What's the fuss about the Center for Sustainable Shale Development?

Read these articles to learn more: 

New initiative between industry and environmentalists sets standards for Marcellus Shale drilling  

Voluntary Standards Don't Make Fracking Safe  

Sierra Club Blasts Plan to Improve Fracking  

Check out the CSSD web site here 

Renewable Energy:

Apple is Making Progress

Apple committed last year to providing 100 percent of the power to their data centers with renewable energy.

Read here how they are working to reach their goal 

sus·tain·able

Perhaps the founders of the newly announced Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD) should have consulted the dictionary before selecting such an unfortunate name for themselves - a name that defies logic when applied to a process used to extract a finite and decidedly un-renewable resource.

As oxymoronic as the phrase "sustainable shale" may seem, even more so is the idea that the initial development of fifteen voluntary performance standards will somehow reform an industry rife with violations of the regulations already in place. Data from Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection shows that since 2008, the four drilling operators involved with CSSD so far - Consol, EQT, Shell, and Chevron - have racked up 237 violations on 100 of their

respective wells.

IMAGE: Ann Pinca  A Shell Appalachia well pad in Union Township, Tioga County.

Then there are stories like Tioga County's Richardson family having to take legal action to force Shell to take responsibility for permanently damaging their water supply; EQT dumping flowback into a leaky impoundment permitted for fresh water only; and the legal squirming from Consol's pollution violations resulting in the 2009 Dunkard Creek fish kill. Somehow, following voluntary standards falls short of a sustainable idea for these companies - and they are only four of the 60 plus operating in the Marcellus Shale, with big drillers like Range Resources and Chesapeake Energy noticeably absent from the discussion.

Governor Corbett recently stated in an interview at the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference that in Pennsylvania, "We now have the toughest regulations - environmental regulations - in the country." Yet now, according to the CSSD, we have fifteen new performance standards that "represent consensus on what is achievable and protective of human health and the environment." The question here is obvious: if these standards will so improve the shale extraction process and better protect us, why aren't they the law instead of just voluntary suggestions?

If the Environmental Defense Fund and other tired watchdogs are willing to believe in the good intentions of some of the world's most powerful energy entities, they also need to be willing to stand up for the health, safety and property values of all shale gas region families and communities. They should demand - not ask for - absolute best industry standards, including the careful and honest monitoring and reporting of all methane emissions that stem from natural gas production and use. 

No matter how well it is done, Pennsylvanians are sacrificing a valuable and beautiful large core forest region, a mix of private woods and public land that belongs to us all, to the enormous footprint of shale gas development. Volunteerism won't cut it; law with consequences at the executive level is the only method that might.

It is a noble idea to attempt to better regulate the shale resource industry and the hopeful intentions of those involved are understandable. But sadly, the perhaps well-intentioned CSSD seems to have less to do with sustainability then it does in sustaining the shale extraction industry's efforts to more efficiently extract methane trapped in the rock. For now, that means endless tons of sand mined from far away states, endless tons of chemicals, endless tons of steel casings, and endless gallons of water will still be sent underground to reap a finite fossil fuel harvest.

None of this meets the definition of sustainable.