.

From the Desk of Senator Tom Libous
April 27, 2010

Dear ———-,

DEC announced last week that permit applications in the Syracuse and New York City watersheds will be excluded from their environmental review process. All applications for horizontal drilling in these watersheds would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

You can read DEC’s full announcement by clicking here.

What does that mean to us? With Syracuse and NYC watersheds having extra protection, this could do two things:

1) Help stop some of the New York City opposition to drilling.

2) Free up DEC’s review efforts to focus on permit applications outside of those areas.

We might see safe gas drilling begin sooner than we thought.

But, we still face opposition from New York City Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. You can read his statement on www.SafeDrillingNow.com. We have to keep fighting.

Best wishes,

Tom

________________

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? : Two maps, two standards, part 2

Then again, maybe he reads our blog…

.

Tags: , , , , ,



MB writes:

I just attempted to call Grannis about this decision to do separate
reviews for NYC and Syracuse. I told the operator what my call was
about and I was transferred to the Division of Mineral Resources. I
asked them to please transfer me back to Grannis’s office. After I was
on hold for several minutes, someone answered my call and when I
explained that I was calling to register my displeasure at the plan to
give unequal treatment to different parts of the state, I was told
that they are not taking calls on this matter except through the
Division of Mineral Resources. She said that I could email my concerns
to Grannis, and then they would be documented. I told her I knew the
decision was not hers and I was not angry with her, but that I was
furious that the commissioner’s office is not taking calls on this
matter. I went ahead and told her that I was opposed to the unequal
treatment–she said she was keeping no record of the call. I told her
that I understood that, but I was telling her my position so that if
she got many, many similar calls, she could go and tell her superiors
that she had gotten a lot of calls in opposition to the unequal
treatment, even if the individual calls were not recorded. I also told
her that I have lived in and paid taxes in NY for over 25 years, and
that I bet if Chesapeake were to call about something they would get
through.

People calling about Walter Hang’s effort to get the dSGEIS withdrawn
have been getting similar treatment.

We live in this state and they are not taking our calls! Are they
deliberately trying to piss us off or what? Do they think this will
make us LESS determined to stop this nightmare? If I sound furious,
that’s because I am.

If you have not already done so, please consider calling and sending
emails to the appropriate officials to express your displeasure at the
DEC’s recent decision to create separate regulations for the NYC and
Syracuse watersheds. Phone numbers and email addresses are:

DEC Commissioner Alexander “Pete” Grannis:
518-402-8545
pgrannis@gw.dec.state.ny.us

EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck:
212-637-5000
enck.judith@epa.gov

Governor David Paterson
518-474-8390
governor@chamber.state.ny.us

When contacting Grannis and Paterson, you may also wish to complain
about the fact that, as of last Friday, Grannis’s office was NOT
accepting phone calls on this issue: they were instead transferring
the calls to our “friends” over in the Division of Mineral Resources.

Tags: , , , , ,



Last week, high-profile news stories indicated that “DEC won’t allow gas drilling in ‘the watershed.’”  Is that true?

You may have heard or read that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has decided not to allow gas drilling within the Catskill and Delaware watersheds, which supply water to NYC.

Don’t believe it.

On April 23rd the DEC announced that it will exclude unfiltered water supplies from its generic environmental impact statement. Instead gas drilling applicants will have to go through their own environmental review process to obtain permits. [1] In the 1992 GEIS there are other situations which trigger an additional environmental review.

The main question is why did the DEC decide to release this statement now, instead of including it in the final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS)?

Here are three good reasons for this public relations stunt:

1. To diminish public opposition

Late last October, just before the start of the public review of the draft SGEIS, Aubrey K. McClendon, the head of Chesapeake Energy, announced that his company would not drill in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. However, he was not willing to tear up their current leases, or sign a binding agreement never to drill there. Nor could he speak for the dozens of other gas drilling companies. The public saw through his maneuver and submitted over 14,000 comments to the draft.

It seems that Pete Grannis has been taking lessons from the CEO of Chesapeake Energy.

2. To try an end run around current proposed legislation

Over two dozen bills have been introduced in the NYS legislature about gas drilling. One that is gaining momentum calls for a state-wide moratorium until 120 days after the EPA finishes its report on hydrofracking. [2] Another proposed bill calls for a state-wide ban.

The last thing the DEC and the gas industry want is a multi-year moratorium. This press release is merely an attempt to stop these bills.

3. To try to avoid some legal requirements of their environmental review

NYS is in a very difficult position because no matter what they do they are going to get sued once the SGEIS is finalized. This move is an attempt to avoid some of those legal issues. However, it’s not likely to succeed since it simply creates a new legal challenge.

The point is this: gas drilling would still be allowed in unfiltered water supplies. The DEC’s decision does not block gas drilling anyplace, and it may not be legal.

[1]. DEC Press Release: DEC Announces Separate Review for Communities With “Filtration Avoidance Determinations”

[2]. Englebright bill, A10490

Tags: , , , , ,



.

Today, two maps to ponder.   Tomorrow, why.

.

Tags: , , , , ,



Toxics Targeting reports:

See un-naturalgas.org’s Resources & Documents page for
Pennsylvania DEP cease & desist order against US Energy

So, why is US Energy still allowed to do business in New York State?

And DEC thinks it can handle

more drilling?

Tags: , , , , , ,



Shreveport Times (Louisiana) report:

Chesapeake, Schlumberger fined $22,000 each in cows’ deaths

By Vickie Welborn • vwelborn@gannett.com • March 25, 2010

KEITHVILLE – Chesapeake Energy Corp. and its contractor Schlumberger Technology Corp. each must pay $22,000 for violating state law in connection with the deaths almost a year ago of 17 cows at a natural gas well site.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality mailed identical letters spelling out the settlement agreement with both companies on Tuesday. Each was informed that it must advertise the agreement and invite public comment.

Both companies deny the material discharged from the natural gas well site killed the cows, deny violations were committed and neither makes an admission of liability, according to the settlement document signed by LDEQ Assistant Secretary Paul D. Miller. Included in each fine is $1,300 in enforcement costs.

In a joint statement from Chesapeake’s Kevin McCotter and Schlumberger’s Stephen T. Harris, both companies acknowledged today entering into a proposed settlement agreement.

. . . . .

Citizens noticed the dying cows April 28 in a pasture owned by Cecil and Tyler Williams on state Highway 169 near the corner of Keatchie-Marshall Road in south Caddo Parish. Witnesses reported hearing them bellowing and seeing them bleeding before they fell over dead.

At the time, Schlumberger, as a contractor of Chesapeake, was performing routine fracturing of the natural gas well. LDEQ determined during its investigation that fluid leaked from the well pad then ran into an adjacent pasture after a rain.

Read full story at:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100325/NEWS01/100325018/Chesapeake-Schlumberger-fined-22-000-each-in-cows-deaths

Tags: , , , , ,



.

.

.

.

Thanks to Wilton Vought and Essential Dissent

Tags: , , ,



Well pads, new pits to supply gravel for pads, pipeline easements


.Thanks for visiting. Please also visit our main site:

un-naturalgas.org

including:

natural gas extraction FAQs

lies, damned lies & statistics

resources & documents

images & video

the organizers page

events calendar

already leased?

contact us

To see current posts, please scroll down past the ‘sticky’ posts here at the top of this page.

Want to post and comment at this blog?  Please do!  For how-to, see sidebar, “Purpose of this blog & how to participate.”  Thanks!


Tags: , , , ,



DELAWARE-OTSEGO AUDUBON SOCIETY
PO Box 544, ONEONTA, NY 13820

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 11/2/09

AUDUDON GROUP OPPOSES HYDROFRACTURING, CALLS PROCESS AN UNACCEPTABLE DANGER

The Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society has announced its opposition to hydrofracturing gas exploration and production in our region. In a recent statement released by the group, DOAS also calls on NY State to permanently ban the practice.

Dangers to humans, wildlife, and water resources were cited as primary reasons the group finds hydrofracking unacceptable. The statement details multiple areas of concern created by injecting hundreds of millions of gallons of water treated with toxic chemicals under ground at extremely high pressures.

“After a careful review, our board of directors found it unacceptable to expose present and future generations to the contamination produced by this drilling technique,” said DOAS president Tom Salo. The group’s statement calls hydrofracking ” . . . an assault on the very resources that sustain life,” and says, “this damage will remain for millennia, and will threaten unseen future generations, as well as present-day humans and wildlife.”

Other reasons cited for the group’s opposition include wildlife and social impacts from noise and air pollution, large water withdrawals, and damage to habitats and roads from pipelines and wells.

The DOAS statement reads “Hundreds of wells are anticipated for our area, and this may change the region to a permanent industrial landscape. Potential contamination and depletion of water, and pollution of air, soil, and of farm and forest ecosystems could destroy the many resources available today. Water withdrawal and contamination are of special concern. The fragmentation and loss of habitats, and the disturbances of noise and traffic will have an adverse affect on birds and other wildlife, some already in precipitous decline.”

A recently released impact statement from the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation is insufficient to overcome the fundamental threats from hydrofracking, according to DOAS Director Jean T. Miller. “How can we engineer away permanent physical changes and poisoning of the earth?” she said. “We are trading a few more years of fossil fuels for tens of thousands of years of damaged and tainted ground below us.”

Regarding the DEC proposal, DOAS’ statement reads, “Even with the most stringent controls and oversight, this activity is an unacceptable danger to our planet, with no environmental benefits.”

The Audubon group is calling upon the state of New York to permanently ban hydrofracking. “In our view, there is no way this can be done without serious and long-term negative impacts,” said Salo. DOAS is urging the public and their members to contact DEC on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement before November 30. Comments should be sent to

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

or submitted on-line at DEC’s website.

The DOAS position on gas drilling and hydrofracking wells can be found on their website <http://www.doas.us/>www.doas.us.

Tags: , ,



.
“Downstream Strategies, the company I used to analyze the water forwarded the WVDEP report to me and they said that all of their questions were not answered from the WVDEP which they requested under the FOIA.  The just sent a second FOIA request to get the info they originally asked.  Sen. Rockefeller’s office out of Fairmont called me last Thursday (I sent a letter and pictures to him in D.C.) and said they wanted to make sure the Governor had responded to me (he did) and that I had  received the answers I had been seeking.   After I found out they had to do a 2nd FOIA request I called them back and left a message, suggesting a phone call from them to James Martin would be helpful.
.
“The creek cleaning consisted of the drilling company spraying the rocks and gunk downstream into cachment areas and then being vacuumed up.  My concern was the high orange marks in the sandy soil going up the banks and being imbedded into the soil.  I don’t know if they addressed that or not, they may not have even seen that.  Also they had pulled the used filters out of the creek and had left them on the soil for some time also.  Those were recently picked up though.    I am coming back from Colorado and will be there Wednesday for a week and will spend some time going up and down the creek looking closely.  I guess the lack of rain and low water has hindered the process.  My new beef is that if a drilling company, the ones who produce this toxic waste, will be cleaning up their own mess, they really need to know what they are doing and have a plan in place.  According the report from officer Scranage, per the DEP report I just read, he found that a new crew was on the job the second day and was going about it backwards. If the water is low and there is a lack of rain to help move the water down into cachment areas, they need to be doing something else, rather than waiting for rain.  For the first  2 weeks the creek languished with oil covering the water and smelling acrid. I believe they improperly ‘limed the area’ on our property.  When I questioned the inspectors and also asked James Martin about all the lime put down along the stream banks, changing the ph of the water, he only said ‘there won’t be any more liming’.
.
“Thanks again for the support.”
.
Louanne Fatora

.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,



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

——————————————————————————–

Buckeye Creek

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

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

Here are some photos:

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

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

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

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

High chloride will kill fish and other aquatic organisms.

Two ducks were unable to fly.

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

———————————————————————————

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

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



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

Gas-lease offer ‘excites’ area group

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

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

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

__________________________________

From The Shreveport Times:

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

By Vickie Welborn •  June 25, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Report from Seneca Daily Journal, Seneca, South Carolina:
—————————————————————————–

By Andrew Moore (Contact / Staff Bio)
July 8, 2009

ANDERSON — “United States District Judge G. Ross Anderson Jr. has instructed Schlumberger Technology Corporation attorney John Hanson to formally submit a design plan for removing two dams on Twelve Mile River by the end of August, putting a serious alteration on the company’s own timelines of providing the final design by November.

“A public hearing on Tuesday at the federal courthouse in Anderson highlighted Judge Anderson’s disdain for Schlumberger’s failure to remove the dams along with polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated sediment more than three years after he instructed the company to do so in a 2006 consent decree.

“For more than two decades, a manufacturing facility on the river pumped hundreds of thousands of pounds of PCBs into the river’s tributaries. The river feeds into Lake Hartwell, the bottom of which is covered by PCB-contaminated sediment from the river’s toxic flow. Removing hundreds of yards of sediment from the river, coupled with eliminating two of the three old dams there, would allow fresh sediment to naturally flow and settle on top of the toxic sediments at the bottom of Hartwell, which has a ban on eating fish caught there.

“Anderson has given Schlumberger until July 2010 to remove the dams, and is also demanding the company turn over all quarterly progress reports on the project to him so that he may in turn immediately release them to the media and general public.

“Anderson said he would assume full control of the project after Schlumberger’s apparent circumventing of his 2006 order.

“’I’m not an engineer,’ he said. ‘But this is what you get into when you stoop to fooling a federal court.’

“Brad Wyche, executive director of conservation group Upstate Forever, told Anderson he also believed the delays in the project were intentional.

“’I think it’s clear what’s been going on,’ Wyche said.

“At the heart of the delays were a series of changes in project managers as well as contractors for the job. Joe Carroll of Restoration Systems, the contractor initially tapped for the project, told Anderson the contract was terminated when he was reluctant to sign an 85-page amendment to an originally 15-page agreement.

“’They may live to regret that,’ Anderson said of Schlumberger’s departure from the plan consistent with his consent decree.

“Lawrence Dyck, a retired Clemson University science professor and Twelve Mile River resident, said he was skeptical about the supposed progress Schlumberger had made.

“’We’re no closer to removing those dams than when you signed those decrees in 2006,’ Dyck said.  ‘We’re maybe farther away.’

“Anderson emphasized at the end of the hearing that there was no more time to “fool around” with his order, and that he was taking the reins of the project himself.

“’Frankly, I don’t trust you,’ he said, as he looked toward Schlumberger’s legal team.”

Source:
http://www.upstateforever.org/newsviews_ufnews.html
http://www.upstateforever.org/newsviews_ufnews/UFN_2009/ufn090708SDJ_JudgeTakesReinsInRiverPollutionSaga.pdf
.

Tags: , , ,