To the Editor:

Fracking is a contentious and potentially disastrous environmental and social issue heading for North Carolina and possibly even our mountains. The Mining and Energy Commission that has been drafting rules to regulate this industry in our state is run by Chairman Jim Womack (Lee County) and others who have direct financial and political ties to the very corporations that will provide the expertise, technology and even the workers (those already skilled in fracking operations). 

As North Carolina has not developed a fossil fuel extraction industry, the very few jobs that are associated with the fracking operations will be filled by experienced workers with long associations with the fracking industry, therefore not providing jobs for local workers. Additionally, revenues derived from the fracking operations will not be spent locally. A 2012 study shows that less than 36 percent of the investments would be spent in North Carolina. 

The shale gas market is an economic boon for the 30-odd states that permit fracking. The severance tax states impose on the process adds up. In 2010, it generated more than $11 billion. The flow of that revenue goes straight into state and federal coffers, as does increased corporate income tax revenue from energy companies profiting from fracking. Locally, the fracking process negatively impacts property values, which in turn depresses property tax revenue.

Local governments enjoy no benefits. Instead, they get stuck with all the fracking problems: noise from blasting, storage of toxic chemicals, degraded water sources and heavy truck traffic, as well as the rising costs of cleaning up the substantial mess fracking leaves behind. 

The rules written by the MEC are woefully inadequate and fail to protect our communities and water supplies. Full disclosure of chemicals used on site, without trade secret protections, should be mandatory. Gas and oil development is not like manufacturing that takes place in a closed system — chemicals are stored with minimal protections on site and are deliberately and accidentally released to the subsurface, air and water, all part of the public’s environment. 

The baseline testing rules are also shamefully weak. Many people in this state get their water from their own private water wells. If fracking comes to your neighborhood, it could contaminate your water. Baseline testing is required in order to prove that the industry is indeed responsible for the contamination. But the draft rules have reduced the area in which baseline testing is required by more than 70 percent since the most recent fracking bill. The wording in the current draft rule puts the burden on the owner of the water well to prove that the gas operator caused contamination. 

How far should fracking wells be from occupied buildings, including homes and schools? What about drinking water wells? Or our rivers and streams? The rules on “setback distances” are supposed to protect people and resources. But the MEC’s drafted rules on setback distances are far less than science would call for, despite the MEC promising us the “best protections in the country.”

We’ve all experienced the consequences of corporate greed over sound science. Health studies have indicated that potential exposure to toxic air emissions can happen over 4,500 feet from gas wells; yet wells can be as close as 650 feet to occupied buildings! Fracking can potentially destroy our wells and drinking water supplies, setback distances should be increased substantially. Proposed setback distances are only 200 feet from surface waters. Longer setbacks are a no-brainer to protect this state’s people and drinking water from accidents and pollution. 

Ken Brown

Sylva