In its Executive Summary of the revised SGEIS released yesterday, the DEC states clearly that groundwater is at sufficient risk from gas drilling to restrict gas drilling to protect  those drinking groundwater. But they only afford that protection to those drinking from primary aquifers. The DEC leaves the great majority of drinkers of groundwater in the Marcellus unprotected. They have some explaining to do.

I’m looking forward to hearing the DEC’s logic and science—their risk assessment strategy— used to assess that only some drinkers of contaminated groundwater need protection.

Primary aquifers are used as drinking water for some municipalities.

The list is on  on page 5: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs213.pdf

The list includes about 300,000 people in those municipalities drinking water from these primary aquifers in counties in the Marcellus shale. (see attached spreadsheet and chart at bottom.)

Page 18 of the new DEC doc describes the exclusion of primary aquifers. It’s pasted below, bold face added.

No HVHF Operations on Primary Aquifers

Although not subject to Filtration Avoidance Determinations, 18 other aquifers in the State of New York have been identified by the New York State Department of Health as highly productive aquifers presently utilized as sources of water supply by major municipal water supply systems and are designated as “primary aquifers.” Because these aquifers are the primary source of drinking water for many public drinking water supplies, the Department recommends in this dSGEIS that site disturbance relating to HVHF operations should not be permitted there either or in a protective 500-foot buffer area around them. Horizontal extraction of gas resources underneath Primary Aquifers from well pads located outside this area would not significantly impact this valuable water resource.
- http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/execsumsgeis072011.pdf

As the DEC says, this is in addition to the exclusion of drilling in the watersheds of NYC and Syracuse.

Now, one can make an argument, as the DEC has, that the exclusion of drilling in the NYC and Syracuse water supplies is based on their being unfiltered surface water (as opposed to ground  water), with a risk of “turbidity” from surface drilling activity.  And because there have been rules in place for years restricting industry and development  in unfiltered surface watersheds to avoid having to build  super-expensive filtration plants, as  for NYC.  A more clear eyed assessment of carving out the NYC watershed is that the DEC wants to excise the political opposition of NYC, which could easily create a critical mass of opposition in the state.  But they do have the surface water “turbidity” argument  to fall back on to explain this preferential exclusion, even if politics is the underlying reason.

But when you are dealing with groundwater sources, how can you rationally and scientifically exclude some aquifers and not others? Again, the actual rationale appears overtly political, rather than based on the science or risk.  The DEC is trying to carve out the opposition of the  municipalities drinking from primary aquifers—including Jamestown, Elmira, Cortland, Binghamton, Corning, Salamanca.  After all, these municipalities  are really organized entities of people…….. who would otherwise likely oppose drilling.

Problem is, there are at least 1,140,000 people drinking groundwater in the Marcellus shale.   What’s up, DEC? You’ve determined that groundwater is at risk. You’re going to protect 300,000 people from ground water pollution, but not the other 840,000.

Who are those people? Hello, it’s us, the people of rural NY State who will be drinking from polluted wells. It’s us,  people who will not be receiving equal protection against the very threats that the DEC assesses are too risky for the people of upstate municipalities.

I think I’m going to call my lawyer.

Ken Jaffe, MD
Slope Farms
Meredith, NY
www.slopefarms.com

Source material
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36164.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/305bgrndw10.pdf
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46381.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs213.pdf

Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Binghamton, NY
September 13, 2010

.
Re: Potential Relationships Between Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water Resources

.
I have reviewed your scoping materials released in March 2010, and would like to offer some comments for your consideration. A common theme among them is the idea of context: I encourage you to sense and communicate the most holistic viewpoint possible as this research initiative advances.
The term “hydraulic fracturing”:
As a biochemist and former construction professional, I’ve been striving to apprehend the gas industry’s foray into shale gas extraction for about two years. This study has brought me into contact with a large number of industry representatives, state and river basin commission officials, and environmental activists. I’ve found that people from the three groups not only are far apart in their perceptions, they employ technical language very differently. Of greatest significance here, environmentalists tend to apply the term “hydrofracking” to the overall process of gas extraction from unconventional reservoirs – from access road construction to pipeline pressurization, while industry insiders use the term chiefly to describe the specific technical steps taken to force fissures in rocks deep underground. Regulators and public health officials with whom I’ve discussed it have been split on this semantic question.
I recommend that, in addition to providing a glossary of terms, you include a section devoted to the various meanings that have been attached to the term “hydraulic fracturing”, and explain the definition by which it should be understood by those reading your report(s). Whatever choice you make with respect to the definition of hydraulic fracturing, I urge you to ensure that this investigation encompasses the broadest possible scope.
Influence of human error:
Another important element of context regards whether or not human error should be considered integral to the overall process of shale gas extraction. Industry representatives I’ve conferred with claim that the process is safe – as long as it is done properly. Incidents about which I’ve challenged them, from Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming, and multiple sites in PA, have been met with explanations reasonably paraphrased as, “Yes, well, that was due to human error. The process itself is completely safe.” (This begs the questions of when and how the industry intends to shift its labor force to non-humans.) Whether and to what degree human error is included as a factor in your assessment of hydraulic fracturing should be explicitly stated.
2
Technology assessment:
I believe it would be helpful to assess the relative influences of human error and current technology on the overall safety of shale gas extraction. Specific questions that might contribute to “pure technology” risk assessments include:
How many fractures are propagated in a typical hydraulic fracturing stage? (Hundreds? Thousands?)
What is the detection limit for fractures extending beyond the target zone? (1%? 10%?)
Do different rock strata overlying shales suppress out-of-zone fractures or propagate them? How are these fractures monitored empirically (if they ever are)? What is the current time-frame of fracture growth observation? (Days? Months?) What should that time frame be?
Long-term fate of infrastructure:
With respect to time frames, I recommend that you develop longitudinal data on abandoned infrastructure (played-out wells, pipelines and underground storage facilities). How long will steel pipe within concrete casing withstand the corrosive effects of brines and sulfur-metabolizing microbes at temperatures up to 180 °F? (50 years? 150 years?) How much pressure redevelops in that time? What impact does repeated stimulation by hydraulic fracturing exert on the longevity of a gas well’s casing? How do hydraulic fracturing and underground injection in target zones above and beneath an abandoned horizontal well affect the integrity of its casing and plugs?
Here are some more readily accessible questions: What monitoring programs for abandoned infrastructure are maintained by energy companies and/or regulatory agencies? What reporting is required? What activities are underway to locate and stabilize “orphan” wells and pipelines?
Air quality concerns:
While your congressional mandate is to study potential relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources, the impact of shale gas extraction on air quality is also of real concern. In particular, the use of open pits for impounding flow-back fluids from gas wells practically guarantees health impacts on people and animals in close proximity. Most organic chemicals used as additives are less dense than water, so they float to the pond surface (classic oil / water separation). These organics concentrate until they comprise essentially 100% of the surface. There they vaporize and aerosolize into the overlying and surrounding air.
The widespread venting of condensate tanks and “glycol” reboilers, related to purifying “raw” natural gas, also contributes to diminished air quality in and around gas fields.
A possible consequence is the increasingly described “down-winder’s syndrome” characterized by frequent headaches, nausea, sore throats, rashes, dyspnea, and peripheral neuropathy, with occasional mental confusion, hair loss, fatigue and myalgia. I urge you to investigate possible links of shale gas extraction to this phenomenon as well as to locally elevated levels of ozone and diesel combustion particulates.
3
Recapture of “lost” data:
Citizens who complain to county or state agency officials about alleged damage from nearby gas extraction activities are often encouraged to seek redress from the companies they blame for their losses. Energy company officials typically (1) deny any culpability for the citizens’ losses, and (2) offer assistance as “good neighbors” in exchange for (3) the aggrieved citizens’ signatures on liability releases / non-disclosure agreements. Whenever such contracts are signed, local officials typically note that the reported problems were solved, and close their investigations.
The scale of ongoing retail purchases of bottled water, in locales where complaints against gas extraction companies had surfaced, suggest that many homeowners’ complaints have not been resolved, and significant incident data may be forfeited by their non-disclosure agreements. This data is non-discoverable; however, I recommend that you offer some legal mechanism (e.g. limited immunity) for damaged homeowners and gas company executives to contribute the benefit of their experiences to your investigation.
Context of other investigations:
I encourage you to evaluate the results of your investigation in the light of other federally-funded studies, particularly the 2010 Annual Report of the President’s Cancer Panel, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”, and the pending U. S. Department of Energy report on Energy and Water.
Thank you for your attention.

.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Ronald E. Bishop

.

Oral comment on scoping document for EPA study, 9/15/10, Binghamton, NY:

I own 200+ acres. I was offered a lease, and experience the difficult consequences of both long- and short-term economic trends.  Yet this is not another plea for gas extraction.

The first problem with this scope is its foregone conclusion, found in its very first sentence.  “Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future.”  Two biases in twelve words! – the second of which is downright false: natural gas is NOT clean energy.  What a way to begin a study!  The sentence continues, “…and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource.” Nowhere is the question asked:  With present technology and the limits of human performance, CAN natural gas extraction proceed with guaranteed safety, including in a low-impact, non-industrializing manner?  These assumptions and omissions are serious flaws.

Next, to avoid conclusions that are theoretical, nebulous, and open to manipulation, an essential aspect of data gathering is the close scrutiny of all records of all state regulatory agencies for problems associated with the full spectrum of natural gas extraction processes.  Yet this channel of investigation receives little if any mention in this document.  To the point, such records are difficult to find. In response to a 2009 FOIL request, the New York State DEC admitted that the agency does not compile a record of drilling problems requiring follow-up.  In fact, for decades, regulatory agencies everywhere have had very cozy relationships with the industries they regulate.  The result: a dearth of official documention and recognition of the fact that, as the tail follows the dog, groundwater pollution follows natural gas extraction whereever it goes.

Therefore, this study must:
1) dispense with foregone conclusions and biases
2) examine case histories and regulator records unflinchingly and in detail
3) provide a frank assessment of the effects of industry influence on regulators’ record-keeping
4) avoid all such influence itself

Thank you.

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.

.

November 7, 2008

Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, Third Floor
Albany, NY  12233-6500
Attention:  dsGEIS Scope Comments

Dear NYSDEC regulators,
I am a small landowner who is concerned that proposed gas drilling on the two large farms adjacent to my property could contaminate my water well or deplete the aquifer that supplies my well.  I plan on selling my home in the near future and need the monetary gains as part of my retirement income. My home & property value would be rendered virtually worthless if there were no water supply.  I have read the dsGEIS and feel the following items need more emphasis/study or inclusion:

Procurement of professionally trained Gas Drilling Inspectors
Requiring Gas Drilling Companies to prepare Plans and Specifications for submittal to DEC
DEC needs to thoroughly research current gas well casing cement compositions and procedures
DEC should require a gas drilling company to furnish proof of adequate liability insurance

Issue 1:  The need for PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED INSPECTORS
I worked for NYSDOT for 8yrs in the Bridge Design Unit and ODOT (Oregon DOT) for 16 yrs as a Construction Inspector and Materials Tester and later on advanced to an Associate Transportation Engineer as a Roadway Designer.  I will tell you from first hand experience that a project as simple as State Highway Asphalt Paving required an ON-SITE-DAILY- OREGON  D.O.T. TRAINED FIELD INSPECTOR and an ON-SITE-DAILY ODOT ASPHALT MATERIALS INSPECTOR testing the asphalt for such things as moisture content, percentage of asphalt in the mix, aggregate gradation sieve analysis and density.  I know this because I was this Asphalt Materials Inspector.  Thus, an operation the magnitude of the Gas Drilling Operations certainly demands the same attention!!  I stated this at the DEC meeting held in Greene and also the Coalition meeting held in Harpursville.  I also backed my concerns up with two letters to Judith Enck with a copies sent to Assemblyman Clifford Crouch asking both of them to make sure my concerns were carried to the governor prior to him signing the Bill.  I also sent an extremely detailed position description for a Canadian Oil & Gas Drilling Inspector in British Columbia, Canada.  The job description serves to illustrate the importance the Canadian government places on FIELD INSPECTIONS, and the degree of detail contained in the job description shows that gas drilling is not a simple process nor should it be treated as such!  I am extremely grateful to Gov. Paterson and his close advisors for realizing the critical need for Gas Drilling Inspectors and imposing a moratorium on all gas drilling until the state can provide a means of enforcing gas regulations.  But, recognizing the need for inspectors and finding the funding for these positions are two different things especially with the current economy.  Thus, if DEC can not currently fund inspector positions, the gas drilling should only advance as fast as the current DEC inspectors can monitor them!!

Issue 2:  Need for CONTRACT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS prepared by the Gas Drilling Companies themselves with submittal to the DEC for review and approval.
I attended a meeting at the Binghamton Public Library conducted by The Independent Oil & Gas Association.  I expressed the need for contract plans/specs and John Holko insisted that the Gas Drillers already provide such plans to the DEC.  The next day, I called Linda Collart of the DEC and conveyed what Mr. Holko had said.  The only thing she knew of that would be a detailed drawing of any sort consisted of ONE SHEET!  I asked her to send me a copy of one of these sheets for a recent DEC approved gas well.  This sheet shows the geological strata, depths, hole & casing design, etc.  But, this one sheet is a far-far-cry from what I am referring to and accustomed to seeing on a Dept. of Transportation project.

During my tenure with NYSDOT and ODOT, I was involved in preparing Preliminary Bridge Plans and specs for interstate bridges on 110 miles of I-88.  I also prepared Preliminary Plans for many Oregon Highway Construction projects from projects as simple as asphalt resurfacing projects all the way up to a modernization project involving widening a two lane highway to four lanes and the creation of a new alignment to meet 70mph design speeds which would avoid impacting 100yr old oak trees, four historic homes, a high power transmission line, and wetland areas.  These plans were extensive in nature, covering every known aspect of the construction and typically entailing 50 or more contract sheets with accompanying specifications of 100 or more sheets.  Thus, I don’t see a Gas Drilling Project as requiring anything less since the impacts can be every bit as far reaching.

To further drive this point home I will explain a project that I have first hand knowledge of  that was in the hands of our very own New York State DEC for review.  These were Contract Plans (24” x 36” size) drawn up by Keystone Engineers for a large pond my neighbor, located on the hill directly above me, was proposing to build.  I became very concerned with the location of this proposed pond and the fact that no one was going to be on site as an inspector to ensure adherence to the specifications.  Thus, I was successful in having DEC deny the permit for this pond.  But the main reason I bring this up is to illustrate that the division of DEC requires rather extensive PLANS and SPECS for a pond when it reaches a certain size and volume.  And I might add that a pond does not pose any risk to underground water tables nor does it contain any toxic chemicals to pollute water supplies!!  Thus, why isn’t this requirement for plans and specs carried over to the Gas Drilling Operations??  The Plans and Specs would succeed in one huge accomplishment, that being —  there would be no mystery and no doubt about what the Gas Companies might be up to; their procedures would have to be clearly explained with accompanying detailed drawings and construction notes showing every aspect of their operation.  It would be very refreshing and assuring for landowners and DEC personnel to know exactly what the Gas Drilling Plan is.

You might be thinking, what is there about a Gas Drilling Operation that would require a detailed drawing plan with accompanying specifications? ….. I will give you just one example:  Environmentalist Bob Williams gave a presentation at the Coalition meeting in Harpursville wherein he showed a picture of a gas drilling pad.  The pad was quite large and required that the earth be leveled with a berm constructed around the perimeter.  This picture caused me to immediately think of my neighbors Pond Plans and Specs.  The gas drilling berm is very much like the pond berm.  The pond berm specs state that “the embankment is to be constructed in maximum 8” thick layers running continuous for the entire length of the fill with each layer being compacted prior to placement of the next layer, and the fill is to have at least 30% passing the #200 sieve.”  Now, do you actually think the drilling pad berm was constructed in this manner??  I would bet the drill pad berm was constructed by a dozer pushin’ dirt up into an unkempt pile that was never even compacted.  Now, what was the pond berm serving to contain?  Yep, pure water.  Now what is the drill pad berm supposed to contain?  You got it, impure hazardous materials!!  As you already know, the Gas Companies are not required to disclose these hazardous materials.  However, Colorado Environmentalist Theo Colburn, PhD has discovered over 200 chemicals directly injected into the gas well during the fracturing process yet she (and I quote) “had been unable to find any information on the chemical content of waste pits until we were sent results of a chemical analysis of the residues from six waste pits in New Mexico.  The 51 chemicals that were detected in those pits produced a health pattern even more toxic than anything we found in the past.  Most important is that 43 of the 51 chemicals detected in the pits were not even on our original list of chemicals used during natural gas operations!”  Thus, this drill pad and waste pits need the same careful plan drawings and specifications as DEC requires for a fairly innocuous pond berm!!  And this is just one example of drilling details that need to be spelled out in a drawing with construction notes/specs. I know you are thinking how requiring the gas companies to develop and submit plans would slow up the gas drilling process even more than the procurement of inspectors, but this could be a good thing.  It could give the state more time to ascertain how it will obtain funding for inspector type staff.  And most of the onus of time and money to develop the plans would be placed on the Gas Drilling Companies with our DEC merely reviewing the plans which takes far less time than developing the plans.

Issue 3:  DEC needs to RESEARCH GAS WELL CEMENT COMPOSITIONS AND CEMENTING PROCEDURES and HIRE AN OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL IN THIS FIELD SUCH AS “SCHLUMBERGER” TO REVIEW GAS DRILLING APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO DEC FOR APPROVAL since this is such a complicated and critical aspect of gas drilling.

In the above mentioned example of a current DEC approved gas well that Linda Collart sent me, I noticed that Class A cement was being used.  I called her to ask if this was regular Portland Cement and she said yes.  Since I used to be an Asphalt and Concrete Materials Tester for Oregon DOT, I became concerned over the rigidity of Portland Cement and the extreme conditions deep gas well bore holes and drilling operations would exert on this concrete after the casing was cemented.  Thus, I researched this topic and present the following findings:

Proper cementing is critical for the protection of subsurface aquifers and the prevention of gas leaking into zones that would otherwise not be gas bearing.  Tubing and casing leaks, poor drilling and displacement practices, improper cement selection and design, and production cycling may all be factors in the development of gas leaks.  Thus, the primary Gas drilling contractor frequently subcontracts this aspect of gas drilling to a company that exclusively performs this cementing operation. DEC personnel may have heard of “Schlumberger” since they are internationally renowned experts in this field.  I contacted them for help via email and they responded by saying “IF the DEC is interested in soliciting our help we would be willing to participate.”  (I have enclosed a copy of this email.)  Here are some of my findings on this complicated aspect of drilling that even the professionals in the Oil & Gas Industry admit that they are still in the process of perfecting.  Schlumberger says “much work remains to be done in simulating downhole conditions and developing new cement technologies/compositions for thermal applications and high pressure conditions.”

“During the life of a well, the cement sheath may be exposed to stresses imposed by well operations including perforating, hydraulic fracturing, high temperature-pressure differentials, and so on.  Further, if the well is completed using complex completion such as a multilateral system, the cement sheath may be subject to shattering and subsequent loss of bond to pipe impact.  Conventional well cement compositions are typically brittle when cured.  These conventional cement compositions often fail due to stresses, such as radial and/or tangential stresses, that are exerted on the set cement.  In other cases, cements placed in wellbores may be subjected to mechanical stress induced by vibrations resulting from operations, for example, in which wireline and pipe conveyed assembly are moved within the wellbore.  Hydraulic, thermal and mechanical stresses may be induced from forces and changes in forces existing outside the cement sheath surrounding a pipe string.  For example, overburden and geological formation pressures, formation temperatures, formation shifting, formation compaction, etc. may cause stress on cement within the wellbore.  Conventional wellbore cements typically react to excessive stress by failing.”

Halliburton offers the following:  “Wellbores exist in extremely dynamic environments; therefore, a cement sheath must be able to perform as intended over time. When cementing a well, the primary concern is to prevent fluids from migrating into an annulus.  As a well ages, the annular seal may be compromised as a result of stresses brought on by temperature and pressure cycling that occur as the well is operated.  By industry convention and tradition the effect of stresses on the cement sheath’s mechanical properties are not ordinarily assessed during the design and construction phase of a well.  Although short term considerations are necessary for effective slurry mixing and placement, a sole focus on liquid cement slurry properties and the 24 hour compressive strength does not account for long-term cement integrity, which is critical if the well is subjected to stress on a large scale.”  Halliburton has devised an analytical tool, “Welllife” computer software which analyzes properties such as Young’s modulus, friction angle, cohesion of cement sheath and simulates failure events that could occur during various field operations to determine the best cements for particular geological stratum.

Schlumberger says “cement sheath damage or debonding can allow gas to migrate to the surface and cause sustained casing pressure (SCP).  The presence of such flows can require a well to be shut in for remediation or abandoned altogether.”  Schlumberger has designed a “FUTUR active set-cement” which provides long-term zonal isolation and prevents the flow of hydrocarbons through potential leak paths up and along the annulus.  Any hydrocarbon that comes in contact with FUTUR active cement technology will activate the self-healing properties of this unique sealant material.  Once activated, cracks in the cement sheath are healed.  Even if the cement sheath is damaged again, FUTUR active set-cement will continue to self-repair on multiple, independent occasions.

Schlumberger also mentions how important it is to have a clean wellbore prior to cementing.  “It is important to get the initial cementing job right, with good mud removal.  Mud pockets in the annulus can cause catastrophic failure, including broken wellbores and collapsed casing.  Shlumberger uses WELLCLEAN methodology to ensure that there are no channels or pockets of mud that can cause well failure.  Soft formations offer little constraining pressure, and tensile pressures may lead to breakage.  Cements with a low Young’s modulus, such as the flexible cement system using FlexSTONE technology, can deliver mechanical properties appropriate for these downhole stress environments.

The following are excerpts from a paper titled “From Mud to Cement-Building Gas Wells” dated Autumn 2003 by Tom Griffin of Griffin Cementing Consulting LLC, Joseph R. Levine of the US Minerals Management Service, Dominic Murphy of BHP Billiton Petroleum to name but a few of the authors.  This study serves to illustrate the complexity of the cementing process; if the experts in this field attest to the complexity of this aspect of drilling, I think NYSDEC should pay more attention to cement designs and cementing procedures.  “Since the earliest gas wells, uncontrolled migration of hydrocarbons to the surface has challenged the oil and gas industry.  Gas migration, also called annular flow, can lead to sustained casing pressure (SCP), sometimes called sustained annular pressure (SAP).”  “In the Gulf of Mexico, there are approximately 15,500 producing, shut-in and temporarily abandoned wells in the outer continental shelf area.  United States Minerals Management (MMS) data show that 6692 of these wells, or 43%, have reported SCP on at least one casing annulus.”  “By the time a well is 15 years old, there is a 50% probability that it will have measurable SCP in one or more of its casing annuli.  However, SCP may be present in wells of any age.  In Canada, SCP occurs in all types of wells-shallow gas wells in southern Alberta, heavy-oil producers in eastern Alberta and deep gas wells in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.  Most of the pressure buildup is due to gas.” “Long-term, durable zonal isolation is key to minimizing problems associated with annular gas flow and SCP development.”  “Determining the precise source of annular flow or sustained casing pressure is often difficult, although likely causes can be divided into four primary categories: tubing and casing leaks, poor mud displacement, improper cement-slurry design, and damage to primary cement after setting.  Leaks can result from poor thread connection, corrosion, thermal stress cracking or mechanical rupture of the inner string, or from a packer leak.  If the pressure from a leak causes a failure of the production casing the outcome can be catastrophic.  Leaks to the surface or underground blowouts may jeopardize personnel safety, production-platform facilities and the environment.”  “Inadequate removal of mud or spacer fluids from the borehole prior to cement placement is a major contributing factor to poor zonal isolation and gas migration.” “Improper cement-slurry designs –Flow occurring before cement has set is a result of loss in hydrostatic pressure to the point that the well is no longer overbalanced – hydrostatic pressure is less than formation pressure.  This decrease in hydrostatic pressure results from several phenomena that occur as part of the cement-setting process.  The change from a highly fluid, pumpable slurry to a set, rock-like material involves a gradual transition of the cement.  This may require several hours, depending on the temperature, and quantity and characteristics of retarding compounds added.  As the cement begins to gel, bonding between the cement, casing and borehole allows the slurry to become partially self-supporting.  This self-supporting condition would not be a problem if it occurred alone.  The difficulty arises because, while the cement becomes self-supporting, it loses volume as a result of at least two factors.  First, where the formation is permeable, the hydrostatic pressure overbalance drives water from the cement into the formation.  The rate of water loss depends on the pressure differential, formation permeability, and fluid loss characteristics of the cement.  A second cause pf volume loss is hydration volume reduction as the cement sets.  This occurs because set cement is denser and occupies less volume than liquid slurry.  Volume loss coupled with the interaction between partially set cement, borehole wall and casing cause a loss of hydrostatic pressure, leading to an underbalanced condition.  While the hydrostatic pressure in the partially set cement is below formation pressure, gas may invade.  If unchecked, the invasion of gas may create a channel through which gas can flow, effectively compromising cement quality and zonal isolation.  Also, cement damage can occur long after the well construction process.  Even a flawless primary cement job can be damaged by rig operations or well activities occurring after the cement has set.  Changing stresses in the wellbore may cause microannuli, stress cracks, or both, leading to SCP.  The mechanical properties of the casing and the cement vary significantly.  Consequently they do not behave in a uniform manner when exposed to changes in temperature and pressure.  As the casing and cement expand and contract, the bond between the cement sheath and casing may fail, causing microannulus, or flow path, to develop.

As the borehole reaches deeper into the earth, previously isolated layers of formation are exposed to one another, with the borehole as the conductive path.  Isolating these layers, or establishing zonal isolation, is key to minimizing the migration of formation fluids between zones or to the surface where SCP would develop.  Crucial to this process are borehole condition, effective mud removal, and cement-system design for placement, durability and adaptability to the well life cycle.  Wellbore condition depends on many factors, including rock type, formation pressures, local stresses, the type of mud used and drilling operation parameters, such as hydraulics, penetration rate, hole cleaning and fluid density balance.  The ultimate condition of the borehole is often determined early in the drilling process as drilling mud interacts with newly exposed formation.  If mismatched, the interaction of the drilling mud with formation clays can have serious detrimental effects on borehole gauge and rugosity.  Once a well is drilled, displacement, cementing and ultimately, zonal isolation efficiency are dependent on a stable borehole with minimal rugosity and tortuosity.  Drilling fluid engineers and related technical specialists have applied various techniques to investigate rock response to drilling fluid chemistry under simulated downhole conditions.  Mud companies have created high-performance water-base muds that incorporate various polymers, glycols, silicates and amines, or combination thereof, for clay control.  Like the fluids themselves, drilling fluid hydraulics play a fundamental role in constructing a quality borehole.  Balance must be maintained between fluid density, equivalent circulating density (ECD) and borehole cleaning.  If the static or dynamic fluid density is too high, loss of circulation may occur.  Conversely, if it is too low, shales and formation fluids may flow into the borehole, or in the worst case, well control may be lost.  Improper control of density and borehole hydraulics can lead to significant borehole rugosity, poor displacement and failure to achieve isolation.  Rheological properties of drilling fluids must be optimized in such a way that the frictional pressure losses are minimized without compromising cuttings-carrying capacity.  Optimal fluid properties for achieving good borehole cleaning and low frictional pressure loss often appear to be mutually exclusive.  Detailed engineering analysis is required to obtain an acceptable compromise that allows both objectives to be satisfied.  During drilling, optimal fluid characteristics may change depending on the task, such as running casing or displacement borehole fluids.  Modeling and simulation with software tools such as the M-I Virtual Hydraulics application can be useful in optimizing fluid properties in anticipation of changes in rig operations.  Integrating carefully designed drilling fluids with other key services is critical for achieving successful wellbore construction, zonal isolation and well integrity.

Proper mud selection and careful management of drilling practices generally produce a quality borehole that is near-gauge, stable and with minimal areas of rugosity, or washout.  To establish zonal isolation with cement, the drilling fluid must first be effectively removed from the borehole.  Mud removal depends on many interdependent factors.  Tubular geometry, downhole conditions, borehole characteristics, fluid rheology, displacement design, and hole geometry play major roles in successful mud removal.  Optimal fluid displacement requires a clear understanding of each variable as well as inherent interdependencies among variables.  The availability of computer technology has significantly advanced the way drillers approach wellbore displacement.  Fluids can be built, complex interactions predicted, and displacements simulated on the computer screen rather than at the wellsite where minor mistakes may result in major costs.  CemCADE cementing design and simulation software and WELLCLEAN II software are two software applications used for this purpose.

Integration of drilling fluids, spacer design and displacement techniques provide the foundation for optimal cement placement.  Long-term zonal isolation and control of gas require the cement to be properly placed and to provide low permeability, mechanical durability and adaptability to changing wellbore conditions.  Cement permeability depends on the solid fraction of the formulation.  For high-density slurries, a high solid fraction is inherent, thus the permeability tends to be low.  For low-density slurries, special products and techniques create low-density, high solid-fraction slurries.  Mechanical durability varies with strength, Young’s modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio.  The cement should be designed so these properties are sufficient to prevent failure of the cement when exposed to changing well pressures and temperature fluctuations, which create stresses across the casing-cement-formation system.  Special materials are required to give the cement flexibility in this environment.    Sealing an annular space against gas migration can be more difficult in gas wells than in oil wells.  Wellbore construction, particularly in the presence of gas bearing formations, requires that borehole, drilling fluid, spacer and cement designs, and displacement techniques be dealt with as a series of interdependent systems, each playing an equally important role.  Often, the relationships among these systems is overlooked, or at the very least, poorly appreciated.  Preventing gas migration and SCP has been helped by recent developments in cementing technology that offer significant advantages in durability and adaptation to changing wellbore conditions.  Cement properties have traditionally been designed for optimal placement and strength development rather than long-term post-setting performance.  The rapid development of high cement-compressive strength after placement was generally considered adequate for most wellbore conditions.  Today, operators and service companies realize that the emphasis on strength at the expense of durability has often led to the development of SCP (sustained casing pressure) and reduced well productivity.  Cement particle characteristics and size distribution can contribute significantly to both the resistance to gas influx and maintenance of a sustainable hydraulic seal, particularly in wellbores subjected to pressure and temperature cycling.  FlexSTONE advanced flexible cement technology, part of the CemCRETE concrete-based oilwell cementing technology, is one of several solutions that effectively address cement flexibility and durability.  Conventional Portland cements are known to shrink during setting.  In contrast, FlexSTONE slurries can be designed to expand, further tightening the hydraulic seal and helping to compensate for variations in borehole or casing conditions.  This capability helps avoid microannuli development.  By adjusting specific additive characteristics and by blending the cement slurry with an engineered particle size distribution, a lowering of Young’s modulus of elasticity in cement can be achieved.  Annular cement can then flex in unison with the casing rather than failing from tensile stresses.  Thus, the potential development of microannuli and gas communication to the surface or to zones of lower pressure are minimized.”  The original complete version of the above paper can be found at  www.slb.com/media/services/resources/
oilfieldreview/ors03.

Issue 4:   DEC should not provide a well license to a person who does not furnish proof that the person has liability insurance of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence that provides compensation for all damages caused by drilling, pipeline construction, production, servicing or abandonment operations or caused by any vessel, craft or barge used to transport people or materials to the site of the drilling, pipeline construction or production operations.

I sincerely thank NYSDEC for welcoming the public’s comments on the dsGEIS and look forward to DEC’s response to my comments,

Jilda Rush

Attach:  email from Schlumberger dated 10/26/2008
British Columbia, Canada OGC Oil and Gas Commission Position Description

Cc: Gov. David Paterson, Top Advisor Judith Enck & Assemblyman Clifford Crouch

Click on image for video:

Albany, NY, January 25, 2010 (see previous posts below): While approximately 500 people were inside the Convention Center (under The Egg), a group of demonstrators paused on the New York State Capitol Building’s steps — despite the rain and 40 mph gusts — demanding a “STATEWIDE BAN” on unconventional gas drilling.

_______________________

_______________________

__________________________

_______________________

_______________________

__________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

The 01/25/2010 Albany West Capitol Park Rally of over 500 people
opposed to unconventional gas drilling was moved inside, under the Egg

________________________________________________________________

DEC workers supporting 01/25 people’s protest of the DEC’s dSGEIS (door Stop Giving Extraction Industry Shelter)… The dSGEIS  concluded that cumulative effects of tens or hundreds of thousands of toxic waste production sites would not have a cumulative effect worth considering.
________________________________________________________

Demonstrators chanting “No fracking way!” and “Statewide ban!”
___________________________________________________________

Joan Tubridy (CDOG) speaking, with Chief Oren Lyons (Onondaga Nation) by her side. Both support a statewide ban on unconventional gas drilling. Chief Lyons called upon political leaders to consider the impact of their decisions upon the next seven generations. When Tubridy finished her listing of reasons why we should have a statewide ban, those assembled at the rally loudly chanted “Statewide ban!” for a full minute.

Foothills Performing Arts Center, Atrium

Monday, November 9, 7:00 to 9:30 pm

Doors open at 6:00 pm

Local hearing for public comment on DEC’s Draft of the SGEIS

October 30, 2009, Oneonta, NY. The City of Oneonta and Otsego County together are holding a public hearing for citizens to voice concerns about the proposed regulations governing gas drilling in New York State.  Through the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining (SGEIS), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) defines the safeguards drilling companies must take to preserve the quality of our groundwater, and how the DEC will monitor compliance.

DEC is holding hearings in other parts of the state, but officials in Oneonta and Otsego County feel it is important to hold a more locally accessible meeting.  This is an urgent need as many property owners throughout the county have signed leases and drilling has begun on two wells.  Recent drilling accidents in Pennsylvania have caused concern among local citizens.  The quality of the SGEIS will have a major impact on the quality and quantity of the water in our lakes, rivers, aquifers and wells.

Governor Paterson requested that the DEC develop a supplemental GEIS because the process of drilling that is coming to New York State is dramatically different from traditional gas drilling.  Hydrofracturing horizontally drilled wells involves highly toxic chemicals that even in very small quantities can poison our water.  This makes it vital that the laws governing the process be rigorous.  The comment period, ending November 30, is the final opportunity for input on the document.  It is imperative that we provide the most comprehensive feedback possible to make the regulations rigorous.

Experts, environmental organizations, and landowners have expressed concerns not only on many specific items in the draft, but also on the insufficient consideration of the cumulative impacts.  The DEC is required to consider all substantive comments before issuing the final SGEIS.  Comments at this meeting should be in one of the categories the DEC considers substantive.  This includes: definition of the project; definition of each issue & conclusions about its impact; methods of mitigation; implementation.  For example, substantive comments would include topics such as whether the DEC: looks only at individual well sites without assessing impact of a significant number of wells statewide; adequately addresses the impact of this scale of water withdrawals; proposes sufficient baseline water testing; requires the rate of drilling of new wells be done in phases.

Read the parts of the 804 page document that are of most concern to you.  It is available on the DEC website at www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html , or you can see a printout at the Huntington Library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,
Jane Welsh

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.

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

Subject: Scope Comment

To Whom It May Concern:

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 would like to make it clear that I fully support, as the first option, the alternative suggested by the DEC in the draft scope of work, quoted as follows:

“7.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Alternatives to be reviewed by the dSGEIS will include (1) the prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing”

As a second option, I call for an entirely new GEIS to be completed by DEC.  The 1988 Draft and 1992 FGEIS are at least 16 years out of date and no longer relevant.  The new GEIS should include cumulative impacts, and the impacts from gas pipelines and greenhouse gas emissions, which were specifically omitted in the scope of work.

I live in Delaware County, on Sullivan County’s northwest boundary.  My family owns about 230 acres, for a large portion of which Chesapeake solicited a lease last spring.  We are members of the Sullivan Delaware Landowners’ Coalition.  My family has suffered from economic trends of the last decade or more, and we’ve had to learn to live on less and less.  Nonetheless, we believe that the only acceptable option is the one cited above: prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing.  The comments I herewith submit regarding the draft scope will show why.

1. Hydraulic fracturing uses enough pressure to crack rock that in the case of the Marcellus Shale has the weight of thousands of vertical feet of material between it and the surface. While Tom Price, senior vice president of Chesapeake, is quoted as saying that this is a “surgical technique”, it is not.  Regarding a subsurface trespass case before the Supreme Court of Texas, the Fort Worth Business Press reported the following: “The problem is, however, that fracture stimulation isn’t a precise science…in some ways, cracking the shale [predictably] could be thought of as trying to hammer a dinner plate into equal pieces…’You may plan a fracture that will go 1,000 feet and it might go 2,000 feet or 400 feet, ‘ said John S. Lowe, a professor of energy law at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law.”…’How do you prove any fracing was correct or incorrect in an area that is not precise to begin with?’ asked [John] Holden [a partner at Dallas-based Jackson Walker LLP]…’Either side has to prove what’s going on down below, and that’s hard for both sides.’…Lowe said, ‘You can bring the scientific evidence, the scientific testing to see whether or not a trespass has occurred but I’m not sure you can rely on it 100 percent.’” – Fort Worth Business Press, July 7, 2008.

In light of 16 years of data gathering since ’92, it is worth examining, especially in a fractured bedrock geology, given the unpredictable nature of hydraulic fracturing and the extraordinary pressures used, whether this technology may cause disturbances in other than the target formations or exacerbate existing fractures and faults, thus creating conditions in which substances could start to communicate from one stratum to another.  I would like to know if this could be contributing to the existence of conditions that led to the following headline:  “Western PA landowners regret deep gas wells deals, gases bubbling out of the ground and into drinking wells and ponds.” http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08-04-10/head1-drilling.html

So-called research cited on DEC’s website (http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/47291.html) as evidence that hydraulic fracturing is safe is from a source that can only be described as suspect, the Ground Water Protection Council, which is nothing more than an industry front group which seeks to maintain the current legal and permissive status of underground injection waste disposal, and to that purpose is designed to alter the dynamics of the regulator-regulated relationship.  This group lobbies and co-opts regulating bodies through a clever method which creates a peer-to-peer atmosphere in discussions about regulation, effectively castrating regulators’ power to regulate for the safety and well-being of the environment and all life dependent on it.  It is a matter of great concern to many informed citizens that regulating agencies across the US, including DEC, have allowed themselves to be so thoroughly infiltrated and domesticated by an industry group that has no higher objective than to keep its toxic and dangerous industrial processes legal in the face of a growing body of evidence that they should be prohibited.

2.  The 1992 GEIS discussed injection wells for disposal of removed fluids, and deep well injection is now being considered for disposal of frack waste water.  Again, since 1992 we have 16 years of addtional data to consider.   Pennsylvania DEP acting secretary John Hanger has said that in PA, deep well injection disposal has not been favored because of Pennsylvania’s geology – geology which does not change at the state line.  The draft scope, or preferably a new comprehensive GEIS, must consider what they know in PA that we don’t know here.

Deep well injection is implicated in a series of earthquakes that struck the city of Lake Erie, Ohio. (http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/mar02/NN_quakes.html)  According to http://www.pollutionissues.com/Ho-Li/Injection-Well.html it is also implicated in numerous cases of water supply contamination.

There is an unwritten law more powerful than any passed by any legislative body anywhere: the law of  unintended consequences.  DEC must consider this reality: we do not know everything there is to know.  Try now, pay later is no more successful a strategy than buy now, pay later.

On page 13 of the draft scope, a sentence begins “Examination of each of the above disposal options along with others that may be suggested during scoping.”  The available evidence suggests to the uncompromised observer that there is NO acceptable disposal method at this time, and that high-volume hydraulic fracturing should be halted until there is.

3.  Spills of hazardous materials:  Page 11 of the draft scope begins with a paragraph that includes such phrases as:  “To date no spill or discharge of chemical fracturing fluid additives in their pure, undiluted liquid or solid form has ever been reported to the Department, nor has the Department documented any environmental degradation that could be attributable to such an event.”   In other places in the draft scope, (e.g. p. 20)  statements are made that adverse effects such as spills and excessive or dangerous atmospheric emissions could only happen in the case of accidents or permit violations – as if such events are impossible or unheard of.  This is a grave deficiency of the draft scope. Accidents are inevitable and New Yorkers are not so naive as to believe that permit violations never happen.  These dubious reassurances do nothing to remediate once the inevitable accident has occurred.

There is so much wrong with these collections of doublespeak that it’s difficult to know where to begin, but an attempt to itemize follows:
a)  Such statements attempt to obscure the reality that in industrial activity, accidents will happen.   They have happened.  If DEC has not documented them, that is cause for additional concern, not reassurance.
b) The fact that the inevitable spill has not been reported to the Department means nothing good, and only corroborates observations of the dishonest nature of the drilling industry.
c) The fact, if it is a fact, that the Department has not documented any environmental harms attributable to such spills means nothing, given, i. the Department’s gross understaffing issues, ii. the Department’s lack of applied intellectual rigor and regulatory zeal (as evidenced when DEC took the word of the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission and incorporated the result of an informal poll of its members’ anecdotal recall in a PowerPoint presentation to municipal officials earlier this year, stating, “in over one million frack jobs, not one instance of groundwater contamination,”  when in fact, there are thousands of instances of groundwater contamination from frack jobs across the country).
d) The Department has never before regulated drilling activity at anywhere near the proposed magnitude and intensity, so even if there had never been even one spill of hazardous materials in all the decades of regulation of gas drilling to date, it is unreasonable and inapplicable to conclude or indicate that there is no reason for concern now.  Accidents are inevitable.  Increased activity mathematically computes to increased risk.

For the same reason, the assertion on page 10 that the Department has no record of any documented instance of groundwater contamination” is in no way reassuring – not only is there a lack of intellectual rigor, the will is missing too.  Numerous documented instances of groundwater exist in New York State, particularly in the western part of the state where drilling has been intensive for decades – though not even at the projected scale!  To say DEC has no record simply means DEC has not been doing its job.  Again, this lack of will, and the deliberate attempt to disarm concern by converting DEC’s wilfull neglect to document into a lack of evidence is a cause for only greater concern.

A little further down the page, one of the bulleted points reads: “information about fracturing fluid additives collected from service companies and chemical suppliers.”  This source list is inadequate.  Information from industry is only a start; this notoriously secretive and duplicitous industry should never be the exclusive source of such critical information. The phrase “independent researchers” should be added.  Dr Theo Colborn is a respected and authoritative source on the subject of fracking chemicals and no compilation of data on fracking chemicals could possibly be complete without including her work.  Two weeks ago I attended a presentation by the Independent Oil and Gas Association, where we were shown a slide that listed 4 main fracking chemical recipes.  The presenters were careful to point out the extreme dilutions of anywhere from 1/4 gallon to 5 gallons of chemical per million gallons of water.  One chemical, a biocide, is used at 1/4 gallon per million gallons. Yet during the Q&A, the presenter reviewed that slide and said, “Well, there’s nothing here that’s really toxic.”   This is not an isolated incident; active citizens have caught gas drilling industry representatives in deliberate lies over and over, and are documenting them.  DEC must not accept as a credible and self-verifying source the reporting of an industry whose representatives are so deliberately misleading.

Section 2.1.2.3 on confidential commercial status of additive formulas or constituents makes the statement that regardless of federal reporting exemptions, the Department is not prevented “from requiring that the information be submitted for review by DEC.”  “Not prevented from requiring” is far different than “will require.”  The draft scope should include information on how DEC will collect this information, from whom (including independent researchers, as mentioned above) and how DEC will verify and regularly update this information.

4.  Well spacing:  Potential of 16 wells per square mile is in and of itself a very significant and in fact unacceptable environmental impact.  The draft scope is at pains to repeat that noise and air quality issues are mostly temporary.  This may be true for each individual well, but the cumulative impact of having one well developed after another means that the noise and air quality issues continue, well after well, after well.  On page 9 of the draft scope, we find 2 curious statements.  One is that Chautauqua County has previously experienced 40-acre well spacing, that is, 16 wells per square mile.  However, this is not the reassurance that was intended.  An 81-year-old lady who lived in and traveled through Chautauqua County during that intensive phase says of it, “it STUNK” and noted that the water was undrinkable and tasted like gas.  The second curious statement is “the Department does not expect the rate of Marcellus drilling in any single county to match the peak Chautauqua County rate” – but fails to supply a justification for that perception.  DEC should be doing full buildout models for what it does anticipate, with  full cumulative impacts – not just individual site and localized impacts – detailed.

5.  Air quality and effects on human health:  Section 4.1.3 omits any mention of VOCs and ozone; again, it is essential to refer to Theo Colborn’s work on air quality on gas well sites. A new GEIS or else a revised draft scope must include consideration of findings from new research on the effects of VOCs and ozone on human and animal health as well as on crop yields.  New studies such as the very recently released, “Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development:  A Literature Review (2003-2008),” and the literature upon which it is based, must be examined thoroughly and the results reported and factored in fully and candidly.  Again, given the vast amount of data newly available in recent years, we need a new and comprehensive GEIS, not a patch that relies on foregone conclusions in a 16-year-old document based on now-outdated research.

Additionally, a phrase in section 4.1.3 reads that “concerns regarding evaporation of pit contents do not arise in New York because precipitation exceeds evaporation.”  This statement is an insult to the intelligence, and once again, it is difficult to know where to begin:
a) New York State is by no means unique in this regard; in fact, just the opposite is true:  There are probably very few places in the world in which precipitation does not exceed evaporation.  b) Of course precipitation exceeds evaporation; it is for this reason that we have surface water and ground water in abundance.
c) Any observer, even a child, understands that evaporation nonetheless happens in New York State.  Slightly more sophisticated observers understand that if water evaporates from the laundry drying (even on cloudy, misty days) on the backyard clothesline, then VOCs in drilling and fracking wastes will evaporate into the air we breathe all the more readily in almost any weather.
To imply that in this atmospheric condition,  evaporation of pit contents is of no consequence is a patent absurdity that is shocking and unsettling to see in a document prepared by the department that purports to regulate for environmental safety.

6.  Sensitive areas and water bodies: The specified setbacks mentioned in section 4.2.3 (page 28) and 4.5 (page 32) are inadequate and can only be seen as a gift to industry.  A new GEIS should study whether these setbacks are adequate, although common sense leaves no doubt that they are not.  This reader finds in the draft scope no mention of restrictions on sensitive or unsuitable topography.  Here in Delaware County, Chesapeake sought to lease our nearly 200 acres despite the fact that it’s all almost vertical.  We still have scarring from the 1996 flood.  On nearby properties, from one summer’s small -scale logging 4 years ago, there are erosion issues from soil compaction:  ditches where once were paths, streambeds that formerly were woods roads.  Here, the valleys are narrow, slopes are very steep, and soil is fragile and unstable.   The draft scope makes no mention of the potentially catastrophic effects of allowing a drilling operation to take place on sensitive topography and unstable soils.

Section 4.5 admits that drilling in wetlands is enough of a concern that it will be permitted “only when alternate locations are not available.”  In fact, if drilling in a wetland is of sufficient concern to warrant that precaution, then it should never be permitted, even when an alternate location is not available.

7. Setbacks for drinking water sources: Section 4.2.3.1, as well as numerous other locations in this document, mentions special considerations for municipal water sources.  I want the same consideration for my spring.  My springs are every bit as important to the health of my land and to my quality of life as municipal water sources are to those served by them.  If proximity to municipal water supply is “always significant” then proximity to private water supplies must also be considered “always significant.”

8. Noise impacts: Section 4.1.1 on noise impacts says that moderate to significant noise impacts may be experienced within 1000 feet of a well site.”  Anecdotal evidence suggests that number is an underestimate and that 1/2 mile is more accurate.  And the duration is understated as well, since with 40 acre spacing one location could conceivably be subjected to drilling noise for over a year.   Section 2.1.3 discusses well testing, including flaring.  It is supremely ironic that this corporate, large-scale activity is permitted – but DEC wants to ban individual citizens’ use of burn barrels.

9. Impacts from large well pads: Section 2.1.4 discusses the possibility of environmental impacts from larger well pads; the draft scope fails to mention any regulation of herbicide use; I am given to understand that “DEC exercises no control over the constant use of herbicides on 5 acre drilling sites.”

10. Impacts on communities:  Section 4.8 (pg 35) describes community impacts as temporary.  Again, with industrial scale operation, community effects are NOT temporary; intensive activity may move from one well pad to another, but is of sustained duration in the community.

For all the above reasons and more, the draft scope is inadequate.  It fails to address the issues the issues listed above and others, either adequately or at all ; for what it does superficially address it fails to meet the standard of a draft scope in that it does not state areas of interest in detail nor how and by whom each area of examination will be undertaken.

The draft scope reveals the Department’s bias in favor of natural gas extraction in many places, including mentions of the clean-burning quality of natural gas and the perceived need for additional energy sources.  This bias is unfortunate, short-sighted, and inappropriate.  Regarding the oft-repeated perceived need for further exploitation of energy resources:  Just as someone who has maxed out 10 credit cards doesn’t need another credit card, we don’t need more energy at any cost to our quality of life.  Even fossil-fuels industries admit that dependence on a finite resource is a dead-end course of action.  Instead, we need to learn to live within our energy means.  Much of the reason we have so much trouble with that is due to the close relationship between government and the energy industry, (sadly, a relationship much in evidence as we watch DEC’s interactions with the energy industry).  For the years 2002-2006 Chesapeake Energy had an average tax rate of 3/10ths of a percent.  If those taxes had been collected and put into real energy independence options, we would have some viable options each day for living within our energy means.  Other countries are much further ahead in this than we are.  If we were to emulate them, we would have solar panels along major highway rights-of-way,  as along Germany’s Autobahn.  We’d have small wind turbines on our buildings and would able to ride light rail for much of our personal transportation needs.  It’s the oil and gas and auto industries who decades ago persuaded our government to use our tax dollars to increase their control and profits, and decrease our choices; it was their lobbying that destroyed the early mass transit that was the common mode of transportation until the early years of the last century.

As the regulating body for the extractives industry, DEC must not accept the false choice that it should make concessions to industry, to sacrifice even a little bit of what environment still remains, let alone as much as this exploitation in actuality will cost us, for a few years’ worth of yet another highly polluting hydrocarbon energy source.  (Pollution is pollution, regardless of whether it happens at the extraction end or the consumption end of the process.)

Finally, perhaps outside the scope of this comment but nonetheless relevant:  many New Yorkers are not confident of the effectiveness of this comment process as a democratic exercise.  Citizens have come to expect contempt and disregard from all levels of government, including the Department of Environmental Conservation.   Nonetheless, we have invested ourselves in the process because we have a business relationship with DEC – we pay you to look after our interests.  Many of us have concluded that DEC cannot effectively do that because of the dual but conflicting responsibilities which which it has been charged:  stewardship of the enviroment and maximizing resource “recovery.”   Likely in part because of the compromising nature of that dual mission, many of us have come to feel we are not getting our money’s worth, and that if we were, the scope and scale of this proposed industrial activity would have been dismissed by DEC from the outset, instead of being promoted by it.

Many citizens have noticed that DEC is quick to pounce on private individuals doing inconsequential things that have no negative environmental consequences and in fact may be of environmental benefit. DEC has much to do to regain our trust as an enforcer of equal zeal when it comes to the activities of large corporations and the energy industry.

Sincerely,
(name removed for public posting)

http://www.newburghadvocate.com/2008/12/05/i-give-the-government-an-f-minus/

Gas drilling: I give the government an F minus