.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  or support our work

follow us on facebook

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: , , , ,



.
Ms. Phillips -
.
This series of Penn State Reports has used a false premise, that capital spending directly equates to jobs and taxes, to make highly exaggerated claims. The gas industry has a great need for capital but an extraordinarily low requirement for staffing, about 10% of that of a normal industry.
.
This from the May 2010 version describes their methodology: “During 2009, Marcellus gas producers spent a total of $4.5 billion to develop Marcellus shale gas resources. Using the IMPLAN modeling system, we  estimate that this spending generated $3.9 billion in value added, $389 million in state and local tax revenues, and more than 44,000 jobs”  (emphasis added)
.
Judged against results these estimates were far off.   According to Labor and Industry figures there are presently only 18,000 employees in the six core gas extraction industries in Pennsylvania.
.
Because of the structure of Pennsylvania tax code, the gas industry pays almost no local taxes and very little state taxes.  The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center found only 44.4 million in state taxes paid in 2009.
.
Since then, the industry has claimed 1.1 billion in taxes paid but reading the fine print shows this to be the total for five years, 2006 to 2010.  Even then, the Budget and Policy Center complained that the Revenue Department had erected a smoke screen for the industry by counting taxes their employees and others paid.
.
Not to be deterred or embarrassed by past failure, Considine and company press on to new ridiculous highs in this current version.
.
“Our estimates suggest that in 2020 the Marcellus industry in Pennsylvania could be creating more than $20 billion in value added, generating $2 billion in state and local tax revenues, and supporting more than 250,000 jobs,” said the authors associated with Penn State’s department of energy and mineral engineering.”
.
To put the above “estimate” of jobs into perspective, consider this item.  A 2008 US Labor Department analysis of the oil and gas extraction industryfound only 162,000 employees nationwide. A look at the three pages listing of industry job titles shows that the majority of these aren’t working on rigs but  are sitting at desks at corporate headquarters in the Southwest.
.
The Penn State Reports have the same relationship to the Marcellus industry as fantasy football has to the NFL.
.
Jon Bogle
Williamsport, PA 17701

Tags: , , ,



.

From Clearville Times, who blogs at http://clearville.wordpress.com/

Clearville, PA  like DISH, Texas: “pretty much in the middle of nowhere, which from the gas storage owner’s point of view, made it the perfect place”

Clearville had five production wells drilled by PGE gas drilling company,  which produced about two years in  the Oriskany formation.    Wells suddenly stopped production on the same day and were sold to a gas storage company from somewhere in Texas, known as  Spectra Energy or maybe known as a “Spin off of Duke Energy?” from a gas storage operator’s  point of view,  Clearville, PA made it the perfect place”  known as the  ” Steckman Ridge Gas  Storage Project.”

In Pennsylvania, gas is stored in the Oriskany formation, the source rock for the Oriskany is the Marcellus Shale.

In the middle of nowhere, there seems to be a trend for gas storage fields in the Oriskany formation located  near the Marcellus Shale.   There is a  gas storage field located a few miles down the road from the Steckman Ridge’s  underground gas storage field known as the Columbia Gas Storage field, in Artemas, PA.    Columbia gas storage field is also located in the middle of nowhere but has been the perfect place since the early 1940′s .  Columbia gas has been storing gas in the  Oriskany formation where the Marcellus Shale is the source rock.

There is a big difference,   between then and now’s,  when it comes to gas storage project acquisitions, at least up until 2005.    Columbia Gas Storage got off to an easier start  in the 1940′s.   At that period in time, most all gas production leases gave away gas storage rights  in gas production leases.

Landowners over the years with the advent of the internet, became more savvy and placed no gas storage clauses in their gas production leases.   Soon these gas leases became known as obstacles in the market place which needed a  removal tool.     Someone,  somewhere,  came up  with the perfect legal tool to remove these obstacles in the market place for gas storage projects.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney used legal legislative laws as the best use obstacle removal tool  in EPACT of 2005. At that time,    Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney likely knew  a little about the gas market,  heard about obstacles in the market place, and knew a solution was needed for the problem.     Minds of genius noted for acquisitions developed and signed a law which classified depleted gas wells which can be taken legally for underground gas storage projects because they are now considered public utilities.    This  law is broad and can take land which has no gas leases.  This law will take any land and  give it to a private company for profit once they eye your land as the perfect place for a federally backed underground gas storage field.

Clearville, PA was eyed as the perfect place.   Landowners watched Halliburton and Schlumberger legally use exempted fracking chemicals from the SDWA.  They watched as horizontal gas storage wells were drilled into the Oriskany sandstone formation. This was a federally backed gas storage project with all the amenities.

Remember:  “There is no way to save your land from the laws of a federally backed gas storage project.  If someone, somewhere, spots your land  as the perfect place,  you can kiss it goodbye.”

Clearville, PA;  the Oriskany formation;  the Marcellus Shale is  the Oriskany source rock;   in the middle of nowhere;   all goes somewhere; from a gas storage operator’s  point of view;  Clearville was another perfect place.

.

Tags: , , , , , ,



.

Statoil to move Marcellus gas to Canada

A Norwegian corporation
is sending gas from Pennsylvania, USA,
to Canada.

Tags: , , , , , ,



.

You’re not allowed to see this content anymore. It was real, it happened, but the gas industry doesn’t want you to see it, so the person whose videos these were was forced through a settlement – the only way they could receive just compensation – to remove them.

How do you feel about having your access to accurate information denied by corporations who don’t want you to know about their destructive practices and how to protect yourself against them?

Firsthand experiences with Marcellus drilling

.

.

.

Tags: , , ,



.

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: , , , , ,