I am Lisa Song, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from InsideClimate News, and I just spent 8 months investigating fracking in Texas. AMA!

1) Just how bad is the environmental situation with fracking? Is it really as bad as the environmentalist special interest groups claim, or is it as safe as the oil companies claim, or is it in between or even worse?

2) There is a minor fault line running through Texas- does that change the situation compared to other parts of the country involved in fracking?

1) I don't think we can answer that until we have more monitoring and research--which is what scientists and public health officials have pushed for for years. But in the Eagle Ford, the state recorded ~300 complaints from local residents since Jan 2010 related to oil/gas development. And out of those complaints, regulators issued 164 notices of violation (as of Nov. 19).

2) We didn't look into earthquakes/wastewater injection.

Do you consider a hamburger to be a type of sandwich, or an entity of its own?

Definitely a sandwich. But I'm vegetarian, so don't trust my judgment. (We'll investigate the hamburger conundrum in our next project).

Did you get any resistance in doing your research? By that i mean did anybody from the oil/gas/fracking industry try to keep information from you? Or did they try to block your investigation? If yes, how?

We made numerous requests with both individual oil/gas development companies as well as with organizations representing the industry in Texas for information. By and large we got no response. We asked for tours of oil/gas facilities so that we could understand the drilling/fracking/processing techniques in the field. All were declined. Only a few industry representatives agreed to phone interviews--most asked for questions in writing.

Hi there!

Can you give me idea of the obstacles you faced?

The biggest obstacle: Texas operators and regulators wouldn't grant us face-to-face interviews, and made us put most of our questions in writing. Being forced to put questions in writing is bad for journalism--it doesn't allow for give and take or the natural flow of conversation--something that's crucial for complex subjects like public health, science, regulations.

Lisa, can you talk about how local and state jurisdictions come into play when it comes to approving fracking operations? In other words, about how many officials/agencies/private entities in Texas sign off on any given shale project?

The state controls drilling permits and air quality, but local jurisdictions have some control. It all depends on where you are. Dallas won't allow drilling within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, etc. Counties like Karnes, La Salle and McMullen in the Eagle Ford don't have those same protections.

Is the state of Texas more concerned with protect its citizens, or the oil and gas industry?

We talked with sources both supportive and critical of the industry and Texas regulators. Critics made arguments that the state is a cheerleader for the industry and fails in its responsibility to protect people. A Texas Tech University political science professor told us health issues faced by people who live in drilling areas—not just in Texas but throughout the United States—simply don’t carry enough weight to counterbalance the financial benefits derived from oil and gas development. State regulators defended their record by saying they are proactive in monitoring emissions from the industry and have regulations in place that ensure the public is protected.

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for doing the AMA. What do you think is the best way to affect public perception of fracking? Is apathy or misinformation the biggest obstacle?

Thanks!

I think the biggest obstacle is lack of information. The secrecy surrounding fracking chemicals is well-known. In our investigation, we found that Texas knows very little about the air quality in the Eagle Ford, so residents aren't getting the answers they need. A lot of scientists/health experts are pushing for better monitoring and research in places with drilling.

Are there precautions that these fracking companies are taking? I would imagine there are some sort of regulations put in place? There is a big push for it here in Wisconsin and there are many people for it (jobs) but many against it.

The regulations vary dramatically from state to state. Colorado has some of the strongest air regulations. The EPA has federal regulations on using "green completions" to reduce emissions during fracking, but they only apply to natural gas wells starting Jan. 2015. Since most of the wells in the Eagle Ford are oil wells (that also produce natural gas), it won't apply there. There are also voluntary things companies can do to reduce pollution--building pipelines to reduce flaring, for example. The voluntary measures depend on the company and what they choose to do at each site.

One of my pet peeves have been compressor stations.

Were emissions from them checked along with noise levels? Also were blowdowns monitored and the release of gathered H2S there monitored?

Compressor stations can be a major source of emissions. They're included in our air emissions diagram--if you want more info, see http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/images/FrackingEmissions800px.png

Is there anyplace you're aware of that regulations are adequate?

Would you want fracking/drilling in your backyard?

We only looked at Texas, but found there are big differences even within the state. Residents in parts of the Barnett Shale, in north Texas, have stricter air quality regulations than residents in the rest of the state (including Eagle Ford).

Would you say that Texas allows more lax regulations in the Eagle Ford compared to the Barnett due to population density?

From an outsider point of view it appears that TRRC has taken an "whatever it takes to get it done cheapest" approach and gives industry exactly what they want.

The population density is one factor, but not the only one. Our research shows the demographic differences are also important--people in the Eagle Ford have fewer resources and less political power than residents in the Barnett. In the words of a former regulator quoted in the story, "Let's be blunt. That is not really a body of voters that the power structure in Austin [the state capital] has any real concern about."

Judging by your verification pic, that is one antiseptically clean office you are posting from. I thought journalism was a messy business.

Where's the pizza boxes? Where's the whiskey bottles?

I have candy wrappers under my desk, hidden from view. Does that count?

Can you publish the known chemicals that fracking uses?

There are hundreds of them. I don't know of a comprehensive list. Some are VOCs, acids, cleaning chemicals, etc. Methanol is one of the more toxic ones. BTEX too--benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene.

FracFocus has a list of some of the chemicals. The website is a place where companies voluntarily disclose chemicals that they use. http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

Many are chemicals that the industry claims are proprietary, so they don't disclose them.

What's the worst short term and long term consequence of fracking?

From an air quality standpoint, in the Eagle Ford, short term would be a big dose of hydrogen sulfide. It could knock someone out or even kill you--it's a danger for workers, definitely. Long term would be prolonged exposure to chemicals like benzene that can cause cancer. But we won't know the long-term effects in the Eagle Ford for years or decades.

Are the dangers from fracking more from chemicals used or that have sat dormant deep in the earth and dredged up?

Also, did you do any research into the fracking going on in Canada in comparison to the us?

There are toxic chemicals in fracking fluids and the naturally-occurring produced water. I don't know of any conclusive research on which one is more toxic--it would depend on the local geology, the formation, and what's in the fracking fluid used for each well.

And, we didn't look into Canada. Just Texas, and a bit of research on Colorado's air regs (which are stronger than Texas')

How did you get into this career since graduating MIT? What drives you in this quest to shed light on the fracking industry?

Also, I want to share this amazing BBC blog article I just read about how the tradition of journalism was revived in the early 1900's and led to numerous antitrust litigation that showed citizens how much power they have and led to huge positive change: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/WHAT-THE-FLUCK

I realized I didn't want to be a scientist, but I liked writing about science. So I did the MIT graduate program in science writing, a master's program. That got me into journalism and out of the lab...

What was MIT like? And are you sitting in a giant chair or are you just that small?

MIT was busy, and insane. And yes, that is a very large chair.

Did anyone try and block your research as you conducted it? Were there obvious roadblocks they created for you?

Look at the answers to Qs from GooLuster and schoshdiver