the plaintiffs
with the court.5
The homes of the families who brought the lawsuit are mostly centered about a single
township road and are within 1,300 feet of eight failed natural gas wells that caused
methane to spew into the local aquifer, according to a report issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on November 4, 2009. Cabot Oil & Gas
denies that its operations caused this to occur.6 Others in the community also allege that
their water quality has been compromised. A representative of the PA DEP confirmed
that an additional list of names has been received, without disclosing how many
additional residents claim to have been affected. The department may perform further

1
Jon Hurdle, Pennsylvania Residents Sue Over Gas Drilling, Reuters, at
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1919914920091120 (Nov. 20, 2009).
2
Jad Mouawad and Clifford Krauss, Dark Side of a Natural Gas Boom, NY Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08fracking.html at (Dec. 7, 2009).
3
Hurdle, supra note 1.
4
Steve McConnell, More Families Come Forward About Polluted Well Water, Wayne Independent, at
http://www.wayneindependent.com/news/x441554773/More-families-come-forward-about-polluted-well-
water?popular=true (November 24, 2009).
5
Hurdle, supra note 1.
6
McConnell, supra note 4.

2
water sampling to determine if other homeowners’ well water is contaminated with
methane or any other pollutants associated with drilling.7
Industry spokesmen say there has never been a documented case of ground water
contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Residents of many gas-drilling areas in
the United States say the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are contaminating ground
water. The evidence of groundwater contamination is primarily circumstantial, in part
because energy companies are not required to disclose the composition of their drilling
fluids.8 The natural gas drilling industry has been exempt from certain environmental
protection laws, including some provisions of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA).9 Both the House of Representatives (H.R. 2766) and the Senate (S.
1215) have introduced legislation - the FRAC Act - to overturn the exemption of
hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require the public
disclosure of what is in the fracking fluids. These bills are sponsored by Senators Casey
(D-PA) and Schumer (D-NY) and Representatives Hinchey (D-NY), DeGette (D-CO)
and Polis (D-CO).10

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its first tests in response to claims of
water contamination from gas drilling, found that some wells in Pavillion, Wyoming
were tainted but reached no conclusion on the source of the pollution.11 According to the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, gas companies use at least
260 types of chemicals, many of them toxic, like benzene. These chemicals tend to
remain in the ground once the fracturing has been completed, raising fears about long-
term contamination.12

In September 2009, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection ordered

Cabot to cease hydraulic fracturing at Dimock after several spills of diesel fuel and
drilling mud and an 8,000 gallon leak of hydraulic fracturing fluids prepared by a
contractor, Halliburton seeped into a fresh water stream.13

The drilling fluid spill involved chemicals that are known to pose a risk to human health.
According to a Material Safety Data Sheet provided to the state by Halliburton, the
spilled drilling fluid contained a liquid gel concentrate consisting of a paraffin solvent
and polysaccharide, chemicals listed as possible human carcinogens. The MSDS form –
for Halliburton’s proprietary product called LGC-35 CBM – does not list the entire
makeup of the gel or the quantity of its constituents, but it warns that the substances have
7
Id.
8
Hurdle, supra note 1.
9
Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Natural Gas Well Drilling and Production in the Upper Delaware River
Watershed Fact Sheet, www.delawareriverkeeper.org/pdf/Gas_Drlling_fact_sheet_8_09.pdf.
10
Id.
11
Hurdle, supra note 1.
12
Mouawad and Krauss, supra note 2.
13
Abrahm Lustgarten, Frack Fluid Spill in Dimock Contaminates Stream, Killing Fish, ProPublica at
http://www.propublica.org/feature/frack-fluid-spill-in-dimock-contaminates-stream-killing-fish-921
(September 21, 2009).

3
led to skin cancer in animals and "may cause headache, dizziness and other central
nervous system effects" to anyone who breathes or swallows the fluids.14

The PA DEP concluded that faulty well construction allowed contaminants to leak from
Cabot's wells into water supplies.15 Some activists have blamed the gas leaks on
hydraulic fracturing. Fracking is not implicated in the Dimock gas migration, the PA
DEP says. Rather, DEP says Cabot appears to have improperly sealed off the aquifer
during the early stages of drilling in at least three Dimock wells. In a proper well
construction, drillers install steel casing into a bore hole after penetrating the water table
and then inject cement between the steel pipe and the rock wall to protect the water.16
Regulators suspect that voids remained in the spaces that should have been filled with
cement, providing a pathway for gas to migrate into the water supply. DEP and Cabot
said they know the gas is migrating from a shallow rock formation because it is not the
same isotope as Marcellus gas. PA DEP says that because the combustible gas appeared
in the water supply within six months of drilling, Cabot is presumably responsible. But
Cabot denies that the company or its contractors failed to install the well properly. In
November 2009, Cabot complied with a court judgment to provide fresh water deliveries
to 13 families, pay a $120,000 fine, and put future environmental safeguards in place as
conditions of continued drilling.17
Local officials in Pennsylvania suggest they are losing regulatory control to out-of-state
contractors and Harrisburg bureaucrats unfamiliar with the remote area of Northeastern
Pennsylvania. In March 2009, the PA DEP denied all county officials responsibility for
enforcing state soil and erosion regulations on well sites and pipelines to keep
enforcement uniform across the state.18
Julie Sautner, one of the plaintiffs in the suit pending before the U.S. District Court in
Scranton, PA, has been receiving fresh water deliveries from Cabot, like other Dimock
residents, after tests of her drinking water showed high levels of methane, iron and
aluminum.19
An employee of Cabot Oil and Gas, Nolan Ely, is a member of one of the fifteen families
bringing the suit. Ely's relatives, who have lived in Dimock for generations, own several
properties where Cabot has wells. In January of 2009, a well at the home of Michael Ely,
Nolan Ely's relative who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, caught fire after methane leaked
underground into the water supply. At the top of the hill near Michael Ely's home is
Cabot's Ely 6H well, which is among the most productive horizontal wells drilled in the

14
Abrahm Lustgarten, Pa. Residents Sue Gas Driller for Contamination, Health Concerns, ProPublica at
http://www.propublica.org/feature/pa-residents-sue-gas-driller-for-contamination-health-concerns-1120
(Nov. 20, 2009).
15
Id.
16
Andrew Maykuth, Susquehanna Residents Wary of Gas-Drilling Operation, Philly.com, at
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/79150327.html (Dec. 13, 2009).
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Lustgarten, supra note 14.

4
Marcellus Shale. Cabot has touted Ely 6H as being one of the company's most
profitable.20
The families argue that their property values have plummeted as a result of drilling.21
The suit seeks compensatory damages for the loss in property value that, if awarded,
would allow residents the means to move elsewhere.22
The lawsuit was filed by the New York City-based law firm Jacob D. Fuchsberg and two
other firms based in Philadelphia, Pa., and Buffalo, N.Y.23

20
Id.
21
Michael Rubinkam, Pa. Residents Sue Gas Driller Over Polluted Wells, Associated Press at
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=9140795&page=1 (November 20, 2009).
22
Lustgarten, supra note 14.
23
Id.

5
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: Dish, TX

The Barnett Shale is a vast rock formation that underlies 5,000 square miles surrounding
Fort Worth, Texas. There are more than 12,000 gas wells in the Barnett Shale. An
underground highway of pipelines and compression stations are required to bring the gas
to market. Eleven of the compression stations are located in or near Dish, TX.24 Dish,
TX is a town of approximately 200 residents located in Denton County, north of Fort
Worth, Texas.25 In the past decade, the number of gas compressors in the Barnett has
jumped from a few hundred to 1,300 with the compressors being located closer to
populated areas.26
The compression stations have large internal combustion engines that compress gas to
move it through gas transmission lines.27 Dish residents initially voiced concerns in 2005
when five gas companies opened an unmanned compressor complex. First residents
complained of noise pollution, then putrid and overpowering smells.28
After residents complained of deteriorating health, the town of Dish allocated 15% of its
$70,000 annual budget towards an air quality study conducted by a private environmental
consultant, Wolf Eagle Environmental. The study showed extremely high levels of both
carcinogens and neurotoxins. A memo written by the top toxicologist for the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state regulatory agency, expressed
concern that the presence of benzene, a potentially cancer-causing toxin detected near the
compressors, could pose long-term health risks. The five gas companies that own the
Dish compressor complex criticized the town’s air emissions study as flawed and
inconclusive.29
The Dish study prompted TCEQ to conduct tests throughout the Barnett Shale region.
Residents argued that the TCEQ study, since it was funded by the oil and gas industry,
would be skewed in favor of the industry.30 The TCEQ study, issued in January 2010,
concluded that while high benzene levels were detected at some sites, there was not a
widespread air quality issue. The study further emphasized that the gas companies had
fixed the worst problems and were working on the less serious sites.31 Yet, hazardous
levels of benzene were found in the air at about half of the 44 facilities included in the
24
National Public Radio, Health Issues Follow Natural Gas Drilling in Texas (Nov. 3, 2009), transcript at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=120043996.
25
Dish, Texas, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISH,_Texas (last modified Dec. 3, 2009).
26
National Public Radio, supra note 1.
27
McFarland, John, Tiny Town of Dish Stirs Up Hornet’s Nest Over Air Pollution in Barnett Shale, Oil and
Gas Lawyer Blog, at http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/2009/12/tiny-town-of-dish-texas-stirs.html
(Dec. 31, 2009).
28
Associated Press, Texas City Sick Because of Natural Gas Pipeline?, at http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-
15749625/texas-city-sick-because-of-natural-gas-pipeline-17587876 (Jan. 12, 2010).
29
National Public Radio, supra note 24.
30
WFAA-TV, Natural Gas Operations to Stop in Dish, at http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Natural-Gas-
Operations-to-Stop-in-Dish-83819452.html (Feb. 8, 2010).

6
study. Two facilities, both west of Dish in Wise County, revealed the highest readings.
A sample at one of the sites indicated a benzene level of 15,000 parts per billion.32
Dr. Martyn Smith, a nationally recognized expert on benzene health effects, told a local
news channel reporter, "At something above 5 to 10 parts per billion, I would start to
become concerned that there would be potential health effects, or certainly an increased
risk of health effects," he said. "That would concern me." According to Dr. Smith, it
could take from five to ten years to develop serious problems, like leukemia, from
elevated benzene levels. The time and amount of exposure required are different for
every person. "Scientists think there’s really no safe level of benzene," Dr. Smith said.
The TCEQ plans to conduct further testing.33
The Texas Department of Health Services has said that it will collect blood and urine
samples from approximately fifty Dish residents over the next year. The samples will be
analyzed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the presence of
volatile organic compounds and toxins, such as benzene and zylene.34
In response to the TCEQ study, the town of Dish, through its Board of Commissioners,
will vote to suspend issuance of permits for any new natural gas operations for the next
90 days. The mayor of Dish, Calvin Tillman, suggests that because the state has failed to
protect its citizens, local municipal government must intercede.35
There is ample anecdotal evidence of adverse resident health effects, sickened animals,
and destroyed vegetation since Dish became home to the eleven compression stations and
the ancillary pipelines. One resident, Lloyd Burgess, whose ranch neighbors the
compressor complex, describes how the horses on his ranch have died or suffered since
the complex began operations – one stallion died, a mare experienced neurological
defects causing blindness in both eyes and eventually had to be laid down, and a stud
became sick until being moved off of the ranch. The trees that stand between Mr.
Burgess’ property and the compressor complex are now gnarled and lifeless.36
Another resident, Megan Collins, a thirty-two year old pediatric nurse with two young
children, lived downwind from the compressors and reported unexplainable symptoms
including headaches, dizziness, blackouts, and muscle contractions; since moving away,
her symptoms have subsided.37
A twenty-five year resident of the town, Rebecca McKamie, and her daughter Julianne
also report adverse health effects. The McKamie farm is located one mile from the
compressor plant. A blood test showed an unusual enzyme in McKamie’s liver that
31
Randy Lee Loftis, High Benzene Levels Found in Barnett Shale, The Dallas Morning News, at
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-
shale.ART.State.Edition2.4bf8062.html (Jan. 28, 2010).
32
Chris Hawes, State Testing Finds Benzene Near North Texas Gas, Oil Facilities, WFAA-TV at
http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/TCEQ-RELEASES-BARNETT-SHALE-TESTING-RESULTS-
82846347.html (Jan. 27, 2010).
33
Id.
34
McFarland, supra note 27.
35
WFAA-TV, supra note 30.
36
Associated Press, supra note 28.
37
Associated Press, Texas Town Welcomed Natural Gas Drilling; Now It Fears Toxic Pollution, at
http://www.gazette.com/articles/texas-92285-pollution-dish.html (Jan. 12, 2010).

7
could be an indicator of cancer. Her daughter Julianne, for the past three years, has seen
doctors and specialists in an effort to diagnose crushing pain in her arms, sudden loss of
circulation that makes her hands turn blue, and randomly occurring loss of strength. The
McKamie’s also report farm animals’ deaths.38
Despite the anecdotal evidence and air emissions studies, no Dish resident has been able
to prove that the compressor stations have made them or their animals ill. One health
survey conducted by the group Earthworks of Dish residents is criticized by industry
legal representatives as “unscientific” since the study did not rule out other potential
causes of the residents’ adverse health effects.39
Beyond the most immediate concern of residents’ health, the mayor of Dish, Calvin
Tillman, has also expressed concern with declining property values. Property values, not
tied to minerals, have continued to drop according to the mayor due to the massive
natural gas compressors, pipelines and metering stations. Some properties are now
worthless as a result of a neighboring well site or compressor.40
The return on land leases, according to the mayor, has not offset the costs. The average
lease terms in Dish, TX provide for 16% royalties with anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500
per acre. According to Mayor Tillman, for someone who owns four acres and has a
quarter of the mineral rights, they average a return of less than a $100 a month. The land
holder must also contend with truck traffic, odor, noise, and in some cases, a high
pressure gas pipeline running through the front yard. Municipalities must leverage the
multi-million dollar cost of repairs for roads that were not designed to accommodate
80,000 pound waste water trucks and other large equipment used in drilling wells and
extracting gas. The municipalities may force the companies to sign a road use
agreement; however, the drilling companies have taken measures to avoid paying for
road damage. The mayor gives the example of the City of Argyle, Texas that was sued
by XTO over road work issues.41
Mayor Calvin Tillman of Dish, TX is scheduled to visit Oneonta on February 16th to
discuss the impact of natural gas drilling.

38
Id.
39
McFarland, supra note 27.
40
National Public Radio, supra note 24.
41
Id.

8
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: Shreveport, LA

The Haynesville Shale is a rock formation that contains oil and gas and lies
approximately 10,500 to 13,000 feet sub-surface in Northwest Louisiana and East Texas.
It has been touted as the largest natural gas field in the continental United States. The
three million-acre formation holds some 251 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.
Chesapeake Energy is the largest domestic producer of natural gas and one of the largest
leaseholders in Haynesville.42

Shreveport, LA is the parish seat of Caddo Parish in Northwest Louisiana. 43 On April 28,
2009, 17 head of cattle died there during a Chesapeake Energy fracturing operation after
ingesting liquid found pooled in the pasture. 44 Schlumberger Technology was
performing routine fracturing operations, as a contractor for well-owner Chesapeake,
when 600 gallons of fracking fluid leaked from the well pad then into the neighboring
pasture after a heavy rainstorm.45
According to a joint preliminary incident report from the Louisiana State Police
Department and state Department of Environmental Quality, "it was not a gas released,
more likely poisoning." The report states that Schlumberger "did spill combustible liquid"
on the ground and "they did not report the spill." A Schlumberger spokesman said that
the 600 gallons of fluid was nearly all water and wasn’t a reportable amount, and that
several other contractors worked on the site. 46

Elevated chlorides, a salt, as well as oil and grease and some organic compounds were
detected in the spilled liquid. A preliminary necropsy report by the Louisiana Animal
Disease Medical Laboratory at LSU in Baton Rouge is among documents in the DEQ
public records database. The report does not determine the cause of death and notes that a
toxicology report was pending. 47 However, the report states that one cow tested suffered
from severe pulmonary hemorrhage and edema. Witnesses to the cows’ deaths described
them as bellowing and bleeding before falling over dead.48

42
Jesse Bogan, Boom Times at the Haynesville Shale, Forbes.com, at
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/05/natural-gas-haynesville-shale-business-energy-haynesville.html (June
5, 2009).
43
Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caddo_Parish,_Louisiana (last
modified on Dec. 22, 2009).
44
Vickie Welborn, DEQ Has No Timeline on Closing Cow Deaths Case, Shreveport Times, at
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20101110310 (1/27/2010).
45
Bogan, supra note 42.
46
Id.
47
Welborn, supra note 44.
48
Vickie Welborn, Chesapeake, Schlumberger Get Penalty Notices, Shreveport Times, at
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100127019 (Jan. 27, 2010).

9
 On January 19, 2010, the state Department of Environmental Quality mailed
notices of potential penalty to Chesapeake Energy Corp. and its contractor, Schlumberger
Technology Corp., in connection with the ongoing investigation. The companies have
ten days from date of receipt to request a meeting with DEQ or submit comments prior to
enforcement action.49

OTHER INCIDENTS NEAR SHREVEPORT:

Red River - Federal authorities have added additional permit requirements for companies
who pump water from the Red River for hydraulic fracturing of the Haynesville Shale.
The requirements were added after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised concerns
that the pumping process could be disturbing the habitat of three federally endangered
and threatened Red River species. These species include the pallid sturgeon as well as a
bird known as the interior least tern and a plant known as earth fruit. One of the new
requirements is that a pump not be placed within 600 feet of an active least tern colony.
This requirement effectively forces companies to survey the area before submitting a
permit application. Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Service is also requesting the use
of smaller pipes and a diffuser to eliminate the possibility of sucking in fish during the
pumping process.50

Naborton (located approx. 40 miles from Shreveport) – In May of 2009, fifteen Naborton
families evacuated when a Chesapeake well east of Mansfield, LA began blowing natural
gas into the air. According to DEQ files on the case, 50 million standard cubic feet of
methane gas — the main component of natural gas — was discharged after a casing valve
failed. Otis Randle, manager of the DEQ regional office here, said 50 million is “a lot of
gas.” People could suffer health problems if they breathed in a concentrated amount.
Methane has the potential for explosion and causes an adverse impact on the planet’s
ozone layer, since methane is a greenhouse gas.51
Sabine Parish (approx. 50 miles South of Shreveport) – In July 2009, a natural gas well
blowout occurred in north Sabine Parish, about six miles east of Converse, LA. No
residents were evacuated. The well was owned by Chesapeake. DEQ’s regional office in
Shreveport investigated the blowout, finding it “pretty routine.” No details on the amount
released were available.52
South Caddo and DeSoto Parishes - Ground and surface water issues have arisen,
particularly in south Caddo and DeSoto parishes, which heavily depend on the fragile
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer. On June 30, 2009, approximately 1,000 customers of South
DeSoto Water System had no water while workers replaced a pump. Officials wondered
publicly if a natural gas drilling operation just 500 feet from their water well was making
their equipment work harder to pump water.53

49
Id.
50
Vickie Welborn, Officials Keep Eye on Environment, Shreveport Times (Sept.21, 2009)
51
Alisa Stingley, Recent Incidents Raise Issues on Drilling Environment, Shreveport Times, at
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20090809/NEWS01/908090333/1060 (Aug. 11, 2009).
52
Id.
53
Id.

10
Natchitoches Parish (approx. 80 miles from Shreveport)- In June, a Carthage, Texas,
man pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of illegally discharging a pollutant into
Louisiana waters after ordering a truck driver to discharge well treatment fluid into a
Natchitoches Parish creek in April 2006. The man was sentenced to 24 months probation
and agreed to pay a $5,000 criminal fine.54
Frierson (approx. 25 miles from Shreveport)- In August 2006, DEQ responded to a
landowner’s complaint that a well site where Winchester Energy was operating near
Frierson had released at least four barrels of saltwater from a fracturing tank. According
to DEQ files, the company had not contacted DEQ about the spill, which violates
regulations. Also, the landowner said he asked Winchester to clean up the site, but it
refused. A few days later, DEQ noticed a cleanup in progress at the site, where vegetation
had been killed in an area about 20 feet by 100 feet. DEQ in April 2009 deemed the site
acceptable and did not take any action against Winchester.55

54
Id.
55
Id.

11
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: DeBerry, TX

DeBerry, TX (or De Berry) is located in northeastern Panola County, near the Louisiana
border, fourteen miles northeast of Carthage.56 In this historically African-American
enclave in the East Texas oilfields, residents were not able to drink, cook or bathe safely
from their own wells after the groundwater was found to be contaminated with arsenic,
benzene, lead and mercury, amongst other pollutants.57
The Haynesville shale underlies DeBerry.58 The Haynesville Shale is a rock formation
that contains oil and gas and lies approximately 10,500 to 13,000 feet sub-surface in
Northwest Louisiana and East Texas.59 The Barnett Shale, another vast rock formation
infused with oil and gas in North Texas near DeBerry, underlies 5,000 square miles
surrounding Fort Worth, Texas.60
In the late 1990s, advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing made it possible
to extract gas from the shale.61 Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” requires that huge
volumes of water, mixed with sand, chemicals and gels, are injected at high pressure to
break the shale and allow natural gas to flow out.62
Once the well begins producing gas, the frac water, also known as “flowback” is forced
back to the surface. The flowback retains salt and other contaminants from the shale,
including crude oil. This mixture has to be disposed of.
Barnett Shale drilling also emits radioactive material, usually radium. The fracturing and
flowback processes can concentrate the radiation and bring it above ground, creating
another disposal problem. 63
The typical method for disposing of oil and gas waste is to pump it back into the earth
through a high-pressure injection well. As of 2007, there were more than 53,000

56
DeBerry, Texas, Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBerry,_Texas (last modified).
57
Ralph Blumenthal, Texas Lawsuit Includes a Mix of Race and Water, NY Times, at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9E0DE0DA1030F93AA35754C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all (July 9, 2006).
58
http://haynesvilleshalemap.com/
59
Jesse Bogan, Boom Times at the Haynesville Shale, Forbes.com, at
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/05/natural-gas-haynesville-shale-business-energy-haynesville.html (June
5, 2009).
60
National Public Radio, Health Issues Follow Natural Gas Drilling in Texas (Nov. 3, 2009), transcript at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=120043996.
61
Mike Lee, Well Plan Injects Pressure Into Wastewater Dispute, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, at
http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/well-plan-injects-pressure-into-wastewater-dispute-1.htm (Nov. 18,
2007).
62
Jad Mouawad and Clifford Krauss, Dark Side of a Natural Gas Boom, NY Times, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08fracking.html (Dec. 7, 2009).
63
Lee, supra note 61.

12
injection wells in Texas. Two injection wells began operating near DeBerry in the late
1980s.64
An injection well is intended as a means of pumping the wastewater deep enough into the
ground to not cause problems. An injection well consists of a deep hole and a long pipe.
Once the waste is underground, however, there are no barriers to prevent it from
migrating into drinking wells, groundwater, or in some cases, even bubbling back to the
surface and killing vegetation. Complaints about such incidents are common.65
In 1996, DeBerry residents complained to the state that their water tasted bad, had a foul
odor, and left stains. The Texas Railroad Commission took samples and found no
contamination that could be attributed to oilfield sources.66 This finding did not mean
that the water was not contaminated, but rather the source of the contamination,
according to the Railroad Commisssion, could not be determined. Residents had to drive
23 miles to a WalMart near Shreveport, LA for safe drinking water. Six years later, in
2002, after residents’ had the groundwater tested by a private lab, the Railroad
Commission confirmed that the water was contaminated. Tests found barium, toluene,
benzene, and other dangerous chemicals.67
Environmentalists point to groundwater contamination in DeBerry as evidence of one of
the worst injection well leaks in the state, but neither the state, nor the Environmental
Protection Agency has confirmed definitively that the waste came from the wells. Area
residents believe that oil waste and illegally dumped industrial waste seeped from the
injection wells into their wells, creeks and springs. The EPA has suggested that some of
the waste, including the petroleum-based chemicals, could have come from septic tanks.68
The EPA’s inspector general issued a scathing report, faulting the Railroad Commission
and the EPA’s Dallas-based regional office for their handling of the matter. In June
2006, a lawsuit was filed in federal court, accusing the Texas Railroad Commission,
which regulates the state's oil and gas industry, of failing to enforce safety regulations
and of "intentionally giving citizens false information based on their race and economic
status."69
The residents of DeBerry suggest that the treatment they received stood in sharp contrast
to a $1.7 million dollar cleanup by the Railroad Commission in Manvel, TX, a largely
white suburb of Houston. ''They worked very fast and were very diligent,'' said Mayor
Delores M. Martin of Manvel.70

64
Id.
65
Rusty Middleton, What Lies Beneath, The Texas Observer, at
www.demascuscitizens.org/images/WhatLies Beneath.pdf (May 2006).
66
Robert D. Bullard, Poisoned Water, Government Response, and Race, www.dissidentvoice.org, at
http://dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Bullard31.htm (August 31, 2006).
67
Lee, supra note 61; see also Carolyn Roy, Haynesville Shale Contaminated Ground Waste Water De
Berry, TX HVX200AP, KSLA News 12, http://www.sabineoil.com/content/haynesville-shale-contaminated-
ground-waste-water-deberry-texas-hvx200ap (Dec. 16, 2008).
68
Id.
69
Lee, supra note 61.
70
Blumenthal, supra note 57.

13
The tangled history of the DeBerry disposal site, which began around 1980 as a deep
injection well for saltwater wastes from drilling operations, made it easy for the oilfield
services’ companies to avoid responsibility. Since the late 1980’s, according to records of
the Railroad Commission, the disposal site had been under the control of six different
operators.71 In 2000, the Railroad Commission fined a Louisiana company $27,000 for
illegally dumping chemical waste down the well.72
Following this sanction, state officials recommended neighboring residents avoid using
water for any domestic purpose, like bathing, cooking or washing clothes. For the next
three years, the EPA shipped water to residents in jugs until the community was hooked
up to the Panola-Bethany Water supply system.73
The disposal site was last operated by Basic Energy Services of Midland, which
described itself on its website as the nation's third largest contractor servicing oil and gas
wells. Basic used open holding tanks to store waste for pumping to a second injection
well nearby. The railroad commission said that Basic Energy had operated the tanks for
more than two years without a permit, resulting in a demand by Panola County in 2003 to
shut down the disposal line under the county road.74 The entire disposal site was finally
shut down in 2005.75
State regulators never blamed one well operator for contaminating the groundwater; to do
so, would have been difficult given the disposal site’s changing of hands over the years.
The EPA contends that it was not necessarily an injection well itself, but pipeline breaks,
leaks and spills, where poor maintenance allowed corrosion. The EPA also has asserted
that there were other sources of contamination unrelated to production waste disposal.76
The DeBerry case study highlights the problems associated with disposal of wastewater
from drilling operations as well as the difficulty in producing irrefutable evidence of a
clear nexus between drilling operations and groundwater contamination.

71
Id.
72
Carolyn Roy, Haynesville Shale Contaminated Ground Waste Water De Berry, TX HVX200AP, KSLA
News 12, http://www.sabineoil.com/content/haynesville-shale-contaminated-ground-waste-water-deberry-
texas-hvx200ap (Dec. 16, 2008).
73
Id.
74
Blumenthal, supra note 57.
75
Roy, supra note 72.
76
Id.

14
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: Pavillion, WY

Pavillion is a ranching town located in Fremont County, Wyoming, in the heart of Wind
River Indian Reservation, home to approximately 160 people. Residents, there,
complained as far back as fifteen years ago that their wells turned sour and wreaked of
fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby.77 The people of this small town, some
as young as 24 and 26 years old, have suffered from miscarriages, rare cancers, nervous
system disorders, seizures, and liver disease.78 The Environmental Protection Agency
conducted an investigation between March and May of 2009 and found that at least three
wells in Pavillion contained contaminants used in the natural gas drilling process; eleven
other wells of the thirty-nine tested contained traces of other contaminants, including oil,
gas and metals.79
The EPA, in its first tests in response to concerns over gas drilling and water quality, has
not positively identified the source of the Pavillion contamination, but it did name gas
drilling as a possible cause. The agency is continuing its tests and expects to issue a
report in spring 2010.80 EnCana Corp, Canada's second-largest energy company, operates
248 wells in the Pavillion and nearby Muddy Ridge fields. Randy Teeuwen, a spokesman
for EnCana Corp, gave the familiar retort that “There has never been a documented case
of fracking that's contaminated wells or groundwater.” He added, “We know they don’t
have the science to prove what they say.”81
The evidence of groundwater contamination is currently circumstantial, at least, in part
because energy companies are not required to disclose the composition of their drilling
fluids.82 The natural gas drilling industry has been exempt from certain environmental
protection laws, including some provisions of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA).83 Both the House of Representatives (H.R. 2766) and the Senate (S.
1215) have introduced legislation - the FRAC Act - to overturn the exemption of
hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require the public
77
Abraham Lustgarten, EPA: Chemicals Found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking,
ProPublica, at http://www.propublica.org/feature/epa-chemicals-found-in-wyo.-drinking-water-might-be-
from-fracking-825 (Aug. 26, 2009).
78
Earthworks and Powder River Basin Resource Council, EPA Confirms Drinking Water Contamination
by Chemicals used in Hydraulic Fracturing, at
http://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_EPApavillionDrinkingWater.cfm (Aug. 14, 2009).
79
Lustgarten, supra note 77.
80
Jon Hurdle, Water Worries Threaten U.S. Push for Natural Gas, Reuters at
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5900FD20091001 (Oct. 1, 2009).
81
Id.
82
Jon Hurdle, Pennsylvania Residents Sue Over Gas Drilling, Reuters, at
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1919914920091120 (Nov. 20, 2009).
83
Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Natural Gas Well Drilling and Production in the Upper Delaware River
Watershed Fact Sheet, www.delawareriverkeeper.org/pdf/Gas_Drlling_fact_sheet_8_09.pdf.

15
disclosure of what is in the fracking fluids. These bills are sponsored by Senators Casey
(D-PA) and Schumer (D-NY) and Representatives Hinchey (D-NY), DeGette (D-CO)
and Polis (D-CO).84

The industry has stood behind “trade secret” privileges to prevent disclosure of the
chemicals contained in drilling fluids and to silence critics with court issued gag orders.
In Pavillion, EnCana went so far as to notify one resident that the company would no
longer supply him with free drinking water after he spoke out publicly against
“fracking.”85

Three of the contaminated wells in the EPA sample were found to contain 2-BE, a
potentially carcinogenic substance that is used as a lubricant in drilling, and in some
household cleaning products.86 The same chemical, 2-BE, was documented in the water
well of Laura Amos, a Colorado landowner, after nearby wells were hydraulically
fractured by Encana. In 2003, Ms. Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal cancer and
she later discovered that 2-BE had been used in EnCana’s fracking products. 87
According to Dr. Theo Colborn at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, known health
effects of 2-BE include elevated numbers of malignant and non-malignant tumors of the
adrenal gland, kidney damage, kidney failure, toxicity to the spleen, the bones in the
spinal column and bone marrow, liver cancer, anemia, female fertility reduction, and
embryo mortality.88

Adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its
origin, was also discovered in the contaminated wells.89
To investigate the source of contamination is not only complex due to the veil of secrecy
and nondisclosure surrounding the composition of drilling fluids, but also expensive. The
cost of the EPA investigation as of August 2009, when the initial results were issued,
tallied $130,000. EPA investigators explained that because they had no idea what to test
for, they were relegated to an exhaustive process of scanning water samples for spikes in
unidentified compounds and then running those compounds, like fingerprints through a
criminal database, for matches against a vast library of unregulated and understudied
substances. That is how they found the adamantanes and 2-BE. Luke Chavez, an EPA
scientist leading the investigation, said he will now seek to determine the quantities of a
range of contaminants and their health effects.90
Unlike Pavillion, WY, drilling in or near urban areas presents greater complexity in terms
of tracing the source of any water contamination. There are few industries in Pavillion
other than agriculture and oil and gas, whereas in more populated, industrialized areas, it
will be considerably more difficult to rule out other potential sources of contamination.

84
Id.
85
Hurdle, supra note 80.
86
Id.
87
Earthworks, supra note 78.
88
Id.
89
Lustgarten, supra note 77.
90
Id.

16
The EPA’s investigation in Pavillion is taking place under the umbrella of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
commonly known as the Superfund, which allows the EPA to identify parties responsible
for contamination of hazardous sites and to compel the parties to clean up the sites.

17
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: Farmington, NM

Farmington is located in San Juan County, New Mexico. The Census Bureau's 2006
population estimate for the city was 43,573. Farmington sits at the junction of the San
Juan, Animas, and La Plata rivers, on the Colorado Plateau in the northwest part of the
San Juan Basin. It is the principal city of the Farmington, New Mexico Metropolitan
Statistical Area and serves as a hub for much of northwestern New Mexico and the Four
Corners region. Primary industries are natural gas, coal, and oil.91

As one of the earliest sites for fracturing, Farmington has experienced the long term
effects of drilling. The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division has detected and
documented more than 700 hundred incidents of groundwater contamination from oil and
gas facilities across the state. Of the 743 groundwater contamination incidents, more
than half have been caused by contamination from oil and gas industry pits.92

· 398 of the 743 documented groundwater contamination incidents from oil and gas
activities are caused by contamination from pits. This is equal to 54%.
· 266 of the 743 documented groundwater contamination incidents are from oil and
water pipelines. This is equal to 38%.
· The top five offenders include: Enterprise, BP America, XTO, Williams and
PNM. These companies are responsible for more than 60% of the groundwater
contamination incidents related to oil and gas pits.93

Farmington, NM has one of the fastest growing rates of childhood asthma in the nation.
84ppb (parts per billion) is the legal limit for ozone. 50-60ppb can cause serious health
problems. In the summer of 2000, Farmington had 9 days where the ozone level was less
than 50ppb. In 2001, it was 4 days. In 2002, 0 days.94

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a deadly gas, is found at many gas sites throughout New
Mexico. In the San Juan Basin, alone, there are approximately 375 wells that contain
hydrogen sulfide.95

91
Farmington, NM, Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmington,_New_Mexico (last modified
March 11, 2010).
92
Earthworks, Groundwater Contamination,
http://www.earthworksaction.org/NM_GW_Contamination.cfm (site last visited March 11, 2010); see
also New Mexico Oil Conservation Division website at
http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ocd/documents/GWImpactPublicRecordsSixColumns20081119.pdf
93
Id.
94
Unbossed.com, Oil and Gas May Be Killing You – Part I at
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=870 (June 12, 2006).
95
Earthworks, New Mexico Health and Toxics Issues, at http://www.earthworksaction.org/NMToxics.cfm
(last visited site March 11, 2010).

18
When stored in open pits, volatile hydrocarbons like benzene escape into the air. The
depletion of shallow aquifers may result in the migration of methane and H2S (a known
neuro-toxin) from the soil into the air. Exhaust is created from water pumps powered by
diesel fuel. Salts, metals, hydrocarbons and other chemical additives in the produced
water will contaminate the soil, if spilled on the surface or placed in unlined or leaky
storage pits. The same pollutants can also escape and contaminate waters through
pipeline breakages, leaks or movement of produced waters once reinvested into the
freshwater aquifer.96 Brief descriptions of these compounds and the potential health
effects are provided below:97

Hydrogen Sulfide: H2S is typically associated with natural gas and CBM formations.
This is the gas that smells like rotten eggs. H2S seriously aggravates existing respiratory
conditions, causes central nervous system problems, spontaneous abortions, and
cardiovascular system difficulties.

BTEX: Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes: Benzene and its associated
chemicals are known carcinogens. Toluene may affect the reproductive and central
nervous systems with ethylbenze and xylene may have respiratory and neurological
effects.

Heavy Metals: e.g. arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, etc.: these
metals, which show up in the drilling muds, the vented gas fumes and the fracturing
fluids, have a number of different health consequences such as skin problems, hair loss,
kidney damage, high blood pressure, increased cancer, neurological damage and more.

Nitrogen Oxides: NOx typically react with VOCs to form ground level ozone and smog
with can trigger asthma and other respiratory problems. These can also react with other
chemicals to for particulate pollution, which can damage lungs and cause respiratory
illness, heart conditions and premature death. They are also known to react with common
organic chemicals to form toxins that may cause biological mutations.

Sulfur Dioxide: SO2, which typically comes from engine exhaust, reacts with other
chemicals used in the drilling process for particulate pollution with, as noted above, can
damage lungs; cause respiratory illness, heart conditions and premature death.

In the Farmington, NM area, one of the largest producing areas of natural gas in the
nation, an estimated 40,000 tons of unregulated toxins are pumped into the air every year.
64% of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Farmington and over 50% of Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) in Farmington come from the gas fields that surround and penetrate the
city.98

96
Unbossed.com, Oil and Gas May Be Killing You – Part I at
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=870 (June 12, 2006).
97
Id.
98
Earthworks, New Mexico Health and Toxics Issues, at
http://www.earthworksaction.org/NMToxics.cfm (citing Farmington Daily Times. July 7, 2006.
"Halliburton spill results in acid cloud.")

19
On June 7, 2006, at approximately 10 pm, a spill of hydraulic fracturing fluid at a
Farmington Halliburton facility created a toxic cloud that caused a mass evacuation of
200 residents from a nearby neighborhood. Between 30 and 60 gallons of an "acidizing
composition," which was used while hydraulically fracturing some oil and gas wells,
spilled while Halliburton employees were mixing the fluid. The city fire chief said that
the product may cause skin and respiratory burns, is harmful, if swallowed, and will
combust at 103 degrees F. One resident said that she was nauseous and vomited clear
liquid for several hours after being exposed to the toxic cloud.99

The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division, more recently, has had to contend with a
new problem. Last year, two of the fourteen recently active brine well operations in
southeastern New Mexico collapsed without warning into massive craters hundreds of
feet across and a hundred or more feet deep.100

A brine well is a salt mine. A well, or sometimes more than one well, is drilled into a salt
layer below the ground, fresh water is pumped down into the well, allowed to dissolve
the salt and then pumped back to the surface where it is used for oilfield applications such
as drilling mud and workover fluids. This practice has been an inexpensive and reliable
means of getting salt saturated fluids for oil and gas operations.101

The two brine wells that collapsed had several features in common. They were both
relatively shallow (approximately 500 feet deep), had produced large amounts of brine
(between 6 and 8 million barrels), and had been used for relatively large periods of
time.102

What alarmed state investigators most was that there was another well that fit this profile,
and it was located near one of the busiest intersections in Carlsbad and adjacent to the
main canal for the Carlsbad Irrigation District. Business operations were stopped at the
location and a consulting engineering firm hired by the Oil Conservation Division began
to monitor the site for any sign of an impending collapse.103

The State of New Mexico has spent half a million dollars investigating and monitoring
the giant cavern a few hundred feet beneath Carlsbad. The state Oil Conservation
Division has installed an elaborate monitoring system of tilt meters and pressure sensors
at the site in Carlsbad, hoping to detect any signs of a cave-in that could possibly take
with it part of a highway, a church, a trailer park, businesses and a major irrigation
canal.104
The state wants the brine well operator to take responsibility and to assume the cost. The
New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department’s Oil Conservation

99
Id.
100
New Mexico Oil Conservation Division website at http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/brinewells.htm
101
Id.
102
Id.
103
Id.
104
Susan Montoya Bryan , Associated Press, NM Wants Company To Take Responsibility For Cavern at
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9153986 (Nov. 23, 2009).

20
Division issued a proposed civil penalty of $2,637,000.00 to I&W, Inc. for violating
multiple conditions of its permit for its brine well facility operated in the City of
Carlsbad. Violations include: (1) Failure to provide a subsidence monitoring program
and a health and safety plan; (2) Failure to provide capacity/cavity configuration data
along with geologic and engineering information demonstrating the integrity of the
solution mining system; (3) Failure to maintain a ground water monitoring program; (4)
Failure to provide production/injection volumes; and (5) Failure to provide analysis of the
injection fluid and brine. I&W has denied allegations and requested a hearing.105

Remediation of fracturing related problems in New Mexico has met with opposition from
the oil and gas industry. In October of 2006, the New Mexico Conservation Commission
(OCC) adopted revisions to the state’s surface waste facility rules for oil and gas wastes.
The industry spent $500,000 in attorney time and hired experts to try to weaken, delay
and ultimately attempt to eradicate the rules politically.106

The Oil Conservation Commission won an appeal in the First Judicial District Court,
County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico, against sixteen oil and gas companied that
challenged the adoption of the rules regulating surface waste management in oil and gas
operations. The court ruled that the Commission Order No. R-12460-B in Case No.
13586, repealing existing rules and adopting new rules governing surface waste
management in oil and gas, was not arbitrary or capricious and was within the law and
the scope of the Commission’s authority.107

The adopted rules improve citizen notice provisions, create conditions under which
permits may be denied, including a company’s record of violations, and establish
minimum setbacks from water supplies, residences and schools.108

105
News Release and Compliance Order Issued by New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources
Department at http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/main/documents/PR-OCD-ComplianceOrder.pdf (January 21,
2010).
106
Earthworks, New Mexico Waste Disposal at http://www.earthworksaction.org/NMwastedisposal.cfm
(site last visited March 11, 2010).
107
Id.
108
Id.

21
 MEMORANDUM

Otsego 2000

RE: Silt, CO

Garfield County, Colorado is located approximately 150 miles west of Denver. As of the
2000 census, there were 16,229 households with a total of 43,791 people living in the
county. There were 17,336 housing units at an average density of 6 per square mile.109
The small towns of Silt, CO and Rifle, CO, located in Garfield, with populations of
1,740110 and 6,784111 respectively have received national attention due to health concerns
linked to local drilling for natural gas.
Laura Amos, a mother and wife, has become perhaps the most well-known whistleblower
in this region. Her home is located to the south of Silt in what she refers to as the heart of
“Encana’s Industrial Wasteland.” Mrs. Amos and her husband Larry Amos owned the
surface rights to their property, but not the subsurface rights, not uncommon in the West.
They were offered $3,000 to sign a surface use agreement. Without ownership of the
subsurface rights, however, the decision as to whether or not to sign the surface use
agreement carried little weight.112
In May 2001, while fracturing four wells less than 1000 feet from the Amos’ house on a
neighbor’s property, the Amos’ water well “blew up.” The Amos’ water immediately
turned gray, had a horrible odor, and fizzled like soda pop. Tests of the water showed 14
milligrams per liter of methane. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
assured the Amos’ that methane was “transient” in nature, the human body produces
methane naturally, and there were no known human health effects. Between August of
2001 and January of 2004, no further water tests of the Amos’ water were conducted.113
In the Spring of 2003, Laura Amos became extremely ill and was eventually diagnosed
with Primary Hyper Aldosteronism, a very rare adrenal gland tumor, which had to be
surgically removed. Mrs. Amos began to research possible causes of her health
condition. She discovered the research of Dr. Theo Colborn. Dr. Colborn, for over ten
years, had been the President of the World Wildlife Fund’s Wildlife and Contaminants
Program before she became the President of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc.
Dr. Colborn’s research highlighted the health effects of the chemical 2-BE, which is
contained in fracking fluids. Dr. Colborn cited the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry Profile that listed the effects of 2-BE as follows: kidney damage, kidney
failure, toxicity to the spleen, the bones in the spinal column and bone marrow, liver
cancer, anemia, female fertility reduction, embryo mortality and elevated number of

109
Garfield County, CO, Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_County,_Colorado (last
modified Nov. 29, 2009).
110
Silt, CO, Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silt,_Colorado (last modified Feb.4, 2010).
111
Rifle, CO, Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle,_Colorado (last modified Feb. 4,2010).
112
Laura Amos, Family’s Water Well Was Contaminated After Hydraulic Fracturing Near Their Home,
Earthworks at http://www.earthworksaction.org/cvLauraAmos.cfm (last visited March 22, 2010).
113
Id.

22
combined malignant and non-malignant tumors of the adrenal gland, the same condition
suffered by Mrs. Amos.114
The EnCana spokesman assured Mrs. Amos husband, Mrs. Amos and their neighbors that
2-BE was not used in nearby fracturing operations. The EnCana spokesman gave the
same assurance to reporters from the Associated Press, Denver and western Colorado. In
fact, in June of 2001, only five weeks after Mrs. Amos’ water well exploded like a
geyser, EnCana used 2-BE to permeate the Wasatch formation, the same formation from
which the Amos’ water supply derived, as part of an experimental project. Now, EnCana
delivers bottled water to the Amos’ home.115
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission cited EnCana for contaminating
Amos' well. There was no specific mention of 2-BE or other fracing chemicals, which are
kept secret because the formulas are considered proprietary.116

Mrs. Amos is self-described as “One Mad Mother.” Between 2001 and 2003, after
accepting the assurances of the government officials at the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, she breastfed and bathed her baby daily in the water from her
well. The COGCC dismissed Mrs. Amos as just as likely to have been exposed to 2-BE
from Windex.117
In 2006, Laura Amos accepted a reported multimillion-dollar settlement from EnCana.
The company was fined $266,000 for "failure to protect water-bearing formations." Yet
investigators also concluded, without further explanation, that hydraulic fracturing was
not to blame.118
Numerous other residents have complained of adverse health effects coinciding with the
proliferation of hydraulic fracturing operations in western Colorado. Chris Mobaldi of
Rifle, CO, 60 miles from Silt, has experienced burning pains, weakness, and chronic
nausea culminating in a pair of pituitary gland tumors. Bill Solinger’s family has
experienced respiratory problems, headaches and fatigue since drilling exploded in the
Rifle area. Karen Trulove, south of Silt, complains of constant fatigue from petroleum
smells that fill the air.119 Dee Hoffmeister, also south of Silt, has described fumes filling
her home. She lives within 800 feet of four wells and two condensate tanks. She has
experienced nausea, dizziness, pain, chronic weakness, burning skin and breathing
difficulty. Four of her seven grandchildren who live on her property have asthma. Air
testing on the property in 2006 showed elevated levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene
and xylenes.120
114
Id.
115
Id.
116
Nancy Lofholm, Breached Well Fuels Feud with Gas Firm, The Denver Post at
http://earthworksaction.org/pubs-others/2005_DenverPost_EncanaCited.pdf (Feb. 18, 2005).
117
Amos, supra note 112.
118
Abrahm Lustgarten, Drilling Process Causes Water Supply Alarm, ProPublica at
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11001835 (Nov. 17, 2008).
119
Judith Kohler, Oil and Gas Drilling Raise Health Concerns in Garfield County, Associated Press at
http://www.earthworksaction.org/colohealth.ctn (Oct. 22, 2006).
120
Amy Mall et al., Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and
Gas Production, Drilling Down (Oct. 2007).

23
While industry officials continue to deny that any proven link exists between hydraulic
fracturing per se and groundwater contamination, contamination from operations
ancillary to fracturing, such as waste water storage, transport and disposal has been
largely unmistakable.
In February 2008, a frozen 200-foot waterfall was discovered on the side of a massive
cliff near Parachute, CO. According to the state, 1.6 million gallons of fracturing fluids
had leaked from a waste pit and been transported by groundwater, where it seeped out of
the cliff.121
In 2004, a well casing shattered beneath a rig at Divide Creek, a tributary of the Colorado
River, which supplies water to seven states. Dangerous levels of benzene turned up in
groundwater and stream samples.122
In June 2008, a rancher in Parachute, CO, was hospitalized after he drank well water
from his tap. Tests showed benzene in his water. The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission blamed four gas operators in the area for spilling waste fluids.123
Colorado state records show more than 1,500 spills since 2003, in which time the rate of
drilling increased 50 percent. In 2008 alone, records show more than 206 spills, 48
relating to water contamination.124
Under public pressure, Halliburton agreed in August of 2008 to disclose the chemicals it
uses in hydraulic fracturing to Colorado state health officials and regulators, though not
to the public. The agreement applies only to chemicals stored in drums that contain 50
gallons of drilling fluid or more. As a practical matter, drilling workers in Colorado and
Wyoming report that the fluids are often kept in smaller quantities. Therefore, some of
the ingredients still are not disclosed.125
As western Colorado residents complain of illnesses with possible, causal links to nearby
drilling operations, they feel that their well-being has become secondary to profits. Bill
Solinger of Rifle, CO captures the sentiment of many when he says, “We’re collateral
damage out here.”

121
Lustgarten, supra note 118.
122
Abrahm Lustgarten, Does Natural Gas Drilling Endanger Water Supplies, BusinessWeek at
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_47/b4109000334640.htm (Nov. 11, 2008).
123
Id.
124
Lustgarten, supra note 118.
125
Lustgarten, supra note 122.

24
 COPYRIGHT NOTICE

The foregoing memoranda are intended to inform the members of the non-profit Otsego
2000 and their associates by providing summaries of media publications on the issue of
hydraulic fracturing as a means of extracting natural gas from rock formations and the
potential risks to local communities. The information contained herein may not be
published or more widely disseminated without the permission of the original sources
documented in the footnotes to avoid infringement of copyright law.

25