New Energy Landscapes of Pennsylvania: Forests to Farms to Fracking A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Geography of the College of Arts and Sciences by Deborah A. Johnson Bachelor of Arts, French – Indiana University of Pennsylvania – 1981 Bachelor of Arts, International Studies – Northern Kentucky University – 2001 Masters of Public Administration – Northern Kentucky University – 2007 Committee Chair: Nicholas Dunning, Ph.D. Committee Members: Martin Pasqualetti, Ph.D. Roger M. Selya, Ph.D. Colleen McTague, Ph.D. Kevin Raleigh, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This dissertation adds to the literature on energy needed by industry, government, and citizens for decision-making. The pursuit to access or create new energy resources spawns new landscapes of energy in the early 21st century. The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies – popularly called “fracking” – enables entry into previously inaccessible natural gas reserves such as the Marcellus shale much of which lies beneath Pennsylvania. Although this unconventional method offers a promising source of domestic energy and job growth, the potential for negative impacts raises concerns and questions. The questions include: What is the controversy about fracking in Pennsylvania? What are the impacts of fracking? What costs is Pennsylvania paying as it shifts to shale gas extraction? Are there activities taking place or material signs that point to the emerging new landscapes? Are the individuals and organizations that resist shale gas extraction – the so-called “Green Forces” – and others who live within the region of development more or less attuned to these costs? A mixed methods approach consists of landscape and stakeholder analyses including visual examination of GIS-generated maps, satellite images, and photos taken in the field specifically from four counties: Washington, Warren, McKean, and Bradford. Research captures stakeholders’ voices across the public, government, and private sectors at different scales. A stakeholder matrix facilitates data organization and analysis. Data include 114 individual statements from an EPA Public Meeting, texts from 40 online- newspaper articles or blogs, and face-to-face interviews or focus group participation of 36 individuals. Further data come from a public health conference, industry convention, and public protest. The new energy landscape covers spaces in Pennsylvania where oil and gas development previously had not been present. It obscures as well as exposes the legacy of past energy landscapes such as clear-cut forests, coal mining, and conventional drilling that linger in forests, in the minds of older residents, and photos of the past. Contest ensues between “green forces” and industry that utilize different tools for land use control. Differences surface between what the oil and gas industry knew before, and what it is learning in the early 21st century. The magnitude of shale gas technology includes larger and more sophisticated machinery, ii higher pressured fracking, increased material amounts, varied land use, and impact on public infrastructure. Cultural differences occur between Texan gas field workers and local Pennsylvanians generated by different physical geography, climate, and regulatory framework. Further findings demonstrate a wide gap in communication between those of differing ideologies. Some stakeholders show up in the matrix as “omitted” from decision-making including small businesses and conventional drillers, public health sector professionals, and water well drillers. Other findings show an unwillingness to share in the costs of energy development. Interviewees explain the costs that they endure as the country pursues energy security, while others outside of Pennsylvania take in only the benefits. Over time, society conforms as a new “normal” is formed. All of this takes place while the world is watching Pennsylvania evolve through the early stages and unknown outcomes of shale gas extraction. Keywords: Stakeholder, Energy Landscape, Hydraulic fracturing, Marcellus shale, Natural Gas, Land use iii iv Dedication My father Virgil H. Kittner, Jr., whose young passing taught me to pursue my dreams “now.” My mother Sally Kittner, who unfailingly asked, “Are you working on your paper?” My Pennsylvania siblings Cheryl, David, and Dawn who regularly added information about “The Woods,” and, My husband, loyal Marcellus Shale research assistant, and dissertation prodder, William S. Johnson, Jr. v Acknowledgements Martin J. Pasqualetti, Ph.D., Professor School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning Senior Sustainability Scientist Global Institute of Sustainability Co-Director Energy Policy Innovation Council (EPIC) Barrett Honors Faculty at Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Richard Martin, Pennsylvania Forest Coalition Jimmy Barnes, RJB Well Services Marcellus Shale Coalition Talisman Energy Inc. Bradford County Municipal Employees Scott Molnar, Jeffrey Singer, John Ambrusch, III, and John Boritz Bradford County Residents Members of the Meeting of the Bored vi PREFACE During 2010 through 2012 while I conducted research, the issue of fracking was hugely contentious. (The controversy continues as I write this paper in July 2014.) Perhaps the largest concern was the potential for fracking to contaminate drinking water. Although there had been anecdotal evidence of gas industry accidents, some of which were true, in other accounts the findings proved differently. For example, the documentary film Gasland (Fox, 2010) sparked worldwide fear that natural gas development caused methane to enter private water wells, migrate through the kitchen water faucet, and explode into flame when lit. The film’s iconic flaming faucet scene took place at a residence in Ft. Lupton, Colorado. The owner had filed a complaint that the gas industry had caused the impact to his water. In fact, on September 30, 2008 the state of Colorado concluded that the methane in his flaming spigot originated from biogenic methane, or naturally occurring methane in the ground, and that there were no oil and gas related impacts to his water well (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008). The following two excerpts are findings from my interviews in Towanda, Bradford County’s county seat, that relate to the fear and contention about water contamination. 1.1 The Flame Test Ron Russell, retired PA DEP water quality inspector, describes the following scene from the late 1990s, more than 15 years before fracking would take place in Bradford County… “I remember one house I went into down near Wyalusing where the guy was from down state and had built a brand-new house and contacted our office and said, ‘I think I have gas in the water.’” And I said, ‘What makes you think you have gas in the water?’ I’d never run into methane down in that area. And he says ‘Well watch this!’ And he reached over and he turned on the water spigot and he let the water run a few minutes and he reached up into his cupboard and brought out a box of wooden, what we call, barn burner matches. And he says, ‘John, you better step back.’ And I say, ‘You’re kidding me!’ He says - I stepped back a couple paces - he says, ‘I mean on the other side of kitchen.’ vii So I walked to the other side of the kitchen. He stood over…and he struck a match and he threw it in the sink and there was this gigantic ball of flame that completely covered the recess above the kitchen sink. I just could not believe the amount of flame he had in the kitchen! And, my parting and my written direction to him was to disconnect this well and get it the heck out of this house. ‘Man, you’re gonna burn your house down!’ And the man had not even thought of doing that. He had to have somebody else tell him (Interview at the Meeting of the Bored, April 9, 2012).” 1.2 The Well-kept Secret Next, Lyle Harding, retired USDA program director discusses the local water. In his conversation he mentions the municipalities of Dalton, Dimock, and Granville which are each located within 55 miles of Towanda. In January 2009, a water well that exploded in Dimock related to poor gas industry practices sparked a combative and ongoing dispute. The PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) determined that Cabot Oil and Gas had improperly cased and cemented gas wells nearby which led to groundwater pollution by natural gas (Shankman, 2009). Other residents in the vicinity reported contaminated wells. By July 2012, the federal EPA had determined that five of some 60 tested water wells in the vicinity did contain hazardous substances, but that they were naturally occurring and not due to gas operations (EPA, 2012b). In Granville another highly contentious incident took place in April 2011. Resident Crystal Stroud accused Chief Oil and Gas of contaminating her well water. In July 2011, the PA DEP wrote to Ms. Stroud that tests it had conducted on her water well showed that the contamination was not due to gas drilling operations, but local pre-existing conditions (PA DEP, 2011 cited in Chief Oil and Gas, 2011). Both incidents sparked intense controversy. I found Lyle’s following comments somewhat of a surprise. “We’ve had bad water in the area for a long time. I’ll give you an example. I worked for the USDA, actually the Conservation District, [we] built a new office in Dalton. We couldn’t drink the water, we’re talkin’ say 20 years ago. It had barium; it had arsenic in the water, manganese, sulfur. We had to treat the water before we could drink it. That’s what we have. That’s what people are finding out. It was a well-kept secret. Nobody wanted to talk about it because it would lower the value of their house! You’d test it for bacteria, not for anything else, and, OK. All you hear is the big thing about the Dimock area.