From a business perspective, the silica sand mining industry wasn’t worth fighting for in the Midwest — until fracking came along.

Fracking technology, which allows oil and gas companies to access oil and gas hidden below the earth’s surface in previously unattainable areas, has unleashed a new wave of drilling across the nation. The industry has allowed the U.S. to grow its crude oil output, which is now the highest it’s been since 1989 and is expected to lead to U.S. energy independence by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.

Yet in order for that to be accomplished, the fracking industry has to obtain the pieces of the puzzle necessary for drilling — and silica sand is key. This has led some Minnesota residents far from actual fracking sites to feel the impact of the oil and gas industry close to home.

“Southeast Minnesotans understand that the frac sand industry ultimately benefits oil and gas corporations, not our local communities,” Fillmore County resident Bonita Underbakke said in a press release.

The argument by the frac sand mining industry has centered around jobs, local economies and energy independence. Yet those living in the areas rich with frac sand have repeatedly refuted those claims, saying instead that local communities, many of which are based on tourism, don’t want silica sand mines around.

Those opposed to the industry claim the new mining operations are merely about furthering the immediate business goals of the sand mine industry — which is, after all, the industry’s top priority. “We don’t feel it’s about energy independence,” Land Stewardship Project Director Bobby King said during a February press conference. “It’s about them earning a short-term profit.”

Minnesota residents are expected to meet with the Environmental Quality Board Wednesday to discuss what they demand from an upcoming environmental impact statement.

Demanding answers

A Minnesota citizen advocacy group is releasing its own report on the environmental and health impacts of frac sand mines on air, water and health quality, following an unsuccessful campaign to convince legislators to do the same.

Residents in Southern Minnesota face 11 proposed frac sand mines, all projects being handled by Minnesota Sands, LLC. While state law requires an environmental impact statement for each mine before it is approved, residents have yet to see that from the state.

The purpose of the statements is, in part, to present the public with the state’s findings, which are approved by the Environmental Quality Board. Before the Board indicated it would conduct the study, Minnesota Sands, LLC volunteered to monitor itself for mine proposal sites in Winona County.

In March, the Environmental Quality Board issued a study on silica sand mining, indicating that “perhaps the best conclusion is that there is not enough known about the relatively recent phenomenon of the demand for silica sand for fracking regarding the long term effects of sand mining on local or regional communities.”

The report, handled by the Land Stewardship Project, aims to give residents what environmental impact statements are intended to deliver: information regarding health and environmental impacts before the project is approved.

“The citizen’s report released today served as the people’s scoping document, describing the specific impacts of the proposed project which must, at minimum, be studied if the EIS is to serve the public interest,” a press release issued by the Land Stewardship Project states.

The report, issued by Land Stewardship Project organizer Johanna Rupprecht, addresses the issues that have been on the minds of residents living in frac sand heavy zones from the beginning. Air quality, water contamination and possible health impacts have been the cause of concern.

“They have not yet come out with any of their own draft documents on what they say should be studied, so we’re just saying that people need to have a strong say on this from the beginning,” Rupprecht said. “It’s the local people who are going to be impacted who really need to have a say on what needs to be studied.”

Air, water, illness?

The citizens report does not assess the specific health impact resulting from silica sand exposure near mining sites, although it does highlight the potential health impacts exposure could create.

Silica sand exposure is known to lead to a number of health-related conditions and diseases, particularly silicosis. According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), exposure to silica particles can cause silicosis, a fatal lung disease that slowly damages the lung to the point of its demise. The disease, which sets in slowly, erodes the lung tissue, causing chronic coughing and breathing problems. Lung cancer is also listed as a concern among those working with silica sand mining.

Every year, 250 U.S. workers die from silica sand exposure and hundreds are disabled, according to OSHA and the Department of Labor.

“If you work, or you are an employer, in one of the dozens of industries where dust containing silica is present, you need to know how to prevent the disease,” former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich said in an undated letter addressed to workers in the industry.

OSHA requires those whose positions expose them to silica sand particles to take precautions, including protective equipment to prevent respiratory exposure.

There are no rules and regulations, however, for those living near frac sand mines, particularly those living in areas where clusters of mines exist.

Neighboring Wisconsin has served as the main point of study for Minnesota residents, as frac sand companies moved into the state without moratoriums on the industry. As a result, environmental impact studies of the industry as a whole were not conducted. Residents in Wisconsin are now warning their neighbors to the west to learn from their mistakes.

According to the report, “crystalline silica particles, generated through the fracturing of silica sand, have been found in ambient air near frac sand mining and processing sites, and neighbors of these sites in Wisconsin have experienced extreme levels of dust entering their homes.”

In 10 years, Wisconsin saw 120 frac sand-related mines appear. Regulations have existed for frac sand mining projects, but that was before the oil and gas industry began eyeing frac sand as a necessary component to the process. That’s what sparked the surge in frac sand mines — and the concern among residents caught in the midst of it.

A diverse set of water-related issues have been raised by Minnesotans. There’s concern over possible groundwater contamination through the mining process, and there’s also concern over excessive water use and the role it will play on aquifer depletion. Runoff from frac sand mines is also a topic residents have repeatedly asked be addressed.

Protecting the land has been a critical component for those living in the state’s bluff country. As seen in Iowa, frac sand mining has the potential of removing bluffs in the process of extracting the sand.

“Local residents make clear the need to preserve the land for future generations, and note that frac sand mining would negate the impacts of conservation efforts currently in place on land in the area,” the report states.

Farmers living near proposed sites are also standing up, questioning what the impact will be for pastures and cropland. Transportation to and from the mines in what are now quiet, pristine areas also present a concern — pollution and potential road repairs are part of the equation for residents.

“I worry about my health, my family’s welfare, the health of my animals, our food supply,” said Vince Ready, a farmer who lives just miles from a proposed mine in Saratoga Township. “I need the EQB [Environmental Quality Board], as public officials, to be looking out for the best interests of me and my community when they are studying the impacts of this proposal.”

Amy Nelson, a retired college provost living in Hay Creek, Minn., was among the state’s residents lobbying for a moratorium on the industry. Like many of her neighbors, the issue was complex — yet at the root of it was preserving the land that drew them to live there in the first place.

“It’s about protecting the land we love,” Nelson said in a previous interview with Mint Press News. “You should be able to sit at night and see the stars. It’s a tiny thing, but for many of us, it’s a huge deal.”