fracking
Anger grows as fracking resumes in Pennsylvania town with poisoned water
The restart of fracking in Dimock, Pennsylvania has sparked outrage among residents whose water became dangerously contaminated years ago, as political candidates continue to support the industry.
In short:
- Fracking in Dimock was halted for years after toxic contamination in 2009, but has now resumed under a new agreement.
- Residents continue to suffer from dangerous levels of contaminants in their water, with many blaming health issues on the pollution.
- Fracking remains a divisive issue in Pennsylvania's political landscape, with both major parties defending it to appeal to voters.
Key quote:
“We are back to square one from before the moratorium came into effect – there’s massive drilling like crazy. I don’t care who you are, rich, poor, or whatever, without water and clean air and clean soil, we’re all freaking dead.”
— Ray Kemble, Dimock resident.
Why this matters:
Fracking-related pollution in Dimock shows the ongoing risks of hydraulic fracturing for local communities. While politicians court voters in this energy-heavy state, the health and environmental impacts of fracking persist.
Related EHN coverage: In the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, new poll finds 90% of respondents support stricter fracking regulations
Craddick faces competition in Texas Railroad Commission race over energy industry regulation
Incumbent Christi Craddick is running for re-election as the chair of the Texas Railroad Commission, while challengers argue the agency isn’t doing enough to regulate the oil and gas industry.
In short:
- Christi Craddick highlights her achievements in streamlining oil and gas permitting, opposing federal regulations and supporting industry growth.
- Opponents criticize Craddick’s oversight, citing weak environmental protections and a lack of transparency in public meetings.
- Key issues include plugging orphan wells, pipeline safety and the agency's overall role in safeguarding groundwater.
Key quote:
“We need to protect our water, and we need to do whatever is possible to make sure that we are not threatening any of our groundwater and our drinking water across the state.”
— Katherine Culbert, Democratic candidate for Texas Railroad Commission.
Why this matters:
Texas is the largest oil-producing state in the U.S., and the Texas Railroad Commission’s decisions directly impact environmental safety, water quality and the state’s role in climate change mitigation.
Related: Texas debates over new oil and gas waste rule heat up
Opposing fracking cost one Colombian activist her mental health. She’s fighting to win it back.
"At some point, they will kill you and kill all of us," environmental leader Yuvelis Natalia Morales Blanco was told.
This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.
Yuvelis Natalia Morales Blanco, a Colombian environmental advocate, received her first death threat at 19. Now 23, Morales Blanco, the public face of the country’s youth-led fight against fracking, finds herself at a crucial intersection: Not only does she live in the most dangerous country in the world to be an environmental leader, but also, according to a 2021 global survey, she belongs to an age group disproportionately affected by the psychological burdens of the climate crisis — a crisis that, in turn, will hit rural communities in the Global South like hers the hardest.
To read a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.
Colombia has been embroiled in a fierce debate over the future of fossil fuel extraction, specifically whether to utilize fracking or hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting a high-pressure liquid into rocks to extract oil or gas. In 2019, then-President Iván Duque announced four pilot projects to determine fracking’s viability on a large scale — two of which were slated for Morales Blanco’s hometown, Puerto Wilches, a small community in the country’s northeast corner, on the banks of the Magdalena River. Attempts to ban the practice have failed in Congress, and although the projects are at a temporary standstill, they could restart if political winds shift in the 2026 presidential election.
In an interview, Morales Blanco, the daughter of a fisherman, details her fight to stop fracking in Puerto Wilches and nationwide, her struggles with mental health following years of persistent threats and violence, and the lack of recognition and institutional support available to environmental leaders.
This firsthand account includes graphic references to violence and self-harm. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
In 2019, a group of local kids, college students, came and invited [my friends and me] to a meeting. In the eyes of everyone else in town, they were social outcasts. A community leader told me, “Yuve, don’t go. Think about your mother … it’s dangerous.”
I didn’t go, but I saw pictures of the event and they had signs that read, “Say No to Fracking.” Fracking? I had no idea. Then, my Facebook homepage started filling with stuff about it and a group called Fracking Free Colombia Alliance started calling for meetings. I started going because I wanted to understand. It touched on everything I’ve always cared about — protecting our biodiversity, our river, and our town.
We were leaving after the second or third meeting, and a man and woman passed by. They saw we were really happy, full of energy, and they told us, “You’re gonna get yourselves killed.” Our mindset changed. It wasn’t a playful thing anymore. I’m from a town where people are killed, and they tally the numbers. The idea of us being little heroes [by being activists, by stopping fracking] crumbled from then on.
---------
Doing this work, I discovered abilities in myself that I didn’t know I had — leadership, instant planning, being resourceful. Things that start to awaken in you, I guess, and I said, “This is it.” That’s how Agua Wil, the youth movement against fracking in Puerto Wilches, was born.
We started doing door-to-door promotion, going to all the neighborhoods, and talking to everyone. It was two weeks of almost no sleep. There was never a moment of sadness because there was a very beautiful sentiment, as if of fraternity, very veintejulístico [a reference to Colombia’s independence day on July 20], very of “this homeland that is ours!”
Fracking’s potential link to health risks is drawing more scrutiny
Public health experts are raising concerns about the potential dangers of fracking, citing studies that link gas drilling to serious health conditions like cancer and respiratory problems in Southwestern Pennsylvania.
In short:
- Studies from the University of Pittsburgh and Yale show that children living near fracking sites have a higher risk of cancers and respiratory illnesses.
- Industry groups dispute the findings, arguing that there is no conclusive evidence of fracking's harm and that it has reduced air pollutants.
- Local residents and advocates, however, continue to push for stricter regulations to protect community health.
Key quote:
“Look, we have enough scientific and medical studies, we have enough data to say fracking is dangerous, and the closer you live to it, the higher the risk to you and your family.”
— Ned Ketyer, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania
Why this matters:
Communities living near fracking sites may be exposed to hazardous chemicals that can increase their risk of serious health issues. Despite the mounting evidence, regulation has lagged, and the potential long-term health impacts remain a critical concern.
Read EHN journalist Kristina Marusic's work on this topic:
In the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, new poll finds 90% of respondents support stricter fracking regulations
“Pennsylvanians are deeply ambivalent about fracking.”
PITTSBURGH — Nine in ten Pennsylvanians support stricter regulations on the fracking industry, while 42% would support an outright ban on fracking, according to a new poll.
During a U.S. presidential election cycle where it’s been assumed that presidential candidates must be pro-fracking to win votes in the swing state of Pennsylvania, these results highlight that Pennsylvania voters have a more nuanced view of the industry.
“Pennsylvanians are deeply ambivalent about fracking,” Sean O’Leary, a senior researcher with the Ohio River Valley Institute, the progressive think tank that commissioned the polling, said in a statement. “They see and experience the noise and pollution. They fear for their health and the health of their families.”
The poll, conducted by Upswing Research, a progressive political research and strategy company, surveyed 700 likely voters from across Pennsylvania and across the political spectrum about various issues, including the presidential election, fracking and renewable energy development. The findings are similar to what previous polls have found about Pennsylvanians’ views on fracking.
Credit: Upswing/Ohio River Valley InstituteFracking Survey Analysis
According to the new poll, more than 4 in 10 (42%) Pennsylvanians support an outright ban on fracking, and nearly half of Pennsylvanians say they’re opposed to or unsure about fracking.
The survey also found that:
- 82% of Pennsylvanians are concerned about air pollution
- 86% are concerned about water pollution
- 79% are concerned about the impacts of pollution on health
Credit: Upswing/Ohio River Valley InstituteFracking Survey Analysis
It’s been about a year since the Pennsylvania’s department of health published a series of studies on health and fracking that linked living near oil and gas wells with increased risk of childhood cancer, asthma and low birth weights. Recently, residents called on state officials to do more to protect the health of Pennsylvanians.
Despite the health concerns, Pennsylvanians remain split on whether natural gas is an important energy source. Even if more than half of respondents (51%) said that “instead of fracking, PA should be investing in other renewable energies like wind, solar and nuclear,” more than half of all respondents (58%) still said fracking “should be encouraged to provide a cheaper source of energy,” and that fracking is “an important part of the clean energy transition” (59%).
Support and opposition to fracking were generally split along party lines in the poll, with Democrats more likely to support a ban on fracking and increased renewable energy, while Republicans were more likely to support the practice.
Support for stronger fracking regulations was more evenly distributed. While 90% of respondents across the political spectrum said they’d support increasing the distance between fracking wells and schools and hospitals, support was even higher for other health-protective measures: 92% of respondents said they’d support more air monitoring near well sites, 93% said they’d support requirements for safer transport of fracking waste, and 94% said they’d support more public disclosure of drilling chemicals.
Credit: Upswing/Ohio River Valley InstituteFracking Survey Analysis
These safety measures were among the regulatory changes proposed as part of a grand jury investigation on the health effects of fracking that was completed in 2020 by then-attorney general Josh Shapiro, who now serves as governor of Pennsylvania. Environmental health advocates have expressed frustration over Shapiro’s shifting stance on fracking since he became governor.
In 2023, Shapiro launched a partnership with CNX corporation, a Pittsburgh-headquartered fracking company, which involves the company performing air and water quality monitoring at 14 of its approximately 500 fracking sites in Pennsylvania and disclosing some of the chemicals it uses at those wells. But advocates have complained that the company, which has been cited for more than 2,000 environmental violations by state regulators and convicted of lying about its air emission data, can’t be trusted to monitor itself. The recently published polling suggests that Pennsylvania voters agree with this view, with more than half of respondents (58%) saying that they “distrust fracking companies to self-report environmental and public health impacts of their industry.”
Does fracking really provide jobs and drive economic growth?
Research conducted by the Ohio River Valley Institute suggests the fracking boom has done little to boost local economies in Appalachia. Since the beginning of the Appalachian fracking boom in 2008, the 22 largest gas producing counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia have lost a collective 10,000 jobs and nearly 50,000 residents, even as gas production far outpaced industry expectations, according to the Ohio River Valley Institute. As of 2021, oil and gas industry jobs comprised just 1.44% of total jobs in Pennsylvania.
Other research has made similar findings about the ultimate economic costs and benefits of fracking.
Despite the data, the debate about the local costs and benefits of fracking often focuses on jobs and economic development. In a recent example, a political television ad from Republican Senate candidate Dave McCormick that’s frequently airing in the state claims that Vice President Harris would make hundreds of thousands of fracking-dependent jobs in Pennsylvania “disappear.”
That ad has been dubbed “misleading” by Factcheck.org, both for claiming that Harris would ban fracking in Pennsylvania (she has said that she wouldn’t and U.S. presidents don’t hold the power to do that), and for the job figures it cites.
“Were it not for the barrage of unfounded claims from state policymakers that the industry is an engine for jobs, opposition [to fracking] would be even greater,” O’Leary said.
The Pennsylvania Senate debate spotlights fracking, clean energy and steel industry issues
During their first Senate debate, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Dave McCormick sparred over fracking, clean energy investments and the sale of U.S. Steel, accusing each other of distorting the facts.
In short:
- McCormick falsely claimed that Pennsylvania lost energy dominance due to restrictive fracking policies, despite natural gas production soaring since Casey’s election.
- Casey defended his consistent support for fracking and his vote against a ban, countering McCormick’s accusation of dishonesty.
- McCormick also incorrectly blamed environmental regulations for U.S. Steel’s decision to invest in Arkansas instead of Pennsylvania.
Key quote:
“I supported legislation just two years ago that made the greatest investment in clean energy in American history, allowing us to combat climate change, and at the same time, have supported an all-the-above energy strategy for Pennsylvania.”
— Bob Casey, Democratic Senate candidate
Why this matters:
Energy policy is crucial in Pennsylvania, a major natural gas producer. The debate highlighted ongoing tension between supporting fossil fuels, transitioning to clean energy and addressing environmental regulations. Voters need clarity on how each candidate's approach will impact jobs and climate goals.
Related EHN coverage:
Pennsylvania Senate candidates face tough questions on climate and energy
Pennsylvania’s Senate candidates, Bob Casey and Dave McCormick, will debate on Oct. 3, with key questions expected on climate change, energy and fracking.
In short:
- Bob Casey supports regulated fracking but faces scrutiny from environmentalists who argue fracking is unsafe.
- Dave McCormick calls for increased fossil fuel production despite acknowledging climate change, raising concerns about global warming.
- Both candidates are likely to address the future of Pennsylvania’s role in the clean energy economy during the debate.
Why this matters:
Pennsylvania is a battleground for energy policy, with large fracking operations and growing pressure to transition to clean energy. The debate will spotlight how the candidates plan to balance economic growth with urgent climate goals.
Learn more: A new book argues the right way to discuss climate change