.

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People calling about Walter Hang’s effort to get the dSGEIS withdrawn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: , , , , ,



.

.

Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica:

New York State Paves Way

for Gas Drilling With

Release of Environmental Review

.

.

Nornew knew it all along;  do the citizens of New York State?

See also the New York Times:  

State Issues Rules on Upstate Natural Gas Drilling Near City’s Water

The DEC could not allow a ban on horizontal drilling / high-volume hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Catskill/Delaware Watershed (also known as the NYC watershed) without admitting that HD/HVHF for natural gas is fundamentally unsafe – everywhere else in the state too.

New York City, if you want to protect your water,
you’re going to have to join
the fight to ban HD/HVHF statewide.

.
>> Come together, New York <<

.

http://www.un-naturalgas.org/hydraulic_fracturing_a-z.htm#NYCs%20water

.

.

Tags: , , , , ,



I am the State Committee Member for the Green Party of New York State, representing Delaware County; and a member of Chenango, Delaware, Otsego Gas (CDOG).

[Extemporaneously: Is the DEC staff still here? Are you awake to hear this? The People are speaking, and it’s clear that Halliburton’s process is not drilling they can believe in.]

[While holding up a copy of the dsGEIS, displaying the last page, Page 42]: Alternative Actions Section 7.0 (1) “the prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing” is very appropriately placed, there at the bottom of the last page, where a conclusion belongs… and it [pointing to 7.0 (1)] is the conclusion the DEC should have.

I’m not going to talk here about technicalities.

I’m here to both ask and answer some fundamental questions.

Is horizontal well drilling water fracking necessary?

No! No, it is not. That high-volume high-pressure water fracking is not necessary. Its purpose is to quickly maximize private short-term corporate profits, while externalizing the long-term costs to the public… privatizing the temporary gains for a few, while spreading the permanent losses around to everyone else; with a corrupt legislature ignoring later consequences because it gets a “taste” too, in a very temporary injection of revenue… leaving future generations with yet another costly mess for them, that our generation has created.

Just because water fracking can be done, should it be done?

Our society condones natural sexuality between consenting adults, but we forbid pedophilia. likewise, the provision of a greener fuel (natural gas) is something entirely acceptable, but the practice of removing fresh water (our most precious and most needed resource) from the natural water cycle, by making toxic waste out of enormous quantities of pure water, should be, as pedophilia is, absolutely forbidden.

Can regulation make water fracking acceptable?

If a father’s sexual molestation of his child is wrong (an evil act), when it is done unseen by anyone else, it isn’t made good (a blessed sacrament) by having police provide official approval, permitting it on condition that they, the police, can join in the father’s depravity, by occasionally peeking in his window to watch.

Is New York City exceptional?

If water fracking is not safe to be done within one watershed, it is not safe to be done in any watershed.

What is the best use of land?

The traditionally agricultural soils of the Southern Tier, above the Marcellus Shale, are currently undergoing a transition toward a relocalization of sustainable organic food production, which constitutes the best use of what remains of agricultural land… especially for this agricultural land, which, if not environmentally molested, is blessed with a reliably replenishable water supply, that does not exist in most of those places where unsustainable over intensive industrial agribusiness has located. Those places are running out of water. A proliferation of toxic waste producing shale gas drilling here is absolutely incompatible with that organic food production, which is needed to provide a sustainable and actually healthy source of food to eat. We can produce clean food here, or extract gas dirty, but we cannot do both.

Must we use up all the fossil fuels ourselves, or should we leave some to our children?

In the last 100 years, half of all the oil on the planet has been used up… the easy to find and easy to get half. The remainder will be gone, fully depleted, within a few decades. The just as mindless as a metastasizing cancer energy extraction industry’s goal, in its new “Energy Independence” push, is to quickly use up all the other available fossil fuel as well… to get it all, and to burn it all, as fast as possible.

If we cannot now turn stone into gas, without also converting massive quantities of potable water into poison, then we should have the ecological wisdom to leave that gas way down there where it is so tightly trapped, until some future generation can find a truly environmentally sound means of collecting it. We should leave that resource to our children to be retrieved and used more responsibly by them, than we — the Greediest Generation — are capable of now.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,