Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Vermont Becomes First State to Ban Fracking

Vermont just became the first state to ban hydraulic fracking. Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the bill on Wednesday. In addition to fracking, the bill also bans importing and storing wastewaster related to fracking.

"This bill will ensure that we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy," Shumlin told CNN. "The science behind fracking is "uncertain at best."

The bill passed partly because there is no fracking in Vermont. No one had planning to drill there in the future. Actually, some say Vermont may not have enough underground gas or shale rock deposits for fracking. 

Could other states follow? In states where fracking is common, it will be much harder to pass a fracking ban.

But the new bill alone could be a sign that people across the nation are starting to worry more about fracking. With horizontal drilling becoming more common, some people want fracking to stop until they know for sure that it's not hurting our drinking water.

We've heard reports where people have thought their water was contaminated, but it's still unclear what the real risks are.

It will be interesting to see how other states respond to Vermont's new fracking ban.

Read more about the ban here.

Posted by Ariel Brouillard on May 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Fri, Sep 14, 2012 Kiva

That's great news to hear that Vermont is taking a stand!

Wed, Aug 8, 2012

The science of hydraulic fracturing is well understood, just not by those who are against it regardless. Fracking does not occur in aquifers used for drinking water, how could it? Wells are cased well below any potable water source. I think the environmental impat is poorly understood by others on this site. To date are there any studies that definitively point to facking as a GW contamination source. Don't forget that coal bed methane can be threated through fracking and these deposits are often much nearer the surface.

Wed, Aug 8, 2012 Michael J McEachern United States

Vermont banning hydrofracking is merely a symbolic gesture since there is little to no oil or gas development potential there. Same for New Jersey where they banned hydrofracking, sort of like banning whaling in Utah.

Wed, Aug 1, 2012 Dak Kol Detroit

To deny that geological changes impact local geology is, as "draconian" states above, arrogance motivated by public pressure, 40 *** growth and corporate profit. The public demand natural gas and fuels in ignorance of the environmental impact. Doubtless many would stubbornly move to destroy the environment and poison their own life-giving water supply just to have transportation and warmth, but they should be allowed to make such a decision with full cognizance of the impacts (with no sugar coating).

Mon, Jul 9, 2012 King Neece US

Easily remove radiation from any water source Our University of Alabama patented solar desalination product uses no electricity, has no filters to replace, can be taken anywhere and extracts pure water from any contaminated water source. It removes radiation, fluoride, salt, pesticides, bacteria, dirt and other contaminants from any water. It aids people to be prepared for disasters. Made tough in the U.S.A. Please visit us: http://freshwater.ecogreenenergies.com

Tue, Jul 3, 2012

Fracking has been done in Michigan for over 50 years with no detrimental environmental effects. See MDEQ website for more information.

Wed, Jun 27, 2012 Pittsburgh, PA

That is OUTSTANDING! More E&P, more jobs, more production for Pennsylvania.

Tue, Jun 26, 2012

Smart albeit a draconian move. For once - let's let true science drive a decision rather than corporate business plans or profit margins. A business colleague hydro fracked his potable drinking water well to improve yield from 7 gpm to now well over 20 gpm. Within 6 months two adjacent neighbors noticed diminished recharge in their wells and one was pulling up well fines . His wellhead was hit by lightning and was out of commission for several months while they were away from the house overseas. Both neighbors slowly experienced improved well yields within 2 months of his well's pump being down. Unlikely this cause/effect is pure coincidence. In my field as a geotech engineer, I've worked for years on sites to recover and remediate contaminated wells from historical dumping/discharge and ground water injection frequently located more than a mile away from the contaminated sites - So, to think that chemical additives in gas frack wells are not wending their way to neighboring drinking water wells located down gradient hydrologically is pure ignorance - no not ignorance - arrogance and folly with long-term repercussions!

Tue, Jun 26, 2012

Smart albeit a draconian move. For once - let's let true science drive a decision rather than corporate business plans or profit margins. A business colleague hydro fracked his potable drinking water well to improve yield from 7 gpm to now well over 20 gpm. Within 6 months two adjacent neighbors noticed diminished recharge in their wells and one was pulling up well fines . His wellhead was hit by lightning and was out of commission for several months while they were away from the house overseas. Both neighbors slowly experienced improved well yields within 2 months of his well's pump being down. Unlikely this cause/effect is pure coincidence. In my field as a geotech engineer, I've worked for years on sites to recover and remediate contaminated wells from historical dumping/discharge and ground water injection frequently located more than a mile away from the contaminated sites - So, to think that chemical additives in gas frack wells are not wending their way to neighboring drinking water wells located down gradient hydrologically is pure ignorance - no not ignorance - arrogance and folly with long-term repercussions!

Thu, Jun 21, 2012 Mike PA

Seems like a NIMBY move. Doubtful that they will refuse lower costs on natural gas that is recovered using that process. Not a big fan of this either, but I can't overlook the economic benefits. Would prefer the process be controlled and regulated rather than 'big oil' saying trust me.

Wed, Jun 6, 2012

Any state, town ,village or city that bans fracking should not be allowed to purchase natural gas for any use!

Tue, Jun 5, 2012 Mark Michigan

Hello: Nothing impressive about this. As the article sort of indicates, Vermont doesn't have any subsurface gas or oil deposits of note. It doesn't hurt to "ban" something when nobody was planning to use it anyway. It was a "feel good" thing. I don't think any other States are really going to do this, especially if they have recoverable source of petroleum products.

Tue, Jun 5, 2012

Some folks are easily impressed. Why don't they ban the import/use of gas produced by fracking - now that would be impressive. But I doubt they want to be cold this winter. ...and very energy source comes with dangers.

Thu, May 31, 2012 Rebecca Dallas

Way to go, Vermont! Hopefully, more states will follow.

Tue, May 29, 2012 Roxy | Fracking Lawyer http://frackinginjurylaw.com/fracking-lawyer/

This is definitely an impressive step that other states should follow. Fracking comes with dangers and banning it can spare people from so much inconvenience.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above