un-naturalgas.org weblog » Natural Gas Industry Lies

clearwater — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:22:38 +0000

.

Click on icon to go to Elizabeth Burns’ blog

Read about Rancho Los Malulos on this blog

See RSS feeds in right sidebar for her recent posts

Elizabeth has now been subpoenaed by Chevron
for publicizing their poor performance.

.

Kim Jastremski, subject in Applebome NYT story, responds

clearwater — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:37:38 +0000

.

My response to Peter Applebome’s NYT article, in which I outline 3 major complaints:

.

1.

I take issue with the way the article paints a picture of division in our community.  In fact, in my remarks to Peter Applebome, I made the point many times that, if anything, this issue has UNITED our community in the face of the gargantuan and wealthy gas industry and the few individuals who have fallen prey to it.  I was under the impression that Mr. Applebome was doing a story about grassroots efforts to fight fracking in upstate NY and the group I helped start called Middlefield Neighbors.  Middlefield Neighbors, which is the real story in my mind, was not even mentioned in the article.  I spoke with Applebome at length about the evolution of Middlefield Neighbors; the work we have done to educate and inform our town about fracking and gas leases in our area; the survey we conducted in which 84% of respondents were opposed to drilling, and only 6% for it; and the massive outpouring of support our Town Board received when they voted to strengthen our existing zoning laws and Master Plan.

.

I also invited 5 other much more educated and articulate members of Middlefield Neighbors and Sustainable Otsego to meet with Applebome in my home, and none of the over two hours of conversation we had made it into the article.  Applebome had his article in mind before he visited Cooperstown, and it is my sincere regret that I ever mentioned the piece of hate mail I received or the angry woman I encountered at the gym when she interrupted a private conversation I was having, because, as I told the reporter, these are in fact anomalies in what has been, in general, an experience of community building and unification, as Middlefield and other towns rise up against corporate greed.  I am ashamed at my naïveté, and that my words have been used to such ends, and I regret any problems this might have caused.

.

2.

Furthermore, it seems facile and beneath the reputation of the NY Times to trot out the tired old story that the fracking debate is an argument between wealthy, downstate yuppies and impoverished, native farmers. Peter Applebome should have known better and taken the time to report what is really newsworthy and exciting about the antifracking movement in upstate NY—that it has unified people from all walks of life, from all socio-economic levels, all of whom realize that this is the defining issue of our time.

.

I personally am not a wealthy urbanite, although the article would imply that I am, and I am also not a newcomer to Cooperstown.  As I shared with the reporter, my family has been in this area since the turn of the 20th century.  My grandfather was a vet in Cooperstown since the 1940s. My grandmother was the Director of the northern Otsego County chapter of the Red Cross.  My father grew up in the house next door to mine.  I was born at Bassett hospital. I spent summers here with my grandparents my entire life.  On our visits with them, we would swim and fish at Otsego Lake, “help” my grandfather with the cats and dogs in the kennels, drive around from farm to farm with him on house calls, and roam the woods and streams.

.

But I really believe that all that is beside the point.  The point is that gas drilling is not going to help poor farmers solve their financial problems, or help anyone at all, really, aside from the executives at Gastem or Cabot or ExxonMobil.  As Ken Jaffe of Slope Farms in Meredith, NY, put it, “He said, she said” misses the story.  It is a story of overwhelming local opposition to hydrofracking. It is a story of gas companies attempting to use state government power to violate local land use regulations and voter sentiment, and impose their will on this region.”

.

Native or non-native, rich or poor, EVERYONE will be adversely affected if fracking comes to our area, which is why nearly everyone who lives here opposes it so strongly. If downstaters and Syracusans don’t oppose it as strongly, it is because Cuomo has protected those watersheds, in a move that clearly demonstrates that he knows high-volume hydrofracking is not safe, but he trusts that city dwellers don’t really care and will still vote for him later on. Applebome failed to mention this major story, which could have served to fill a gap in New York Times reporting.

.

3.

Lastly, the article’s implication that expression of opinions contrary to that held by the minority who want drilling has caused a tension in Cooperstown that might not otherwise be here is absurd.  The tension arrived when the gas men arrived and exploited the economic depression in our area, particularly exploiting the many farmers who signed. The idea expressed in the article that it is somehow unseemly or unladylike or ungentlemanly to cry foul at the situation and to attempt to educate the community about the injustice and the dangers of gas drilling, as experienced in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, smacks of censorship in the interest of preserving a mythical status quo of harmony that exists only in the minds of an elite few.

.

My husband, George Hovis, responded to this aspect of the article very well, so I will quote him here: “The article depicts divisiveness over proposed upstate hydrofracking in a mostly negative light, as if any individuals contributing to such discord are enemies of the peace. I am reminded of the many “moderates” in the U.S. South who cautioned Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to discontinue his protests against racial segregation because they felt such protests created tensions within Birmingham and other communities. Dr. King responded in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” with regret that these individuals did not “express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.” Although he “earnestly opposed violent tension,” King argued that there is “a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” The same might be said about the struggle of residents in Cooperstown and across upstate New York, who are battling the gas industry’s invasion of their communities, awakening in the citizenry a belief that they can participate in democracy and stand up to corporate power. These citizens have discovered the abiding truth that they can do so not by deferring to politicians but only by speaking out publicly. I believe the vast majority of upstate New Yorkers who have participated in the opposition to hydrofracking would agree with the injunction: ‘Be civil, but do not be silent.’ “

.

I consider myself a person of peace, and I make every effort in my interactions with others to listen to their side and try to understand their point of view, but I will not be silent in the face of this threat to our water and our land.  As I told the reporter, “Fracking is not safe, and I couldn’t live with myself if I just sat back and let it happen here without raising my voice against the gas industry that values profits more than people’s health and the environment. Someday I will be able to tell my children and grandchildren that I did every possible thing I could to try to save our home.”

.

Although I am not writing this letter from the Otsego County jail (my current discomfort merely involves my picture on the front page of the New York Times and shame that I was not savvy enough to avoid being manipulated), you can rest assured that I would if it came to that, and that I will continue to be “civil, but not silent.”

.

Thank you all for the good work that you do and for your attention to my response. I am continually amazed to find myself in the company of such intelligent and creative people, and grateful for your strength and support.

.

–Kim Jastremski

An abbreviated version of Kim’s letter was published by the NYT: Antifracking Movement

For the story to which Kim Jastremski responds, see NYT story: Drilling Debate in Cooperstown, NY, is Personal

“Neighbor to Neighbor: Living the Drill,” No 1: Deposit, 10/23/11 – the video

clearwater — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:49:04 +0000

.

A response to Peter Applebome of the NYT

clearwater — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:55:54 +0000

Dear Mr. Applebome,

How could a reporter as good as you have missed the actual story of the voter sentiment and the politics surrounding gas drilling in the region you discussed?

With respect, the real story is the overwhelming opposition to gas drilling among the voting population in the region you covered. Personal conflicts in town disputes concerning land use is not news. This story, based on the facts, is not neighbor verses neighbor, but rather a few large landowners (and the gas industry) against a huge majority of the population and the voters in the region.

Polls consistently show that between 70% and 90% of voters are opposed to gas drilling where local and regional polls have been done—across Otsego, Delaware, and Sullivan Counties. This includes polls done by towns and professional polling companies. Further west when local polls have been done, similar results have occurred.

The story is the overwhelming local opposition, and the plan of governor to ally with the gas companies to act against local voters and their governments, and attempt to eviscerate local land use regulation that is guaranteed by the NY State Constitution.

Among many recent polls showing voter opposition in Otsego County, was one done by the government of the Town of Hartwick in Otsego County which showed overwhelming opposition to gas drilling. (79% opposed, 16% in favor, 3% undecided). Hartwick is definitely not a haven for retirees and second homeowners. Hartwick recently welcomed the building of a large newly completed USDA slaughterhouse on the main street through town, hardly the type of development that your analysis would expect from local opponents to gas drilling (who you suggest are yuppie nimbys). Yet the people of Hartwick understand that meat processing capacity is critical to local farming, and that gas drilling has nothing whatsoever to do with farming. It’ s unrelated investment from which some landowners—including some farmers—would like to profit, at the expense of their neighbor who will be net losers. Hartwick’s town government, which gladly approved the new slaughterhouse, is now planning a local law to ban gas drilling. People in farming communities see through the false claim that gas drilling helps farming, and see through efforts by gas companies to put farmers up as poster children for a type of industrial development which threatens farming. Farmers know what helps farming.

In a survey this year, specifically of farmers in Meredith—where I live and farm— more farmers listed gas drilling as the largest threat to the future of their farm when given a list of threats (which also included taxes, high fuel costs, labor issues, machinery costs). The was survey run by the town government as part of a NY State grant to create a farmland protection plan.

This month, a poll by a professional polling company (Pulse Opinion Research) of 500 randomly selected residents in both Sullivan and Delaware County asked two questions.

Do you support natural gas extraction by means of hydraulic fracturing in your town?

                                      No              Yes            Not sure

Delaware County 72%           27% 1%

Sullivan County           69%   26%   4%

Would you support your town enacting zoning ordinances to restrict natural gas extraction by means of hydraulic fracturing?

                                      Yes            No              Not sure

Delaware County         69%           27%           4%

Sullivan County 69% 24% 7%

There are numerous other polls with similar results that can be cited.

Again, “he said, she said” misses the story. It is a story of overwhelming local opposition to hydrofracking. It is a story of gas companies attempting to use state government power to violate local land use regulations and voter sentiment, and impose their will on this region.

Sincerely,

Ken Jaffe
Slope Farms
Meredith, NY

For the story to which Ken Jaffe responds, see NYT story: Drilling Debate in Cooperstown, NY, is Personal

Ken Jaffe’s testimony at the SRBC hearing, 9/15/11

clearwater — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 04:51:57 +0000

Public Comments

Kenneth Jaffe, MD

Meredith, NY

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION September 15, 2011

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission. I want voice my objection to permits to withdraw water, and to address the responsibilities of this commission in the light of new scientific information concerning hydrofracking and drinking water quality. I’ll start by referring to the SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMPACT.

The Compacts Policy and Standard states that the Commission should act “in accordance with the best interests of the people of the basin and the states” and “the commission may assume jurisdiction whenever it determines…. that the effectuation of the comprehensive plan so requires……… the commission may adopt such rules, regulations, and water quality standards as may be required to preserve, protect, improve, and develop the quality of the waters of the basin.

What is missing from the agenda today is a discussion of the best interests of the people of the basin in “preserving and protecting water quality standard” in the light of scientific information that has come to light in the past year concerning the risk of fracking to drinking water.

In August 2010, Dr. Philip Landrigan, nation’s leading authority on environmental health impacts on children, testified before the EPA. Dr. Landrigan is Professor and Chair of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and heads their Center for Children’s Environmental Health. He told the EPA

“As pediatricians specializing in environmental medicine, we at The Center for Children’s Environmental Health are opposed to the current use of hydraulic fracturing not only due to the multiple known risks to children’s health, but also due to the substantial lack of research into the health effects of this practice. While this particular void in research is prominent and must be addressed, multiple health concerns have already been brought up by a wide range of individuals and groups, from rural communities to political bodies and environmental organizations to public health experts.”

That was a year ago.

The research void pointed out by Dr. Landrigan in August 2010 has been partially filled, making two things clear. First the information shows that fracking pollutes drinking water. Secondly that the void in our knowledge is even more dangerous and deep, that it appeared a year ago.

Days after Dr. Landrigan spoke, the EPA called a meeting in Wyoming where EPA Superfund Investigators, after studying drinking water contamination from gas drilling, spoke to residents of the town of Pavillion. They told the residents to not drink their water. They were told to leave their windows open when they shower or do laundry to avoid explosion. That might seem almost comical in the northeast in the winter, if it was not so meaningful, and disturbing.

In December 2010, the EPA in Texas filed suit against Range Resources under the Emergency Powers Section of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA scientific staff detailed how Range’s gas drilling activities had contaminated drinking water wells with methane, and powerful carcinogens, including benzene. US Justice Department is enforcing the Emergency Order in federal court.

In May 2011 in PA, after poisoning the drinking water of 16 families in Bradford County, Chesapeake Company was fined almost a million dollars by the PA DEP. Still there has been no systematic government study of ground water contamination in PA. And numerous reported cases of livestock illness and death associated with surface spills in PA that have gone uninvestigated by PA government.

In April 2011 the National Academy of Science published research led by Osborne at Duke that demonstrating that the contamination of drinking water wells with explosive levels of methane increased the closer the well is to a fracking site. This was a peer reviewed study—-the first peer review study that investigated the relationship between fracking and drinking water contamination. Neither government nor industry has funded any peer reviewed research on this issue. This study was funded by Duke University.

In July, a PA newpaper quoted Professor Terry Engelder of Penn State concerning drinking water contamination even with new triple cased wells, “as long as the state is finding violations, you can take the next logical step, which is obviously they haven’t solved the problem.”

This month, NY DEC SGEIS acknowledges the fact that gas drilling poses a serious threat to drinking water, by banning drilling in certain surface water systems (NYC and Syracuse) and groundwater systems. They made a policy decision to protect drinking water from primary aquifers but not other sole source aquifers. This distinction is not based on science or law. This rules would protect the health of 300,000 NY users primary aquifers in the Marcellus region, but not over 800,000 users of non-primary aquifers exposed to the same risks. Many of these 800,000 people are in the Susquehanna River Basin.

What have we heard from industry in the past year? The same story, that there is no problem, that it is impossible for drinking water contamination to occur from fracking. Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, told Congress:

“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Not one.”

Given the many episode of aquifer contamination identified by government and academics, we know that Mr. Tillerson’s statement is a shameful falsehood. His statement, echoed, and echoed again by the gas industry, is in the sordid tradition of lead paint manufacturers and tobacco companies that for decades, and with full knowledge of risks, denied those risks, and poisoned people hiding behind fake science and, more relevant to this discussion, government protection to continue their practices.

Most jarring are statements last month from former EPA officials to the NY Times that hundreds of cases of drinking water contamination were known to industry, but investigators were barred from seeing those records, as court settlements sealed these public health impacts and hid them from officials. This information gives us, and you, a fuller idea of the extent of industry’s knowledge of drinking water contamination, and their use of secrecy to hide the extent of the drinking water pollution from public scrutiny.

With what we have learned in the past year, the scales should fall from your eyes. It is past the time when you could say you do not know that the drinking water quality and the health of the people in SRB are under attack by the current policy on hydrofracking. You have the facts to tell you this process is not safe. It is also time to acknowledge that you do not yet know the full extent of the threat.

It is time to stop being so credulous with an industry that has consistently lied to you and the public about safety. Frankly, by maintaining the status quo, the Commission runs the risk appearing as puppets of an industry that acts with a shameless and callous disregard to public health.

You are being asked—-to follow the SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASINCOMPACT’s mandate

“to protect the water quality of the basin in accordance with the best interests of the people of the basin.” You should halt hydrofracking in the SRB, and not entertain resumption until thorough, unimpeded, objective scientific study of drinking water and health impacts is completed.

.

Where’s the beef? Gas industry jobs & taxes paid just don’t measure up to claims

clearwater — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:22:26 +0000

Response to a WHYY report, New Numbers Show PA Gas Production Will Lead Nation

.

Ms. Phillips -

.

This series of Penn State Reports has used a false premise, that capital spending directly equates to jobs and taxes, to make highly exaggerated claims. The gas industry has a great need for capital but an extraordinarily low requirement for staffing, about 10% of that of a normal industry.

.

This from the May 2010 version describes their methodology: “During 2009, Marcellus gas producers spent a total of $4.5 billion to develop Marcellus shale gas resources. Using the IMPLAN modeling system, we estimate that this spending generated $3.9 billion in value added, $389 million in state and local tax revenues, and more than 44,000 jobs” (emphasis added)

.

Judged against results these estimates were far off. According to Labor and Industry figures there are presently only 18,000 employees in the six core gas extraction industries in Pennsylvania.

.

Because of the structure of Pennsylvania tax code, the gas industry pays almost no local taxes and very little state taxes. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center found only 44.4 million in state taxes paid in 2009.

.

Since then, the industry has claimed 1.1 billion in taxes paid but reading the fine print shows this to be the total for five years, 2006 to 2010. Even then, the Budget and Policy Center complained that the Revenue Department had erected a smoke screen for the industry by counting taxes their employees and others paid.

.

Not to be deterred or embarrassed by past failure, Considine and company press on to new ridiculous highs in this current version.

.

“Our estimates suggest that in 2020 the Marcellus industry in Pennsylvania could be creating more than $20 billion in value added, generating $2 billion in state and local tax revenues, and supporting more than 250,000 jobs,” said the authors associated with Penn State’s department of energy and mineral engineering.”

.

To put the above “estimate” of jobs into perspective, consider this item. A 2008 US Labor Department analysis of the oil and gas extraction industryfound only 162,000 employees nationwide. A look at the three pages listing of industry job titles shows that the majority of these aren’t working on rigs but are sitting at desks at corporate headquarters in the Southwest.

.

The Penn State Reports have the same relationship to the Marcellus industry as fantasy football has to the NFL.

.

Jon Bogle

Williamsport, PA 17701

Misery: Gas companies as neighbors, the lies they tell, the arms they twist, and the hellish consequences

clearwater — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:44:06 +0000

From a follow-up interview conducted by e-mail and used with permission:

Hi David,

Thanks for coming up to Ithaca on Friday.

On a separate note, would you mind if I share your experience with fracking with people in Ithaca? If it’s okay with you for me to do so, I’d also like to confirm what you told me:

1.       Pollution of your well (two wells?). How did this show up?

Bohlander: We have two wells on the farm (190 acres). We had a detailed baseline water testing done on both before any of the gas activity happened in our area. We subsequently have had another 6 or so tests done on these wells. It is crucial to have certified baseline testing done prior to any activity by gas companies or they will claim there is no proof they are the cause and argue it was a pre-existing condition. We also retained a very competent hydrologist (who has the gas company clients) who was the plaintiffs hydrologist in the Dimock, PA contamination (highlighted in the movie Gasland). The well for the barn/and original farmhouse was so contaminated with methane they thought it would explode so the well pump was disconnected for six months and water was trucked in by the gas companies for the animals, and spring water for the humans!

2.       The operations end up being more extensive than anticipated. The “pads” are large, and end up being used for other operations.

Bohlander: Gas companies are major deceivers. They do this many ways. One is using land agents that are not their employees so that they can claim “we never said that ..they did”

Most all the neighbors were told that the gas wells would be drilled, it would take 3 months or so, and then land would be restored to earlier state. In reality this is what happens. They excavate a pad obliterating the natural terrain, hauling in 100’s of trucks of stone, gravel, etc. Once the pad is completed, they only drill 2-4 actual gas wells of what ultimately are likely going to be 12 or so on that pad. They may not frack the drilled wells immediately, but wait sometimes a year. The intention is to refrack over and over the same drilled wells. They are now claiming there is 60 years of gas here. Simultaneously, although not on all pads, they use the pads for other things such as equipment storage, frack water storage, and the worst: frack water recycling which we have three in our neighborhood and 2 are 10 year permits (one is in the review process, 9 days to go). These are REGIONAL frack water recycling operations bringing in dirty radioactive brine from 15 miles away or more, operating 24/7 with extensive noise, lights and traffic. DEP is way behind on enforcement. The neighbors are the enforcers, but it is David vs. Goliath (the gas companies). After four years now, I have not seen one well pad restored back to the original state. The stated plan by the gas companies is that there will be one well pad every 50 acres. If the well pad is 10 acres, 20% of our surface land area will be a perpetual well pad.

3.       Extensive light pollution due to 24/7 operation.

Bohlander: Re frack water recycling: They power huge lights that light of the pads for the whole night. They don’t use street electric but generators which contribute to the noise. The trucks have large pumps that due to the volume of 5200 gallons per truck are large motors, the trucks endlessly are using their backup safety beepers, horns for instructions to the ground crew, etc. The three sites in our neighborhood will generate 800 trucks a day, 1600 with return trip passes.

The gas drilling when it goes on makes it almost impossible to sleep. 24/7, 7 days a week.

4.       Extensive trucking.

Bohlander: The gas companies make new roads over smaller older roads to accommodate their extensive traffic. The state allows them to exceed the weight limit of the road by paying some fee or posting a bond. The small country road in front of our farm is now elevated 3 feet in the air from normal ground level. Certain roads are used as main arterial roads after they have been rebuilt –this happened to ours. The trucks are hauling huge amounts of gravel, fill, fresh water for fracking and the dirty brine water out, as well as all the equipment for the drilling process. Each well on the pad uses 5 million gallons of water. 60% flows back and is recycled, but removed from the site. Our road was destroyed initially and impassible. The gas companies then closed 10 mile stretches of the road for months at a time as they began rebuilding it. One landowner could only get to and from his property with a four wheeler.

5.       Feel free to add any other relevant details.

Bohlander: The gas companies have a very systematic playbook from the years of operating and polluting Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, etc. They have two sides: a friendly neighborly “give $35K to the fire company” and then a ruthless no-holds-barred side.   Three times they threatened that in 24 hours they were going to stop trucking in water for the cows in our barn unless we agreed to things. These things include non-disclosure agreements, consent not to sue, etc. Read the book Collateral Damage. A lot of good environmental activist groups with websites and a lot of info. Many have been to our house. We were one of the first contaminated sites in this region from the drilling.

The public does not have any idea how bad the permanent environmental contamination is going to be. There has been major barium and radiation poisoning with some already. One not far from us is a 13-year- old girl with barium poisoning. One of our immediate neighbors’ daughters is having clumps of hair fall out and his dog got sick and parakeet died from drinking his well water. He abuts one of the frack water recycling sites.

Air pollution is the sleeping giant.   Each well pad on an ongoing basis emits things into the air (like toluene) as the gas goes through a preliminary filtering process at the well pad. The absolutely worst are the gas compression stations for both noise and air pollution.

As you may know, the gas drilling is exempt from the Clean Water Act — we actually are more apt to be fined if manure is spread on the road, than these major infractions the gas company are doing. The environmental enforcement agencies only slap their wrists with fines. Cost of doing business to gas companies –easier to just pay the fine.

.

Isengard falls to Mordor…

clearwater — Sun, 01 May 2011 04:11:17 +0000

. .
…b u t. . r e m e m b e r. . w h o. . w i n s. . i n. .t h e. . e n d .

Gas Drilling in Beautiful Susquehanna County, PA from VeccVideography on Vimeo.

.

.

What’s all this about propane fracking?

clearwater — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:11:38 +0000

.

From Ron Bishop, 4/11/2010:

“A few “eco-friendly” fracturing schemes are out and about, but they all come with some* issues.”

“Propane is a gas at ordinary pressures, but can be fairly easily liquefied with pressure. It is, of course, a fossil fuel itself. Using propane would get around using millions of gallons of water, but would not deal with some real technological challenges. First, in order to suspend sand or other proppants, liquid propane needs to be thickened, typically by foaming agents like peroxide. Using peroxide requires the addition of even more corrosion inhibitors than when water is used, and biocides are still required to control microbe growth. (I’ve heard misinformation that fracking with propane requires no chemical additives; that’s just not true.)

“The use of propane introduces new problems with controlling a pressurized liquid that quickly turns to a gas when the pressure is released. It’s not easy or cheap, and a lot of gas escapes into the atmosphere. This is a greenhouse gas, though not as potent as carbon dioxide (another [so-called] “green” fracking fluid candidate) or methane.

“And none of these exotic “fluids under pressure” help with the toxicity of the deep brines that still flow out of gas well bores. These brines continue to be among the greatest waste problems faced by the industry.”

______________________________________________________________

Some further observations:

The only benefit of propane fracking would be the apparent elimination of water usage for the hydraulic fracturing phase of well development.

Water would still be required for parts of the drilling phase.

Frequently, one of the key problems caused by gas extraction, groundwater contamination, takes place during the drilling phase, prior to fracking. There are multiple opportunities for groundwater contamination to occur during the drilling phase, starting with the very first stage, which necessarily takes place with no casing in place yet as the lengths of casing can only be inserted as sections of the borehole are drilled out.

Regardless of the method used to complete (or ‘frack’) a well, the overall footprint of industrial impacts on the landscape, and on future options for land use, remain the same: the same number of pipeyards/chemical storage sites, access roads, well pads, compressor stations, pipelines, and gas processing units.

So:

merely reducing the amount of water hauled to the site for fracking
would leave in place most of the major problems
associated with petro-methane extraction.

Keep your eye on the big picture, New York:
hydro (i.e. water) fracking is only one of many ways
petro-methane extraction can ruin us.

.

*Ron specializes in understatement.

.

Would a local or statewide ban result in “takings” proceedings and liability? No.

clearwater — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:43:59 +0000

Banning Hydrofracking Is Not A “Taking” of Property

By Mary Jo Long, Esq.

As the public sentiment grows for a ban on High Volume Hydrofracking (HVHF), lawyers and others who speak for corporate profit-making opportunities in natural gas say that laws banning or limiting gas drilling is a “taking” of property. Even some who seem to be on our side make the same claim. This claim is groundless and misguided. It is a scare tactic to prevent public pressure on our elected officials against HVHF.

What is the Legal Status of These Claims?

1.      All property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner’s use of it shall not be injurious to the community.   There is no compensation for limiting that type of use of property, and

2.      A “taking” claim does not apply if the property can be used for other purposes even if those uses are not as profitable.

Consider the Source

The claim that the government (fed, state or local) will be sued to recover the value of lost property is made by attorneys and others supporting HVHHF as a method of gas drilling. They say that we, the taxpayers, will have to pay for the lost profits due to the government’s taking of their property. Always bear in mind that lawyers are advocates for their clients. When a Landowners’ Coalition lawyer claims that a ban will be a taking, that lawyer is making an argument in support of his client’s position. Making a claim (I’m going to sue you) doesn’t mean that a lawsuit will really happen nor that a Court will agree with the argument if an actual lawsuit is filed.

What Is the Law on Taking Property by the Government

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides certain protections to persons. Included in the protections is the phrase “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”[i] This is the “taking” referred to by the anti-ban people. This obligation to compensate for taking private property only applied to the federal government until the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution expanded the application to state governments as well. Eminent domain is the term most frequently used when a government takes a piece of property: land for a public park, a public road, a public school, etc. The owner of the land is entitled to be paid for the value of the land taken from her.   Historical evidence suggests that the original intent of the takings clause did not include mere restrictions on use.

But what if the government, say through a town zoning law or a state law, BANS gas drilling without taking over title to the property where gas companies and gas leaseholders expect to drill for gas? Are governmental laws that restrict the use of the land by restricting a profit making opportunity a “taking” when actual ownership does not change?

The notion that one can do anything he wants on his property is not the law of the land.   The US Supreme Court has said “all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner’s use of it shall not be injurious to the community.” Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 665 (1887) This principle still remains the law of the land even as Court rulings on “takings” have muddied the waters.[ii]

A town government can use its police power[iii] and zoning/land use power to restrict and prohibit uses that it considers to be detrimental to the community. The exercise of these powers does not constitute a “taking.” For example, the Town of Hempstead passed a law prohibiting gravel pit from excavating below the town’s water table. This law was upheld in Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962) as a valid use of the town’s police power. The Supreme Court conceded that the law completely prohibited a prior use by Mr. Goldblatt who had operated a gravel pit for 30 years. But the Court held that depriving the property of its most profitable use does not make the law unconstitutional, nor a taking.

The present case must be governed by principles that do not involve the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of which property may not be taken for public use without compensation. A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit. Such legislation does not disturb the owner in the control or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use by any one, for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public interests.” Goldblatt at p.593 quoting Mugler v. Kansas.

In 1992 the Supreme Court carved out an exception to this concept in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003. The Supreme Court expanded the right to be compensated when new laws deprived land of all economically beneficial use. Although Lucas still owned the land, a lower court at trial had found that the property was rendered of zero value by the law which prohibited residential construction beyond a baseline on the beachfront. While the Supreme Court described these as “relatively rare situations”[iv], it has encouraged litigation. At the same time as Lucas slightly expanded the takings doctrine it also reaffirmed the principle that government does not have to pay compensation when it limits “harmful or noxious uses” of property.

It is correct that many of our prior opinions have suggested that ‘harmful or noxious uses’ of property may be proscribed by government regulation without the requirement of compensation. . . .[G]overnment may, consistent with the Takings Clause, affect property values by regulation without incurring an obligation to compensate – a reality we nowadays acknowledge explicitly with respect to the full scope of the State’s police power”[v]

The Court further acknowledged that Lucas would not be entitled to compensation even though he was deprived of all economically beneficial use if his “bundle of rights” did not include the prohibited use to begin with.[vi] Some uses of land are not a part of the land title to begin with. When someone owns property the owner does not have the property right to have a common law nuisance. Government actions that abate common law nuisances are per se not takings. The Court acknowledged there are inherent limits on landowner rights, imposed under background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance. Thus government can still forbid deleterious uses even to the point of total takings.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Lucas, says that a “total taking” of personal property would be subject to a lower standard “by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings”[vii] This means that there is no claim of a taking based on a gas lease, which is personal property rather than real property, i.e. land.

Those opposing a ban on hydrofracking base their claims of a “taking” on Lucas but subsequent cases have confirmed the narrowness of the ruling in Lucas.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (Court said moratorium was not a regulatory taking);

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) (part of parcel was worth $200,00, so was not a total taking);

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) (recognized that Takings cases were inconsistent. Tried to clarify by saying the inquiry is whether the regulation is “so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster” i.e. functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or outs the owner from his property.);

Gazza v. NYSDEC 89 NY 2d 603 (1999), cert. denied. (Mere diminution in value of property, however serious, is insufficient to demonstrate a taking.)

Conclusion

1.      To make a takings argument, the following conditions apply:

a.         A taking claim cannot be based on an interest the owner never had, e.g. the right to create a nuisance.

b.      A taking claim does not apply if the property can be used for other purposes. i.e. the economic value has not been totally extinguished. Just because the value of the property has been reduced does not mean the owner gets to claim his “expected” profits if he were allowed to fully exploit the property.

c.       Personal property, such as a gas lease, has even less recognition as a taking, even if it is a total taking.

2.      Property rights, as well as other rights, are limited by the neighborhood of other public interests. The highest court in NYS said in Gernatt Asphalt Products v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668 (1996):

A municipality is not obliged to permit the exploitation of any and all natural resources within the town as a permitted use if limiting that use is a reasonable exercise of its police power to prevent damage to the rights of others and to promote the interests of the community as a whole. (at page 684)

3.      The police power of the state is the power to regulate persons and property for the purpose of securing the public health, safety, welfare, comfort, peace and prosperity of the municipality and its inhabitants.

[i] “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

[ii] In 1922 the Supreme Court ruled that the Pennsylvania legislature had overstepped the line by enacting a law forbidding people from removing coal from under other people’s houses and was held to effect a taking. The Court said, “While property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415. In 1987 the Supreme Court in Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 held that a nearly identical law was not a taking. Property is held under the implied obligation that the owner’s use of it shall not be injurious to the community. That principle, the court held, does not require compensation whenever the state asserts its power to enforce a prohibition that is injurious to the community. It is a question that “necessarily requires a weighing of private and public interests.” (pp. 491-492)

[iii] Police power is the power to regulated persons and property for the purpose of securing the public health, safety, welfare, comfort, peace and prosperity of the municipality and its inhabitants. This include prevention, suppression and abatement of public nuisances, including street nuisances and air pollution, preservation of the public peace and tranquility, protection of the public health through sanitation and disposal of waste and from the harmful effects of industrial and commercial development and proper growth of the municipality through zoning. Article IX of the NY State Constitution; Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law; Section 130 of the Town Law; Section 20 of the General City Law and Section 4-412 of the Village Law.

[iv] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, at p. 1018

[v]Lucas at p. 1022-1023 citing Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 125 (1978)

[vi] Lucas at p. 1027.

[vii] Lucas at 1027.

Commission review: DEC’s Division of Mineral Resources incompetent to regulate O&G

clearwater — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:21:31 +0000

FAILURES OF DEC OIL & GAS REGULATION

By Brian Brock

Programs for oil and gas regulation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation were reviewed by Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission in 1994. The resulting fifty five page report examines the details, but does not provide an overview. Nevertheless Finding I.10 is a good summary: “DMN can not meet its program responsibilities and administer an effective program under current budgetary conditions. The program is at a crossroads in this regard, because the status quo is not a tolerable long-term condition.” The Division of Mineral Resources (DMN) is the principle division in charge of oil and gas regulation.

This review was conducted by a team of six experts from IOGCC, state governments, industry, and an environmental group with observers from the federal government, industry, and another environmental group. First, DEC answered an extensive questionnaire. Next, DEC staff were interviewed in Saratoga Springs NY May 1 to 5. The review team met July 13 to 15 to discuss and prepare the draft report, which was then sent to all involved. The team met a final time August 29 to September 1 to consider all comments and prepare the final report. Funding was from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The full report, minus some of the appendices, is available at strongerinc.org.

From this final report “New York State Review, IOGCC/EPA State Review of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste Management Regulatory Programs, September 1994”:

Rules and Regulations

“DMN’s regulations … largely originated in 1972. In the mid-1980s, DMN began a process to substantially upgrade its regulations through … the GEIS in July1992. Despite the substantial period of time that has expired since the inception of this effort, revised rules have not been proposed or promulgated to date.” {Page 5} No rules and regulations have been promulgated since. What is more, the recent draft SGEIS was likewise issued without a rules package.

“In absence of upgraded rules [and regulations], DMN relies substantially upon conditions attached to drilling permits to implement new technical guidance. … Such permit conditions only apply to new wells and therefore of limited utility. Enforcement questions may also arise from imposing generally applicable permit conditions without first issuing rules supporting those permitting conditions.” {Pages 5 to 6}

“One of the principal stated missions of the DEC is protection of human health and the environment. However Part 550 [to 559] of DMN’s rules do not expressly include protection of human health and environment as a goal or policy directive.” {Page 6}

“DMN regulations were not in conformance with Article 23 statutes after 1981 [revisions] and were changed as emergency in 1992.” {Appendix B, page 6}

Staffing

“From a peak staff level of 52 in the mid-1980s, the number of positions declined to 44 in FY 90[-91], and still further to 33 in the last two fiscal years. Equally important, non-personal funds for purchase of equipment, computers, gasoline, and supplies were dramatically reduced from $230,850 in FY 90-91 to approximately $76,000 in each of the last two fiscal years.” {Page 12}

“Consequently, six inspector positions [including one filled by an inspector on extended leave] are available statewide to inspect [500 to 600 annually of the] 14,000 active wells and 5,000 wells of unknown status.” {Page 38} Also an estimated 45,000 inactive wells. In 2008, DMN reported inspection of 2,445 sites annually with a staff of 19. The 2009 annual report has yet to be released.

“[Staff for] both regions [8 and 9] are under milage and overtime limitations, and have not been able to replace vehicles or purchase other equipment in the past five years.” {Page 38}

“… field staff indicated that they generally operate in a reactive mode due to staff limitations. For example, they have not conducted routine inspections in the last three years.” {Page 38}

“Additionally inspections such as well plugging, permit transfer, and temporary abandonment inspections are done as resources are available. Many of the 25 gas storage fields have not been inspected over the last 15 years.” {Page 38}

“The legal side of DMN activities suffers from similar resource deficiencies. There is currently one program attorney in headquarters, whose responsibilities are divided between oil/gas and mining activities. While DEC regional attorneys assist DMN regional staff in enforcement matters, this assistance is not always timely or adequate because of competing demands on these DEC attorneys.” {Page 14}

Siting and Permitting

“DMN rules contain several siting provisions, but these provisions apply to wells and not pits or tanks associated the wells.” {Page 21}

“DMN rules related to siting are not comprehensive, since they do not cover areas such as floodplains, wetlands, proximity to drinking water supplies, and depth to groundwater.” {Page 21}

“Fencing flagging, and caging requirements are instituted on a case-by-case basis and are not contained in regulation or guidance documents” {Page 31}

“DMN does not consider operator compliance history when issuing permits.” {Page 17}

“DMN does not provide notice of intention to issues drilling permits and does not allow public comment on drilling permits prior to issuance unless an EIS or other supplementary SEQR document is deemed necessary.” {Page 24} Since the release of the GEIS in 1992, no permit has required EIS or other supplementary SEQR documents.

“Permits are usually issued within 10-14 days of application” {Page 17}

Brine Wastes

“This [1987] survey indicated 8.6 million barrels [360 million gallons] of produced water were generated that year. Most produced water is discharged into streams, discharged to land surfaces, or roadspread for ice and dust control [85 to 90 percent] or recycled for water flooding [or commercially treated, 10 to 15 percent].” {Page 9} Percentages are from Appendix B, page 7.

“In Region 9, according to DMN, there is also a large but unknown number of discharges of produced water directly to land (where there is no pit at the end of the pipe).” {Page 10}

“DMN investigation activities to date have not included abandoned pits and other waste management units.” {Page 44}

“There is no explicit authority in DMN’s rules to require corrective action for non-oil releases.” {Page 27} Releases such as brine and gas.

“There is little or no coordination between DRA, DMN, DOW, and local governments regarding the determination of appropriate controls for roadspreading, the monitoring of environmental impacts, or sharing of information on this practice.” {Page 11} DRA is the Division of Regulatory Affairs, and DOW is Division of Water.

Other Wastes

“DMN’s programs do not require representative testing of drilling cuttings disposed on site, produced brines which are roadspread, or associated wastes.” {Page 29} Associated wastes include stimulating fluids, completion fluids, produced sands, and drying and sweetening chemicals.

“In short, no agency within the DEC is responsible for, or can produce, reliable information on associated wastes generation or disposal.” {Page 9}

“According to DMN, 90% of drilling solids are buried on-site, and 10% are recycled off-site.” {Page 9}

“E&P [exploration and production] waste is regulated by DSW as a municipal waste since it is specifically excluded from the definition of industrial waste.” {Page 19} DSW is Division of Solid Waste.

Orphaned Wells

“Almost 18,000 of the 30,000 wells in the database are not plugged according to DMN records. [Of these 18,000,] the agency has received reports from operators on 12,857 active wells, leaving approximately 5,000 wells of unknown status requiring further investigation.” {Page 42}

“Five thousand three hundred twenty-two unplugged wells of record drilled before 1973 are grandfathered [ie exempted] from financial assurance requirements. … [therefore] DMN holds approximately $12 million of financial assurance to cover a potential liability of $100 million.” {Page 19} Assumes that plugging a well will cost an average of $20,000.

While a few of these deficiencies are addressed in the dSGEIS, those changes would only apply to horizontally drilled shale gas wells.

Changes to the DEC programs since the summer of 1994 have not been documented. The DEC has not cooperated in a follow-up review to evaluate its progress in the last 17 years. In 2006, follow-up reviews for New York and Kentucky were scheduled, but the one for New York never took place. (In contrast, Pennsylvania DEP had its review in 1992, two follow-up reviews in 1997 and 2004, and a review of its hydraulic fracturing program in 2010.) In response to a 2009 survey, DEC claimed that of the 37 deficiencies cited in the 1994 report, they had fully remedied 10 (27%) and partially remedied 14 (38%), but no documentation was provided.

Prove it

clearwater — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:02:22 +0000

.

In a February 23rd story, the Denver Post reports that homeowner Tracy Dahl lost his case before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Dahl’s water went bad on June 30, 2010, according to the Post story, “the same day that Pioneer fracked its Alibi well about 1300 feet away.”

The COGCC – which “regulates” gas extraction in the state – is notoriously pro-industry, a universal condition of regulating agencies, which really serve the industry they’re supposed to be watchdogging.

According to the story,

“‘There is no question there is something wrong with your well,” commission member Mark Cutright said. ‘The question is whether you proved fracking impacted your well.’

“The commission, in a unanimous vote, ruled Dahl had not.

“‘Alibi is a good name for that well,’ Dahl said.

“The commission investigates dozens of well complaints each year.”

Whether any of those complaints receive a fair hearing is a question worth considering. According to someone present at the hearing, “The landowner…was not allowed to present his side of the story and [was] barred from submitting his consultant’s reports on the grounds they were hearsay.”

The oil & gas industry is used to calling the shots wherever it goes, a reality that must be acknowledged by any individual considering leasing and every public official in every state where the industry seeks drilling permits. To fail to understand the nature of the industry, and the nature of its relationship with its “regulating” agencies, is to pave the way for tragedy and travesty.

Complete Denver Post story here.

“The resource curse”

clearwater — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:11:24 +0000

From “The Spill Seekers,” Outside Magazine, November 2010

————————————-

While I was in Louisiana, there was an event at the Cajundome, in Lafayette, called the Rally for Economic Survival: 11,000 people packed the place to hear the governor, the lieutenant governor, and, of all people, the executive director of the Louisiana Seafood Marketing and Promotion Board rail against the Obama administration for stealing their jobs by imposing a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling.

“Enough is enough!” raged the lieutenant governor, Scott Angelle, in his thick Cajun accent. “Louisiana has a long and strong, distinguished history of fueling America, and we proudly do what few other states are willing to do. …America is not yet ready to get all of its fuel from the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees!”

True, but of the six billion to seven billion barrels of oil consumed by the U.S. each year, only about 10 percent comes from federal Gulf of Mexico waters; we get the same amount from both the Persian Gulf and Canada. Louisiana is no longer a significant source of crude, on- or off-shore. What it does supply is cheap labor and a pliant local government. In this, it’s eerily reminiscent of Third World places ruined by oil. The BPs of the world would have you believe oil brings prosperity to the countries where it’s discovered, but it brings misery so dependably that economists have a name for the phenomenon: the resource curse.

Ecuador, Venezuela, Iraq: Bad things happen to countries “blessed” with oil. The Niger Delta is the Mississippi River Delta’s separated-at-birth twin, offering the scariest cautionary tale of all. This tropical river delta held some of the greatest wetlands on earth, with abundant shellfish, crabs, and shrimp, the foundation of the economy and culture, but it also harbored vast oil reserves. In the past 50 years, Shell has grown preposterously wealthy off that oil, while Nigeria, with the tenth-largest oil reserves in the world, has become a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Almost three times as much oil has spilled into the Niger River Delta as was spilled by the Deepwater Horizon: 546 million gallons and counting. The creeks are black, and the crabs and shrimp are dead. There are always leaking, corroded wellheads and pipelines. Gangs of rebels and oil thieves roam the jungle. Flaring rigs fill the air with mercury, arsenic, and carcinogens. Disease is rampant. The government is cardboard.

Southern Louisiana is no Nigeria, but it’s also no longer quite recognizable as the United States. The trailer homes on pilings, the dearth of education, the chronic disease, the fat parish chiefs – I know the Third World when I see it. Cajuns haven’t grown rich on crude; Houston has. And when the oil runs out, there’s nothing left to fall back on.

I bet Angelle would simply argue that oil is worth billions more than seafood. But that’s only because we aren’t sophisticated enough to put a value on all the multifarious “ecosystem services” the gulf provides: benefits of the natural world, resources and processes we all too often take for granted. If we were to add these things to the ledger – all that gulf seafood and the health savings from it, the hurricane protection and wildlife habitat in all those marshes, to name only a few – and apply the calculus of their self-perpetuating sustainability, the astronomical value would blow your mind. It leaves petroleum in the pit. … How much are all those acres of disappearing land worth? What price the mental anxiety of a culture watching its homeland disintegrate? How much added value do you assign oyster reefs because they’ve never, ever blown up and killed anyone? It’s only ignorance – an inability to tally all the gains and losses – that makes oil look good.

—————————–

Do yourself a favor: pick up a copy at your favorite newstand and read the whole piece. And say thanks to Outside Magazine.

EPA hearing comment: “Agencies appear to be captured by an industry they’ve been tasked to regulate”

clearwater — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:28:42 +0000

Comments to the EPA Hearing on Horizontal Drilling /High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing

September 15, 2010, Binghamton, New York

Good evening. My name is Joan Tubridy; I am the daughter of a NYC Fire Captain, a former farmer for 23 years, and a middle school Math and English teacher for the past 16 years. I am also a member of CDOG (Chenango Delaware Otsego Gas Drilling Opposition Group). I wish to thank Mike Bernhard of Chenango County for his significant contributions to my remarks.

.
I grew up believing that state agencies with names like the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Arkansas and Louisiana Departments of Environmental Quality, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality were all obligated to fulfill the mandates of their chosen titles. Over these past two years, I have had a disappointing education. These agencies appear to be captured by an industry they’ve been tasked to regulate.

For example, just this past Tuesday, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said that the state Office of Homeland Security, which has been sending information about anti-gas drilling groups to law enforcement and drilling companies, will no longer do so. Should we feel reassured?

Furthermore, spokespersons for the Oil and Gas Industry have obfuscated the truth so often that they have apparently deceived pro-gas coalitions, members of Congress, and agencies with “Environmental” in their titles. The industry has repeatedly stated that the horizontal-drilled, high-volume hydrofracturing (HD/HVF) technology that makes the Marcellus Shale such a plum for gas corporations, has been going on safely for decades.

In fact, there has not been one HD/HVF well in the Marcellus or any other shale body in New York. Ever. Two current drilling practices (drilling horizontal wells in sandstones, and fracturing vertical wells in shale) have been co-mingled as if they “added up” to horizontal-drilled, high-volume hydrofractured wells in the Marcellus Shale (HD/HVF). They don’t and here’s why:

The Herkimer sandstone formation in Chenango County, New York, for example, is a porous stone which produces no methane, but which has – over geologic time – absorbed methane from neighboring shale formations. Though horizontally-drilled, these sandstone wells require no fracking. A single square mile filled with 80-acre Herkimer drilling units would not require one drop of frack fluid, nor produce one drop of toxic flowback. But a single square-mile HD/HVF Marcellus drilling unit, containing typically eight 4000-foot well bores on one pad, would require 32,000,000 gallons of fracking fluid.

A sandstone well is drilled once, never fractured, and the gas is gone; shale wells can be fractured multiple times, using increasing amounts of fracking fluids each time, to get decreasing amounts of gas.

Similarly, vertical wells drilled through the thin Marcellus shale encounter only about 150 feet of shale available for fracking, and are legally limited to using 80,000 gallons of fracking fluid per well. So, a fully built-out square mile of vertical Marcellus wells at the legal 40-acre spacing, will therefore yield about 2400 feet of frackable shale and be legally limited to using 1,280,000 gallons of fracking fluid. Compare this with horizontal well bores in that same thin layer in Pennsylvania which are commonly 4000 feet long on an eight-well pad: a total of 32,000 feet of frackable wellbore, requiring 32,000,000 gallons of fracking fluid.

Horizontal-drilled, high-volume hydrofracturing (HD/HVF) in the Marcellus Shale creates twenty-five (25) times the length of frackable wellbore as those created by a fully built-out vertical Marcellus field. That’s twenty-five times the drill cuttings, twenty-five times the flowback wastewater, twenty-five times the truck-traffic for water haulage, and twenty-five times the flowback disposal.

Horizontal-drilled, high-volume hydrofracturing (HD/HVF) in the Marcellus Shale requires fracking fluid that is thirty-five (35) times the legal limit for vertical shale wells, ignoring subsequent re-fracturing. The no-frack Herkimer sandstone experience is irrelevant to the discussion at hand today, though industry would like us to believe that horizontal-drilled, high-volume hydrofracturing (HD/HVF) has been going on for decades.

Another industry obfuscation was recently employed in Pennsylvania when a Chesapeake spokesperson attempted to shift the blame for recent water well problems following gas drilling, to poor construction and drilling of water wells. In his August 22, 2010 letter to the editor of the Sunday Review, Thomas Cummings, a water well driller in Towanda, Pennsylvania refuted this claim by Chesapeake and defended his practices and reputation. Several local homeowners contacted Mr. Cummings regarding disturbances in their water wells that began after nearby gas drilling activity had started. Mr. Cummings states, “The excitement of gas lease funding and large drilling rigs coming to our area has been replaced by damaged roads; delayed travel and traffic snarls; streams sucked dry by convoys of trucks driven by persons foreign to our area … residential sweet water invaded by methane that is blowing off well caps; local families displaced by gas workers; and other changes affecting our work and lifestyles. Our drinking water is being affected and millions of gallons of water are being extracted from our streams, rivers and municipal wells with insufficient recharge.”

.
I urge you, the Environmental Protection Agency:

1. to be wary of industry’s deliberate deceptions and to examine those mentioned above, and

2. to find individuals who have suffered contamination of their homes by the gas industry, and who have been silenced by money, trucked-in domestic water, and nondisclosure agreements. Legally challenge these nondisclosure agreements and seek out the stories these families have to tell about how their lives have become desperately focused on what most of us take for granted – a healthy home environment for our families.

I urge the Environmental Protection Agency to fulfill the grave obligation imbedded in your name.

Thank you.

.

Promises, promises

clearwater — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:48:43 +0000

.

No economic boom, inadequate tax revenues, low royalties, wrecked roads, bad water.

So what else is new?

From NewsInferno.com 9/13/2010:

Fracking in Arkansas Falling Short of Promise

It appears that hydraulic fracturing in Arkansas’ Fayetteville shale isn’t living up to past promises. According to a report in Arkansas Business, depressed natural gas prices have eaten away at royalties and at the state’s severance tax, which was designed to raise revenue to offset the damage the industry causes to roadways.

A gas industry-funded study released in 2008 promised that fracking in Arkansas would have an $18 billion economic impact over five years. The year the study was released, the price of natural gas peaked above $11 per thousand cubic feet (MCF). Since then, Arkansas Business says the national average wellhead price has rarely topped $5 per MCF. That’s significantly cut the amount of royalties gas drillers have paid to mineral rights owners.

When the severance tax was increased in 2008, it was projected to bring in $57 million in its first year. But between the law’s passage in April 2008 and its effective date on Jan. 1, 2009, the price of gas dropped by half. That means that dollars available for road repair have been in short supply, Arkansas Business said.

. . . . .

While the economic boom promised by fracking has yet to materialize, environmental concerns are mounting. According to Arkansas Business, complaints to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) surged in fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009. That year, ADEQ’s Water Division received 108 complaints related to oil and gas activities and performed 216 inspections. As the 2010 fiscal year drew to a close in June, the number of complaints was about 80.

. . . . .

Some… water contamination incidents that have come out of Arkansas since fracking took off there … include:

• In 2009, a Bee Branch family reported their drinking water turned gray and cloudy and had noxious odors after fracking of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company.

• A Center Ridge family reported that in 2007, after hydraulic fracturing of wells owned by Southwestern Energy Company, their water turned red or orange and looked like it had clay in it.

• Another Center Ridge homeowner reported that after hydraulic fracturing of a well owned by Southwestern Energy Company in 2008 his water turned brown, smelled bad, and had sediment in it.

• In 2007, a family in Pangburn reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. The water turned muddy and contained particles that were “very light and kind of slick” and resembled pieces of leather.

• In 2008, Charlene Parish, another Bee Branch resident, reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. Her water smelled bad, turned yellow, and filled with silt.

See entire piece at http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/23905