Proof fracking has contaminated water with diesel.

Let me remind you once again:

Please see the pre fracking water test that shows Tim and Christine Ruggiero’s water was clean and safe.

Please see the post fracking water test that shows Tim and Christine Ruggiero’s water was contaminated with high levels of MTBE.

MTBE is an additive used in diesel fuel.


About Sharon Wilson

Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.


  1. Alberta Neighbor says

    Now you see it, now you don’t …

    “NOTE TO EDITORS: This report was initially scheduled for public release on June 19, 2014, but EIP postponed the release until August 13 and revised the report when the organization learned that drilling companies had been changing their disclosures in the FracFocus database.

    The updated report addresses the systemic problem raised by the fact that drilling companies have free reign to remove indications of past diesel use without explaining or justifying such changes.”

  2. meanonomus says

    These fracking concoctions may have all kinds of chemical waste products—it’s a cheap way for the chemical plants to dispose of their waste–sell it to the frackers.

  3. Alberta Neighbor says

    Personally, I think companies and their employees who INTENTIONALLY frac into communities’ drinking water supplies, with diesel and all the other shit, should be charged with domestic terrorism.

    “… Fracking into underground drinking water sources is not prohibited by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempted the practice from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. But the industry has long held that it does not hydraulically fracture into underground sources of drinking water because oil and gas deposits sit far deeper than aquifers.

    … The study, however, found that energy companies used acid stimulation, a production method, and hydraulic fracturing in the Wind River and Fort Union geological formations that make up the Pavillion gas field and that contain both natural gas and sources of drinking water.

    ‘Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and millions of gallons of fluids containing numerous inorganic and organic additives were injected directly into these two formations during hundreds of stimulation events,’

    … ‘The extent and consequences of these activities are poorly documented, hindering assessments of potential resource damage and human exposure,’ DiGiulio wrote. … ‘If the water isn’t being used now, it doesn’t mean it can’t be used in the future,’ said DiGiulio, a Stanford research associate who recently retired from the Environmental Protection Agency. ‘That was the intent of identifying underground sources of drinking water: to safeguard them.’

    The EPA documented in 2004 that fracking into drinking water sources had occurred when companies extracted natural gas from coal seams. But industry officials have long denied that the current oil and gas boom has resulted in fracking into drinking water sources because the hydrocarbon deposits are located in deeper geological formations.

    … DiGiulio and Jackson plotted the depths of fracked wells, as well as domestic drinking water wells in the Pavillion area.

    They found that companies used acid stimulation and hydraulic fracturing at depths of the deepest water wells near the Pavillion gas field, at 700 to 750 feet, far shallower than fracking was previously thought to occur in the area.

    ‘It’s true that fracking often occurs miles below the surface,’ said Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford.

    ‘People don’t realize, though, that it’s sometimes happening less than a thousand feet underground in sources of drinking water.’

    … Jackson said the Stanford study’s findings underscore the need for better monitoring of fracking at shallower depths. ‘You can’t test the consequences of an activity if you don’t know how common it is,’ he said. ‘We think that any fracking within a thousand feet of the surface should be more clearly documented and face greater scrutiny.’

    … Industry and the state of Wyoming questioned the EPA’s methodology after its 2011 draft report found the presence of chemicals associated with gas production in residents’ well water.

    In June 2013, the EPA turned over the study to Wyoming regulators, whose work is being funded by EnCana, the company accused of polluting the water in Pavillion.

    The EPA study looked at whether chemicals migrated upward from fracked geological zones into people’s well water.

    The Stanford research does not explore the possibility of migration, focusing instead on the injection of fracking chemicals directly into geological formations that contain groundwater.

    The EPA does not keep track of whether underground sources of drinking water have been hydraulically fractured as part of oil and gas development”