Jun 29
2009

From Calvin Tillman’s blog:  http://www.baddish.blogspot.com/

When taking over as mayor of DISH, the first question that was asked by the local media outlets was to respond to the fact that our property values as a whole had decreased considerably from the past year. This is where small towns and cities get the bulk of their funding, through taxes on these property values. Therefore, if the taxable value goes down, naturally the revenue for the town does as well. Now I must say that I am opposed to unnecessary taxation, and therefore have done everything I can to make the taxes here the lowest in the area, and succeeded. However, the town has doubled in size over the last couple of years, yet the taxable value continued to drop. This baffled me how essentially the total value of the town drops every year, while were experiencing massive growth.

Not only did it baffle me, but it concerned me. As most small towns do, we use the county tax assessor’s office to perform the tax collection service for us, so they were my first call. When they explained the mineral values were the cause of this drop, and that was sixty percent of our tax base, I was again stunned. As you know we are located in the middle of the Barnett Shale, and have had a great deal of exploration in this area. So what would cause the values to continue to drop? This was also during the timeframe when natural gas prices were climbing to all time record highs.

As I investigated the source of the decline in my town it all started to become apparent. The property values not tied to minerals have continued to drop. I believe this is mostly due to the massive natural gas compressors, pipelines and metering stations. They have all but made the surface property here worthless; however, that does not account for the minerals which is over half of our taxable values. I then found that on average, each well drilled loses fifty percent of its production after the first year. That is a huge drop in production in only one year. So that tells me that the only way to maintain the same mineral value is to drill fifty percent more wells every year. So if you have ten wells this year, you would need to drill five more next year just to maintain the same production.

Many of the local cities have went on a sort of spending spree with the new found wealth from the natural gas minerals, and are now finding themselves in a financial crunch. The facts that I taught myself through this simple question from an intuitive reporter has made a world of difference on how I approached this problem here in DISH. We are frugal at best here, making the most of every dollar we get. We have cut the town debt in half, built a massive park, a library, repaved roads and performed substantial upgrades to town facilities and done this while lowering taxes and not dipping into the emergency fund we have in only two years.

To the real point, is what do minerals play into all of this? As previously mentioned we have over half of our tax dollars that come from the minerals, more specifically the revenue we received in 2007 was made up of 56% mineral values, in 2008 that number jumped to 64%. We have not gotten the completed numbers for 2009, but they will likely be similar. The dollar figures for this are 14, 500,000 in 2007 and 22,277,000 in 2008 in property values from mineral.

On the surface the benefit from this industry seems huge. We are a small town and they double our value. But I also compare this to the drug “heroin”, due to seeing the other towns which have gotten addicted to th e drug and when the drug goes away, (when they price of natural gas goes down 75% as it has), they find themselves in a financial crisis. Also, most people do not take into account how much it costs to have this activity going on. I can only explain what goes on in DISH, TX, but will attempt to explain the drugs side affects.

First and foremost this exploration destroys roads, which are very expensive to maintain and replace. None of the existing roads were designed to withstand the constant pounding from an 80,000 pound waste-water truck. Nor were they designed to handle the larger equipment that is used to drill and refracture the wells. To build roads to handle this traffic can cost millions of dollars.

If the municipality owns the roads, they can force the companies to sign a road use agreement, which forces them to pitch in and help the roads. Most of the cities in the area have agreements like this in place. If they do not, then they are foolish, and are likely costing20their taxpayers a great deal of money by not forcing the companies to pay. However, the drilling companies are going to take whatever measures they can to keep from paying damages to the roads. The City of Argyle found out the hard way when they were sued by XTO over road work.

Here in DISH many of the roads are not owned by the town. This is both good and bad; it is good because we don’t have to pay for the major upkeep of these roads. However, if we don’t own the road we don’t have much control either. For example, we have implemented a weight restriction on all of the roads that we do own, but we can not enforce this on roads that we do not own. Unfortunately, the county does not have the capability to force these companies to have road agreements and pay for what they destroy. Therefore, the replacement and repairs come from the general taxation, or bond elections, not directly from the gas companies. So as you might guess it is a juggling match20for the counties to keep the roads drivable for the average vehicle.

One example of that is Eakin Cemetery Road, which goes through part of DISH, but is owned by the county. A pipeline was being installed in this area, and the equipment used in this process is massive. Please note that the pipelines must be included in the cost of this exploration, even though they contribute little to the towns or property owners, and take a lot in return. I will discuss how bad they hurt the towns later.

When this line went in the companies used Eakin Cemetery Road to access the route. They completely destroyed this road and virtually made in impassible for the average vehicle. You could literally see the grooves where the truck tires that hauled massive equipment went. The pavement was cracked and torn from this equipment and the pipeline companies did nothing to prevent or repair this. And though the county does work hard to keep the roads in reasonable shape, when something like this happens in takes a while to plan the repair; therefore, the citizens here were forced to drive on the impassible road for quite a while until repairs were made.

There is another impact that can be recognized quickly, and that is the affect that the exploration has directly on surface values. I am sure that there are some who believe the propaganda and are fine with having a well or pipeline in their front yard. However, regardless of what you may have heard, they are the exception not rule, especially if you have a small population of mineral owners in your community. The average person will not purchase the property right next to a well site or compressor, providing they are made aware of it. Unfortunately, most of the mineral owners in this area have kept the minerals and moved on to someplace else. However, when they have tried to sell their property with wells and pipelines on them, it has not been successful.

Although you may see a boost in your tax rolls for the short term, you will pay in the long run with the drop in property values. For a small growing community like DISH it especially provides an obstacle for quality growth. There have been four large tracts of property for sale in DISH for several years with no real interest in purchasing the property. If you do manage to get some interest in the property, it will likely be something like a pipeyard or something else that continues to devalue the surrounding property. So getting quality growth in an area that has a large amount of exploration proves to be a large hurdle if not impossible.

The above paragraph dealt with the exploration of the mineral, now we must consider the pipelines, and appurtenances to these pipelines, such as compressors or metering stations. These facilities have dealt us a very harsh blow without giving much in return. This is highlighted by a previous illustration of the pipeyard. The gentleman who unfortunately lives next door to this compressor site sold off a piece of property to a developer who built 18 homes that average around $200,000 each. However, after the compressors were there, he has not been able to give his property away. He was only able to lease some of it to a company that stores pipe. That is the best he can do now, and that in itself is very low quality growth and makes the area even less desirable.

Another illustration that has been used by me before is the gentleman who has had 63 acres for sale now for several years. He purchased the property as an investment, and now has three pipelines and an above ground valve. He can not give this property away. As he reaches retirement age his retirement has been stolen from him. This is no different than Enron or any other scandal, only it has been made legal thievery. There are two other pieces of property that have been for sale for several years, one of which is a large parcel of about 70 acres and the other is about 10=2 0acres.

The above examples are heart wrench when you look at how much it has cost the property owners, and only one of the above mentioned owners has any substantial mineral interest. Therefore, they others are merely victims of circumstance. However, as this gets to the point of whether this all is really worth it, I believe that if all of these property were sold and developed it would add somewhere around $20,000,000 in property values, which is more than the average in mineral values over the last few years. I also believe this is a very conservative estimation, it could be more.

So would you rather have homes than minerals? Homes in theory will increase in value over the long term while minerals will drop. Although, this has not been case the last couple of years, in the long term this has held true. Also, natural gas is a commodity, and its prices are much more volatile than housing. For example=2 0in the last couple of years the lowest price of natural gas is about 25% of the highest; therefore, you have seen a 75% drop in prices in a little over a year.

In DISH we have focused on overcoming the boom and trying to get quality development. We have worked with a number of developers to annex their property into the city. All three of the major annexations we have had since I became mayor, have been solely to protect them from the development of the minerals and total destruction of the surface values that accompany it. This is not saying that we do not allow drilling; we just force the companies to do it responsibly. We have a pad site that is right in the middle of one of these subdivisions and it really does not look that bad. It is lined with an eight foot concrete fence and most of the stuff inside including the tanks is not visible beyond the fence. However, the companies will only do this when they are forced too, they will not volunteer it.

So how about all those mineral owners who have gotten filthy rich? Here in DISH there have been some folks who have made a great deal of money on the minerals. However, most of them had lived here their while life, and had property handed down over the generations, otherwise they only have a small portion of the mineral rights. Therefore, there are only a few that are still alive that have a major portion of the mineral rights, and as previously stated most of them have moved away to someplace that they do not have to deal with the mess that is left behind.

This area was the beginning of the Barnett Shale, if I am not mistaken the first gas producing well in the Barnett Shale, was within 20 miles of DISH. Therefore, the minerals were purchased several years ago, and the leases were quite low in comparison to the massive leases signed last summer. The lease here is somewhere around 16% royalties with anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 per acre, not the 25% and $25,000 per acre that have been publicized.

So what does the 16% royalty get you? From what I understand, for someone who owns four acres and has a quarter of the mineral rights, they average less than a $100 a month. Therefore, if you have one acre with 100% of the minerals you would get something similar. Therefore, unless you have a massive amount of land with 100% of the minerals, you are not going to get much money. If you are part of the lease, you must also consider the truck traffic, odor, noise, and you just might be fortunate enough to have a high pressure gas pipeline run through your front yard. All of these things accompany the hundred bucks a month. I do not have any mineral rights, if anyone has another illustration please add it to this posting.

So to the point of, is the juice worth the squeeze? From my perspective as a small town mayor and a property owner, I say no! Not in the manner in which it is being done in Texas. I think that with minor regulation it could both provide the natural resources that we need as=2 0well as not totally destroying the surface values and destroying the growth of these areas. For example, there is no process in Texas for the laying or routing of pipelines. The pipeline companies can literally put them anywhere they want without concern for surface owners and other natural resources. Municipalities do have some limited control over the placement of the wells, but not the pipelines.

The items that were discussed were only the things that are easily recognized. I am still learning the affects on air and water quality and to explore the possible health of affects of this exploration. Although I have recently learned that the companies with the compressor site have learned a loophole that allows them to virtually go without regulation in regards to the air emissions they produce. I will share more on this subject as I figure out the specifics. I have the documents; I just have not digested everything yet.

This also does not include the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees it takes to offer the citizens some minor protection from these companies. Nor does it take into account the hundreds of hours of my time spent researching and campaigning for more regulation for no pay. So you must ask yourself; is the juice is worth the squeeze? I can support any statement that was made in this posting; therefore, if you have more specific questions, please let me know and I will clarify it for you. To those of you who have visited DISH, I doubt you have any questions in regards to the impact the Barnett Shale has had on us.

Calvin Tillman
Mayor, DISH, TX
(940) 453-3640

“Those who say it can not be done, should get out of the way of those that are doing it”

Tags: , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Bad Neighbors, Community Effects, Cost Externalization, General, Mean Energy, On the Bleeding Edge  


Jun 28
2009

From a blog post by Adam Federman at Earth Island Institute:

The NYT Tells Only Half The Story

An article published last week in the New York Times (“Estimate Places Natural Gas Reserves 35% Higher”) extols the potential virtues of a natural gas boom and, in particular, new technologies that have made it possible to profitably extract that gas from shale formations in the United States. The article reads like an industry power point presentation and, though it mentions environmental concerns (“Some environmental groups fear that hydraulic fracturing will pollute drinking water”), does not quote a single critic of the industry, glosses over the details of hydraulic fracturing, and trumpets the line that natural gas is a clean alternative to fossil fuels. While natural gas is relatively clean burning compared to coal and oil, the process of removing it from the earth is far from what most would consider clean or environmentally sound. Moreover, the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment remains highly controversial.

. . . . .

The New York Times, rather than present the arguments of those who are opposed to opening up certain areas to natural gas drilling, relies almost entirely on industry insiders and those connected with the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), a group of “academics and industry experts” supported by the Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines. Created in the 1960s, the Potential Gas Committee issues a review of the nation’s gas reserves every two years. This year they’ve made headlines with the estimate that the United States has 35 percent more natural gas reserves than previously thought. The Times article ran the day before the Committee’s report was released and fails to explore its connections to the gas industry, identifying it simply as “the authority on gas supplies.”

According to their website, the Committee currently has 105 members who contribute their time pro bono (“typically after work and on weekends”). They are primarily geologists and engineers “engaged in exploration for and development of natural gas.”

Though sales from the Committee’s reports cover some internal costs, the rest of the group’s funding comes in the form of “strings-free” contributions from a “diverse array of companies, organizations, and individuals that for whatever reason are interested in the Nation’s future supply of natural gas.” Given the actual makeup of the Committee’s sponsors, the phrase “for whatever reason” is rather telling.

Here are a few of the organizations that provide “strings-free” funding: Chesapeake Energy Corporation (one of the big players drilling in the Marcellus Shale), The Houston Exploration Company, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (also involved in Marcellus Shale drilling), Wolverine Gas and Oil Corporation, The American Gas Association, Duke Energy Field Services, GASCO Energy, Black Diamond Energy, White Eagle Exploration Inc., among others. Committee volunteers are affiliated (or have been affiliated) with many of the big industry players such as Halliburton, Schlumberger, Chevron, Shell, and Cabot Oil & Gas. Other organizations represented include the American Gas Association, The American Association of Professional Landmen, the World Petroleum Congress, and the World Energy Council.

Not surprisingly, on the day the report was released, the American Petroleum Institute issued its own statement arguing that the Committee’s work, “underscores the vital role of hydraulic fracturing, a production technology needed to develop shale gas,” even though the report has little to say on the issue of hydraulic fracturing. “Without hydraulic fracturing,” the API continues, “these crucial American-owned natural gas resources would likely remain in the ground.

Although the API is listed as a member affiliated with the Committee on the Committee’s website (http://geology.mines.edu/pgc/members.html), API Media Relations Manager Karen Matusic said in an email that they are “not a member of the Potential Gas Committee.” According to the PGC the API has been affiliated in the past but is not currently a member. In their statement, the API goes on to note that access to closed federal lands and offshore federal waters could help address global warming.

Times reporter Jad Mouawad echoes that argument, writing that, “The finding raises the possibility that natural gas could emerge as a critical transition fuel that could help to battle global warming.” He then briefly mentions the role hydraulic fracturing has played in opening up shale formations and describes the process as one in which “water is injected at high pressure into wells to shatter rocks deep underground, helping to release trapped gas [italics added].” Of course, that is only part of the story.

Hydraulic fracturing involves not only injecting millions of gallons of water into wells but sand and hundreds of chemicals, many of which have not been made public. The industry’s insistence that the chemicals used remain a trade secret has only contributed to skepticism among critics and environmentalists. If the process is clean and does not pose a threat to drinking water supplies, then what does the industry have to hide? If, as the industry claims, contamination of ground water and wells has not occurred why not release the list of chemicals it uses in fracking for public review?

Beyond the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing there are many other environmental issues that often go unmentioned. The massive wells required for hydraulic fracturing can stretch for over a half-mile in every direction. In the Catskills (where part of the Marcellus Shale is located) this is of particular concern because forests and farmland stand in the way of gas extraction. The region, much of which is designated forever wild, is mountainous and prone to flooding. Wetlands, the New York City Watershed (the largest unfiltered drinking water supply in the country), and the Upper Delaware Scenic area and Recreational River are also at risk.

Each time a well is fracked, between two and nine million gallons of water are needed. Each well may be fracked up to 6 or more times. The question of where the water will come from and where the wastewater (or produced water) will be stored is also an issue that must be addressed. There have been several cases of water contamination from poorly stored wastewater, which contains not only the chemicals injected into the well but also radioactive materials and heavy metals.

The New York Times article also leaves out what may be the most important development surrounding natural gas exploration in recent weeks: the possibility that the EPA will review its policy on hydraulic fracturing. EPA head Lisa Jackson recently told NY Rep. Maurice Hinchey that she thinks it would be a good idea for the agency to review environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. Colorado Representatives Diana DeGette and Jared Polis, along with Hinchey, have recently introduced a bill (the FRAC Act) that would close a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 2005 (the Halliburton Loophole) that exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulatory oversight. A matching Senate version has been supported by Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer.

“When it comes to protecting the public’s health, it’s not unreasonable to require these companies to disclose the chemicals they are using in our communities – especially near our water sources,” said DeGette in a June 9 statement. “Our bill simply closes an unconscionable Bush-Cheney loophole by requiring the oil and gas industry to follow the same rules as everyone else.”

. . . . .

Even as public awareness grows, however, the gas industry is pushing hard to convince Americans that natural gas is the solution to our energy problems and that closing the Halliburton Loophole will have potentially devastating consequences. It’s clean, they say, and it’s ours. We reduce our dependence on foreign oil and at the same time “battle global warming,” as the NYT puts it in rather grandiose fashion.

Rather than explain to its readers why the Potential Gas Committee (or its member volunteers) might have a vested interested in encouraging hydraulic fracturing as a new energy policy is hashed out in congress, the paper of record simply states that for “advocates of the gas industry, the report vindicates the potential of natural gas in the economy.” Then they close by quoting the managing director for policy analysis at the American Gas Association, Chris McGill, failing to mention that it is one of the institutions listed among the Committee’s volunteer members. Not only that but McGill himself, according to Committee program assistant Linda D’Epagnier is an observer with the PGC and, in his role (he’s been involved for several years), handles all press releases and acts more or less as a PR official for the organization. He’s also a Director on the board of the Potential Gas Agency. That’s a fact the Times should have pointed out.

For the complete blog post, visit:

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/how_neutral_is_the_potential_gas_committee/

Tags: , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Mean Energy, The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse  


Jun 28
2009

MB writes:

One thing that struck me as I read the bill

is that we have to guard against letting our own standards slip to
levels we would not have dreamed of accepting before we heard of this
drilling nightmare. For example, read the section on noise limits. It
says the noise cannot be at a level which can be heard indoors in
residences located on “adjacent property” (whatever that means)
between the hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. on weekdays and 6 p.m. to 10
a.m. on weekends. When I first read that, I thought, “Oh, that would
be an improvement.” And then I thought, “Wait a minute! That means
that for five days a week you can have 12 hours of noise that is
audible INSIDE your home, and that for the other 12 hours you can
still have noise that is audible outside the home (which presumably
means it will be audible if you have the nerve to open a window). And
then you can also have just slightly less noise on the weekend!”
Also–and this is very important–it seems to me that in order to be
truly effective, the section on controlling noise should be written
with very specific distances and decibel levels, not a bunch of
ambiguous terms like “adjacent property” and “audible
indoors.” (Audible to whom? Your deaf great-grandfather? The nice DEC
inspector? Hmmmm……)

What has happened here is that despite the fact that we own the gas
and the land, the gas industry has set the parameters for the
discussion. We start with their insane ideas of how the drilling
should be conducted and then desperately try to modify those insane
ideas to make them just a little bit less insane, instead of starting
with reasonable ideas from the reasonable people who actually own the
land and the gas–the people who live in the area, who have invested
their time, energy, and hard-earned dollars in the area, and who want
to be able to continue to live in the area for years to come.

Tags: ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Legislation, Mean Energy, The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse  


Jun 28
2009

From The Shreveport Times:

The ’stuff’ killed the cows, sheriff says

• Prator questions whether drilling company has reported incident.

By Vickie Welborn • vwelborn@gannett.com • June 25, 2009

That’s Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator’s assessment of what contributed to the deaths of 17 cows in late April near a natural gas drilling location south of Spring Ridge.

Until now, none of the state agencies involved in the ongoing inquiry into the incident has stated what caused the cattle to drop dead in Skipper Williams Jr.’s pasture on state Highway 169.

The deaths were reported at some point after a liquid leaked from the well, which was in the completion process, and pooled into a low area accessible to the cows. The substance later was determined to contain elevated chlorides, oil, grease and some organic compounds.

But no state agency took responsibility for testing the animals. Results from a necropsy performed by Williams’ private veterinarian are unavailable.

On Wednesday, Prator gathered representatives of his and Caddo District Attorney Charles Scott’s offices, the Caddo Commission, state police and the state Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and Agriculture and Forestry departments in one room to review all the reports connected to the incident.

“We went over for an hour exactly what everybody’s response was, and everybody’s response and cooperation was really good,” the sheriff said. “We responded to the scene well. When everyone found out about it we all worked together very well.

“We have determined — although no one agency except me will say this — by piecing everything together, there was a spill from the site that ran off of the site and that was ingested by the cows and that’s what caused the cows to die.”

State veterinarian Michael Barrington confirmed the cows’ deaths were neither natural nor caused by disease, a release from Prator’s office states.
. . . . .
Still undetermined is whether the spill was reported and, if so, whether it was reported in a timely manner. “We contend it should have been reported. And the timeliness of it we’re investigating,” Prator said.
. . . . .
State police, the sheriff’s office and Environmental Quality still are looking into the timeliness of the reporting. Findings of the sheriff’s office and state police will be turned over to Scott for review. Environmental Quality will move its report through its channels.

Environmental Quality was notified via its hotline when Chesapeake Energy learned of the dead cattle. And over the next 72 hours, the company worked with Schlumberger, the sheriff’s office and other agencies involved to investigate the incident, McCotter said.
. . . . .
“While Chesapeake, Schlumberger and others have conducted water and soil analysis, Chesapeake and Schlumberger have not had access to the cattle owners’ necropsy and toxicology reports and have, therefore, been unable to draw any conclusions as to the cause of the cattle deaths,” McCotter said.
. . . . .
“If at the time it happened proper notification had been made, there are chances cows would still be alive right now,” the sheriff said. “In this case, this was cows. How unfortunate. But what if it was children?”

For complete story, see: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20090625/NEWS01/906250326/0/L/The–stuff–killed-the-cows–sheriff-says

For an important post on gas drilling’s effects on livestock and farmers, see also:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/oil_and_gas_impacts_on_livesto.html

Tags: , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Bad Neighbors, Community Effects, Cost Externalization, Fraccidents, Mean Energy, On the Bleeding Edge, The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse  


Jun 27
2009

MB’s TOP TEN REASONS WHY STONE GAS DRILLING ROCKS

10. Creates jobs for road repair crews, EMTs, lawyers, nurses, physicians, marriage counselors, firefighters, law enforcement officers, & meth dealers & has added bonus of providing extra income for corrupt politicians

9. Drilling noise easily drowns out next-door neighbor’s kid’s garage band

8. Devastated landscape, loss of green space, & clouds of killer smog mean less hiking & biking & LOTS more time for TV

7. Eliminates hours of tedious trout fishing by “pre-killing” your catch

6. Flammable tap water livens up any party

5. Putting off the inevitable switch to renewable energy sources is the American way

4. Fulfills your California-dreamin’ fantasies by bringing earthquakes to YOUR home town

3. Makes slow & boring process of disintegration of the American community a lot more exciting by actively setting neighbor against neighbor

2. Provides important object lesson on why you should read a gas lease BEFORE you sign it

1. Helps the kids learn that money is more important than anything else

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Tags: , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Bad Neighbors, Community Effects, Cost Externalization, Mean Energy  


Jun 9
2009

And another critique:

“AD 44 KIngs County Assemblyman Brennan’s A08748 is a remodeled version of Brennan’s earlier A01322.

“A08748 would provide Jim Crow environmentalism… separate and unequal protection.

“Under the provisions of Brennan’s A08748, the waters of the Catskill/Delaware Watershed, which was colonized by and for the disproportionately politically powerful New York City, would be exclusively and absolutely protected from Halliburton’s high pressure chemical hydrofracking process; while the air, water and soil, that all the far less powerful individuals throughout the Southern Tier of New York State depend upon for their health and well being, would be relentlessly assaulted by that same process that Brennan clearly understands can’t ever be safe… no matter how it is done, nor who is watching it while it is done.

“Fact is, the DEC hasn’t regulated gas drilling. The drillers manage, monitor and investigate themselves… on the corporate honor system. Even if all the smoke surrounding Brennan’s bill were to remain, if it were passed without any amendments, it would then be just the soot of empty promises. The thoroughly corporate compromised Albany government would never allow the DEC to have sufficient staff to effectively protect our environment from corporate short-term profit based practices. Brennan’s bill only serves to aid the DEC in regulating and neutralizing dissent.

“The goal of Brennan’s bill is for New York City to be able to continue to drink reliably pure water, while the entire Southern Tier (outside the Catskill/Delaware Watershed) is inexorably Iraqified to provide stone gas for New York City to burn.

“New York City should use its enormously disproportionate power within New York State to protect the water of all New Yorkers — everywhere within this state — by providing state legislation banning the stone gas extraction Halliburton horizontal hydrofracking everywhere within New York State.

“In interpreting provision 2 of 23-2901 of Brennan’s bill,
‘2. Natural gas drilling shall not be permitted within the watershed of the Delaware River, in any recharge area of a sole  source  aquifer,  in any  area  where  groundwater contributes a significant  base flow to surface water sources of drinking water, and in any other area where the department shall find presents a significant threat of  hydraulic  fracturing compounds entering into a significant source of drinking water’
it’s important to first grasp the meaning of the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1 (its **INTENT** clause):

“‘Legislative intent. 1. The legislature finds that the process used to stimulate natural gas extraction referred to as hydraulic fracturing utilizes components that are often toxic, that are non-biodegradable, and that are virtually impossible to remove once they enter the natural environment. Thus, they pose such a high level of environmental risk that the policy of the state must be to insure [sic] they are excluded from any area that is significant for public drinking water resources or any other area that is environmentally sensitive.’

“a) The intent of Brennan’s bill is clearly to protect special people’s places only, while corporate invaders are allowed to occupy and exploit those of other people, who are not so special. Every provision of the bill must be interpreted in that light. It’s easy to enforce a complete and absolute ban on drilling within a specific area special to special people. It will not be possible for the DEC to ever actually protect the health and well being of all those not so special people, at hazard from the thousands of stone gas drilling sites industry desired over the vast area in which the Halliburton process would still be allowed by the Brennan bill.

“b) Note the interesting ambiguity of that provision 2, of 23-2901 of Brennan’s bill, which you quoted. It’s just one sentence, using commas… not semicolons. Is it intended as a list of different places? That should use semicolons. The 1st clause is independent. The other 3 that follow might be fully dependent (embedded or subordinate to the 1st clause: i.e. related to the watershed of the Delaware River)… which a contextual reading of that bill (and a knowledge of its precursor) implies. But let us be generous, and assume that each clause in that sentence does refer to discretely different situations. The first (“watershed of the Delaware River”) is quite explicit. The others are vague and subject to proofs necessarily provided by those targeted for drilling… proofs that places where their water comes from are “significant” “public” and “environmentally sensitive” too. Even without knowing the history of this bill, it is obvious that its goal is an absolute ban for protection for New York City’s water supply, while allowing for as much stone gas drilling as possible outside the watershed that New York City is dependent upon. The recent inclusion of “sole source aquifers” is merely an act of political expedience, cynically calculated to gain support for the bill in those few population areas within the Marcellus formation region, that are supplied by the already designated sole source aquifers (see map):  http://www.epa.gov/Region2/water/aquifer/

“c) Note that the one and only river mentioned anywhere in Brennan’s bill, which its 12 sponsors deem worthy of mention to be worthy of any particular protection within all of New York State, is the Delaware River (the river upon which New York City is greatly dependent, and near which river a great number of relatively affluent New York City residents have 2nd homes). Why doesn’t Brennan’s bill also specifically call for the same protection within the watersheds of any of the other rivers in New York State, like the Susquehanna, or the Genesee? Why doesn’t it call for the same protection for the watersheds of **ALL** the rivers within New York State? Why doesn’t it call for the same protection of **ALL** watersheds and **ALL** wells within New York State? The reason is clear. It’s a bill designed to absolutely protect the water of those having more political power, while allowing the air, water and soil of those not having as much political power to be jeopardized by the hazard of the Halliburton process… while ignoring the reality that the strong share the same environment as the weak… that what is done to the weak will some day eventually affect the strong too.

“d) Note that the qualifier “significant” is used 3 times in that one sentence of the Brennan bill that you quoted. Who will actually be deciding who and what is significant?

“Consider the first complete sentence in the NYS Constitution’s Article 1 (Bill of Rights) Section 11:  ‘No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.’”

David J. Cyr
Delhi, NY
GPNYS SC member – Delaware County

see also pdf:  brennan-a8748-merits-and-demerits1

Tags: , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Community Effects, Cost Externalization, Legislation, The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse  


Jun 9
2009

One take:

“Section 23-2901. The watershed of the Susquehanna River should be
included. I don’t trust the DEC to make meaningful “determinations”.
One overriding problem with the bill, as written, is that it does not provide
for important judgments, determinations, findings, etc to be made by
reputable, independent experts. Proving responsibility for contamination
is difficult unless, as a condition to issuance of the permit, the driller
has been required to test wells of all property owners within a spacing unit
and deliver results to DEC and to the property owners. Spills should not
only be reported to DEC but also to representatives of local government i.e.
Town Supervisors. Sanctions should be imposed not only if driller refuses to
clean up but also if it FAILS to do so within a specified time frame.
“In a timely and appropriate manner” is far too vague! Why limit the felony to
surface waters?

“Section 23-2903. All components of frack materials MUST be disclosed to
DEC and to local authorities — end of discussion. Nothing less than full
public disclosure should be considered. The cloak of confidentiality
under any circumstances is dangerous to the public health, hampers appropriate
local response and frankly the “proprietary” information argument is a
crock. They should not be permitted to invoke the law to hide behind
their mistakes. This is the weakest part of the bill. I don’t think that DEC
should be the sole arbiter of “establishing a standard for the composition of
hydraulic fracturing compounds. They are too cozy with the drillers.
Liquid waste should also be prohibited from being disposed of in dry
wells.

“Section 23-2905. Drillers are responsible for mitigating environmental
damage but in accordance with what standards and with what kind of
independent oversight? They ought to be financially responsible but the
actual mitigation should be done by an independent, reputable company
with no ties to the industry. Hooray. I like the part about state lands.
Again, applications for permits will require an “assessment” of impacts.
Whose assessment? Surely, we should not be prepared to accept the driller’s
assessment or that of any industry “consultant.”

“Section 23-2907. DEC should have more than the authority to impose fees.
This law should establish a superfund to be funded by the industry and by
permitting fees etc. Restoration should specifically include reforestation
and restoration of soil so the land can again be used for agricultural
purposes — if that’s even possible! The restrictions on lighting are
pathetic. In a rural area, the lights can be seen for miles. Enforcement of
noise, lighting and all safety issues should be permitted at the local
level. It is silly to think that the DEC has the manpower and resources
to monitor these operations on any kind of regular basis. Local
enforcement is key to protection of the public health and safety. The right of
rescission on a lease is a joke as long as the law fails to address the
point at which the clock starts to tick. It should be measured from the
date that the landowner receives a fully-executed original of the lease
document and not before. As for the other protections for lease
transactions–see my memo. This section requires a great deal more
specificity. Indeed, some of these provisions should apply retroactively.

“Section 23-2909. Again, monitoring and enforcement should be local.

“Section 23-2911. Providing for unannounced inspections and actually
carrying them out are two entirely different issues. The DEC is woefully
understaffed and underfunded. Adding more responsibilities will only
look good on paper unless the tools are there to carry out the intentions.
Again, this is why local government should be permitted to play a role.
“Periodic inspections” – This too is a joke — Periodic could mean once
in every blue moon.

“Section 23-2913. Measurement of production must be fool-proof. Treat it
like gas pumps at the filling station. Taxes must be direct and must
benefit the localities.

“The major flaw with this bill is that it continues to see the State DEC
as the only player — that is, besides the industry — not really an even
match. The sponsors fail to accept that drilling is also very much a
local issue that strains local resources. Local officials must have a role.
Finally, the advisory committee should be given some power. Other
members should include chemists, physicians, geologists, and the county
supervisor of each county where a certain threshold of drilling is taking place.”

Jane Welsh, P.C.
Hamilton, NY 13346


Tags: ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Legislation, The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse  


Jun 6
2009

Meanwhile, from just on the other side of the hill from Bradford Township, 1490newsblog.blogspot.com reports:

“Some Foster Township residents seem to be having a problem Hedgehog Lane residents have been dealing with for months – oil and gas drilling affecting their water wells.

“Interstate Parkway resident Joe Piganelli told Foster Township Supervisors Monday night that the water in his neighbor’s well turned brown, but DEP told him his well had gone bad. However, it went bad the day fracking was done in the area.

“Piganelli asked that the supervisors contact the drilling company.

“‘If the three of you got a hold of US Energy and said ‘Hey, what the heck’s going on?’ … We had pristine water and now it’s garbage. Pretty soon you’ll be able to drink out of your sewer better than you can your water.’”
. . . . .

“Piganelli also raised several concerns about drilling company trucks and what they’re doing on the roads.

“One concern is speeding.

“‘They’re going fast up there at 2, 3, 4, 5 o’clock in the morning,’ he said. ‘And I’ll tell ya – they’re raising hell.’

“Another concern he has is the drivers using Jake Brakes when they come down the hill.

“He also said they’re leaving mud on the road, which could be dangerous. He specifically mentioned driving out of Allegany State Park when it’s raining.

“‘If you hit that mud that they’ve left there … When I worked for Halliburton we had to clean up the highway,’ he said, adding that if they came out of the woods and had mud and dirt all over their trucks they had to clean the road.

“‘There’s no reason they can’t do that,’ he said.”

The same blog post reports this irony:

“Also Monday night, supervisors reminded residents that if they’re going to repave their driveways, they need a permit.

“Supervisor Chairman Bob Slike said the reason for the permit “is not to make a buck or anything off of it. It’s to make sure that driveway is put it so in the wintertime the plows don’t gouge it out.

“Supervisors said it’s the homeowner’s responsibility to get the permit, but the contractor should know enough to ask if they have one.”

That is, townships are allowed to protect their residents from building driveways less than optimally but they’re not allowed to do much to protect their residents from gas drilling … which presents just a few more risks than a gouge or two in some asphalt.

For the complete post, visit http://1490newsblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/water-well-problems-in-ft-too.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Bad Neighbors, Community Effects, Cost Externalization, Fraccidents, On the Bleeding Edge, The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse  


Jun 4
2009

“DEP holds Schreiner responsible for compromising the water supplies of 7 households.  But there are more – maybe more like 15.

“One neighbor lost water in October – had only about 7ft of water above pump until February when got new well. New well required filtration. Even with filtration system, the water is bad – currently looking for better filtration system.

“One neighbor has been out of his home for 10 weeks now because of high levels of methane in well – see the video of the vapors catching fire:

Click here>>    Video: Flammable water

“DEP told him not to light a match in his bathroom or start a bonfire in his yard. Just got new well dug last week- waiting to see about water quality.

“Several homes now require methane detectors – we know at least one has gone off twice.

“One neighbor lost water a couple of weeks ago and was filling his own tote to supply water to his home. It sounded today like they have just begun drilling him another well- we’ll see about its quality.

“One neighbor has depleted quality and quantity of spring because a road was built through her spring. DEP’s response was that it was not much of a spring anyway. The spring has supplied this home with water for at least 50 years and is the only water supply that this neighbor has.

“One of my neighbors had disgusting black slime that DEP would never test- they would run the water until all of the black stuff was out before they tested it.  The neighbor had an independent lab test it, and it turned out to be iron bacteria.

“Some neighbors have complained of rashes and excessively dry skin and hair.

“The majority of these wells have existed for over 40 years, and have never had these troubles.  Our water was pristine- no filter required.  Friends and family used to bottle our water to take home with them.

“So far it does not seem that the oil company wants to take much responsibility.  They have provided us with bottled water for drinking temporarily, and drilled a few wells that are most likely still contaminated.   They have about another 60 wells they want to drill.

“We are almost sure that the site of the propane tank and access road was wetland.  It met almost all of the criteria that DEP has listed for wetlands (mottled soil, indicator species, presence of water…..).  When we called DEP out, they said that there were areas that could be wetland, but a full study would have to be done to delineate it.  We expected them to do the study – next thing we know, all of the trees are down and construction had begun.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Bad Neighbors, Community Effects, Cost Externalization, Gas Drilling Accidents, General, Mean Energy, On the Bleeding Edge  


Jun 2
2009

“I live on Hedgehog Lane in Bradford, PA where oil and gas drilling has contaminated many water wells.  The DEP recognizes seven, but there are more of us.”

site-500-72dpi1

“We also have a stripper plant in our residentially-zoned neighborhood that has us furious.  It consists of a 19,000 gallon propane tank less than 300 feet from our house, a compressor and generator that run 24/7 – the noise is simply unbearable – and pipes that seem to leak propane so that we smell it all of the time.  Propane trucks the size of semi’s routinely come to the pipes to fill up with propane.  We just don’t understand how this all fits into zoning laws, and we are frustrated with how it has changed our neighborhood and property values. ”

gas-stripper-500-72dpi1

site1-500-72dpi2

glycol-leak-1-500-72dpi1

Glycol leak 1

glycol-leak-2-500-72dpi

Glycol leak 2

methanol-leak-500-72dpi

Methanol leak

Click here>> Video: methanol leak

oil-leak-2-500-72dpi

Oil leak

oil-leak-3-500-72dpi

Oil leak

oil-leak-5-500-72dpi

Oil leak

oil-soil-staining-2-500-72dpi

Oil staining of soil

15w-40-drum-and-leak-500-72dpi2

15w40 drum and leak

“Our water smells and tastes weird enough that we don’t drink it, and we don’t even give it to our animals.  It smells musty- like dirt.  It reminds me of an organic that I used to work with when I was a chemist.  DEP officials have agreed that they smell and taste it, but that the standard test they run for about 15 or so substances come back normal.  We have asked DEP repeatedly to test for VOCs, but they refuse.  They say that the test is tricky because a neighbor spilling oil or gas could be the cause.  I told him, I agree – a neighbor IS spilling oil – Aiello Brothers Oil and Gas – drillers for Schreiner  (http://abogi.net/default.aspx)  … and I have the pictures to prove it.  They still refused to test for VOCs.  They said that it isn’t standard operating procedure to do so.  When I responded that my neighborhood isn’t going through a “standard” situation, they replied that we actually are. When I asked for clarification, I was told that this sort of thing happens every month.  I said I found that interesting because this very same DEP official was quoted in a newspaper article as calling the situation in Dimock an anomaly, so I asked him which was it?  Was it typical, or an anomaly?  He said that he didn’t know where I got that info but that I shouldn’t believe everything I read.  Because my water doesn’t have one of the about 15 substances that DEP tests for (Fe, Mn, methane) we have been written off.  I find that to be ridiculous and negligent.  One of my neighbors has been given the very same treatment.  So much for presumptive liability when the wells are drilled within 1000ft from your water well!!!”

propane-tank-1-500-72dpi

Propane tank

propane-truck-500-72dpi

Propane truck

“As I research and find that this is happening all over the country, I get more angry!  It’s just wrong.  And to think that in our case we are asking for so little…..they can’t use just a smidgin of the millions that they gain from our hill to give us safe drinking water?  Absurd.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Bad Neighbors, Community Effects, Cost Externalization, General, Mean Energy, On the Bleeding Edge  


Jun 2
2009

JANE WELSH
Hamilton, NY 13346

February 13, 2009
Re: Statement Concerning Final Scope ( the “Scope”)for Draft Supplemental Generic
Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory
Program
SENT BY REGULAR MAIL
Governor David A. Paterson
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo
Commissioner Alexander B. Grannis
Director Bradley J. Field

Gentlemen:
I am sending this via e-mail to additional individuals who work for you for whom I have
found e-mail addresses. I would very much appreciate it if you or they would forward my
comments to any and all additional individuals in the Legislature, the Governor’s Office, the
Attorney General’s Office and at the Department of Environmental Conservation who may
have any interest in the above-referenced subject.

I am an attorney living in Madison County. My husband’s family has lived in this area for
fifty years. I have numerous friends and clients who live in the Town of Lebanon, not far
from where I live. In the Town of Lebanon alone, there are currently approximately fifty
drilled wells and yet another thirty are in various stages of development, according to the
Town Supervisor. I have just read all fifty-six pages of the Scope. As a constituent and a
concerned citizen, I am compelled to express my point of view, a point of view that I share
with others in this community, about the need for strict regulation of the gas and oil
industry in Central New York.

While I applaud DEC for considering those issues that are addressed in the Scope, I am
distressed that it is so limited. For this reason, the Scope is a disappointment. While DEC
explains its rationale for limiting the Scope to such a degree, I can’t accept this rationale.
The Scope states that “it is not the Department’s intention or objective to re-open the 1992
Findings for any activity that was reviewed in the GEIS [the 1992 Generic Environmental
Impact Statement] and which will remain consistent.” (Scope at 8). This approach fails in
two respects.

First, it would seem that DEC made a judgment prior to preparing the Scope – without
considering current evidence – not to revisit the 1992 Findings. DEC apparently assumed
that drawing upon many additional years of experience was not necessary or advisable.
Furthermore, the 1992 Findings are based on research and analysis that took place from
1988 until 1992. Thus, the DEC has made a conscious decision to treat findings and
conclusions that are based upon twenty year old data as current and not worthy of a fresh
look. WHY? The internet revolution had only just begun in 1988. Certainly, no one would
argue that current decisions about IT should be determined by what was state of the art in
the IT world in 1988 or 1992.

Second, Central New York has changed substantially during the past seventeen to twenty
years. Demographics are quite different as is population density. These wells are being
drilled in populous residential areas. I can’t think of any land use planner or zoning board
in the country that wouldn’t think long and hard before permitting an industrial use in a
residential area. The Scope states that the overall well site density is not likely to be
greater now than it was in 1992 (Scope at 39); yet the fact that population density and
development is far greater now than in 1992 has been conveniently ignored. In short, DEC
and the State have lost an important opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis and create
a coherent overall policy concerning oil and gas drilling in this State that would be relevant
in the twenty-first century.

The Scope states: “The State of New York’s official policy, enacted into law, is to ‘conserve,
improve and protect its natural resources and environment…’” (Scope at 2). In addition,
DEC’s job is to protect public health and ensure safety. The very nature of gas drilling in a
populated developed area is incompatible with these policies. Yes, the Environmental
Conservation Law requires DEC to prevent waste of New York’s oil and gas resources and
provide for recovery of those resources. But at what cost and at what degree of risk?
These are questions that absolutely MUST be asked and addressed by our State
government. If DEC does not consider these questions to be within their purview, then it is
incumbent on DEC to prohibit widespread drilling (no matter what technology is being
proposed) and take serious steps to prevent the waste and destruction of our relatively
unspoiled environment until our State government establishes policies and creates laws to
more thoroughly regulate the oil and gas industry.

To be more specific, the interests and needs of the public must be addressed first. Why
must the gas and oil companies (the “Companies”) hold all of the cards while the State’s
people and property are put at risk. Laws need to be amended and/or enacted and
regulations promulgated to accomplish the following:
- The Companies must be accountable to local authorities concerning local issues
and local government must be given the power and authority to enforce local laws,
to which the Companies should be subject just like any other business. The
Companies must be required to carry their weight like any other taxpayer. They
overburden our roads, our first-responders and our resources without contributing
a nickel.
- A state trust fund must be established and funded with Company revenues to be
used in case of damage or destruction to property, wetlands, aquifer, streams,
wildlife, etc. Believe me, the inevitable will occur and our tax dollars should not be
used to clean up the mess.
- The Companies are spending money to influence the outcome of local elections in
an attempt to unseat local officeholders who are working to educate and protect
their constituents. This behavior should be criminalized. The Companies should
stay out of local politics. Local officeholders should be required to disclose
contributions received from the Companies.
- The laws regarding compulsory integration must be revised to make it possible
for a property owner to REFUSE to be forced into a spacing unit. Every property owner
whose property is used to create a spacing unit should be included only
voluntarily. The companies are using compulsory integration law as a weapon
against the people that it was initially designed to protect.
- Seismic testing must not be permitted anywhere along the road right of way
without notification and prior written consent of the owner of the property
adjacent to the right of way. The State should adopt the law of seismic trespass.
- Well drilling within one mile of a municipal water supply or a private well should
be strictly prohibited. If a one mile buffer zone excluding drilling can be created to
protect New York City’s water supply, why would the State not create an equally
large exclusion to protect the water supply of its citizens upstate?
- The chemicals and other additives being used in the hydraulic fracturing process
(or for that matter in any drilling process) must be listed on DEC’s website and
otherwise be made available as a matter of public record. If laws need to be
amended to make this possible, then amend them. The use of known carcinogens
and other chemicals and additives that are a threat to public safety and the
environment should be strictly prohibited.
- State laws must be enacted to ensure that State standards and requirements are at
least as stringent as, if not more stringent than, federal Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act requirements from which the oil and gas industry were
exempted by the Bush administration.
- Municipalities must be prohibited from leasing municipal land for drilling and oil
and gas development. This practice presents a clear conflict of interest.
- State lands likewise must not be leased to the Companies. These lands should be
held in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people. First and foremost, the State’s
goal must be the protection of State land for all of us and for future generations, not
for profit. Again, it presents a conflict of interest.
- The Companies are wantonly destroying timber in the process of building access
roads and pipelines. This timber is irreplaceable in our lifetime. Erosion and
sedimentation controls should focus on preserving our forested land, and laws must
be enacted to this end restricting timbering by the Companies.
- Wetlands consisting of less than 12.4 acres should be protected.
- Contrary to statements (Scope at 11) in the Scope, water supplies have been
contaminated, perhaps not by hydraulic fracturing, but I would argue that that
qualifier is of little consequence to those affected. Brookfield is a notable example.
There was a gas well fire in Smyrna at the beginning of the year. Clearly, more
regulation and disclosure is required.
- DEC needs only to rely on a Company’s affidavit, submitted without evidence or
back-up, when considering a permit application. This is ludicrous. Appropriate
measures must be taken to place the onus on the companies to demonstrate
compliance at all stages of the permitting and production process. DEC needs to be
funded at a level that will permit frequent inspections and oversight at the well
sites. If this is not possible, then permitting and production should be slowed and
regulated to the point where adequate oversight and inspection can take place with
the current resources at DEC’s disposal.
- Standards for leases and other legal documents need to be established. Control of
the contents of these documents should not be left in the hands of the Companies
and their often unscrupulous agents. It should be recognized as a matter of public
policy that people with limited resources should not be forced to incur substantial
legal expenses in order to protect themselves against unconscionable practices. If
the State’s policy is to encourage drilling (as it appears to be) then the State first
needs to protect its residents. The Companies and individual people are hardly
evenly matched and State policy and law should take this obvious fact into
consideration. The prices being paid for lease rights and pipeline rights of way
must be a matter of public record. The State must not countenance the Companies’
practice of pitting neighbor against neighbor. This is definitely not sound public
policy.
- The Scope cites potential positive impacts from gas development in the 1992 GEIS.
I can’t say the inhabitants of Madison County have felt them. Legislation should be
enacted to require the Companies to put something valuable back into the
community since they are removing something valuable with little or no
compensation to the community. So far, the quality of life of my friends and
neighbors is being adversely affected as they sit by, without any recourse, during a
time of economic uncertainty and watch their property values diminish even
further.
- With respect to areas of historic, architectural and archaeological significance, the
State Historic Preservation Office has determined that portions of Madison County
are indeed eligible for nomination to the National Register. This work was funded
by Stop NYRI, a private local group dedicated to stopping the construction of
proposed power lines. The PSC is the lead agency on this. DEC should interface
with SHPO and take this information into consideration. It is insufficient for DEC to
review only those sites that are listed on the National Register. A declaration of
eligibility should be sufficient, since the only difference is the substantial cost
involved in obtaining the listing, and those maps do exist.
- Minimum setback requirements should be established at boundary line
perimeters. All too often, the Companies are building their access roads right at the
lot line, thereby hurting the adjacent landowner. At the very least, the Companies
should be required to adhere to a setback policy and to mitigate the visual and noise
impacts on the adjacent landowner. The Scope states that “in the absence of any
evidence of environmental degradation having occurred from the lack of …
setbacks…,” recommendations for setbacks are not included in the Scope. I doubt
that you would feel this way if your property were the one being adversely affected.
- Each of the leases being signed has the potential to last for a very long time and
thus to qualify as a taxable transfer under the New York State Real Property
Transfer Tax Law. This is an issue that should be looked into. Again, the landowner
must be shielded from potential liability for these taxes and the Companies should
be contributing something to the State’s coffers if they want the legal protections
afforded by placing their document of record.

The Scope states that the DEC has “far-reaching enforcement authority over the activities it
regulates.” It continues: “It is not, however, the purpose of an environmental impact
statement to provide enforcement recommendations or policies” (Scope at 51). I tend to
agree with this statement. But, then whose responsibility is it and what is being done to
address the points that I, and others before me, have raised. In fact, the Scope, in its final
pages, presents a list of concerns which “require legislative action” – not as comprehensive
as mine, but it’s a start.

Where is the political will to actually address these policy issues and take the legislative
action necessary to level the playing field between the gas companies and your own
constituents? Where is the leadership? By the time you wake up and start thinking about
these things, it will be too late for the people of Central New York. Do you care?

Respectfully submitted,
Jane Welsh

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Community Effects, Cost Externalization, Scope Comments