.

.

Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica:

New York State Paves Way

for Gas Drilling With

Release of Environmental Review

.

.

Nornew knew it all along;  do the citizens of New York State?

See also the New York Times:  

State Issues Rules on Upstate Natural Gas Drilling Near City’s Water

The DEC could not allow a ban on horizontal drilling / high-volume hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Catskill/Delaware Watershed (also known as the NYC watershed) without admitting that HD/HVHF for natural gas is fundamentally unsafe – everywhere else in the state too.

New York City, if you want to protect your water,
you’re going to have to join
the fight to ban HD/HVHF statewide.

.
>> Come together, New York <<

.

http://www.un-naturalgas.org/hydraulic_fracturing_a-z.htm#NYCs%20water

.

.

Tags: , , , , ,



The next step in the process of creating

“regulations clearing the way
for shale development”

nornew-regs-clearing-the-way-575-72dpi

(see http://www.cik.no/norse/081111/081111_norse.php, minute 23:41)

is upon us.

==============================================

From NYS DEC website:

Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental ImpactStatement On The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program

Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling And High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs

The draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) for potential natural gas drilling activities in the Marcellus Shale formation is now available for public review and comment. The draft SGEIS supplements the existing Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and analyzes the range of potential impacts of shale gas development using horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The draft SGEIS outlines safety measures, protection standards and mitigation strategies that operators would have to follow to obtain permits.

Comments – The public comment period will be open until November 30, 2009. The Department is offering three ways in which to submit comments. We have created an on line submission system which will allow you to write comments and tag them to your areas of concern. Attachments can also be included. You may submit e-mail comments; please include your name, e-mail or return mail address to ensure notice of the Final SGEIS when it is available. Finally, written comments should be sent to: Attn: dSGEIS Comments, Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation, NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources, 625 Broadway, Third Floor, Albany, NY 12233-6500.

Document Availability – At this time the document is offered as a PDF document that can be accessed by chapter below. The entire draft SGEIS document is also available as a single PDF file. It can be downloaded and searched.

-end of quote from DEC dSGEIS download page at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html

=====================================

To send an e-mail to Governor Paterson telling him New Yorkers
must have a longer comment period, visit

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/90marcellusshale_2009?rk=J1NNvIKaKB48E

According to the press release linked below, DEC plans to announce scheduled “Public Information Sessions” as another option, besides those mentioned at its site as quoted above,  for submitting comments on the draft SGEIS.

http://readme.readmedia.com/news/show/DEC-Proposes-New-Safety-Measures-Mitigation-Strategies-to-Govern-Potential-Marcellus-Shale-Drilling/959276

Tags: ,



Guest post by Candace Mingins


In 1971, when my husband’s family bought its farm in Van Etten, there was an abandoned Oriskany formation well on the property. There were, indeed, abandoned wells all over the neighboring hills — some of which were providing neighbors with free gas. A small pipe and tank seemed innocuous enough. So when a neighbor came by in 1999 with his friend, an oil and gasman who owned a small company in Pennsylvania, we signed a ten-year lease. It was a community-held belief in Van Etten, based on past experience, that gas wells were “no big deal.” Nearly all our neighbors signed.

There were no informational forums back then, nor attorneys who knew what was coming. Five years later, after the lower rights to our lease were assigned to a multinational corporation, we realized something bigger was happening and finally sought an attorney’s help. The first attorney we saw was knowledgeable but was interested in helping us only if we exercised a sale clause we had put in the lease, and sell our land to a friend of his who invested in oil and gas. His fee would be 33% of the additional royalties gained from the transaction. We were not comfortable with this.

The second attorney willingly assisted us with the high-pressure, eleventh-hour negotiations with the gas company, which now wanted to drill a well on our farm. But it soon became clear he knew nothing about the industrial gas drilling coming.

Finding a reliable attorney was nearly an impossible task. We didn’t even know what questions to ask. We scrambled to come up with last-minute protections, mostly from bits and pieces of information we were now learning from neighbors. The gas company was willing to negotiate, as they had not yet gotten us to sign an amending agreement they needed. We forged an agreement to make sure our beautiful, gravelly loam field would be restored.

The well was drilled in the Trenton/Black River formation. It was a conventional well that went nearly two miles down and one mile horizontally under the village. It was a huge industrial operation — a far cry from the old Oriskany wells on our hill. From day one, the gas company began to cut corners. What was to be “just a couple of acres” was actually seven acres (we measured it.) We asked that the access road run along the edge of the field, and they cut it diagonally through the field. The landman who had been negotiating with us had actually helped us flag where the road was to be, and he argued for us to get them to re-do the road. It just went on and on. The holding ponds were supposed to have two layers of plastic. They had only one. The brine was supposed to be hauled out more often than it was. We felt we had to constantly be checking, taking pictures, and calling the gas company.

Of course, the operation was an industrial site we never could have imagined: 24-hour-a-day drilling, ramming noise, lit up all night. It went longer than they said it would, taking three months to prepare the site and drill. When the well was flared (for three days and nights) and the whole valley was lit up like a stadium, it began to feel like something terrible had been unleashed.

When it was time to restore the larger/outer area of the well site, the gas company cut corners once again, even though the procedure was spelled out clearly in the written agreement. They used a bulldozer to remove the plastic and large rocks, hauling much of our precious topsoil with it. My husband furiously tried to get them to stop, and subsequently to bring us more topsoil to fill in the depressions. Rude employees argued with him. They also never loosened the subsoil before filling in.

We had a retired Ag & Markets consultant come in and shoot some grades and write a recommendation. This appeared to really annoy the gas company. They sent us a “without prejudice” letter stating they had done all they had to do until final restoration (10 years or so hence). The “friendly” landman who had worked on our behalf was told to stop talking to us. We then knew that if we ever wanted to have that field restored as per the signed agreement, we would have to get an attorney. Attorneys tell us now that only rarely can you get industry to pay for your legal fees.

Having a multinational corporation in your life is extremely stressful. It’s a “contractual relationship,” but it is vastly unequal. Corporations are protected under the law, and are ultimately not liable, responsible or responsive. Their sole job is to make money for their shareholders, and they will do what they want. Oil and gas companies are essentially in the game of “gotcha!” Once you sign, it’s up to you to watch them, call them, sue them. It’s your problem now.

They are obliging only until they get what they want from you. Phone calls, e-mails, letters, lawyers all become routine. Signing a lease with a multinational corporation is like inviting a very rude, unscrupulous, uncaring (dare I say criminal?) person to live in your home. It is extremely stressful.

However, this well, we were assured, would have a lifetime of only about 10 years, and then they would be “out of there—all cleaned up, like [we] didn’t know [they] had been there.” We thought we could live with that. (Of course, at this point we had no choice.) At this time our daughter and her husband decided to go ahead and make plans to move their farm/ winery business to the family farm.

And we were “lucky” ones. The well was successful. In fact, it was the most prolific well in New York, and in 2006 produced 4 billion cubic feet of gas — enough to heat 57,000 homes for a year. Organizations and 133 families receive royalties from this well, including the town, school and church. Who couldn’t use more money? Folks could finally repaint their houses and replace roofs. They could start retirement savings and donate to charities. We were able to finish our house and install solar panels, buy a tractor and pay off some college loans. There is no denying that the people could use the money. But the question began to emerge: at what cost?

In the spring of 2008, we began hearing talk of the next big gas “play” — the Marcellus shale — and, at first, thought nothing of it. But the more we learned, the more alarmed we became, and then it hit us: we were “held by production” with a producing well, and that meant that lease expiration was irrelevant. And while we are held by production, more wells may be drilled on our property in different formations, which in turn could hold us by production longer.

In essence, we had “sold” our land forever. The night I realized this, I had a dream that our house had been robbed, and it was from the inside.

Now, our daughter seriously doubted they could move to the farm. How could they move here when there could be a lifetime of drilling, drastic change in our rural landscape, and potential contamination and pollution? We had “sold” the land out from under our children and their children. No amount of money is worth that.

Unconventional shale gas drilling is a nasty business. And I venture to guess there are hundreds, maybe thousands of leased-landowners out there who, as they learn what this new gas drilling really entails, wish they had never signed a lease.

A contract between an individual and a multinational corporation is never on an even playing field. The power imbalance is staggering. Attorney Jane Welsh, of Hamilton, believes gas leases should actually be commercial lease transactions, which include the legal concepts and protections found in any commercial lease, and “the only reason they are not is that the parties to a gas lease are woefully mismatched in terms of negotiating power, experience, sophistication and financial clout.” New York, she concludes, is sorely remiss in not regulating these leases.

But this is not merely a leasing issue (though the Attorney General’s Office, Cooperative Extension and many landowner coalitions seem to believe it is). For one, it’s a community issue. As Herb Engman, Ithaca town supervisor, said recently (and I’m paraphrasing): Towns go through all the time, trouble and expense to generate comprehensive plans and protect community resources, and then gas companies can destroy all planning.

The scale of proposed shale gas drilling in the area will affect our entire landscape and rural way of life. Leases cannot protect us from plummeting real estate values or the inability to obtain mortgages or sell our property; leases cannot protect us from a decline in tourism or other negative economic effects; leases cannot protect us from the increased difficulty in obtaining insurance or the increased cost of doing so. And unless gas companies are willing to post billions of dollars in bonds, leases cannot ultimately protect us from personal liability.

But above all, this is a public health issue. Emerging studies on air pollution and reports of water contamination make it very clear that the negative affects of unconventional gas drilling cannot be contained by property boundaries.

Whether you are leased, leased in a coalition or compulsorily integrated; whether you are un-leased living down the road, downwind or downstream of gas wells or deep injection disposal wells; or whether you simply use roads traveled by frack-water trucks — we are all at increased risk. Our communities need full disclosure of the risks we will be exposed to before we can decide if we, as a community, want to take those risks. We do not want to be unwilling participants in a grand experiment, because that’s what this is.

And the truth is, no one even knows what all the risks are. There have been no comprehensive, long-term, systematic studies of hydrofracking. Nor have there been comprehensive, long-term, systematic studies on deep injection disposal of toxic wastewater. But the high-pressure injection of contaminants into the ground appears to be linked to unpredictable migration of fluids, aquifer contamination and possibly earthquakes.

Have we mapped our entire area for natural faults? How do we know that the fracking fluid left behind won’t eventually migrate upward and contaminate our water? Maybe not this year, but what about in five years or 50 years? While the gas companies and the DEC assure us that these activities are perfectly safe, they will not guarantee it, because there is no science backing those claims. And in fact, more and more evidence is mounting to the contrary —at the expense of people’s health and safety.

I am haunted by the specter of some day turning on my tap for a glass of our clear, cold, sweet water and wondering if chemicals left underneath us have migrated into it.

Do I test my drinking water once a year? Once a month? Every week?

How can I live (how can we live) with the unending uncertainty that this glassful might be poisoned?

Do I drink it?

Do I offer it to my granddaughter?

Tags: , , ,



  • Dimock, PA, approximately Thursday, 9/3:
    A blowout occurs during drilling under a road and wetland for a gas pipeline, resulting in a large spill of drilling mud.  Witnesses report a greasy, gray film running down a water body.  Local people who hear about the blowout have difficulty getting the straight story, despite persistently asking questions of DEP and drilling company representatives.
  • Dimock, PA,  Wednesday, 9/16, afternoon:
    “At least a thousand” gallons of frack fluid escape from the Heitsman2 well site and run down into Stevens Creek. According to the fracturing subcontractor, Halliburton, the fluid contains carcinogenic substances.
  • Dimock, PA, Wednesday, 9/16, late evening:
    A much larger spill of the same fluid occurs.  Reports say the total volume of both spills the released frack fluids is as much as 8500 gallons.
  • Dimock, PA, Tuesday, 9/22
    Another spill of the same fluid occurs.   This one is of “hundreds of gallons.”

DEP reports fish swimming erratically and kills of small aquatic life.

On 9/22, after the third spill in a week’s time, DEP cites Cabot with 5 violations.

Following DEP’s action, the fish are still dead.

On 9/25, DEP orders Cabot to stop all hydraulic fracturing activities in Susquehanna County.

Reports indicate that, subsequent to DEP’s order, the fish are still dead.

. . . .

Why do regulating agencies pretend that physics pays any attention to regulations?

Why do they pretend that their disciplinary action is effective, when no disciplinary action can reverse the damage once it’s done?

On 9/30, the NYS DEC will issue its draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, the next step in paving the way for New York to enjoy the  benefits of industrial-scale gas drilling with horizontal drilling / high-volume hydraulic fracturing in low-permeability gas reservoirs.

The fish in our brooks and rivers are, for the time being,  still alive.  But it’s only a matter of time and physics – not regulation – before the same fate befalls them.

See:

http://www.wayneindependent.com/news/x576510049/Fracturing-fluids-spill-into-Susquehanna-County-stream?popular=true

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20090917/NEWS01/909170411/State%20probes%20spill%20at%20gas-drilling%20site

http://www.propublica.org/feature/frack-fluid-spill-in-dimock-contaminates-stream-killing-fish-921#photo_correx

http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=2868477

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/18/business-energy-financial-impact-us-gas-drilling-spill-pennsylvania_6905460.html

http://www.wayneindependent.com/news/x1699593258/Third-natural-gas-chemical-spill-reported

http://www.wayneindependent.com/news/x1128380990/DEP-notes-5-violations-for-gas-drilling-spill

http://www.wnep.com/sns-ap-pa–gasdrilling-spill,0,7426305.story

http://www.ahs2.dep.state.pa.us/newsreleases/default.asp?ID=5676&varQueryType=Detail

http://www.ahs2.dep.state.pa.us/newsreleases/default.asp?ID=5678&varQueryType=Detail


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,



Copied with permission from http://sootypaws.livejournal.com/

——————————————————————————–

Buckeye Creek

In late August the pit holding fracture flowback “water” for natural gas well 47-017-05815 was breached near Sherwood in Doddridge County (the north central part of the state). The pit was constructed within feet of Buckeye Creek (the state has no requirement for a minimum distance between ground or surface water for pits — see our Pits post) so the “water,” at least 2500 gallons, went into the creek.

The red gelled liquid has had a negative effect on wildlife. People were told “it was ‘just oil’ and hadn’t killed any fish and okay to be in” — kids swim and play in the Creek. Already, before the spill, a decline in fish and mussels had been noted by residents and some of the fish had raised nodules on the skin.

Here are some photos:

Buckeye Creek was a good place to fish for bass and muskie. The contamination is plainly visible from fracture flowback chemicals and formation material (the color may be due to high iron) from a Marcellus well.

Gels are created by chemicals which can include diesel fuel or ethylene glycol, neither of which is good to swim in.

A similar fracture gel release in Pennsylvania caused a fish kill.

A high chloride concentration is a feature of fracture flowback but we don’t think chloride killed this muskrat near its den.

High chloride will kill fish and other aquatic organisms.

Two ducks were unable to fly.

Louanne (who furnished these photos and information) has a letter she wrote to Governor Manchin available online. The last I’ve heard, the gunk has been skimmed from the Creek but is lying in piles beside the Creek.

———————————————————————————

Please visit Sootypaws at http://sootypaws.livejournal.com/

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



From
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Gas-lease_offer__lsquo_excites_rsquo__area_group_09-16-2009.html

Gas-lease offer ‘excites’ area group

After ’08 deal dies, Wyoming County Landowners expect Chesapeake Energy deal

“We knew that we wanted a company that could afford to buy 37,000 acres … that could not only buy us, but drill us,” Lines-Burgess [landowners' coalition secretary] said. “In order to do that, we knew we had to go for the cream of the crop.”

Cattle dead next to hydraulic fracturing job on Chesapeake natural gas well:

__________________________________

From The Shreveport Times:

The ’stuff’ killed the cows, sheriff says
Prator questions whether drilling company has reported incident.

By Vickie Welborn •  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: , , , , , , , ,



.

From
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Gas-lease_offer__lsquo_excites_rsquo__area_group_09-16-2009.html

Gas-lease offer ‘excites’ area group

After ’08 deal dies, Wyoming County Landowners expect Chesapeake Energy deal.

“We knew that we wanted a company that could afford to buy 37,000 acres … that could not only buy us, but drill us.” – landowners’ group secretary

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masochism

Noun:
masochism

1. the enjoyment of receiving pain

.

Tags: , , ,



How long can you live with a problem while you struggle to enforce the terms of your “good” lease? Yup, that one, the one with all the protections – protections that are only as good as your ability (read money) to enforce them.


The company gets to deduct its “production” (imagine what that term could encompass) and transportation costs from your royalty payments. You don’t get to recoup your legal costs on top of your royalties.

What will you have left when the fight’s over?

Tags: , , , ,