Solutions with Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking”

One of the most important issues for Pennsylvania and our district is the
development of the Marcellus Shale Gas formation. The Marcellus
formation has the potential to provide for the nation’s natural gas needs
for a decade or more, not to mention provide a tremendous economic
boom in our state. (1) From my travels in the district, the public is not
yet highly aware of the full impact of what could easily become a curse
instead of a blessing.
The purpose of the below is to share my opinion on what should be done
both as a citizen and federal candidate for US Congress. As a disclaimer,
while I do hold a chemical engineering degree from Lehigh University,
most of my working experience is in the semiconductor industry, not
natural gas. (Photos courtesy EPA)
Hydraulic fracturing, aka “fracking,” is done by rupturing shale
formations to release gas trapped inside. A water-and-sand based
solution is forced into the cracks to allow the gas to be captured after the pressure is removed. Wells are repeatedly
“fracked” until the yield of gas is no longer economical.
There are four main environmental dangers and concerns involved in fracking, the first two being of the most concern:
1. Proprietary fracking solutions pumped into the well are a chemical cocktail including known carcinogens such as
benzene and xylene, and ethylene glycol, the hazardous chemical in anti-freeze, and sometimes even diesel fuel.
(2) These chemicals can remain in the ground and migrate into drinking water wells and aquifers, including
through the well’s casings, and cause serious health problems to all living organisms. After a “frack,” these
hazardous chemicals are isolated with the recovered water and dissolved methane gas in settling ponds, which can
also leak or evaporate.
2. The natural gas (primarily methane) can migrate through the ground, through well casings, or through the settling
process into the water supply. Residents’ drinking water from contaminated wells sometimes can be ignited from
the faucet with high levels of foul-smelling sediment. Firewater can also occur naturally, which highlights the
importance of baseline studies prior to any drilling activity.
3. To pressurize the wells, large quantities of water are necessary, in the realm of several millions of gallons per
“frack.” Pumped far below aquifer depth, much of this water will remain trapped in the well. Detailed studies of
the impact on local roads from heavy tanker traffic, and the local drinking water supply and reservoirs need to be
completed, and of course is of particular concern during droughts.
4. Soil and rock tailings removed from the well during drilling can contain hazardous chemicals like arsenic, which
have been isolated underground. While this may be less of a concern than the above, caution and testing is
necessary to confirm the tailings are not harmful.
Normally, fracking operations would be covered as Class I or Class II injection wells under the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act (SWDA). However, in 2005, my competitor, Congressman Charlie Dent, during the Bush/Cheney
administration voted for HR 6 which included Section 322, aka the Halliburton Loophole, which deregulated hydraulic
fracturing from environmental regulations and precautions under the SWDA. (Dent accepted campaign donations from
Halliburton in 2004.) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no authority to even monitor the amount, type or
toxicity of the chemicals used in fracking.
Here are the solutions proposed:
1. I would co-sponsor, and urge Congressman Dent to immediately co-sponsor, HR 2766, the Fracturing
Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act of 2009. This short bill removes the Halliburton
Loophole and also specifies that drilling companies must disclose safety-related information about all chemicals
used to the public or during a medical emergency. This removes a special privilege granted to special groups.
2. However, I view the FRAC Act as only a band-aid that highlights the ineffectiveness of both the EPA and federal
Congress versus the lobbyists. Pennsylvania already has “primacy” over the SWDA, meaning that Pennsylvania’s
own requirements are equivalent or more stringent than federal guidelines, and the SWDA is enforced by the

Jake Towne, 2010 Candidate for U.S. Congress, PA-15 Paid for by TowneForCongress.com
 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It is urgent to understand that Pennsylvania, as a
sovereign state under the principles of nullification, can override the federal law and pass the FRAC Act and
necessary acts or regulations on its own. More localized control will mean more satisfied local residents.
3. Non-toxic fracking solutions should be developed, or even a new extraction method should be considered. This
can only be done by private industry, not the government.
4. Well casings through aquifer zones must be water-tight or even gas-tight, and have multiple redundancies for
failure.
5. Drilling companies should clearly be 100% liable for any damages caused to individuals and their property, unlike
the BP oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico where there was a $75 million liability limit on oil spills created by
lobbyists in cahoots with Congress. The state congress should own this action, as US Congress is too slow and
also has no constitutional authority over state contract and tort law.
6. Localities and landowners could require “surety bonds.” This contract stipulate that the drilling company should
set aside funds in the event they are liable for damage caused to individuals. In the event of an infraction, money is
paid directly to individuals currently living on the land. Once the company finishes the well and completes the
clean-up procedures, the bond money then fully reverts back to the company. This prevents companies from
simply claiming bankruptcy instead of paying for damages caused. Surety bonds create a valid “win-win”
incentive to safely produce the gas for their management, shareholders, and public alike.
7. Drilling company engineers should disclose their FMEAs (failure mode effects analysis) reports to the public that
highlights all of the technical and environmental dangers and the installed safeguards to prevent them. These
engineering documents not only list all possible dangers, but also categorize them by level of severity.
8. Pennsylvania’s state congress should seriously consider a temporary halt to hydraulic fracturing operations in the
state and issue a report to the public addressing concerns. Have baseline soil and groundwater reports been
completed? Do the local people agree, and are plebiscites (popular votes) necessary?
We must as a society also ask “Cui bono?” or who profits? Local landowners, future job seekers, and of course the drilling
companies (otherwise why produce the gas in the first place?) should be the clear winners, NOT a windfall for the
government. In the past, government has usually acted like a private cartel to tax and spend on silly pet projects and
bureaucracy, and everyone knows Harrisburg and DC would be broke except for the irresponsible money-printing.
It is my personal opinion that if the gas extraction is to be taxed, it should serve a useful purpose for the people. My
suggestion is to have such a tax used for abolishing the property tax on primary residences that currently funds the
educational system. Furthermore, such as taxation stream should first go directly to the LOCAL coffers of the areas
affected by the drilling, then directly to LOCAL school boards on a per capita basis. This gives localities control over
their educational budgets, which are way too highly controlled by Washington and Harrisburg currently, in my opinion.
As a federal representative, my job functions are limited by the Constitution, but I feel compelled to make this statement
as a candidate for the welfare of the people as I feel this to be a gravely important topic that will impact every
Pennsylvanian’s future.
Sadly, protecting the environment is falsely perceived as just a compartmentalized wing of the Democrat party in our
failed two-headed, one-party system instead of a valid concern for all of society.
The two ultimate priorities I have within politics are peace and the environment. However, in many cases peace has
precedent over the environment; for instance, our armies starting a nuclear war with Pakistan or Iran has precedence over
deforestation in California. For without peace, we can not really enjoy our environment. Without a clean environment,
everyone’s standard of living and health is impacted, as I learned while living in the smoggy cities of China for 4 years.
As a federal servant for the people, I feel my efforts in office will have the most impact by ending the unconstitutional,
nation-building wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
(1) While official 2009 estimate is 262 trillion cubic feet recoverable (see Dept. of Energy study, page 33/116). Dr.
Timothy Constadine, et. al of Penn State University offers a 2009 estimate of 489 trillion cubic feet. More information
about the Marcellus Shale gas can be found from this website.
(2) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. “Hydraulic Fracturing Overview.”
Jake Towne is running for US Congress in Pennsylvania's 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political
parties. Jake plans to implement a novel “Our Open Office” form of accountable and transparent government when elected to give
each resident a public voice. Visit TowneForCongress.com to learn more. Jake can be reached at TowneForCongress@gmail.com.
This article is available at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/solutions-with-hydraulic-fracturing/

Jake Towne, 2010 Candidate for U.S. Congress, PA-15 Paid for by TowneForCongress.com