un-naturalgas.org weblog

I am writing to comment on the “Draft Scope” for the “Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS) 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.” In recent months I have spent a considerable amount of time researching and carefully considering this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the dSGEIS, and I thank you for your attention in regard to this matter.

While neither horizontal gas wells nor hydraulic fracturing are new to New York, it would be a grave mistake to equate the proposed Marcellus Shale development with previous gas extraction in the state, for two reasons: first, because development of the shale is likely to require the use of “slick water” fracturing—a potentially dangerous technology barely more than a decade old—and second, because in order to fully develop the shale, thousands and thousands of wells will be required.

If the shale is developed in a manner consistent with the gas industry’s predictions that some 50 trillion cubic feet of gas or more will be recovered, most of the residents of the region will eventually find themselves living within a mile or two of a gas well. Many of us will be living much closer to a well (or to a number of wells) than that. Current spacing law requires a 640-acre spacing unit for well pads with multiple wells, but subsequent infilling may be allowed. The spacing for horizontal or vertical well pads with single wells is only 40 acres. And it should be remembered that the Marcellus is an unconventional gas play—the gas is not trapped in rich pockets, but rather is distributed throughout the shale, necessitating the drilling of a large number of wells in order to recover significant amounts of gas. It is not yet clear precisely what combination of vertical and horizontal wells will prove most profitable; the particular approach used is likely to vary from one gas company to another and from one region of the shale to another. There may be some areas of the state with extremely high well densities. In addition, a vast network of access roads, gathering lines, pipelines, and waste disposal sites and/or waste treatment plants will also be required. Truck traffic and related air pollution are likely to increase tremendously, even in areas where heavy traffic has never been an issue before. This is a level of development which would utterly and irrevocably transform a huge region of the state and present a complex constellation of hazards to the environment and to human health and welfare. Each of these potential hazards is deserving of thorough, measured consideration. And certainly, their cumulative force must also be carefully considered. The single most disturbing aspect of the proposed development is the large number of
wells anticipated, for it will multiply many times over the damage and hazards associated with any given well.

It should be recognized that: 1) the normally low probability of events such as chemical spills, well fires, and pipeline ruptures must be multiplied by the huge number of wells anticipated, making serious accidents more likely; 2) the known hazards of unconventional gas development experienced in other areas of the country may present special challenges here in New York, where the topography, climate, and population distribution and density are not identical to those of previously developed shale regions and where the water supplies for some 5% of the nation’s population originate; and 3) since the exact nature and the huge scale of this development will be new to the state, there may be consequences which are completely unforeseen at this time.

It is also important to keep in mind that the dSGEIS is being prepared at a time when other regions around the country are grappling with many damaging and unexpected consequences of unconventional gas extraction that go far beyond the consequences of conventional gas extraction. These hazards include significant air and water pollution, exposure to harmful chemical substances, substantial degradation of the surrounding landscape, loss of habitat, and decreases in housing value due to the aforementioned problems. The potential hazards are not merely theoretical— they are already being felt in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Fort Worth, Texas. Moreover, the coming decades may reveal additional concerns, such as the long-term negative health effects of exposure to the as yet unrevealed and possibly carcinogenic chemical components of the slick water fracking fluid.

Human lives are at stake, and that means that extreme caution is warranted. Section 7.0 of the dSGEIS offers as an alternative the “prohibition of the development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing.” I strongly urge the DEC to seriously consider prohibition of the development of the Marcellus Shale until such time as the problems which have already occurred in other areas of the country have been fully analyzed and understood, and the technology required for the development of the shale has matured to a point that would allow the extraction of the gas to proceed safely and with minimal impact on the region’s many other precious resources. The gas is not going anywhere and is, in fact, likely to become more valuable as time passes. One of the worst outcomes I can imagine would be for New York to proceed with undue haste, thereby causing irreparable harm, only to find at some future date that if we had been patient we could have both avoided the harm and reaped far greater financial rewards from the sale of our gas.

In reviewing the dSGEIS, I found that a number of topics deserving serious consideration were omitted or given insufficient consideration. I would like to address those topics now.

URBAN AND SUBURBAN DRILLING The development of the Barnett Shale in Texas has resulted in over 1,000 wells being drilled within the city limits of Ft. Worth. The Southern Tier of New York includes cities, towns, and villages. Many formerly rural areas are now dotted with suburban housing. At this point, it is unknown precisely which portions of the shale will be the “sweet spots.” It is possible that the ground underlying heavily populated areas will prove extremely attractive to the gas industry.

Please note that it should not be assumed that only large landowners will sign leases. Because of the wide publicity surrounding the Marcellus Shale, the formation of land coalitions, and the aggressive attempts of landmen to secure leases, many small landowners have already signed or plan to sign leases. I know of one resident who owns only three acres, yet was still approached by a landman. I know of another landowner who owns less than eight acres, yet is a member of a land coalition and hopes to sign a lease. Both of these landowners reside in densely populated areas with houses  adjacent to and across the street from theirs.  The old model of a gas well situated far from any dwellings in a farmer’s field no longer applies.

Drilling in densely populated areas presents a huge range of complex challenges. In these regions, the negative effects of drilling even one well will be felt by many people. Should an accident of any type occur, many lives will be endangered. While worst case scenarios may be unlikely, they must be considered and planned for. For example, suppose a gas well explosion were to occur in an urban setting. Should this happen, there would be many people in urgent need of medical help and many more people who would have to be quickly evacuated from the area.
Emergency vehicles would have to quickly move into the area via normally busy streets where normally heavy traffic has been further slowed by the large number of trucks that would be traveling to and from the drilling site. Further, emergency crews would need to know, in advance, exactly what sort of hazardous chemicals they will be dealing with at the site. And those emergency crews may need to be supplied with special equipment and training which they do not currently possess. This one scenario alone is worthy of serious and thorough study, and there are certainly many other less dramatic but still very troubling possibilities to consider, such as the measures needed to contain
chemical spills in heavily populated areas.

While the life and health of the human residents of cities is of paramount importance, it should not be forgotten that the cities are also home to some non-human residents. For example, in recent years Binghamton has become the home of a number of peregrine falcons. It is extremely heartening to see the numbers of these birds on the increase, and the impacts of urban drilling upon the falcons and other city-dwelling birds, animals, and plants must be carefully considered. Green space within a city is extremely precious. We live at a time when many cities—including Binghamton—are working to improve the urban environment through tree-planting programs and similar efforts, and
these efforts at improvement must not be undermined by the drilling.

One way to mitigate the special problems inherent in drilling in populated areas is to require very large setbacks from residences, churches, office buildings, schools, etc. Special care must also be taken in regard to the storage of gas and waste products from gas drilling. Since 2006, Ft. Worth has had a moratorium on injection wells within city limits. The city is also developing a new, much stricter ordinance governing gas drilling, which is likely to include far larger setbacks than those that were originally required. The state of New York should carefully study and learn from Ft. Worth’s experiences.

Appropriate siting of urban and suburban wells, traffic management, communication between the NYSDEC and local authorities, preservation of urban wildlife and green spaces—these and many other considerations connected to suburban and urban drilling merit serious and thorough study.

FOREST HEALTH & WILDLIFE PROTECTION The forests of the northeast are a major resource. They function not only as an extremely valuable part of the ecosystem, but also as a source of income for residents who depend on tourism, hunting, logging, and other forest-related activities for all or part of their livelihoods. The forests are also home to many animals and plants, all of which are valuable in their own right and some of which also have economic value.

In recent years, we have seen an increase in formerly severely threatened species, such as bald eagles. It is of vital importance that the drilling be regulated to avoid putting these and other species back on the road to extinction. Please note that while bald eagles are no longer listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, they are still protected by the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act. (For more on the status and protection of eagles, see http://www.eagles.org/status.html) In recent years, bald eagles have become a fairly common sight near the Susquehanna River in Broome County, as well as in other areas around the Southern Tier.  Several years ago, I observed a juvenile eagle while canoeing the Tioughnioga near Whitney Point, which suggests that a nest was probably nearby.  These majestic birds—the symbols of our nation—must be protected. Note that Colorado, which in recent years has experienced a huge increase in the number of gas wells, is revising its rules for oil and gas exploration in an effort to better protect wildlife from damage resulting from drilling. For more on this, see “Colorado Revises it’s Oil and Gas Regulations” at http://www.ourpubliclands.org/about/colorado. The NYSDEC should be certain that adequate
regulations are put in place to protect the wildlife of our region.

Northeastern Forests are already seriously threatened by changes in climate, as well as the invasion of many non-native and difficult-to-eradicate pests, such as the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA). To learn more about HWA and download a “Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Fact Sheet,” go to http://saveourhemlocks.org/. The “Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Fact Sheet” states that HWA can be “carried by migratory birds, mammals, and humans.” Various studies have concluded that the adelgids can be spread via human activity; some suggest that areas frequented by humans become
more easily infested. (See for example, p. 102 of “Community-Based Monitoring in the Catskills” available for download at http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/pub/proceedings/catskills.pdf, and the McClure 1995 reference on p. 8 of a USDA Forest Service paper which can be downloaded at
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/morgantown/fhp/nfid/monongahela/2004/2004_be_blue_bend_rec_area_mnf.pdf,  and also the 2004 master’s thesis of Ohio University student Scott F. Snider, which can be downloaded at www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi?ohiou1103233070.)

It seems quite possible that putting large numbers of well pads and associated access roads throughout our forests might greatly accelerate the process of spreading these extremely harmful forest pests to as yet uninfested regions. It should also be noted that: 1) drilling crews are going to be bringing in equipment from all over the country, and it may be possible for some invasive pests to “hitch a ride” into our area, and 2) the trees near the access roads will probably be stressed by a variety of drilling-related activities—heavy equipment compacting soil and damaging root systems, diesel generators belching out exhaust, etc. It’s possible NY could end up with a situation in which the drilling creates corridors for the pests to enter the forest, and the corridors which are the points of entry are lined with stressed and therefore particularly susceptible trees. If this is the case, then this strikes me as a potentially very serious problem. This possibility should be investigated and, if necessary, steps should be taken to prevent it.

Unless it is very carefully regulated, drilling within a forest setting is almost certainly going to lead to serious habitat fragmentation. Witness what has happened in the Allegheny National Forest. (For information on drilling’s effect on the Allegheny National Forest, see Sierra Club Allegheny Group’s discussion of this issue at
http://alleghenysc.org/?p=358.)  This issue must be addressed in the SGEIS.

Because of the large number of wells anticipated, I am deeply concerned that large sections of our forests will be transformed into a patchwork quilt laced with access roads and pipelines, with the squares of the “quilt” consisting of cleared drilling sites and isolated stands of struggling, sickly trees. At the drilling sites and on the access roads, heavy truck traffic is likely to result in severe compaction of the soil, which could affect trees roots. Air pollution (and water pollution, should it occur) will also take a toll. Recovery from such a situation is likely to take a very, very long time.

One must also consider the effects of air and water pollution upon the vegetation of the forest. Light and noise are also serious considerations: animals are likely to be frightened and displaced by these activities. In areas in which multiple drilling rigs are operating, it may be impossible for animals to find quiet, dark places to rest and they may be driven far out of their normal range. It is important to note that some bird species use normal day/night cycles to regulate their hormone levels, and that bright nighttime illumination might interfere with that process. Here again, the large
number of wells comes into play. A few isolated wells would make little difference, but bright lights and noise over many acres of forest could be disastrous.

I would also like to mention that it may be more appropriate to reseed cleared areas of forestland with native plants, rather than with grasses that would be more appropriate to a suburban lawn than a forest setting.

EVALUATION OF dSGEIS BY OTHER PARTS OF THE NYSDEC   The drilling will affect a wide range of environments around the state; a thorough evaluation of these potential impacts will require expertise in a wide variety of areas, not just in mineral resources. It is imperative that in preparing the supplement to the GEIS, the Division of Mineral Resources seek out the full cooperation, assistance, and expertise of all other relevant divisions of the NYSDEC and
other relevant state agencies, including but not limited to the Office of Environmental Justice, the Division of Air Resources, the Office of Climate Change, the Office of Water Resources, the Office of Natural Resources, the Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, and the Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources (including especially the Bureau of Habitat).

FRACKING FLUID   As I mentioned earlier, slick water fracking is relatively new, and its effects are at this time incompletely understood. The 2004 EPA study which concluded that slick water fracking is safe has been called into question, particularly by whistleblower Weston Wilson.  (To download a copy of Wilson’s letter to the EPA, go to
http://www.earthworksaction.org/publications.cfm?pubID=372.)  Moreover, the EPA study only considered coal methane gas development and was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to all uses of the fracking fluid.

Evidence is mounting from around the country that use of slick water hydraulic fracturing presents serious health problems. (See for example Earthwork’s page on oil and gas health effects at http://www.earthworksaction.org/oilgashealth.cfm, and the Oil And Gas Accountability Project’s paper, “Our Drinking Water At Risk,” which can be downloaded at www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/DrinkingWaterAtRisk.pdf, and also, “Our Drinking Water
At Risk – Executive Summary, which can be downloaded at
http://www.earthworksaction.org/publications.cfm?pubID=93.   Also, see “What’s in that fracking fluid? Pennsylvania discloses the chemicals used by the drilling companies” by Sandy Long, in the Dec. 4-10, 2008 edition of “The River Reporter,” (http://www.riverreporter.com/).  Please also take a look at the chemical charts linked to Sandy Long’s article. Also, see The Endocrine Disruption Exchange’s “Analysis Of Chemicals Used In Natural Gas Production: Colorado,” which is available for download at http://www.earthworksaction.org/publications.cfm?pubID=320.)

In determining what specific aspects of slick water fracking technology to address in the
SGEIS, it is imperative that you give careful consideration to the following points:

Section 1.4 of the dSGEIS states that “Well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing, was expressly identified and discussed in the GEIS as part of the action of drilling a well, and the GEIS does not recommend any additional regulatory controls or find a significant environmental impact associated with this technology, which has been in use in New York State for at least 50 years.”  Later in the same section, in bold type, it says: “The Department has determined that some aspects of the current and anticipated application of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing warrant further review….” Two key factors necessitating further review are then identified: water
volumes and anticipated drilling locations. There is another factor which is of paramount importance: the fact that the Marcellus will probably be developed with slick water fracking, a process which involves the use of many potentially harmful chemicals and which did not even exist in 1992 when the GEIS was written. The full impact of the use of slick water fracking must be carefully examined. Indeed, there are probably more NY state residents concerned about this issue than any other single issue having to do with the proposed drilling. The NYSDEC must do a full and careful review of everything that is known about the fracking fluid and its potential effects upon the environment and the health and well-being of NY residents.

The current setback of 50 feet from a water source (in Section 4.2.3 of the dSGEIS) is shockingly inadequate. New York City does not want a well within a mile of its watershed, yet the rest of us are supposed to accept this 50-foot setback. Even if the well casings never fail (a very questionable assumption) there is still a large probability of chemical spills. It was recently (Dec. 7, 2008) reported in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that Colorado is considering new rules which would “…restrict oil and gas operations within 300 feet of streams, within a quarter-mile of public water supplies, and around the habitat of bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, eagles, hawks and other wildlife.” (To read the Star-Telegram article, go to http://www.startelegram. com/metro_news/story/1079157.html.)  New York needs to significantly increase its setbacks, perhaps to distances even larger than 300-foot setbacks being considered in Colorado. It is important to remember that flash flooding is a common occurrence in New York. And accidental spills are always a possibility. Given horizontal drilling’s long reach, increasing the setbacks from water sources should not significantly impact the total amount of recoverable gas, and if it does, that is a price well worth paying to keep our water supply safe and clean.

It is imperative that a complete and full list of all chemicals used in the fracking process be provided not only to the DEC, but to all local emergency responders and to local medical facilities. (For an example of problems which can arise when these chemicals are a mystery, see the case of the poisoning of Cathy Behr as described in an Aug. 20, 2008 Newsweek article. To see the article, go to http://www.newsweek.com/id/154394.)  The industry’s desire to guard trade secrets cannot be allowed to trump public health and safety. Brand names or vague descriptions (like
“slick water”) should not be allowed; it is the actual ingredients which must be known if the safety of all who come into contact with the fluid is to be ensured. In addition, these chemicals should be made known to the public. We have the right to decide whether we wish to continue living near these wells, and we have the right to a full disclosure of the information necessary to make that decision. Further, residents who are relying on private wells must have a list of possible contaminants in order to know what contaminants to test their well water for. They should also know what contaminants they may have been exposed to in the event that they become ill. Chemical sensitivity varies from one individual to another, and forcing anyone who becomes ill, and their physicians, to go through a costly “guessing game” is inexcusable. It must also be recognized that pregnant women may wish to avoid tap or well water in areas with extensive drilling; in order to decide if drinking the water is wise, these women must have access to a list of ingredients used in the fracking fluid. Again, we have a right to know what we may be exposed to: avoiding harm is far better than finding out about it after the fact. This is just a matter of common sense.

The NYSDEC should NOT rely on the gas industry to provide samples of the fracking fluid. My husband attended a meeting over the summer at which a NYSDEC official was asked how the NYSDEC knows what is in the fracking fluid; the answer supplied by the NYSDEC rep was that the drilling companies would submit samples of the fluid to the
NYSDEC. This is a completely unacceptable procedure, since the drilling company might send samples that are not, in fact, representative of the fluid actually being used at the drilling site. Samples must instead be obtained by NYSDEC inspectors who appear—unannounced and frequently—at the drilling site. Sufficient staff to make these unannounced sampling visits must be hired and trained by the NYSDEC, and the price of the drilling permit should be set high enough to cover the costs of these additional personnel, as well as the lab costs associated with the testing.

Baseline testing of all streams, lakes, ponds, rivers, private and municipal wells in a wide (1-mile radius?) region around each gas well should be required prior to the drilling of the gas well. Each sample should be split in two and sent to two labs. One of the labs should be completely independent of the gas industry and the NYSDEC. Testing should include a search for all possible contaminants used in the drilling process—i.e. all components of the fracking fluid as well as any naturally occurring contaminants that might have been inadvertently introduced into previously clean water supplies by the drilling. Lab costs should be covered through permitting fees for the wells. Testing should be repeated during the drilling, and on a regular basis after the drilling, since well casings have been known to fail. The gas industry is in the habit of saying that there have been no “documented” cases of groundwater contamination. But is that because there has been no contamination, or because there has been no program in place to properly document water contamination?

Although the fracking fluid has been exempted from many relevant federal laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is my understanding that in many cases New York can enforce requirements as strict or even stricter than would be required by federal law. Whenever it is permitted by law to do so, New York should hold the gas industry to standards that are at least as stringent as those which would be in effect if these exemptions had not been granted. In my opinion and that of many other NY residents, the gas industry should have to obey the same laws every other industry has to obey.

WASTEWATER  Well-thought-out regulations MUST be put in place to assure proper handling of the huge amounts of wastewater that will be produced by the drilling. Right now we have a situation in which there is no clear answer as to how all of this waste will be handled. Permits should not be issued until we have that answer. All water involved in the drilling process must be carefully tracked. No drilling permit should be issued unless the drilling company has specified where it will get the water, how much it will draw, and where the waste will be taken to be disposed of and/or treated. Some procedure MUST be set up to ensure that every tanker truck carrying wastewater away from the drilling site arrives at the designated water treatment or disposal site. Failure to set up such a system will almost certainly result in some of the waste being dumped illegally on roadways, into streams, etc. Steel tanks, rather than lined pits, should be required at all drilling sites. There is mounting evidence from other parts of the country that lined pits can fail. In addition, this is an incredibly flood-prone region, in which a single heavy storm can add a significant amount of water to a pit. We have in recent years had two 100-year floods, as well as a 500-year flood. It is possible that another 500 years will go by before another such flood occurs. It is also possible, particularly in light of changing weather patterns due to global warming, that we will have another 500-year flood in the very near future. Extreme caution should be used in the siting of the wells. Flood plains should be avoided entirely, and every effort should be
made to be certain that the maps used to determine where the flood plains lie are kept up to date. (I was utterly amazed at the power of the flood waters during the 500-year flood. If drilling sites were to flood, the contents of open pits would surely end up in our rivers and any unsecured drums of chemicals would be swept into raging water filled with huge rocks and trees. We cannot allow drilling on a flood plain!)

FARMLAND  In addition to the obvious negative effects of drilling, such as soil compaction, the possibility of brine or chemical spills, etc., the SGEIS should recognize the increasing importance of producing our food locally (in order to reduce transportation costs) and of organic farming. Special assessments of drilling’s impact on these activities should be made. Of particular concern is whether or not normal activities and/or accidents associated with gas drilling might make it difficult or impossible for farmers to meet the strict requirements that will enable them to have
their produce certified as organic.

PIPELINES  I understand, as stated in Section 1.5 of the dSGEIS, that pipeline construction is not included in the draft scope. However, pipeline construction has become an extremely serious issue in Ft. Worth, Texas, and I believe it should be considered as a part of the permitting process. I understand that the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over the siting of transmission lines and that at the time a well permit is issued, there is no certainty that pipelines will be constructed. What I am suggesting is that a well permit application should include a preliminary plan for how any proposed well would be connected to the pipeline network, should that well eventually go into production.  If the plan shows that the well is likely to necessitate the construction of pipelines which would go through a residential area (or areas), serious consideration should be given to denying the permit. If this is not done, then the gas companies have little or no incentive to make an effort to site their drilling in a manner which will allow residential areas to remain free of pipelines and the dangers and inconveniences they present—dangers and inconveniences whose costs will ultimately be borne by the residents of the area and the taxpayers of the state.

GREENHOUSE GASES  I know that the dSGEIS states that this is an issue that will be addressed separately, but I wanted to take this opportunity to state that no wells should be permitted until the relevant greenhouse gas guidelines are worked out. Not only will drilling consume a great deal of diesel fuel in trucks, compressors, and so on, but any venting or leakage of methane is a potentially serious problem, since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The loss of trees due to clearings for well pads and roads as well as from drilling-induced stress will further add to the state’s CO2 burden.

AIR POLLUTION  In other parts of the country, air pollution has been a serious problem in and around densely drilled sites. In upstate NY, special attention should be paid to the fact that there are many residents living in valleys; under some meteorological conditions, pollution may tend to settle and linger in valleys. For more on air pollution related to drilling, including Colorado’s response to the problem, go to:

http://www.earthworksaction.org/Coloairregs.cfm#2006CHANGES.

Also, please note that different types of air pollution scenarios are possible. There is the problem of chronic, widespread pollution in densely drilled areas. There is also a chance that within highly localized areas, pollution may at certain times be at a level which would warrant issuing warnings to any residents who may be especially sensitive to poor air quality (e.g. the elderly, asthmatics, etc.). Finally, there is the chance that accidents (chemicals, fires) at a drill site could suddenly produce an emergency situation in which the air quality is negatively affected and nearby
residents must be evacuated. Again, please note that in the case of a spill or fire, it is not sufficient to wait to notify the public until such time as a general evacuation has been ordered—some members of the public may be especially sensitive to poor air quality and they should be notified immediately of a possible problem so that they can leave if they wish.

NYSDEC STAFFING & OVERSIGHT  The NYSDEC must have sufficient staff to enforce whatever rules are developed via frequent inspections of drilling sites, collection of water and fracking fluid samples, etc. Without sufficient staff, the rules will be meaningless. The NYSDEC should issue only that number of permits which it can properly oversee. In regard to oversight, I would also like to suggest that the NYSDEC establish a database of offenders, specifying the date
and nature of each offense as well as the name of the offending company. Such a database may prove invaluable to many NY residents—particularly researchers wishing to study the health effects of chemical spills and other accidents and landowners who are trying to decide whether or not to lease their land to a particular company.

INJECTION WELLS  Great care must be taken if injection wells are used for waste disposal. Based on the findings of some researchers, (see above section on fracking fluid), the wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing should be considered hazardous waste. If that is the case, then the waste should be disposed of in Class I wells. We need to be certain that hazardous waste will not end up in our aquifers, ever. We need solid scientific research on this issue—including full knowledge of the contents of the wastewater, which will have a high salt content, include chemicals from the fracking formula, and may be radioactive. We need to know how the wastewater will interact with the rock into which it is injected. These wells need to be designed to be safe for a long, long time. Before permitting these wells, we need to be certain that the geology of the area is compatible with them—this should include an analysis of the likelihood of creating manmade earthquakes with these wells. (For more on injection wells inducing earthquakes, see the USGS page at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=1&faqID=1.)

We also must be certain that the NYSDEC has the staff to properly supervise the injection wells. We must think not only of current residents but of generations of residents to come. Any decisions made in regard to injection wells must be backed up by sound science, not guesswork. We should not rely upon the “expertise” of the gas industry in this matter; we need the input of independent scientists.

NIGHTTIME DRILLING: NOISE & LIGHT POLLUTION  The gas industry maintains that it must drill at night in order to keep costs down. But what about every other human activity in the region, including those activities which impact our economy? Drilling-related noise (including noise from truck traffic) can continue for weeks on end; going without sleep for such a long period can have serious negative effects on human health and welfare. People who have not slept well for several nights will have difficulty concentrating at work, and may even pose a danger to themselves or others as they drive on our highways or operate heavy equipment. Sleep-deprived children who are unable to concentrate for a few weeks of the school year may quickly find themselves so far behind that they cannot catch up. By drilling at night, the industry is effectively shifting its costs of production onto the residents of our area. This is neither just nor a good way to promote other aspects of economic development. Ideally, nighttime drilling should be prohibited. At the very least, extremely strict noise ordinances should be put in place to monitor control nighttime drilling. Those ordinances should include provisions to monitor and control low-frequency noise (which should be measured in dBC).

Noise pollution from gas drilling and compressors has proven to be a very serious problem in the Ft. Worth area. We must learn from the mistakes of other areas. In New York, steps must be taken to prevent drilling-related noise pollution from occurring. (For more on this issue, download the “Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods Recommendations on 2008 Revisions to City of Fort Worth Gas Drilling Ordinance” available online at

http://startelegram.typepad.com/barnett_shale/files/fwlna_gas_drilling_ordinance_recommendations

_final_nov.%2012.doc).

Lighting ordinances must also be put in place. Ideally, the NYSDEC should ban nighttime drilling. Failing that, the NYSDEC should require the drilling companies to shield any lights used so that all light is directed downward, toward the drilling site, rather than upward into the air, where it will create light pollution that will be visible for miles. This approach could actually save the gas drillers money, since light that projects upward into the air is essentially wasted. If light is properly directed downward with reflective shielding, then lower wattage can be used to illuminate the
drilling site. (For more information on the issue of light pollution see http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do)

Lights should not be allowed at all in certain areas, such as in sensitive wildlife habitats, in the
vicinity of observatories, and in residential areas.

NYC WATERSHED I live in Broome County, and my County Executive, Barbara Fiala, has written to the DEC, stating that “We do not want natural gas drilling to be impeded in Broome County while additional studies are completed for the New York City Watershed.” I want to make it clear that Ms. Fiala does not speak for me in regard to this issue. I believe that all of the residents of New York deserve clean water, not just those who live in New York City. I also believe, very strongly, that it would be a horrible mistake to rush the process by adhering to a tentative deadline that was given before the full scope of the review had even been determined. Please do not separate the consideration of how to handle drilling in the NYC watershed from the rest of the dSGEIS.

Another point about the NYC Watershed: A public hearing on the dSGEIS should have been held in New York City. Since they do not live in areas in which leasing is taking place, many residents of the city may be unaware of the gas rush and its possible effects on their water supply. The DEC should have made a much greater effort to bring this matter to the attention of the residents of the city, and to allow them a chance to comment on it.

VISUAL IMPACTS Many of us were drawn to this region by its beauty and some of us will not remain if that beauty is destroyed. And some future potential immigrants to the area may decide not to settle here if the landscape is scarred by drilling. I would like to suggest that you give special consideration to the fact that we live in a hilly region, and that the people who live in the valleys have a very good view of the hills—and that means we will have a very good view of any hills that are despoiled by the drilling. Right now, in most cases, the areas from about the midpoint of the hills to the top are very sparsely populated. Consideration should be given to limiting the granting of permits that would significantly alter the regions of the hills that remain heavily forested.

I would also like to suggest that the drillers be required to leave as many trees standing around a wooded site as possible; native trees should also be planted to act as “screens” once the pad has been completed.

I would also like to suggest that reclamation of a site be done a manner which is compatible with the surrounding natural terrain. Native wildflowers, etc. should be used wherever possible. Replacing large sections of natural areas with unnatural “lawns” will not lead to a visually appealing effect, and may also have undesirable environmental consequences.

Section 4.1.2 of the draft scope dSGEIS mentions that both close-up photos of individual wells and aerial views of densely drilled areas will be included in the dSGEIS so that an assessment of visual impact may be made. I would encourage you, if possible, to include close-up and aerial photos of drilling in suburban and urban areas, showing the proximity of wells to residences, churches, schools, etc. (Obtaining these photos should not be too much of a problem, since a lot of drilling has already occurred in Ft. Worth. Alternately, an artist could be employed to produce
computer-generated illustrations.) Because of the likely density of the Marcellus drilling, it is extremely important that NY residents understand what the visual impacts will be. Please also keep in mind that since this is a hilly region, residents in valleys will have a good view of the surrounding hillsides, including any drilling sites or well pads that are located on the hills. Your illustrations should reflect this.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE & COMMUNITY CHARACTER  Issues related to environmental justice are scattered throughout the other sections of my comments. They are of great concern. The development of the Marcellus Shale will not be a sustainable activity; once the gas is gone, the gas companies will move on. This process is likely to take place over and over again in various communities of New York state. Large-scale extractive efforts such as that foreseen for the Marcellus Shale have a history of generating a boom followed by a bust. I grew up in Scranton, PA. I was born after the coal boom had ended, and raised in an area still ravaged by the effects of mining, an industry which left scars not only upon the landscape, but also upon the psyches of the area’s residents. The wealth created by the gas development will be portable; much of it is likely to leave the regions in which it was generated. Furthermore, if the environment of the area is sufficiently degraded, its natural beauty extinguished, its water and air polluted, this region will no longer be seen as a desirable place in which to live or establish and run a business. The people most likely to leave will be the people with the most options—those with a good education and marketable skills. The result will be a steady “brain drain” which will leave the area very ill-equipped to recover during the “bust” phase of the boom/bust cycle. This boom/bust cycle and all of its bad effects could be avoided by taking steps to preserve the beauty of the region and its environmental health and safety. One way to do this would be to limit the number of wells allowed
here. While this approach may well limit the amount of money generated by the drilling, it will also serve to protect other economic and personal investments in the region. If we’re not cautious and prudent now, we will most assuredly pay later. And by “we” I mean the residents of the region, who will be asked to foot the bill for cleaning up a mess which the gas companies should never have been allowed to create in the first place. Allowing them to degrade the environment is a way of transferring the hidden, future costs of drilling to us; it is a way of transferring the wealth of the people of this region to gas company owners, executives, and shareholders.

Most of the residents of this area do not own large tracts of land. The drilling will not generate huge amounts of income for the average citizen. A Penn State study (available for download at
http://irtd.ed.psu.edu:5000/pdfs/PSU_PAroyalty_19Jun08.pdf) predicts that for each $1 billion in royalty payments, real disposable personal income per capita will increase by only $81.  The main—sometimes only—investment of many residents is their home. Drilling and/or pipeline construction and/or waste disposal which occurs within or near residential areas is likely to devalue the homes in those areas. Residents may also suffer great disruption in their daily lives due to noise, truck traffic, lack of sleep, and so on. They may also suffer negative health effects from air pollution, accidents, water pollution, and so on. In densely drilled regions, they will see their
neighborhoods transformed from pleasant residential areas to industrial zones. Some of the people who stand to gain the least from the drilling—those who own little acreage or who rent their homes—may have to pay the heaviest prices for the drilling. That is not fair. Zoning laws should be respected, as should noise ordinances. Many, many residents of this area have worked long and hard to build and maintain attractive, safe neighborhoods: their contributions to the community should be respected and preserved. One of the best ways to do this would be to require large setbacks (1000 feet or more) from all residences. This requirement would not only help to maintain housing value, it would also reduce the likelihood for evacuations during emergencies, noise mitigation, and so on. The long reach of horizontal drilling should be used to best advantage to allow the shale to be extracted without disrupting entire neighborhoods and decreasing the value of residents’ homes.

Another consideration is the disposal of waste from the drilling. When Ft. Worth put a moratorium on injection wells within city limits, the waste from the Ft. Worth wells was trucked out into the rural areas around the city for disposal in injection wells. This resulted in some residents who had made no money from the gas drilling having to put up with all of the dangers and inconveniences inherent in living near a waste disposal site. This is clearly unfair.

Yet another consideration is the right of residents to be reasonably sure that the drilling will not devalue their property and permanently degrade their lifestyle. Because of the recently passed spacing law, most wells will be permitted without public hearings. Compulsory integration could force many property owners to become part of a spacing unit even when they do not wish to. Please note that the compulsory integration law would allow a single large landowner—one who owned 60% of the acreage within a proposed spacing unit—to effectively force his neighbors into the unit. And state law supersedes most zoning ordinances where drilling is concerned. There is some possibility that eventually eminent domain will be used to force pipelines through residential neighborhoods, as has already occurred in Ft. Worth. This combination of factors has led many of us to feel that we are losing control of the land and homes that we love and have worked hard to purchase and maintain. I understand that the NYSDEC does not have the power to legislate. However, I believe you do have the power to require large setbacks from residential areas, to control noise from drilling, to ensure the safety of the drilling sites, etc. The NYSDEC should do everything in its power to preserve the considerable wealth that is tied up in the residences of the people of New York. Failure to do so would signal to both current and prospective residents that upstate New York is no longer a desirable place in which to own a home.

The problems experienced by gas workers are also an important issue. Many of the workers will be temporary; they will not be from this region and they will move around the country as needed, spending long periods away from their families. Gas drilling is an extremely dangerous occupation. Because of exemptions granted to the gas industry, its workers do not have adequate OSHA protection. The workers are usually required to work for long hours, often at night. Drug use among drilling workers has become a serious problem in some areas of the country. While the workers’ pay may seem, at first glance, to be relatively high, when one considers the conditions under which they labor, the pay actually seems rather low. Also, workers may be exposed to high levels of toxic fracking chemicals. Some of the workers have little education or opportunity for other occupation— a situation which the gas companies seem to be exploiting. Given all of this, are gas companies the sort of employers that New York state really wishes to welcome and encourage? (For more on the perils of working in the gas field, see the article “AP IMPACT: Worker deaths rise as oil and gas drilling booms; inexperience and drugs are blamed” by Betsy Blaney at

http://www.abc26.com/pages/landing_national/?blockID=53741&feedID=16.)

While it is tempting to seize the opportunities presented by short-term generation of wealth, the long-term interest of the area must be considered. This is a matter of justice for future generations.  Obviously, the environment must be preserved for future generations. It must also be recognized that, while the drilling could help the local economy in the short run, in the long run it could be very harmful indeed. As I mentioned above, a “brain drain” is a real possibility. It should also be noted that in the 21st century, fossil fuel will of necessity decrease in importance: the engine of our future economy will be green, renewable energy. The presence of schools such as Binghamton University and Broome Community College could play a huge role in helping to bring high-tech energy research, development, and production facilities to the area. However, most of the young entrepreneurs who are interested in developing such technologies are also interested in living in clean, green areas. They (and the employees they hope to attract) will not be likely to settle in an area that has been despoiled by poorly regulated gas drilling. If this area relies too heavily on drilling to create jobs, then we will once again be putting too many eggs in one basket, and when the
drilling has ended, the jobs will be gone as well.

One must also consider the negative impacts of the drilling on existing segments of the economy, such as tourism, construction of second homes, organic farming, summer camps, hunting, fishing, logging, and so on.

It should also be recognized that the drilling has already begun to turn neighbor against neighbor in our formerly peaceful region.

We need to approach the drilling in a fair, just, forward-looking manner, balancing current needs against those of the future, and the needs of large landowners against those of the majority of the residents in the area who own little or no land, will not be working for a drilling company, and do not own restaurants or motels that will benefit from the drilling.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS  In Section A of the “Unavoidable Adverse Impacts” chapter of the 1992 GEIS on the oil, gas, and solution mining regulatory programs, many of the impacts of oils and gas drilling are characterized as “temporary” or “short term.” Yet in the case of the Marcellus Development, some of the short term impacts will be of much longer duration than the durations given in the 1992 GEIS. This will occur both because larger horizontal wells take longer to drill, and also because of the density of the proposed development: someone living in an area of dense drilling could experience various ongoing impacts that last for many months. Also, it should be recognized that many of the Marcellus wells will have to be re-fracked periodically, so that just because a well has been drilled and fracked one time, that does not mean that disruption due to developing that well is over.

Some effects, such as compressor noise, will occur on a permanent basis. Also, landscape and environmental degradation may be permanent, or may exist for a significant fraction of the lifetimes of local residents. The Marcellus drilling should be carefully examined so that an accurate evaluation can be made of its long-term negative impacts.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS  As is stated at various places in this document, any negative effects associated with a single well will be multiplied many times over by the great number of wells required to develop the Marcellus. Restricting the number of wells would reduce associated problems, and might be a reasonable way to strike a balance between the desire to bring new prosperity to the region and the desire to preserve the region’s other resources and the wealth we
already have here.

Whether or not the ultimate number of wells is restricted, the development should be phased in slowly, in a controlled manner. This will allow all concerned to learn what problems will arise and how best to handle them, rather than being overwhelmed by the scope and scale of the drilling and its associated problems. Again, in a project of this size, some unforeseen problems are almost certain to occur, and phased development is likely to make it much easier to recognize and deal with those unforeseen problems.

Another consideration might be to use the technology of horizontal drilling to the absolute best advantage. Theoretically, the horizontal wells are capable of recovering gas from a much larger area than 640 acres. By restricting the number of well pads, the DEC would be encouraging the gas industry to begin perfecting techniques for recovering gas from a wider area around each well pad, resulting in much less surface disruption and visual impact.

In conclusion, I would like, once again, to urge you to strongly consider prohibiting the development of the Marcellus Shale until it can be accomplished with far less damage than is likely to occur using current technology. The gas is not going anywhere. In fact, as time passes, it is likely to become more valuable. You have been charged to conserve, improve and protect all of the resources of the state of New York. It would be a tragedy to allow a desire for immediate financial gain to rush us into ill-considered and shortsighted actions which will ultimately interfere with the development of a sustainable regional economy capable of supporting the area’s residents.

Again, I would like to thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope the NYSDEC will give this very complex issue all of the careful attention it truly deserves. I will close by respectfully reminding you that the shale development will not only affect the natural environment, but also the health and well-being of its inhabitants. Please remember, human lives are in your hands.

My name is Joan Tubridy.  I live in the town of Meredith, Delaware County.  I am writing to submit comments to the Draft Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program.

I am in full support of the option outlined in the draft scope of work: “7.0 Alternative Actions” which calls for, “the prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing”.

Secondly, I am calling for an entirely new GEIS to be completed by the DEC.  The 1988 Draft and 1992 FGEIS are outdated and irrelevant to the type of gas drilling proposed in the Marcellus Shale.  The new GEIS should include impacts of: gas drilling over time, gas pipelines, and greenhouse gas emissions.  None of these were included in the scope of work.

I was a farmer for many years, raising in succession dairy, beef, whitetail deer, fingerling potatoes, and market garden vegetables.  Since returning to college in 1992, I have been an elementary/middle school teacher.

When we farmed, we made a conscious decision to become organically certified.  We did this with the belief that any meat or produce that we raised should be raised with the same care and attention that we gave to the food on our family’s dining table.  We took very seriously our stewardship of the land, protecting both the health and viability of the soil, as well as the two creeks that ran through our farm.

In my role as a Social Studies teacher I learned, along with my students, that the world is experiencing a water crisis.  Though water covers about 2/3 of the Earth, it is mostly too salty for consumption.  The 2 1/2 % that is not salty is not all available; some is locked up in icecaps and glaciers, some too remote, and some arrives too suddenly as in monsoons and floods.  What remains available to humans is 0.08% of the Earth’s water, and by 2020 our demand for water will increase by about 40%.

Five months ago, I first encountered the realities of natural gas drilling when citizens from Wyoming and Colorado came to our county to warn us by way of their own experiences over the past 8 years.  My deep concern about the mad rush to drill for natural gas grew as I felt compelled to spend these past months reading everything I could find about this topic.  Through this research I have found numerous instances of water well and aquifer contamination as a result of gas drilling.  Though these contamination claims have been documented by courts, as well as state and local governments, they are largely denied by the gas drilling companies.  Even the 2004 EPA report on hydraulic fracturing stated that fluids migrated unpredictably and to great distances through different rock layers in about half the cases studied in the U.S.  Surprisingly, this kind of evidence was buried in the 424-page EPA report and largely ignored in its conclusion.  While much of the negative impacts on water have been documented in the West, gas drilling activity in the Northeast has also resulted in a number of examples of water contamination in Pennsylvania and New York.

Given the irrefutable evidence linking drilling for natural gas to contamination of water wells and aquifers, I would like to know how the DEC will protect our most valuable resource – water?

What steps will be taken to pre- and post-test our water resources so that there is a baseline by which to measure contamination from gas drilling?
Who will be responsible for funding this water testing?
Without knowing the types of “proprietary chemicals” used by gas drilling companies, how will we know what to test our water for?
Once contamination is found in our water systems, who will be responsible for providing us with clean, potable water?
Given the possibility that fracturing fluids may migrate over time, how long will responsibility for water contamination endure?
What comparable studies will the DEC research to come to their conclusions about how to deal with this real threat to our water?

The 1999 United Nations Programme Report stated, “The environment remains largely outside the mainstream of everyday human consciousness, and is still considered an add-on to the fabric of life.”  I fear that though water is the very essence of life, we are willing to put money above this irreplaceable resource.  I hope that we never have to explain to our children, our grandchildren, and countless generations beyond why we were so shortsighted as to burn down the house to stay warm for one night.

Thank you for considering my grave concerns as you move forward in this critical work.

Sincerely,

Joan Tubridy
Delhi, NY

Anne Marie Garti
[address removed for public posting]
December 2, 2008
Scope Comments
Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, Third Floor
Albany, NY 12233-6500
To whom it concerns:
Please consider these comments on the draft scope of work for a supplement to the generic
environmental impact statement on the oil, gas, and solution mining regulatory program.
The proposed supplement to the 1988 and 1992 draft and final GEIS is to address impacts
of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale and
other low permeability gas reservoirs.
Section §617.8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) outlines the steps
required for the scoping process. The DEC, which is acting as the lead agency, has not
complied with the rules that it itself is supposed to enforce. Specifically, the requirements
found in sections §617.8 (b), §617.8 (f) (3), and §617.8 (f) (4), have not been followed.
“The extent and quality of information, … existing information, and required new
information, including the required methodology(ies) for obtaining new information; … an
initial identification of mitigation measures” are all missing from the document.
I request that a new draft scope of work be prepared and distributed, and any person or
entity that wishes to alter their testimony, or submit new testimony, be allowed to do so.
Also, after reading the 1988 and 1992 draft and final GEIS, I find the current draft scope of
work to be filled with many unwarranted and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Assumption # 1
The most pervasive assumption is that a supplement to a twenty-year-old draft and final
GEIS will be sufficient to protect the environment of half of the State of New York from
an entirely new form of gas drilling.
Fact # 1
A new GEIS is needed to study the full impacts of the new drilling techniques.
Twenty years ago the DEC studied the potential impacts of drilling vertical wells into
various sedimentary rock formations. The geographic area, well density, and impacts of
extraction were entirely different than what is being proposed today.

For example, the word “horizontal” does not appear once in any of the chapters of the
multi-volume draft and final GEIS. The word “fracing” is used twice, and the words
“hydrologic fracturing” appear six times. In all eight cases, the word “fracturing” is in
reference to vertical, not horizontal wells.
In the old GEIS, the anticipated fracking pressure for vertical wells was 2,000 to 3,500 psi.
The pressure used for horizontal wells in low permeable shale is 8,000 psi,. One might call
it high-volume, high pressure, hydraulic fracturing.
The new form of hydro-fracking is dependent on a toxic brew of chemicals whose impacts
were never reviewed in the old GEIS. While the proportion of these chemicals is small,
their volumes are significant because of the huge amount of water used. In addition, some
of these chemicals are extremely toxic in miniscule quantities.
In section 2.0 the DEC states, “Review will be focused on topics not addressed by the
original GEIS, with emphasis on potential impacts associated with the large volumes of
water required to hydraulically fracture horizontal shale wells using the slick water
fracturing technique. *** However, it is not the Department’s intent or objective to reopen
the 1992 Findings for any activity that was reviewed in the GEIS and which will
remain consistent.”
The point is that nothing remains consistent because the technique, scale, intensity,
location, and scope of the proposed activity are entirely different.
Assumption # 2
In section 2.1.2 the DEC states, “The Department has no record of any documented
instance of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing for gas well
development in New York, despite the use of this technology in thousands of wells across
the state during the past 50 or more years. Division of Mineral Resources staff responsible
for permitting and oversight of gas well drilling since 1980 also do not recall any such
instance.”
By making this claim, the DEC is assuming that staff recall and department documentation
of groundwater contamination are complete and fulfill the requirements of SEQRA.
Fact # 2
No study has been performed to find out whether or not ground water contamination has
occurred. In addition, as stated in Assumption #1, NYS has no experience with horizontal
drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing, so the claim of having used “this
technology” for over 50 years is erroneous and misleading.
Groundwater contamination may have taken place before the DEC was formed, without
DEC notification, or with no DEC documentation of the events. For example, when
groundwater contamination occurred, the industry may have brought in water to affected
households, filtered dirty water, dug new water wells, paid landowners, or “solved” theproblem of contamination in some other manner. Or landowners whose wells were
contaminated may have lacked the resources to do anything about it.
The DEC should contact all current and past landowners whose land has been drilled to
find out whether or not there have been instances of contamination in vertical wells. In
addition, scientific literature, court documents and newspaper articles should be reviewed.
To learn about ground water contamination, the DEC needs to review the records of other
states where horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing has been taking
place.
Assumption # 3
The DEC assumes that because well casings (may) have protected ground water supplies in
vertical wells they will also do so in horizontal wells that will be fracked, and re-fracked, at
much higher pressures with greater amounts of water, sand, and other chemicals.
Fact # 3
Concrete breaks down, particularly under stress, as anyone can observe in foundations and
sidewalks.
When drilling vertically, or when fracturing rock in a vertical well, it may be possible to
contain the flow of materials up and down the drill hole if the casing has been perfectly
constructed. However, there are substantive questions about how long a well casing can
maintain its integrity, and whether the quantity of water being used in horizontal hydrofracking,
and the pressure under which it is being injected, will break down the cement.
The DEC needs to study the impact of higher pressures, increased volumes, and repeated
hydrofracking on well casings. The department also needs to study plugged wells to
determine how the concrete is decaying over time, and whether that decay threatens our
water and soil from subsurface contaminants. What happens if a plugged vertical well is
reopened and horizontal wells drilled through it? The DEC should also document how
many wells were never plugged, and discuss what will happen if a new well is fracked near
an older unplugged well.
Assumption # 4
The DEC assumes that toxic materials cannot migrate from horizontal drill holes through
layers of shale into water supplies, soil, or air.
Fact # 4
Geologists acknowledge that the layers of shale are filled with vertical cracks and fissures.
In some places these layers have been displaced so that the angle of sedimentation is no
longer horizontal, but folded and angled 45 degrees or more towards the surface.
The sediments that lie beneath our feet are not solid bedrock; they are porous and

permeable. They have been subjected to different forces, including tectonic pressures and
seismic activity that have created cracks and fissures. These openings allow liquids and
gases to move within the earth.
Even the DEC has admitted this:
“Once gas escapes from the wellbore, under certain geologic conditions it can travel
considerable distance either laterally or vertically and through natural fractures reach the
surface or infiltrate a water zone. Gas in an aquifer can enter the water wells which tap it.
The presence of gas in a water well presents a safety hazard. The gas can accidentally be
ignited at the water tap or it can build-up inside the house in explosive quantities.” [1988
DGEIS, chapter 10, p. 4-5]
Horizontal drill holes, unlike vertical wells, will not be cased. As the gas companies bore
through fractured sedimentary rock, they will create new pathways for the migration of
naturally occurring and injected toxic chemicals. Since nobody has a map of where these
cracks and fissures are located, their width, or their course, there is no way to know how
the liquids and gases will travel through the cracks, and when or where they might emerge
at the earth’s surface. Nor does anybody know how these cracks might change over time
with the use of high-pressure fracking, deep impact bombing, geothermal wells, or future
seismic or tectonic activity.
The new GEIS should include maps showing areas of potential seismic activity, fractures,
and how the number and intensity of fractures increase as you move east. It should also
include lists of the natural and injected materials that are chemically capable of seeping
through cracks into aquifers, or to the earth’s surface. The potential environmental impacts
of all these materials, including methane, (future) sequestered CO2, injected fracking
fluids, and radioactive gases should be reviewed.
Assumption # 5
In section 4.1 Noise, Visual and Air Quality Impacts, the DEC refers to the old GEIS,
where they are described “in terms of both the short duration well drilling phase – when
the well site is, in effect, a small construction site – and the long-term production phase
when such impacts are drastically reduced because the equipment used during drilling
operations is removed and the areas not needed for production operations are reclaimed.”
Fact # 5
The construction phase of drilling and fracking deep horizontal wells is likely to be long
term and continuous, so these old construction and production phases no longer apply.
A number of things make the assumptions in the GEIS totally out of date:
- The new spacing rule allows 16 well pads per square mile, which is denser than
before.
- The amount of materials needed to frack each well has increased exponentially.
- The amount of pressure needed to frack low permeable shale is 3 to 4 times what
was needed for vertical wells.
- The amount of time needed to drill and frack each well has quadrupled (from 1 or 2
weeks to 4, 5, or 6 weeks).
- Horizontal wells in shale have low pressure, and frequently need to be re-fracked.
- Horizontal wells often need compressors during the production phase, and these
noisy machines run 24/7.
It is likely that a property owner would be suffering the impacts of well drilling in one
spacing unit for over a year. If their property adjoins two or more units, then the
“construction phase” could be a multi-year process. By the time the first series of wells
have been drilled, they might need to be re-fracked.
When the well goes from “construction” to “production,” the noise emanating from the pad
does not diminish; it just switches from rigs to compressors.
Unlike construction zones, the noise, lights, visual blight, and air pollution would be
spewing forth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Since the environmental impacts from horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic
fracturing are repeated and long lasting, they require a totally new environmental review.
The DEC should study noise levels and review literature on noise impacts of horizontal
drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in other states. Monitoring equipment
should be established at set distances, and based on the information acquired, statewide
standards should be established. When houses or adjoining property lines fall within zones
of unacceptable levels, noise buffers around drilling sites should be required.
The DEC should study visual impacts by reviewing literature and making site visits to
other states where horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing have been
established. Statistics on spacing density and re-fracking activity in those states should be
published. Using that information, images of rigs and well pads should be superimposed
on aerial photographs of NYS. If done with a GIS system, topographical information and
spacing units can be layered onto the images, and impacts on a viewshed deduced.
The proposed drilling for natural gas in areas of low-permeable shale could affect many
areas of NYS where there are a substantial number of second home owners and/or in areas
where people have chosen their property, and made substantial investments to it, based on
existing patterns of open space. Information on population density and the average
number of acres per property owner per town should be gathered and published.
In addition, the new type of drilling will require larger well pads and this will affect hilly
and mountainous regions that were not studied in the last GEIS. The impact of changing
the topography of rural areas to create five or more acres of level land per well pad, at a
density of 16 pads per square mile, needs to be studied.
The proposed drilling could severely impact the pristine air quality in the southern half of
NYS. Exhaust from the huge number of diesel trucks, dust from construction activity,
emissions from wells that will be flared (either intentionally or accidentally), as well as the
evaporation of hazardous materials in waste pits, could lead to a profound deterioration of
NYS’ air quality. The use and emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in fracking
fluids could have a profound impact on all ecosystems.
The DEC should study air quality levels and review literature on air quality impacts of
horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in other states. Monitoring
equipment should be established at set distances in those states, and based on the
information acquired, standards established for NY. Strict regulations, such as the required
use of low sulfur fuel and the prohibition of toxic chemicals in hydro-fracking, should be
promulgated.
Assumption # 6
The old GEIS assumes that a municipal water supply can be impacted by a natural gas well
located 2000 feet away. Simultaneously it is assumed that a natural gas well can be
located 150 feet from a water well serving a single-family home with no impact at all.
Fact # 6
The discrepancy in standards and impact areas defies logic. If a municipal well can be
impacted at 2000 feet, then it is possible, depending upon the aquifer being tapped, that a
homeowner’s well can also be impacted at 2000 feet.
In the draft scope of work, it is implied that the NYC watershed area is somehow “more
sensitive” than other areas of the state. This is an unjustified prejudice, not a scientific
fact.
According to the old GEIS, over two million people are dependent on springs and wells for
their drinking water. Few of these families are financially able to either prove that a gas
driller has ruined their water supply or pay for a new source of water.
Updated information on the number of households dependent of springs and wells, as well
as the average income per household per town and county, should be gathered and
published. The costs of supplying water to a household, business, and farm if their well is
contaminated should also be provided.
The DEC should study surface and ground water contamination caused by horizontal
drilling and high-volume, high pressure hydraulic fracturing in other states. Based on that
information, strict, uniform, statewide regulations should be promulgated. There should be
equal protection for the water supplies of all New Yorkers.
Assumption # 7
In section 4.8 Community Character, the DEC refers back to section 4.1: “As with the
noise and visual impacts discussed above, any potential negative community impact
occurs primarily during the drilling phase, which includes stimulation and completion. The
impacts are similar to those of a construction site, analogous to road improvement or sewer
excavation projects, with similar potential for temporary community impacts.”
Fact # 7
The construction phase of drilling and fracking deep horizontal wells is likely to be long
term and continuous, so the DEC’s assumptions, based on its experience with vertical
wells, no longer apply. (For details see Fact # 5.)
A full build out of natural gas wells in the southern half of NYS will alter each rural
community beyond recognition.
The DEC should study social impacts and review literature on social impacts of horizontal
drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in towns in other states. Information on
population changes, demands for services, fire and emergency budget rates, drug and
alcohol addiction rates, crime rates, etc. should be gathered and published.
Other Topics
The following topics have not been mentioned in the draft scope of work and need to be
studied:
1. Odors
It appears that there can be extremely unpleasant smells in gas drilling areas.
Information on what chemicals or minerals are causing these odors should be
provided, and methods of containment/mitigation should be developed
2. Lights
Well pads use high intensity lights while they are being developed. Standards
should be established so that all lights have hoods or protectors so that the light
only shines directly down, not laterally into other people’s property, or up into the
night sky.
3. Use of gray water
It has been suggested that one way to avoid water withdrawals is to use water from
wastewater treatment plants, or other industrial facilities, for fracking wells. This
could potentially lead to new contamination problems at the well pads, in drinking
water aquifers, or surface water supplies.
4. Wastewater treatment plants
It appears that local authorities may be asked to treat fracking fluids in municipal
wastewater treatment plants. The impacts of brine, arsenic, NORMS, and fracking
fluids on their equipment, operations, and discharge permits should be evaluated.
5. Illegal dumping
Study impacts from the illegal dumping of drilling waste and fracking fluids.
6. Health impacts
A full build out of the natural gas industry over half of NYS could have dire
consequences on people’s health, through soil, air, and water contamination. A full
study, preferable by the Department of Health, should be undertaken.
Thank you for consideration of my comments.
Anne Marie Garti