Love Canal 2020

UPDATED! Attacks on Josh Fox by Mike Knapp of Knapp Acquisitions-Vile Hypocrite Extraordinaire

2011-06-17T22:00:00.000-07:00

It was reported recently in the news that a trailer on the land of the family of Josh Fox, (the director of the Oscar nominated film Gasland) was burned. You can read more about the incident here:

http://www.watershedpost.com/2011/gasland-directors-father-cited-environmental-violations-del-river-trib

and here:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110327/NEWS/103270329

The Pennsylvania DEP gave the Fox family a citation for "un-permitted disposal/burning of solid waste". The fire, however is being investigated by police, and Pennsylvania State Police Fire Marshall Russ Andress stated that the trailer was burned while Fox was on the road and "There's nothing to suggest either he or his family had anything to do with it". The fire is still under investigation but that has not stopped the people that are looking to profit from gas drilling in Pennsylvania to wage a media slur campaign to discredit Josh Fox.

In addition to the usual snarky campaigns waged on supposed misdeeds of the anti-drilling crowd offered up by Energy In Depth---the gas industry's biggest buffoonery of misinformation; a newcomer on the scene by the name of Mike Knapp, the sole proprietor of Knapp Acquisitions, (working out out of Armstrong, Butler, Clarion, Indiana and Jefferson Counties in Western Pa) has taken up the mission to add to this flurry of pro-fracking flotsam by discrediting the Fox family on Twitter and on his company website by offering up the following "letter" that spells out the grave hypocrisy that Fox has supposedly perpetrated on us all. Knapp writes the following: (you can download the original here: http://bit.ly/ffja3V )

March 24th, 2011

Dear Interested Party:

We have recently obtained documents which show that Josh Fox, director of anti-natural gas drilling documentary
Gasland which won at the Sundance Film Festival last year and was nominated for an Oscar this year, has been illegally using his property (which he featured heavily in Gasland as a pristine nature sanctuary) as a dumping ground.

Damascus Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania has issued multiple environmental citations and orders dating back as long ago as 2006, directing Fox to remove large amounts of junk, auto parts, scrap metal, used manufactured goods, and a dilapidated trailer from the property, warning specifically that burning the trailer would be in violation of clean air and clean water laws. Damascus Township officials inspected the property in August for compliance. Instead, they found the trailer burned and no trash removed.

Link to Township enforcement notice, with pictures: http://bit.ly/eBPLT8

Upon finding this, they notified the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of the environmental violations. On March 4th, 2011 the DEP sent registered correspondence to Michael Fox, father of Josh and legal owner of the property. Fox failed to contact the DEP to remedy the situation.

Link to DEP notice: http://bit.ly/euEnmZ

Fox had taken no action until a story was released in the local paper documenting the above, at which point in time Fox called the state police to report arson. Fox claimed he was unaware of the trailer being burned. This is hard to believe as the property is rather small (20 acres) and the trailer in question was in close proximity to the main house. Regardless, the years of neglect and gross negligence on his part speaks volumes as to his true motivations behind “Gasland”.

Link to original news story: http://www.wayneindependent.com/newsnow/x1777816213/DEP-puts-Fox-on-notice

Mr. Fox’s documentary has been widely dismissed by the industry, the scientific community, and state regulators as factually inaccurate, blatantly self-promotional, and disingenuous. Mr. Fox’s blatant disregard for the environment on his own property further solidifies the argument that his documentary is more about money and exposure for its director than seeking to truthfully inform its viewers.

We hope that you will help us to bring light to the truth behind Josh Fox and Gasland, as they are causing unfounded hysteria which is hindering the United States from its goal of energy independence and environmental reform which can be achieved by safely tapping into our domestic natural gas reserves.

Sincerely,

Mike Knapp

President

Knapp Acquisitions & Production LLC

Kittanning, PA

Even if the Fox family was found to have perpetrated any and all of the "offenses" contained within this letter, it hardly translates to speaking "volumes as to his true motivations behind “Gasland”. Mike Knapp implies that Gasland is all about Mr Fox "making money" and getting "exposure". If Mr. Fox was only looking to make some money, I suspect he would have signed himself a big lease by now, or tried to start an acquisition company like his accuser and really rake in the bucks while having the same "disregard for the environment" as Mike Knapp does. How so? I offer the following:

On Mike Knapp's company website, he offers landowners a host of promises:

"We respect your land and your resources, and we value the environment as much as you do. We drink the same water and breathe the same air as you. We remember VIVIDLY how the coal industry treated the region, and we will fight to ensure that never happens again."

and:

"There is no shortage of bad information surrounding natural gas well drilling and its impact on the environment. The fact is that drilling can be completed safely and with minimal environmental impact if done correctly. We support legislation and regulations that will hold drillers to the standards that will ensure our lakes and rivers will not be impacted negatively by natural gas drilling operations. The industry continues to address such misinformation and has made significant strides in solving the few valid environmental concerns that gas well drilling raises. Please see below for a plethora of good info, right from the horses’s [sic] mouth."

Mike Knapp says he is all about facts, regulations, protections. "Get the facts, all the facts are here", etc...well here are some FACTS about the drilling companies Mike Knapp works with some FACTS that the Pennsylvania DEP has collected on those drilling companies and their "commitment to the environment". Think your lease with Knapp is a safe bet? Think your farm and land will be protected? Think again.

Violations listed for the drilling companies he represents-- MDS Energy and First Class Energy :

For 2010 -MDS ENERGY had 6 violations and 3 Fines

4/6/2010- MDS ENERGY LTD in Armstrong County- VIOLATION #584594
Code 78.56FRBRD Failure to maintain 2' freeboard in an impoundment

4/07/2010 Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty Fine: $ 26,000.00

5/14/2010- MDS ENERGY in Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #587171
VIOLATION Code 102.4 Failure to minimize accelerated erosion, implement E&S plan, maintain E&S controls. Failure to stabilize site until total site restoration under OGA Sec 206(c)(d)

Violations noted:
1- Failure to minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
2- Inadequate E&S plan.
3- Discharge of Industrial Waste to the Waters of the Commonwealth.
Culverts not properly stabilized which resulted in sediment entering culverts and eventually entering nearby stream.

Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty FINED $5,000.00 Aug.31, 2010.

5/14/2010 -MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #587172
VIOLATION CODE 102.4 INADPLN Failure to minimize accelerated erosion, implement E&S plan, maintain E&S controls. Failure to stabilize site until total site restoration under OGA Sec

5/14/2010 -MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #587173
VIOLATION CODE- 401CSL Discharge of Pollution Material into waters of the Commonwealth.

Violations noted:
1- Failure to minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
2- Inadequate E&S plan.
3- Discharge of Industrial Waste to the Waters of the Commonwealth.

5/14/2010 -MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #587174
401CSL Stream discharge of IW, includes drill cuttings, oil, brine and/or silt.

Violations noted:
1- Failure to minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
2- Inadequate E&S plan.
3- Discharge of Industrial Waste to the Waters of the Commonwealth.

5/14/2010 MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #587175
VIOLATION CODE 691.401WPD Failure to prevent sediment or other pollutant discharge into waters of the Commonwealth.

Violations noted:
1- Failure to minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
2- Inadequate E&S plan.
3- Discharge of Industrial Waste to the Waters of the Commonwealth.
Steady flow of sediment laden water exiting the culvert and entering directly into the stream.

05/24/2010 MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #587943 VIOLATION CODE - 78.56FRBRD Failure to maintain 2' freeboard in an impoundment; freeboard limit exceeded in pit. Water level closer than 2' from top of pit.

5/24/2010 Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty Fine: $ 26,000.00

8/20/2010 MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #598511
VIOLATION CODE 78.60B Tophole water discharged improperly.
Discharge to stream Channel. Violation of 78.60(b)(5)

For 2009 MDS ENERGY VIOLATIONS:

6/3/09- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #564197
VIOLATION CODE-102.4 Failure to minimize accelerated erosion, implement E&S plan, maintain E&S controls. Failure to stabilize site until total site restoration under OGA Sec 206(c)(d)

6/3/09- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #564198
VIOLATION CODE 102.4INADPLN E&S Plan not adequate

6/3/09- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #564199
VIOLATION CODE 78.83GRNDWTR Improper casing to protect fresh groundwater
E&S and casing violations

12/30/09- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #579096
VIOLATION CODE 205A Drilling w/in 200 ft of building or water well w/o variance

12/30/09- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #579097
VIOLATION CODE 207B Failure to case and cement to prevent migrations into fresh groundwater

12/30/09- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #579098
VIOLATION CODE 210UNPLUG Failure to plug a well upon abandonment
No bldg. waiver, abandoned & Incorrect casg. & cement

VIOLATIONS for MDS ENERGY in 2008:

1/22/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #531304
VIOLATION CODE: 201F Failure to notify DEP, landowner, political subdivision, or coal owner 24 hrs prior to commencement of drilling

2/01/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #534649
VIOLATION CODE: 201F Failure to notify DEP, landowner, political subdivision, or coal owner 24 hrs prior to commencement of drilling

4/29/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Armstrong County VIOLATION ID #537870
VIOLATION CODE: 78.56FRBRD Failure to maintain 2' freeboard in an impoundment

9/11/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Clarion County VIOLATION ID #548244
VIOLATION CODE: 205B Drilling w/in 100 ft of surface water or wetland w/o variance

9/11/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Clarion County VIOLATION ID #548245
VIOLATION CODE: 102.4 Failure to minimize accelerated erosion, implement E&S plan, maintain E&S controls. Failure to stabilize site until total site restoration under OGA Sec 206(c)(d)

9/11/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Clarion County VIOLATION ID #548246
VIOLATION CODE: 102.4INADPLN E&S Plan not adequate

9/11/08- MDS ENERGY LTD Clarion County VIOLATION ID #548247
VIOLATION CODE: 78.56FRBRD Failure to maintain 2' freeboard in an impoundment

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

You can also read the following about Knapp's deal making with respect to landowners and leases:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_697353.html

Not a flattering portrait to be certain. Knapp is essentially a middleman looking to profit off everyone else's deals. He brings nothing to the table but inflammatory rhetoric and he and the drilling companies he works with are only out for one thing. Quick Money.

By their fruits you shall know them.

What is truly offensive about Mike Knapp is that he is so full of himself and his mission to make a quick buck that he rushes off to judgment about an issue that has less than nothing to do with the much larger and more important issue of the safety of gas drilling. Knapp then compounds that offensiveness by waging a public ad hominem attack on Fox and his family without just cause, and further, turns out to NOT look at the very LARGE and UGLY plank in his own eye by ignoring the very FACTS he claims to be so adamant about.

The FACTS are that the gas drilling companies that work with Knapp Acquisitions are NOT SAFE and NOT RESPONSIBLE for the environment and are ANYTHING BUT respectful of "your land and your resources". They DON'T in fact, "value the environment as much as you do" .

Knapp is nothing but a shill for the gas industry and for himself. A blatant liar and twister of information-- as evidenced by these continual environmental violations by his affiliates that make Mr. Fox's burned out trailer look like a gum wrapper thrown on the floor by comparison.

When they give out the award for the biggest hypocrite in the USA, Mike Knapp should definitely win. His latest attempt at a PR plundering of Mr. Fox has earned him the biggest booby prize for stupidity known to mankind. Energy in Depth and the other Marcellus Shale Shills will certainly be proud of him.

UPDATE
June 17th 2011

In the continuing saga of slanderer Mike Knapp, once again reading comprehension has been pushed to the back and foolishness has been given a front seat. Mr. Knapp somehow determines that Josh Fox being the recipient of a "speaking fee" is somehow disingenuous; Knapp posted on Twitter the following rant:

"#MarcellusTruth @gaslandmovie director Jo$h Fox charging $7,500 for speaking appearances, plus airfare. http://t.co/zifTgFi Must be nice!"

Mr. Knapp's first error was in his lack of ability to read the referenced document that he provided the link to, located HERE. In it, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can read the FACT that Mr. Fox usually charges $7500 but would be accepting the amount of $5000 plus $300 for airfare for this particular speaking engagement at a college. So once again, Mr. Knapp has created a slanderous posting and passed it off as what he terms "marcellus truth"...whatever that means. Anyone that can READ knows that Mr. Knapp's post does NOT read as truth but rather is slander and lies to discredit Mr. Fox.

Mr. Knapp makes the further error of somehow deeming a $7500 speaking fee as being excessive. A quick search on the internet turns up a document here that demonstrates that speaking fees can vary from $1000 to over $100,000 depending on the speaker, the venue, and the subject. The fact that Mr. Fox is at the LOW end of this spectrum is even more evidence that Mr. Knapp is nothing short of a slanderer, and a pretty boneheaded one at that, because he compounds his rhetoric without checking simple facts beforehand--a true sign of someone desperate to discredit at any cost.

The facts are that Mr. Fox should charge a reasonable fee, as he IS, in FACT an Oscar nominated director, which is not much different than being an author or an actor that was called upon to speak at a college. The reality actress Snooki was paid $32,000 to speak at a college and I am certain that whatever she said had nothing to do with the future of our environment, making what Mr. Fox has to say a bargain at any price.

Finally, Some Honesty in the Natural Gas Industry

2010-08-27T19:38:00.000-07:00

James (Chip) Northrup, a former gas/oil industry manager, discusses some of the major problems of using high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) gas drilling methods in New York State, one of them being the risk of gas migration through faults in NY State rock formations. Many of these faults are un-mapped and drillers would not be able to determine in advance where these faults might be, posing a great risk to anyone within sight of a drill rig, and maybe even miles away. NY State also gets the occasional earthquake; earthquakes can crack casings, or form new cracks in the existing formation that was fractured, and thereby allow seepage of gas into drinking water. Rock is not solid. It moves. So if any gas drillers out there think they can predict where rock is going to move and how, they should go out to California and help out the folks trying to predict where the next earthquake is going to happen. There was also a recent story about fracking CAUSING earthquakes to happen, so NY State had better take a hard look at this video before it decides any type of high-volume horizontal hydrofracturing is SAFE, both today and in the future when the earth moves.

Thanks to Sustainable Otsego for providing this video-visit them HERE and HERE for more info

James Northrup - (Full 27 Minutes) from Sustainable Otsego on Vimeo.

Oil and Gas Anonymous- Join Today!

2010-06-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

Many people have spoken of our "addiction" to fossil fuels and it appears that our dependence on oil and gas can be likened to an addiction in that we seem to deny that we have problem with respect to the damage that has been done to the environment over the many years due to the use of fossil fuels. It is true that petroleum has given us so much...everything from this keyboard I am typing on to the ability of you to see this blog post. The technology that brought us all of the trappings of modern society was made possible by our use of fossil fuels...but like any drug, there is great harm that can be overshadowed by the great good that it does.

Vicodin relieves pain, but continual use of this wonder drug, that has given life back to countless people, can also cause addiction, damage to the body and brain, and death. So too, with fossil fuels. We have had a wonderful run with this technology, but the time has come for us as a nation and as a world, to start saying goodbye...to admit that we have a problem. That is the first step in any addiction, and this addiction to oil and gas is no different. Once we admit that we have a problem with the continued use of fossil fuels then we can all work toward finding the best alternatives, and putting all efforts into making certain that we can get off these addictive drugs. The recent Gulf oil spill should be a turning point for us. It should demonstrate that going for the "difficult to get at" oil may not be worth it both in monetary and environmental terms. Our futures and future health of this planet should not be dictated to by the oil and gas industry nor by those that seek to make this a "slow transition" or advocate "bridge fuels". That is like telling an alcoholic to "try and drink less". It doesn't work. We have to go cold turkey, meaning that we have to make the hard choice to do whatever it takes to come up with a better idea. And maybe we all need to enroll in OGA...Oil and Gas Anonymous and start doing the 12 Steps....

1. We must admit we are powerless over oil and gas— and that our lives have become unmanageable due to spills, blow outs, and toxic waste.

2. We need to believe that a Power (called alternative energy) is greater than ourselves and could restore us to sanity.

3. We need to make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the higher power of alternative energy and seek new sources for energy.

4. We need to make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves,and not believe the hype about "bridge fuel" and empty promises of jobs from fossil fuels.

5. Admitted to ourselves, and to other human beings the exact nature of the wrongs that we have perpetuated on the environment and on ourselves due to the use of fossil fuels.

6. We must be entirely ready to have the higher power of alternative energy remove all the defects of character that the oil and gas industry has perpetuated on us.

7. Humbly ask that scientists and industry endeavor to remove our shortcomings of a continuing dependence on fossil fuels.

8. Make a list of every single violation perpetuated by the oil and gas industry and force them to make amends for all of them.

9. Made direct amends to the environment wherever possible, except when to do so would injure it further; reverse the damage of fossil fuels wherever it exists.

10. Take personal inventory to right the wrongs that fossil fuel dependence has created and promptly admit them and change our behavior to sustainable practices.

11. Seek regulations and legislation and improve our conscious contact with politicians to demand that they protect us from oil & gas industry.

12. Having had an Eco awakening as the result of these steps, we will carry this message to other nations until a sustainable world exists.

Don Siegel Will Save Us All

2010-05-03T21:44:00.000-07:00

Its nice to know that scientists are willing to go to bat for a cause that they believe in, but what is perplexing is how little scientists are willing to go through to really understand their position fully. When they don't think through every aspect of their position it can create a lot of damage when that position gets published in a newspaper for public consumption. In a recent article on Syracuse Post Standard, Donald Siegel, a professor at Syracuse University, made some very disturbing comments with respect to the issue of gas drilling in NY. I think that Dr. Siegel is not fully appreciating all of the issues involved. This was our exchange on that newspaper's comment section. You can see the original here:

Some Scientists Say Hydrofracking Benefits Outweigh Risks

Post By Dr Siegel:

I'm having some difficulty responding to individual posts (my responses seem to have not been placed next to the post I wanted to respond to!).

Ok. I fully understand that there are legal issues that need to taken care of with respect to hydrofracking. I hope to collaborate with a lawyer to clarify the legal issues. I fully support DEC monitoring of drilling and evaluation of backflow fluids. I fully recognize that when accidents happen, such as Dimmock, that the people who are affected need to get compensation and the wells sealed and so on.

But, as a scientist, I make my technical decisions on what will work and not work based on evidence, much as I do in my everyday life. If I get really sick, I go to my doctor, not take just herbal remedies. If my car breaks, I take it to a mechanic. And so on. My entire life, and I suspect the entire lives of even those who decry shale bed methane production are led by using evidence to guide them. Now, my doctor might be wrong and my mechanic a crook, but I think, based on evidence, that they are not, at least most of time.

I have just served on a panel of the National Academy of Science on coal bed methane and environmental effects of it. They hydrofrack and horizontally in this technology too. I saw only a few accidents, out of tens of thousands of successful wells. I saw little serious environmental harm, and drove the width of the Powder River Basin where most of the local controversy has been.

EPA came in and said it was an environmentally safe extraction method, and I fully anticipate that EPA will do the same for our shale bed methane. Despite the public fear of the backflow water from the drilling, has trivial amounts of water produced with the gas compared to the Wyoming coals.

But even so, I urge development of methods to reduce the salty backflow water that might have to be stored for a while in lined pits. Just last week I heard from the Department of Energy that onsite processing of the salty water is almost ready, with reduction of the amount of backflow water by 85%.

I rather think all this debate deals with a measure of regional environmental justice. That is, the Northeast has been the beneficiary of cheap energy without an iota of environmental cost (compared to that for others). But, this cheap and environmentally no-cost energy has been at the expense of massive environmental cost in the states just south of us, where the majority of streams have been acidified by strip mined coal, and table top mining now fills valleys and streams with rubble. Not over a small area, but regionally. Then, there is the Gillette strip mine in Wyoming from which we also get large amounts of New York Energy.

So I ask those who both reject the success of methane extraction elsewhere, and its logical success in New York, why they accept the continuing degradation of their neighboring states' environments to provide New York with its cheap energy?

Isn't there a measure of communal justice such that we New Yorkers might accept take a small environmental risk and temporary inconvenience to our "sightscapes" and "soundscapes", to help those places where environmental destruction by strip coal mining continues? Or, do some New York environmentalists only care about their own environment so much that they don't want even small change for the benefit of all?

I agree that society HAS to move to renewable energy and soon before climate crisis becomes so bad there is no way out. I actually sometimes lose sleep over this. We have to reduce our carbon emissions quickly, and natural gas burning compared to coal or oil cuts it by half. It's the least we should do.

But those who damn scientists need to know that these very scientists cannot magically make renewable resources to drive the energy economy as fast as they would like. Science is not magic.

And there are costs to every renewable people want to have. Solar? How about covering large swaths of deserts to get enough? Where will we strip mine to get the metals for the batteries? Where will be dump the spent heavy metal from the batteries? Distributed solar? How can we build an energy infrastructure fast enough to do it?

Wind? How about thousands of windmills mantling ridge and off shore Lake Ontario? Do you want to really see sightscape changes? Talk wind. And of course, doing wind farms do deplete bird and bat populations to some extent.

Nuclear? Forgetaboutitt. Except in Europe and China and India.

My point? There is no free lunch when it comes to energy. At least now. There are environmental costs, and meaningful ones, with every energy solution we have short of cutting back, conserving. This too would be a way but it won't happen unless the price of gas at the pump and our electric bills double or triple. If it did, our economy would tank because, unlike Europe (where gasoline prices are twice ours), American no longer has public transportation to fill the gap.

So, I ask, what doable solution do those against shale bed methane offer as a meaningful solution to cut greenhouse gases? As I said in my interview with the Post Standard, it's easy to say "No, No, No" to new energy development and foster fear and develop false analogies.

Speaking of which, the terrible oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico hardly constitutes a valid comparison to shale bed methane development. If a shale bed well fails, the environmental harm remains local. We know this from what we have seen throughout the country in coal and shale bed methane wells--local issues. A massive oil spill on the ocean to even the most casual observer could logically lead to a regional problem, which it has. But liquid oil flowing on water is not gas methane, and drawing that analogy to propagate fear seems wrong to me.

My response:

Hi Dr. Siegel, Sorry you are having problems responding to individual posts. Sometimes science doesn't work out as planned. There can be unforseen problems with technology-who knew?

Instead of lawyer collaborations, perhaps you might better serve the populace if you enlighten us all with your hydro-geology wisdom and use any further attempts at propaganda (oops..I meant editorials...sorry) to directly explain the actual science behind why you think the process of gas drilling in shale in NY is so safe. Notice I didn't say "fracking". I want you to consider the ENTIRE process of the drilling and not just appease our concerns that "fracking" is safe.
Fracking has become a catch-all term that gets bandied about as the real culprit of "fear mongering" when it is really the entire process of what is about to happen in NY that has people that are looking at the SCIENCE, or lack thereof, very concerned.
You might be able to convince someone that a single hydro-fracking job is safe, but you will have a more difficult time if you try to convince someone that numerous instances of high volume horizontal hydrofracturing in shale, with the intensity needed to sustain the gas industry investment in NY is in fact safe, or warranted, when all aspects of water use, frac fluid disposal, emissions, truck traffic, road damage, environmental accidents, etc. are factored into the equation.

This type of all encompassing scientific research was NOT done by the EPA when it looked at coalbed methane. That science, was just termed by EPA's Jackson as being merely a review, and not an assessment of the actual methodology that would be used in NY or the Marcellus region. A study of the science of gas drilling in the Marcellus, including all the direct and indirect impacts, has NOT yet been undertaken and therefore for you to claim that the science has been settled is a serious flaw in your argument, not withstanding the fact that there are many geological differences between coalbed methane and shale, that you should be well aware of, AND differences in technology that have come about since the EPA last looked at the issue.
Your analogy of the gas industry to the medical profession is interesting in that the last time I checked, Aubrey McClendon of Cheasapeake did not have to take the Hippocratic Oath of "first do no harm". I would like to point out that the gas industry typically does not work in that fashion, preferring to "frack now, pay later". So it is pretty insulting to my physician friends for you to make this comparison, and I hope you are not planning any major medical procedures any time soon, lest your doctors subscribe to gas industry mores and treat you with any unproven methods they have and then sit back and wait for the malpractice suit to come.
I have some more problems with some of what you have written here, but I need to check on some facts before I make any more commentary on your science.

Hi Again Dr. Siegel

Dr. Siegel,
I am very happy to hear that you "saw" only a "few" accidents, out of tens of thousands of successful wells while working on coalbed methane. Even the Texas railroad commission only "sees" a third of their wells every year so I am quite impressed that you took the time to do visual inspection of tens of thousands of wells.

It would be in the best interests of science, however, if we did not trust entirely your anecdotal visual inspection and seek to verify precisely how "few" a "few" turns out to be over a period of time, lets say 10 to 20 years, just to make certain. Wouldn't that be much more scientific?

Canadians have been doing coalbed methane development now for a few years, and their results have not been as rosy. They in fact decided in March of 2006, to make baseline testing of water wells mandatory before drilling occurs in coalbed methane. Alberta has undertaken a mapping program to make certain that all groundwater sources are mapped before drilling. Wouldn't you agree that the SAME type of regulations should apply in the US or at the very least, in NY, just to be on the safe side?

In Canada, after about 6000 wells were drilled, they started to see problems. Farmers near Strathmore were struggling with noise pollution, degraded landscapes and land use problems. 40 activist groups sprouted in order to force Canada to adopt national water standards and to begin collecting information on the drilling and its effects on groundwater. At the end of the day, it would appear that at least some Canadians do not share your opinion of the safety of coalbed methane development.

Your comment on water use during hydrofracturing needs clarification. Individual water applications and consumptive use rates vary widely in coal development, and you did not specify what application you were comparing to hydrofracturing. Was it coalbed methane drilling in Wyoming? Coal gasification in Wyoming? Coal hydrogenation-liquifaction? Or should we assume the term"Wyoming Coal" means all coal operations in Wyoming? Wouldn't that comparison be kind of unfair, given that much of the water used in many coal operations is brine water and NOT fresh water? Your assertion that high volume horizontal hydrofracturing in NY uses less water than "Wyoming Coal" might have to be re-worked, notwithstanding the fact that one might want to consider use over a period of years when wells are re-fracked, or compare water use as a function of how much energy is derived from the water used.

I am happy to hear that on site processing of brine water is "almost" ready. They say that a lot about cures for cancer too. Even with this technology, however, unless its MANDATORY, few drillers will use it, as the cost will probably be prohibitive initially. No on site water recycling procedures that I have read about deal with the radioactivity issues found in some areas; have you read something different? I would be surprised if that issue was solved by recycling.

You ask why someone would accept the continuing degradation of their neighboring states' environment to provide NY with its cheap energy. I would answer that I don't accept it.

If a state wishes to extract its resources and sell them to me at a fair price, then I owe them nothing in the way of "communal response". I have no say in their choice, other than if I object to their practices then I can choose to purchase from some other state. Unfortunately, gas is not a commodity where I have a lot of choice in what state I do business with. They don't label it on the bill as coming from PA or Colorado or Canada. So I am pretty certain your argument is not really practical. With any luck, NY could decide to come up with better ideas for energy rather than spreading around the environmental degradation evenly as you suggest. Two wrongs don't make a right. A "temporary inconvenience" to our "sightscapes and soundscapes" may be more than someone should bear when they have to listen to 85 decibel compressor stations for the next 30 years. That really doesn't sound temporary to me.

The reality is that gas drilling will forever change the landscape of NY, and this should not be done just to equalize some perceived environmental injustice picture that you have in your head. One might make the case that NY is more enlightened about environmental justice and therefore will choose to save the gas for future generations until the technology to get it out can be less invasive. Another case could be made that depriving coal workers in mining states of their livelihood before alternative employment for them is put in place is another form of injustice. I might also add that the present marketplace for gas is only being driven by profits for the gas industry and NOT by any concerns for the well being of the American citizen, or any environmental justice, I can assure you. Seek out information on Nigerian fossil fuel extraction and Shell if you don't believe me.

You are correct that we have to reduce our carbon emissions quickly, and it appears that natural gas compared to coal cuts emissions by half, UNLESS you factor in all the other indirect sources of carbon emissions from gas extraction; then it is actually much less than half, and if you add the byproducts of leaking pipelines and compressor stations you will see the picture is a lot less certain than you paint it. If you have the view that natural gas is some kind of "transition fuel" than you are making a Faustian bargain with our state and its environmental future.

If you are truly losing sleep over the emissions issue, than you should heed the suggestions of Dr. Ingraffea and advocate for a SLOW measured response to this gas rush, so that the state and the country does not fall into another fossil fuel trap that it can't get itself out of.

Economically, gas as a "transition fuel" makes no sense except for those that will profit from the transition directly, namely the gas industry and their shareholders. For everyone else, like the auto industry and the electric companies, a transition to gas means new infrastructure and increased costs, and banking on an uncertain commodity with wildly fluctuating prices and unforseen costs that the oil spill in the Gulf now proves can happen.

You may not like that comparison of the Gulf spill to fracking, but if you put 60, 000 wells in NY it will not be LOCAL damage we are talking about when enough of these wells have problems. Everyone will know someone with an issue about gas drilling, and we will ALL have to suffer the increase in methane emissions, as air pollution is NOT LOCAL.

The only "transition" fuel that benefits our country is one that makes fossil fuel obsolete, or close to it. That means higher fuel costs are indicated to truly represent the true costs of scarcity, and impact on our environment, be it gas, oil or nuclear. This true cost, this high cost, will foster a response in our economy so that the American ingenuity that sent us to the moon can come up with a RENEWABLE fuel (or fuels) that meets our needs, and/or a better technology to do more with what we have, with our present infrastructure. As Thomas Friedman posits, what America needs now is a GREEN revolution similar to our computer revolution--something that can bring back our economy and position our country as the leader in green energy. This will not be easy to do, but it can be done. It will only get done, however, if the marketplace is allowed to work, and people pay the true costs of using fuels that cost us all more in the long run. That means right now we need heavy regulations on the industries that pollute, mandatory best practices, and extraction taxes and bonds that raise costs for fuel extraction and prompt individuals to make better choices with their energy dollars, and slow down fossil fuel extraction until the "science" catches up.

There are no false analogies or fear in being against high volume horizontal hydrofracturing in NY. Just a measured response, considering ALL the risks and rewards, indicated that NOW is NOT the time to do this. We can do better, we should take the time to do better, and DEC and the Governor should not sell out the state at WAY below what its worth, just because that's what every other state is doing. Let PA make all the mistakes. We can revisit the question of WHEN, in a few years time after more of the DATA has come in. Until then, it is poor science, and poor policy to move forward. Drill when the commodity is scarce, when the landowners have a better idea of the risks and rewards, and when the technology has improved.

That position, would allow all of us, across the state, to sleep better at night.

See What's Coming to NY! Gas Drilling's Rural Impact

2010-04-11T21:45:00.000-07:00

The good people of Colorado have been dealing with this gas boom for a few years now, and have discovered that there are many problems that they didn't anticipate coming along with their gas drilling boom. NY State should learn from Colorado's mistakes. Everything that glitters is not necessarily gold. It could be a lump of coal, or in this case--a cubic foot of gas.

Never a Single Case? How about 15!

2010-04-06T19:39:00.000-07:00

The Natural Resources Defense Council has complied a list of incidents where drinking water has been contaminated and hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause. There are many, many, other cases around the country, but these 15 represent a group where the evidence was provided by a homeowner with knowledge that a nearby well was recently fractured and specifically included that information in reports, according to the NRDC.
This is one of the biggest problems--to determine that fracturing had occurred in the area where the water well was located. Many times, people are unaware what is going on down the road from their property, so it can be difficult to point the finger at the gas drilling, unless you know what is happening, and when it happened. That is why the gas industry has gotten away with this for so long--people have to know, and to care what is happening around them, and be vigilant.

Original story from NRDC located here:

Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination-Amy Mall's Blog

If you are aware of any other incidents PLEASE contact Amy Mall at the above link, and Contact the EPA Eyes on Drilling Hotline at 1-877-919-4EPA.

1.Arkansas: In 2008, Charlene Parish of Bee Branch reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. Her water smelled bad, turned yellow, and filled with silt.

2.Arkansas: In 2007, the Graetz family in Pangburn reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. The water turned muddy and contained particles that were “very light and kind of slick” and resembled pieces of leather.

3.Colorado: In 2001, two families in Silt reported a water well blow-out and contamination of their drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of four nearby natural gas wells owned by Ballard Petroleum, now Encana Corporation. Their drinking water turned gray, had strong smells, bubbled, and lost pressure. One family reported health symptoms they believe are linked to the groundwater contamination.

4.Colorado: In 2007, the Bounds family in Huerfano County reported a pump house exploded and contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of nearby wells owned by Petroglyph Energy.

5. New Mexico: A 2004 investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found two residents who reported that the quality of their water was affected by hydraulic fracturing.

6. New York: In 2007, the Lytle family in Seneca County reported contamination of drinking water the morning after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Chesapeake Energy Corporation. The water turned gray and was full of sediment.

7.New York: In 2009, the Eddy family in Allegany County reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by U.S. Energy Development Corporation. The water turned "foamy, chocolate-brown."

8.Ohio: In 2007, there was an explosion of a water well and contamination of at least 22 other drinking water wells in Bainbridge Township after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Ohio Valley Energy Systems. More than two years later, over forty families are still without clean drinking water and are waiting to be connected to a town water system.

9.Pennsylvania: In 2009, the Zimmerman family of Washington County reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Atlas Energy. Water testing on their farm found arsenic at 2,600 times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits, naphthalene at five times the federal standard, and mercury and selenium levels above official limits.

10. Pennsylvania: In 2008, two families in Gibbs Hill reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Seneca Resources Corporation. Their water had strong fumes, caused burning in lungs and sinuses after showering, and caused burning in the mouth immediately upon drinking.

11.Pennsylvania: In 2009, families in Bradford Township reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Schreiner Oil & Gas. The drinking water of at least seven families has been contaminated.

12.Pennyslvania: In 2009, the Smitsky family in Hickory reported contamination of their drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Range Resources. Their water became cloudy and foul-smelling. Testing found acrylonitrile, a chemical that may be used in hydraulic fracturing. The EPA is now investigating this incident.

13.Texas: In 2007, three families who share an aquifer in Grandview reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by Williams. They experienced strong odors in their water, changes in water pressure, skin irritation, and dead livestock. Water testing found toluene and other contaminants.

14.Virginia: Citizens reported drinking water contamination after hydraulic fracturing. Water was murky and had oily films, black sediments, methane, and diesel odors. Individuals experienced rashes from showering. The Buchanan Citizens Action Group reported over 100 documented complaints of adverse effects of hydraulic fracturing and the Dickenson County Citizens Committee reported ground water quality deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of hydraulic fracturing events.

15.Wyoming: Families in the small town of Pavillion have been reporting contamination of their drinking water for at least ten years. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in the many wells in the area owned by Encana Corporation. Drinking water has turned black, smelled bad, and tasted bad. Individuals report medical symptoms they believe are related to water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is investigating and has found contamination in 11 water wells, including toxic chemicals that may be from hydraulic fracturing fluids. Further tests are needed to determine the source of contamination.

Never a Case of Contamination?

2010-03-29T01:12:00.000-07:00

I suppose these folks are lying about their water being affected by hydraulic fracturing. That's what the boys over at Energy in Depth would tell you- "never been a single case of water contamination" they rant. Well then these people in the video must be making up the fact that both of them have come down with health problems since they began drinking that brown water that flows out of their tap and ruins metal coffeepots and porcelain toilets. But the gas drillers tell them the water is safe to drink. If it ruins the coffeepot, what is it doing to your body?

It is becoming quite apparent after seeing a number of these personal stories on video, that there is more than just coincidence in these occurrences. There are more problems with drilling than the gas industry wants to admit to and I only hope that more and more people start coming forward-or better yet, more and more lawyers start suing, because if we expect our State and Federal governments to protect us from this menace of gas drilling--we better think again.

Video courtesy of Arkansans for Gas Drilling Accountability

A Two Year Supply of Natural Gas

2010-03-11T22:48:00.000-08:00

Dr. Tony Ingraffea is a professor at Cornell University with a specialty in Civil Engineering--specifically he has worked in the area of rock fracture mechanics. He was recently interviewed by WENY Twin Tiers Sunday,(3 part video below) and he makes a compelling case that NY State should slow down its gas drilling process. One of the major points that he made was that the estimate of exactly how much gas can be recovered in total in NY State is something on the order of a 2 year supply for the entire US. So the question is, is all this hoopla about the Marcellus in NY State really worth it in the end, for a two year supply of gas? We will have to risk our drinking water, change the face of the landscape for years to come, and up end our lives-- all for what amounts to a two years supply of natural gas? Seems like a pretty bad deal for everybody-- except for the gas industry.

Mayor Tillman's Message to NY After His Visit

2010-02-28T16:56:00.000-08:00

To My New Friends In Marcellus;

As I return from almost a full week touring the Marcellus, I reflect on all the people I met for the first time. Many of these people had spoke via phone or email with me on several occasions; however, most had never met me in person. These folks welcomed me into their homes as though I was a lifelong friend or family member, not a complete stranger, who lived thousands of miles away. I was impressed with the genuine values that my new friends possessed. I could not begin to try to thank everyone individually, so I will just say thank you to everyone I met on this trip.
Although I was invited, and a few worked extremely hard coordinating my packed schedule, this really was a vacation for me. My new friends just gave me a reason to see this new land, like I had not seen it before. It had been burning inside of me to see how other gas shale plays were being accepted, and if the companies acted better there than they did here in DISH, TX. Although, I spoke at a dozen events during this tour, meeting new people and sharing their experiences was the real joy.
It was purely amazing at how many people traveled across snow-packed roads, and got up early on Saturday morning to let me share our story. Also, there were dozens of public officials who opened their minds to listen to me speak. During five days of speaking, almost 2,000 people came to hear the story of DISH, TX. What further amazed me was that no matter where the event, the seats were full. Whether, the church in Oneonta, school in Downsville, or the movie theater in Elmira, the seats were pretty much full, all the way until my last talk in Callicoon, that was standing room only. It amazes me, that this many people came to share our stories. The crowds continued to grow, and I reached almost 1,000 people on Saturday alone. What was even more amazing was that even those who did not share my views were respectful and courteous. Some of my friends in the industry had went to great lengths to create a hostile environment for me in the Marcellus, and that simple did not happen. Even those who asked the hard questions, which I welcomed, were respectful.
I was further impressed by the convictions of my new friends to their cause. Many had turned down the opportunity for vast fortunes, and chose not to climb into to bed with the energy company landman. When approached with these prospects, they simply said "no". I am not sure that I have ever met such a large group of unselfish people in my life. Willing to forgo money to hang on to their way of life. I am not sure how to describe the respect I now have for my new friends.
My main purpose for this trip was to let people know that there was more to natural gas exploration than a signing bonus, and a monthly royalty check. It had been my hope to allow folks to make a decision with their eyes wide open, not their eyes wide shut. I think there were many that began to think about this for the first time after listening to the story of the town that was sacrificed for the good of the shale. There are some that will never listen, and only look for the one thing that can give them a reason to say "it won't happen here". For those, it would not have mattered what I would have said, their minds would not be clouded with the facts, it was already made up.
Another reason for wanting to take this tour, was to see for my own eyes how others were being affected by the shale boom. I have been trying to get stricter regulations here in TX and urged my new friends in the Marcellus to pursue the same. If this extraction of natural gas is going to take place, it must be tightly regulated. However, some of my new friends don't believe that it is possible to perform this safely, even with the tightest regulations. After visiting Dimock, PA, it was hard to argue with their logic. I got to meet the lady whose water well exploded, and tears filled my eyes when I heard the story told by another lady whose children would get sick after drinking the water from their once clean water well. I saw the tainted water from another poisoned well, and frankly, was not prepared for the emotions felt when we delivered fresh water to a family that had been refused this right by the drilling company. Some were getting water delivered by the company who poisoned the water, but a few were denied one of the simple rights that we should all expect as hard working Americans. Cabot Oil and Gas, has essentially turned this small neighborhood into a third world country, and won't even show those they are poisoning the courtesy of delivering water to them. These families would have surely been better off, if the shale had passed them by.
In DISH we have dealt with the air toxins, but unfortunately we have not given the water much thought. There certainly have been issues with water here in the Barnett Shale, but nothing like water wells exploding. However, that does not mean that we do not have water quality issues, it just means we don't know it if we do. No one knew six months ago that we had toxic levels of chemicals in the air surrounding several natural gas wells and production facilities, and therefore, we should think about our water here as well. This trip made me think about issues that I not previously thought about, and that was the greatest gift I received.
I have never been to a place where I received such a warm reception, and on some days I was passed through several people. By the end of the week, you would have thought, I had lived there my entire life. I even got to see the local hero Josh Fox, who put me in his now famous documentary GasLand. Some even went as far as to declare that I had been adopted as their own mayor. And though I missed my family something terrible, I was saddened to have to leave such a clean and beautiful place, and return to the dirty ole town. I can now see why my new friends want to maintain their clean air and clean water, and I hope to help them do it. I am glad to announce that I will be returning to the Marcellus Shale in April, to complete my tour, and see my new friends again. Thanks again for accepting that crazy mayor from Texas into you homes and lives. I hope it was a good for you as it was for me. Please post this on your blogs or pass on to your mailing groups.

Calvin Tillman
Mayor, DISH, TX
(940) 453-3640

"Those who say it can not be done, should get out of the way of those that are doing it"

More Wisdom From Enlightened Texans

2010-02-18T20:45:00.000-08:00

Ladd Biro of Flower Mound Texas made such a wonderful case in the Cross Timber's Gazette about people being pegged as obstructionist, enviro-wacko, God-Less Liberal or some other colorful adjective just because they care about finding the truth, and not believing everything that is spoon fed from the oil and gas industry or media outlets. There is a long history in this country with the fossil fuel industry not playing by the rules, or not even allowing the rules when rules are needed. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Whatever rights the oil and gas industry or landowners have, those rights also end at the edge of my creek, my river, my stream, my air, and my land.

As Ladd Biro says in the following, "It’s funny how greed can cloud one’s perception."
Truer words have not been said.

Who benefits from gas drilling in Flower Mound?
Written by Ladd Biro

On August 10, 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation imposed a $952,500 fine on Williams Gas Pipeline following a September 2008 natural gas pipeline rupture and subsequent fire in Appomattox, Virginia. Five people were injured, 23 families were evacuated and two homes were destroyed in the incident.

Last September, Cabot Oil & Gas was fined $56,650 and forced to suspend its hydraulic fracturing operations in Dimock Township, Pa., after spilling more than 8,000 gallons of a hazardous water/liquid gel mixture over nine days. Two months later, the state of Pennsylvania fined Cabot another $120,000 for contaminating 13 homeowner water wells. One of the wells blew up.

In the early morning hours of November 5, 2009, a pipeline owned by El Paso Natural Gas exploded in Bushland, Texas, destroying one home, damaging two others, and sending three people to the hospital. The explosion produced a 10-story fireball and a massive blaze visible from 20 miles away.

Other incidents tied to gas drilling, especially the fracturing process used to extract natural gas from shale formations, have been reported in Colorado, Wyoming, New York and elsewhere. In fact, over the past half-dozen years, more than 1,000 documented incidences of water contamination in the western U.S. have been linked to hydraulic fracturing.

Accidents happen. Even to Williams Production, the company at the epicenter of the drilling controversy now roiling the Town of Flower Mound.

Calling these catastrophic incidents to your attention doesn’t make me a fear-monger, an alarmist, a Communist, a tree hugger, unpatriotic or, worst of all ‘round these parts, a liberal.

Yet these and other less-savory epithets have been hurled at my fellow drilling opponents and me by the friendly folks who are relentlessly expanding their drilling operations closer and closer to our homes, schools and waterways.

Williams Production’s apologists – the vast majority of whom appear to be retired empty-nesters with substantial acreage on the west side of town – are fond of lecturing their younger neighbors about the many benefits drilling offers to “everyone.” It’s funny how greed can cloud one’s perception.

Many of these same folks who years ago argued against the development of Bridlewood, Wellington and other higher-density neighborhoods in their beloved Flower Mound now get positively misty-eyed about the many blessings afforded by the drilling rigs, tanker trucks, storage tanks and compression facilities on or near their properties. They stand on their mineral rights soapboxes, draped in the U.S. Constitution, wagging their fingers at those who would dare keep them from exploiting the full value of their property.

But here’s the thing. Nobody I know would object to a landowner’s right to profit from his mineral rights so long as doing so does not encroach upon the rights of others.

Want to allow Williams to use a controversial drilling method known as fracking hundreds of feet from your home? Have at it, my friend! Just don’t ask to build a massive collection facility across town to store the millions of gallons of toxic water produced by those wells. Don’t ask to run pipelines across my property to transport that toxic wastewater, either. Don’t expect the homeowners who abut your land to compromise their personal safety when Williams seeks to violate the town’s 1,000-foot setback ordinance by drilling within a few hundred feet of their back yards.

You may not be overly concerned about open gas valves, pipeline ruptures, storage tank explosions or other accidents that could threaten the health and safety of your fellow Flower Mound residents. It’s easy to gamble when you’re receiving hefty royalty checks from Williams each month.

Pardon us if we don’t pledge our allegiance to your sugar daddy.

The sad truth is Williams’ duty is to its shareholders. Your personal welfare and Flower Mound’s long-term survival are not their concern. Sure, you’re getting paid handsomely for your trouble. After all, you deserve to be compensated for permanently spoiling your beautiful land.

All the while, the robber barons from Tulsa will smile and tell you exactly what you want to hear, because they’re desperate to get to the huge deposits of natural gas that lie a mile beneath your property.

Ever wonder what their rush is? After all, the gas has been there for thousands of years, and it’s not going anywhere.

Here are just a few reasons:

1. Natural gas futures prices are trending up. Given the unpredictability of the markets, Williams needs to cash in while times are good. If gas prices suddenly plunge, as they did in mid-2008, drilling in the Barnett Shale may no longer be profitable. The pressure is surely intensifying at Williams headquarters after the company disappointed Wall Street with its fourth-quarter results.

2. Regulatory pressures are mounting. The U.S. Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency have recently begun re-thinking the wisdom of the "Halliburton Loophole," which exempts oil and gas companies from having to comply with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and a host of other laws designed to protect public health. In addition, a bill known as the “FRAC Act,” now pending in Congress, would lift the veil of secrecy on the contents of the wastewater produced by the fracking process. Williams knows that being forced to reveal the 250-plus toxic chemicals it uses to frack its wells would be a public relations nightmare. Having to post “hazardous materials” placards on dozens of trucks rumbling down Flower Mound’s neighborhood roads might stoke the natives’ outrage even more.

3. The citizens have woken up, and they’re organizing quickly. While the vast majority of Flower Mound residents weren’t paying attention, Williams convinced the town’s Oil & Gas Board of Appeals to approve variances on all but one of the 32 wells it has drilled, according to recent public testimony. In other words, the “exemplary” restrictions our Town Council put in place to protect its citizens, trumpeted at every opportunity by Mayor Jody Smith and her fellow drilling advocates on the Council, have been waived to accommodate nearly every well Williams has drilled in Flower Mound! It makes you wonder what good it is to have regulations in the first place. It also raises questions as to why these variances are so routinely granted, at least for Williams.

It’s been well-publicized that Mayor Smith and Mayor Pro Tem Jean Levenick have leased their mineral rights to Williams. So has Carlos Cabre, a member of the Oil & Gas Board of Appeals who was dismissed from his position earlier this week after failing to recuse himself from votes concerning Williams.

Meanwhile, attorney Jeff Tasker, a member of the Town Council from 2005 to 2009, has been retained as a representative by Williams and is regularly seen at public sessions of the council alongside his deep-pocketed clients. Well now, isn’t that special?

Is Tasker now assisting Williams in its pending lawsuit against the town he formerly served? Is Cabre about to be invited into the Williams fraternity? Inquiring minds want to know.

Something stinks in Flower Mound, and it’s not just the toxic emissions coming from the wells.

It’s gotten so bad that even some homeowners who signed contracts with Williams have begun speaking out in opposition to the company’s proposals. They complain about misrepresentations, errors of omission, and outright lies told by representatives of the company.

They’ve done the calculations and figured out that the checks they receive from Williams amount to chump change when compared to the decline in their homes’ market values. They worry about reports of hazardous levels of cancer-causing benzene detected at sites across the Barnett Shale. They’ve met many of the five kids and two adults in Flower Mound who’ve been diagnosed with leukemia since 2005.

They’ve heard that Texas has 273,600 wells and only 106 regulators to oversee them. Each well is inspected just once every three years, on average, according to the Texas Railroad Commission. That means the gas industry is, for all practical purposes, responsible for policing itself.

That’s all well and good when they’re drilling in the middle of nowhere. But when the wells come within a few hundred feet of homes, schools and parks, the margin for error is unacceptably thin.

As we’ve seen, accidents happen. Even to Williams, as the fine folks in Appomattox, Va., can attest.

Nobody wants the next catastrophic natural gas accident to occur in Flower Mound. Nobody wants another child to be diagnosed with leukemia.

That’s why the concerned citizens of Flower Mound are banding together in a battle for the town’s future. This weekend, the Flower Mound Cares Petition Association, a non-profit civic organization, officially kicks off a petition drive seeking a temporary moratorium on the approval of permits for new pipelines and centralized collection facilities. We want to be certain that before Williams goes any further, proper safeguards are in place to protect public health and safety. Signatures from roughly 5,600 registered voters are needed within 45 days to force the Town Council to enact the moratorium or put the issue up for popular vote.

Volunteers will be manning information booths and petition-signing stations at sites across town between 10 AM and 6 PM Saturday and Sunday. Those interested in more detail, as well as a list of petition-signing locations, may visit http://mysite.verizon.net/fmcares or join the Flower Mound Cares Facebook group at: www.flowermoundcares.com.

Drilling is enriching a few property owners in Flower Mound, along with an Oklahoma-based gas conglomerate and its legion of lawyers, consultants and lobbyists. For all its efforts, the Town of Flower Mound earned a paltry $521,000 in fees and incremental property taxes in 2009. The rest of us are left with a plethora of short- and long-term risks, both known and unknown.

It’s not worth it. It’s time to make a stand.

Ladd Biro is a syndicated sports columnist and small business owner who has lived in Flower Mound since 2002.

You can see the original article here

Seven Answers from the Mayor of Dish Texas

2010-02-16T20:18:00.000-08:00

I was thinking about writing a response to those smarmy gas industry promoters at Energy In Depth, when they posted their silly "Seven Questions" to the Mayor of Dish Texas. Mayor Tillman, out of his own concern for the well being of his neighbors in NY and around the country, has come here to NY State on his own dime to tell us about the realities of gas drilling that he has experienced in his fair town. The fratboys over at Energy In Depth, decided that rather than lay low and be courteous to someone who seems to be operating out of a real concern for people's well being, took it upon themselves to attack the guy before he even had a chance to speak. Then the gas industry wonders why no one believes anything they say, and they have to keep paying for ads on the Olympics just to combat all the bad press they get. Hey fratboys! PR 101-wait until they attack you before you respond. You might also try a little integrity and honesty...WAIT...I guess you really can't do that, can you, I mean it is the OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY we are talking about, right?

Anyway, here is Mayor Tillman's response to Energy In Depth, and a fine one at that:

Seven Questions for the Mayor of DISH

In advance of Mayor Tillman’s trip to New York next week, EID poses a series of questions residents should ask while he’s there

It’s not every day you’re likely to run into the mayor of a small town in Denton Co., Texas ambling about the Southern Tier of New York State. But next week, that’s precisely where you’ll find DISH mayor Calvin Tillman – slated to make the nearly 1,500-mile trip to the Empire State to rally local environmental activists against efforts to explore for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale.

Now, wait a second: Isn’t this the same Marcellus Shale that studies suggest could create 16,000 high-wage jobs in Broome Co., N. Y. alone -- and generate $15.3 billion in local economic development? Yep, that’s the one. Turns out, though, that the mayor of DISH isn’t as sanguine on shale gas as you’d expect. And to help him punctuate his case, he’ll be bringing to New York a couple of recent “studies” on the subject aimed at scaring local residents into believing that natural gas exploration will ruin their air, sully their land, and poison their water. Should be quite the show.

Of course, we can’t say for certain whether the mayor will mention to local residents that these studies have been almost universally panned by independent environmental engineers; that they were recently debunked by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) itself; or that the contractor who did the study for Mayor Tillman doesn’t have a licensed professional engineer on its staff.

And who knows? He may forget to mention his relationship with the Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), an anti-energy group based in Colorado (but active in New York) which considers clean-burning natural gas a “filthy” form of energy. He may not find it relevant to mention that OGAP funded one of the studies he plans to show off – or that his town’s official government website links to OGAP’s page on the internet. Who can say for sure?

Thankfully, on the off-chance the mayor forgets to mention any of these details to the audiences he plans to visit – or that reporters forget to ask – Energy In Depth has assembled the following list of questions that Mayor Tillman might like to answer during his stay in New York:

Jeff and Chris,

Mayor Tillman:

I thank you for your interest in the happenings in the town of DISH, TX. I would like answer the questions that you have posed below, and would also like to personally invite you to DISH, TX, for a guided tour. I have outlined your seven questions and my answers will appear in bold after the questions. However, I must first start with your opening comments which contains several inaccurate statements.

First and foremost there has been no "debunking" of the air study performed here in DISH, at least not by anyone who is not getting a check from one of the energy companies. Furthermore, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has validated the findings here in and DISH, and went as far as to write an internal memo highlighting the health effects from this study, showing their concerns for the levels detected. The TCEQ has performed additional air studies in DISH and oddly enough found benzene at elevated levels.

The second item is your assertion that I do not see the positive effects of the shale plays. Just a couple of years ago the Barnett Shale added 10 billion dollars and 100,000 jobs to the economy for the State of Texas. That is an impact that no one can ignore, and I state this in every presentation that is given on the subject by me. I do not wish to see people lose their jobs, or the owners of the mineral lose their royalty checks. Why can we not make this a win-win situation? What if we could have that economic impact and those jobs, and do it more responsibly and respectfully than we are doing it? Do we have to trade our air quality, water quality and property rights for this economic gain? The answer is no...we do not.

The next item is that you expect me to back away from my relationship with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP). The things that OGAP stands for, and are trying to help reform are: surface owners rights, water quality, and air quality. For some reason I don't find it too repulsive that someone is trying to keep our water safe to drink, our air safe to breath, and give surface owners in a split estate a little more say so in what happens on their land that they worked hard to purchase. The industry may not like them, because they have had some success getting reasonable regulation in other states. I have not heard of the "filthy form of energy" comment; however; it is clear that the cleanest burning hydrocarbon does not come out of the ground that way. It has to go through a processing facility to remove the liquid hydrocarbons and other impurities. Unfortunately in Texas those contaminants are irresponsibly dumped into the environment. Could you please provide me with a copy of the article the quote was used in? I suspect this might be a story that keeps getting bigger as it passed down through the industry extremists.

1) Mr. Mayor, your assertion that local natural gas exploration activities have adversely impacted the air quality of your town appears to be entirely founded on a study you commissioned by a group called Wolf Eagle Environmental. Are you aware that TCEQ conducted an internal review of this study and found that “it is not possible” to draw the types of conclusions that appear in that report?

This statement is completely false. The TCEQ has never publicly said anything even remotely close to this, and any internal review only validated the findings. I will have copies of the internal reviews with me in New York (NY) and will happily provide a copy to you personally should you wish. The TCEQ has done many things to discredit themselves, but even they would not make the above statement.

2) Mr. Mayor, are you aware that Wolf Eagle Environmental was formerly known as Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers & Consultants – but was forced to change its name upon it becoming public that the organization did not (and, in fact, still does not) employ an actual licensed professional engineer on staff?

This matter has been brought up by several industry extremists, who are looking to personally attack a very knowledgeable and credible person. The president of Wolf Eagle has a PhD in Environmental and Civil Engineering, in addition to a Masters in Public Health. She is also far more nationally recognized as an environmental expert that anyone who works for TCEQ, or the oil and gas industry. She is commonly asked to serve on national committees, and came highly recommended from several others who had PhD in their title. The environmental expert for one of the energy companies, isn't even smart enough to send an email, so we are way ahead of them. I think the industry has tried to vilify her, because she does not work for them, and her studies are honest and valid, and the common person trusts her. Therefore, she poses a threat to the hap-hazard way they are doing business in Texas. Plain and simple, she works for the little guy, the Davids who are facing Goliaths, and the industry views anyone who would help the underdog get justice, as a threat.

3) Mr. Mayor, is it true that once the Wolf Eagle evaluation was debunked, you accepted an offer from the national Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) to fund a second study of a similar type? Is it true that OGAP links are found on your town website? Are you aware that OGAP considers clean-burning natural gas a “filthy” energy source, and was in fact established as a means to fight natural gas exploration wherever, whenever and however it takes place?

Again the Wolf-Eagle air study was not debunked, but rather it was validated through several other studies. Unless you consider the attack from the Railroad Commission of Texas Chairman Victor Carrillo, a real sharp cookie I might add :), who was ready to blame all of our air problems on a tiny airport that stores more high end motor homes than it does airplanes, and houses nothing that would cause the 16 toxins found in DISH. However, the sixteen toxins found here are typically found in oil and gas operations. Maybe he and you should do a little more research before you make fools out of yourselves. However, the real question is regarding my relationship with OGAP, which I will not back away from. A true national hero and MacArthur award winner helped us perform a health assessment on the citizens of DISH, which showed some cause for concern. However, she does this for many small communities around the country; again a genius and a hero. There are several links on the town's website to help folks gather information on oil and gas issues including OGAP. Not sure why this would be a concern to you, most cities have similar links on their websites as well, if your company was a legitimate source of this information, we might add you as well, but you have a ways to go before you become legitimate. From the statement above, please provide me a source of the tall tale "filthy energy" comment.

4) Mr. Mayor, have you had the chance to take a look at TCEQ’s recent air quality study of the areas in and around the Barnett Shale? If so, did you note that of the 94 sites tested by TCEQ, 92 registered short-term effects screening levels (ESL) well below anything that would cause “alarm,” according to TCEQ’s toxicology director? Are you also aware that repairs at the remaining two sites tested by TCEQ have already been completed and certified by the agency?

As a matter of fact I printed the entire 313 page report and have been going through it page by page. Unfortunately, my schedule has not allowed me to complete my report on the document, but I will provide it to you upon completion. If you actually read the document (which I am certain you have not) you will see that the "94 sites", are counting each individual sample that was taken. Some may have been upwind, while others were downwind, and so forth. Therefore, each facility may have had numerous samples taken. Actually, there were only 44 separate facilities tested and half of those had benzene levels that were above the long term effects screening levels, not to mention the many other harmful toxins that were detected. There have also been reports that these facilities were only producing a third of their potential output, and even in TX, the weather is mild in October and November, so this study is in no way the worse case scenario. Wait till you see the numbers from July or August, they will be much worse. However, if the average person read the entire 313 page report, even though it is likely lower than reality, they would be shocked and realize there is an immediate danger in this area. I will bring the document with me to NY to show anyone who has questions about it.

5) Mr. Mayor, you testified on numerous occasions that energy operators in your area are responsible for the emission of benzene and other potential contaminants into the air. But did you know that the mere act of filling up your tank with a conventional gas pump (one without a vapor recovery device) could expose you to benzene levels of 11,000 parts per billion (ppb), according to TCEQ -- without any ambient air to dilute it? Are you aware that not even the Wolf Eagle study was able to find a single site in your area exceeding 78 ppb?

It is nice that you recognize the fact that we had some pretty high levels of benzene detected around the natural gas compressor stations. If you are suggesting that the levels detected in DISH do not pose a health risk, I am afraid that you are horribly mistaken, and there is no expert that would agree with that, even the industry extremists wouldn't make that stretch. I am not sure about the exposure levels of filling up my car with gas. However, as you mentioned there are vapor recovery devices to help minimize the exposure, and I would like to see that same vapor recovery technology used on emission sources in the oil and gas industry. I am glad you have highlighted the importance of vapor recovery and hope your suggestion helps in making that technology mandatory. This technology actually saves both money and this precious resource, and cuts up to 95% of the emissions produced by these sites. Why don't we use this simple and effective technology? Please note that the benzene levels are constant here, not just once for two minutes every couple of weeks, it is here 24/7. Also, the long term effects screening level for benzene is 1.4 ppbv, and therefore we detected over 50 times that level on residential properties where children reside. Would you want your children exposed to this 24/7?

6) Mr. Mayor, are you aware that according to EPA, “oil and natural gas production contributes only 2% of the total benzene emissions in the U.S., and shale gas represents a very small subset of this 2%”?

I have heard similar statements before, and do not wish to dispute this, because I am sure that other industries also pollute their neighborhoods. Unfortunately, for the citizens of DISH, part of that 2% is right here. It does however appear that this is one of those statistics that was carefully extracted from a larger report. Have you by chance read the report that this was extracted from? Please provide me with this report, and know that it may be changing because the EPA has been to DISH a couple of times.

7) Mr. Mayor, did you know that energy exploration is responsible for directly employing more than 200,000 people in your state? Accounts for the payment of more than $44 million in royalties and rents to landowners every year? And sends more than $4 billion each year to your treasury, representing nearly seven percent of your entire budget? Here in Upstate New York, we aren’t trying to be the next Texas – but can you understand how the availability of even a fraction of these new resources could help revive and strengthen our economy?

Yes, I am well aware of the economic impact that the Barnett Shale has had in TX. Actually, as I have stated the numbers you are quoting are a low estimation. However, I consistently give the industry credit in that area, and do not wish to see people or the state lose those jobs. Frankly, there are many who work in this industry that I personally like. However, we can do this better that the way they are doing it in TX. If NY can get ahead of this, and get reasonable regulations in place, there is a possibility that you can get the great economic impact without destroying the land, air and water in the process. I am not going to NY to talk anyone out of drilling, but rather to inform them of what has happened here and give them some ideas as they move forward. Hopefully, they will make the decision knowing the whole story, not the industry version of the "gold rush". My goal is to let them make the decision with their eyes wide open, not eyes wide shut. What happened here does not have to happen in NY. You could get a win-win situation, let's give it a try anyway. I hope that this helps you in answering many of the questions you have posed. If not I could further clarify. And although I do not use words like sanguine, my knowledge level on shale gas far outweighs most of those who work in the industry, including yourself. It certainly appears that rather that perform valid research, you are simply regurgitating the personal attacks that I have become accustomed to from this industry. I truly hope that when the benzene clears, that we will all be better off for this. I hope that the people of NY can reach the full benefits of the Marcellus Shale without the extreme side effects. I also hope that these simple measures will be mandated in Texas as well. It can be done; however, this industry must quit stating what good neighbors they are and start acting it.
Calvin Tillman
Mayor, DISH, TX

Thank you Mayor Tillman, for coming to NY State; we appreciate it and please don't judge us by those guys at Energy In Depth; New Yorkers are really much smarter than that, and we even have manners, too. ; - )

Out of The Mouths of Babes

2010-01-09T20:54:00.000-08:00

The Following letter was written to the Editor of the Syracuse.com News. You can see the original posting here

Ban hydrofracking and horizontal drilling

To the Editor :

My name is Noah Dessauer. I am 10. I am very concerned about hydrofracking and horizontal drilling. I think we should outlaw hydrofracking and horizontal drilling.

I live in Syracuse and Truxton. In Syracuse, we get our water from Skaneateles Lake. In Truxton, three families get our water from a shared spring. Above the spring is DEC land called Morgan Hill State Forest. It is around 5,000 acres and the DEC has leased it out to a gas company to drill.

Hydrofracking hurts water, land and air for large areas. They pump water with sand or some other substance and chemicals that fracture the surrounding shale to get into the natural gas pockets. Then they pump the water and chemicals into flowback fluid open, lined ponds. Often the flowback fluid overflows, spills or leaks into the surrounding area, poisoning the water. Birds and other animals drink water from or rest in the pond, then get hurt and die. Humans drink water from near drilling and when chemicals have escaped, they have been harmed.

Fossils fuel jobs hurt the Earth and the workers.

Green energy jobs do not hurt the Earth or workers as much.

In general, green energy produces more jobs.

I think we should outlaw and completely ban horizontal drilling and hydrofracking in New York and the United States.

Noah Dessauer
Syracuse, Truxton

Noah, thank you so much for sending this letter to the newspaper. It is very important that everyone understand how children feel about the gas drilling. Adults sometimes forget that the actions they take today can affect our children tomorrow. One day you will grow up and have to take care of the land and water for your children and grandchildren too. Thank you again for telling us how you feel and reminding everyone of how important this issue is!

New York City's Fracking Opinion

2009-12-27T23:17:00.000-08:00

RE: Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil Gas and Solution Mining and Regulatory Program (dated 9/30/2009)

To Whom it may Concern:
The City of New York (City)submits the following comments on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) Sept. 30, 2009 Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement(dSGEIS) on the Oil Gas and Solution Mining and Regulatory Program-Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to develop Marcellus Shale and other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs

The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on DEC's plan to permit the development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation, and the potential economic opportunity may be , however the City has concluded that based on the latest science and available technology, as well as the data and analysis presented in the State's dSGEIS, horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic hydrofracturing (collectively, "hydro-fracking" or "gas drilling") pose and unacceptable threat to the unfiltered, fresh water supply of nine million New Yorkers, and cannot safely be permitted within the New York City watershed.

As the detailed comments that follow explain, the up to 6,000 wells required to extract natural gas based on current technology, seven million truck trips, one million tons of concentrated chemicals, and millions of gallons of wastewater that are necessities and by-products of current extraction methods, pose a substantial threat to the water supply. Further, the activity is inconsistent with the principles of watershed protection and pollution prevention that are incorporated into its Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) under the federal Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Hydro-fracking requires a high degree of invasive industrial activity, with potential geologic and public health impacts that are not well understood. Given these realities, permitting gas drilling in the watershed would upset the balance between watershed protection and economic activities that the City, DEC and our Upstate partners have worked so hard to establish over the past 15 years.

Read the rest of the letter and see the full report by the NYC DEP Here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/09-15pr.shtml

Best Case Against Drilling

2009-12-20T22:03:00.001-08:00

Best Case Against DEC Gas Drilling SGEIS from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Albert Appleton, Former commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and former director of the New York City Water and Sewer System, speaking to the NY Senate Round table on the problems associated with Gas Drilling and Hydrofracking in New York State, and the proposed DEC SGEIS report last month. Mr. Appleton makes one of the best cases against the proposed DEC SGEIS report and it should be noted that he is also an independent consultant on water issues around the world. If you agree with Mr. Appleton, please sign the petition to withdraw the SGEIS report so that a better report can be developed. There is a petition and letter to send to Gov. Paterson located here:

http://www.toxicstargeting.com/MarcellusShale/coalition_letter

The transcript of his comments follows:

First,of all, I'd like to answer Senator Perkins' question in terms of a quick checklist; these are the things you look for in trying to develop a fracking technology and natural gas industry that will survive critical and environmental scrutiny. The first thing is the control of the underground injection of fracking materials. The industry makes a big point that they have not yet polluted aquifers, and this is true, but the have polluted plenty of surface water drinking sites. We know they move and we know that the industry does not always control their movement. The second is the spill and the control of the material that involuntarily erupts back from the underground; that is not captured, that is spilled, that can then flow into streams and contaminate land. The third is accidents, spills; the industry argues about steel tanks, there are lots of issues with transporting the material, handling it, sloppiness, carelessness.

The fourth, that we have heard from a number of people is the discharge of fracking fluids into surface water. A definite NO- NO, in terms of the composition of fracking fluids. The fifth; the impacts on the land; we have heard of these. I am just going to briefly add that when we are talking about air pollution, we are talking about ozone. This may not pollute, but it just took Wyoming out of ozone compliance with the Clean Air Act. What does ozone do to trees? I am sure Neil would love to talk about that problem. It does very awful things. You can just go to the upper reaches of the forests in Los Angeles, and take a good look at those kinds of impacts. Six, the social impacts. The people as you heard Joe Levine describe it, who can no longer use their farm. The bystanders who can no longer sell their property that they have invested in. The 24 hour operation with noise and lights. The hundreds of trucks on the roads. The difficulties that local governments have in controlling these impacts through zoning; the lack of any of any impact fees to be dealt with.

Seventh. This program as currently envisioned, and with the externalization of environmental costs is a stab in the back of the state's green energy program, and I would like to talk about that in the second session. Eight. The benefits from this program both energy and statewide are greatly exaggerated , and depend upon ignoring all of the costs. Also ,they depend on ignoring a series of market things that could break any-which-way in the future.

And finally, quite technically, the entire DEGIS or whatever cute acronyms, is a sham until you deal with enforcement. The idea that the DEC with its current staff, could lift one little finger of effective enforcement, is a joke. In fact, the whole EIS should be discarded on the fact that its assumptions are total fantasy. When we did the watershed protection program, to cover a tenth of the state, with a less complicated problem, we had to hire five hundred people. Without legislation that imposes fees on the natural gas industry, and without legislation that says until this enforcement staff is in place, there should be no drilling. Every statement of good intention in the DGEIS, as I say, is pure fantasy.

I want to make two other very quick comments. First of all, there has been a lot of talk about the New York City watershed; that a program like this could force its filtration. And that is absolutely true. What is not talked about is the fact that this program could also, Upstate, cause double filtration. Because the fact of the matter is, the compounds used in these fracking fluids, are not handled by standard sewage treatment processes. In fact, they can do a very good job of frying those processes, with almost no effort at all. So we in New York City, and the rest of the state, are basically in the same boat. And you have heard multi-billion dollar estimates of costs for filtration. We have to add something to those cost estimates, as they are just talking about standard filtration. They are not talking about the kind of treatment that you would need to deal with the toxic chemicals and extra salts and radioactive elements of this program.

Last, but not least, I would like to talk about public policy by anecdote. There are successful drilling wells, lots of them. There are also, a small percentage, or a medium percentage, depending on how you count them; lets just say it's five percent. Five percent of the 40,000 wells, is a low industry estimate, is 2000 wells going south. Are those people who are impacted by that, the streams, are they just collateral damage? Are they something that we and the State of New York are willing to write off? Mr. Cook's comments about innocent bystanders were not related to the statements made earlier; they were related to involuntary pooling. I am quite confident that none of these industry representatives are about to reject involuntary pooling. The truth of the matter is, with this level of activity, we can select any example we want from an anecdotal basis. What I suggest to you is that you apply the common sense that is the one thing virtually all people admire politicians for; their knowledge of circumstances, and their knowledge of people.

Do we have a revolt against this kind of activity across 30 states in the country, because it is benign, as the industry is suggesting? Do we have 50 groups sprung up across the State of New York because they have confidence in the assertions of an industry, that in the same breath says “we should not be held to the standards of environmental housekeeping that the corner dry cleaner is”. No. Something real is going on here.

And my last comment is, that, as a representative of the water and sewer system that has done many EISes, and as a representative of environmental groups that have challenged many EISes, this is the worst EIS, in draft form, that I have ever seen. It is one-sided, it does not deal with real alternatives, it makes fantasy island assumptions about reality, it's a case of special pleading. And I can only hope, knowing the caliber of people, who work for DEC and whom I've always admired; that they will take all of these comments seriously, and do the kind of job that a multi-billion dollar industry that is going to cover the state, should have done before its started. Otherwise, I am gifted with second sight. I can guarantee you that whether it's horizontal or vertical, this will be the worst thing to hit the Northeastern landscape since strip mining.

NY State Gas Well Permits

2009-12-18T10:40:00.000-08:00

View New York State Gas Well Permits in a larger map

Protect Our Drinking Water!

2009-12-08T10:12:00.000-08:00

Out of the Horse's Mouth

2009-12-07T00:39:00.000-08:00

It is certainly comforting to see that there will be plenty of shale gas in years to come from other countries. That means that we can slow things down in the Marcellus, and take the time to make certain that shale gas development is safe and not a threat to the environment. No need to rush, now that there is all this gas on the way, is there?

According to many articles (many by the gas industry themselves) the amount of water needed to frack a well is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million gallons. Figures on returned fluid can vary from 26% to 60% or more recovered from the well. If we take the low figure of 26%, then at LEAST 1.3 million gallons of waste water will be produced , NOT the 800,000 gallons stated in this story. Is there something wrong with the gas industry that they absolutely HATE to give accurate numbers on anything? They always seem to lowball everything, maybe because they know that using MILLIONS of gallons of water for fracking is a big problem, but 800,000 "sounds better", and maybe they can get a pass. The fact remains though, that millions and more millions of gallons of water will be needed to liberate all this shale gas around the world-- fresh clean water-- that is in short supply in many nations. Also interesting to note in this story the "new technology" that came on the scene in the past 10 years....maybe all those folks talking about high volume hydraulic fracturing being 50, 60, 80 years old might be wrong... and this was out of the horse's mouth after all. How so? Well, you can see a chart of the relationships Clean Skies Television has with the gas industry below:

Listen to Some Eco Logic

2009-12-01T18:44:00.000-08:00

From WBAI 99.5 FM in NYC:

"Exploding toilets. Exploding wells. Contaminated drinking water. This is what has happened in other states that have allowed Halliburton's hydraulic fracturing process to reach natural gas deposits in shale. Chesapeake Energy Corporation put out a press release on Oct. 28 stating they won't drill in New York City's watershed. What does that really mean? What about the other companies that are taking out drilling leases? What about the rest of the state? Why is the governor allowing these leases? What about other dangers to the water supplies? What about the already-contaminated water in Pennsylvania and other states? We already do without the gas. We cannot do without the water."

Listen to Ken Gale interview with Deborah Goldberg of Earthjustice, and Annie Wilson of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter discuss the problems of hydrofracking for natural gas in NY State. The portion of the program devoted to gas drilling begins at about the 10 minute mark of the podcast (approximately 1/2 inch in on the quicktime bar) Program Located Here.

If not accessible via the above link, please visit the WBAI Website for the archived broadcast: Located Here

Ken Gale's Eco Logic Website

ABC Investigates

2009-11-23T22:11:00.000-08:00

And the gas industry still says that what we all see happening isn't happening.

Regulations? What Regulations?

2009-11-15T20:23:00.000-08:00

Anyone that wants to know precisely how NYC water could be impacted by natural gas drilling should take a look at this video. Walter Hang of Toxics Targeting, describes how an accident at a gas drilling rig in Upstate NY contaminated water wells and ponds some 8000 feet away from the drilling rig. Current regulations proposed in the DEC SGEIS report in NY State could have gas wells placed as close as 500 feet to a water source, or even a water tunnel that carries NYC water. The accident, as described here, caused the water to turn black and become saturated with oil. The explosion occurred underground, and fractured the rock at such a distance--over a mile away.Toxics Targeting found 270 cases documenting fires, explosions, wastewater spills, well contamination and ecological damage related to gas drilling. According to Democracy Now, many of these cases remain unresolved and the findings by Toxics Targeting are contrary to repeated government assurances that existing natural gas well regulations are sufficient to safeguard the environment and public health.

So, if hundreds of wells are built within 1000 feet of the NYC water tunnels and reservoirs, it is very possible that the water WILL face contamination, if enough "incidents" occur on a regular basis. Noting how difficult they are to clean up--as Mr. Hang reports that most accidents have not been cleaned up 10 years after the fact--one wonders what will happen to clean water if drilling is allowed to go forward at the pace and density it is expected to be done, IF the drillers have there way here in NY State. Maybe people should stop them. Before its too late.

Oil &Gas Gangs In New York

2009-11-10T21:58:00.000-08:00

My response to this posting by the Oil and Gas Industry seen at their website:

http://www.energyindepth.org/2009/11/gangs-of-new-york/

Before I comment further, I feel that I have to provide a bit of background of my interest in this issue. I was not ever opposed to gas drilling until this matter was brought to my attention by someone who was very vocal on this issue. I was very willing to believe much of what the gas industry was saying on this matter, because it would appear to be good business for the gas industry to do the right thing, and provide good reliable information on such a serious issue. When I investigated further into what the gas industry was saying about their own practices, I began to change my mind. They are poisoning their own well (pun intended) with the subterfuge that they have presented to the public, loaded with misleading statements and poor public relations. The events of the past year have led me to NOT believe most (if not all) of what the gas industry says, as they appear to be operating from a different planet. A planet where the gas industry thinks that people who can see through their charade are “environmentalists” (as if this were some kind of dirty word) or people too “simple” to read between the lines when “frac facts” are spouted about by the industry--"facts" that later turn out to be “wishful thinking”.

Know now, gas industry, that you screwed up big time when you decided to alienate the very people that could have been on your side if you had just been honest from the beginning and not tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. It will be a cold day in hell before I believe anything you write at face value again.

“Gangs of New York
Tags: Energy In Depth, Hydraulic fracturing, Kill the Drill, Marcellus shale, Scott Stringer
10.November.2009adminNo Comments
Flush with falsehoods and hyperbole, anti-energy activists promise to “overwhelm the DEC” at NY Marcellus hearings this week”

More like armed with facts and not happy speculations, the anti-pollution activists promise to overwhelm the DEC with enlightenment.

“The problem for the dog that chases the car, it’s often said, is that sometimes he catches it.
Just ask your neighborhood anti-energy activist in New York. Bowing to pressure last week, the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced it was extending by 30 days the public comment period on the agency’s draft regulations governing the safe development of clean-burning natural gas from the Marcellus – a review and rule-making process that has already gone on for the better part of three years.”

And why shouldn't the DEC extend a comment period on a document that is over 800 pages long and loaded with details that need to be understood and researched so that people can be able to comment on their merit. Only available online, the 800 plus page document is available for reading without the use of a computer at only 61 locations throughout the State. That is one location for every 340,000 residents. Certainly, fair minded people can agree that free access to a document such as this is important for both people with and without computers. The time extension is certainly warranted for this reason and for the reason that NYC is ALSO doing another study of the issues surrounding gas drilling that won't be ready until late December. Given those facts, it would be foolish for the DEC to not extend the deadline to at least allow for the possibility that the NYC report would contain some valuable information as it will be prepared by independent sources NOT utilized by the DEC. Add all this to the fact that the gas industry thus far has NO problem with this draft SGEIS document and so one can reasonably assume it must contain a number of regulations that go easy on the gas industry.

FACT: The process for the SGEIS report may have been three years, but the document was only released to the public September 30th from the DEC. How could anyone know what the DEC is doing about an issue until they publish it? Don't mislead people into believing that the “process” began three years ago. From the citizen's perspective, the process began the day the SGEIS was released to the public and not a day before.

"It was a demand made predominantly by those who oppose the safe conversion of these homegrown energy resources into jobs, revenue and opportunity for New Yorkers – on philosophical grounds, for the most part. Naturally, the extension was granted, and as expected, environmentalists across the state applauded DEC for taking the time to get things right. Right?"

No one opposes SAFE energy. What people are objecting to is the misinformation generated by the gas industry that this new method, only in limited use for approximately 5 years is supposedly SAFE. Where is the proof? Why the rush to get regulations enacted without time to review the matter? Why the rush to make certain that these regulations are put in place before every aspect of this process is understood by the people that will be living with the consequences of this drilling for 10, 20 or 30 years or more? Drilling damage to landscapes that may go on for years and years until every ounce of gas is extracted. What is the rush?
A reasonable person might conclude that the gas industry may prefer to have things rushed rather than be under any scrutiny that they will have trouble defending against. What is the industry trying to hide under the rug? Could it be the Haliburton Loophole, where they can use dangerous chemicals in the fracking process and not be required (as other industries are) to comply with the Clean Drinking Water Act? Or could it be the excess levels of radiation, only found in NY shale, that studies done in other parts of the country did not address, and the DEC has not DONE any studies of this in NY shale, so no one knows about it. Could it be that the gas industry prefers that the DEC relies on outdated, inaccurate information like the radiation question in the SGEIS report, so that all of these problems are swept under the rug along with the poisons and potential Love Canals to come?

“Not exactly. Turns out the anti-energy crowd had no trouble catching the bumper; what it really wanted, though, was the car. And driver. This letter to the editor, typical of these groups’ response to the 30-day extension, was posted last week in the Elmira Star-Gazette:
[DEC’s] 30-day extension … falls short. A more sensible approach would be a gas drilling moratorium pending completion of a study of the issue by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Put aside the fact that EPA actually did conduct a five-year-long study of the technology involved in shale gas development, released to the public in 2004. Put aside the fact that the agency found this technology to be categorically safe, capable of posing “little or no threat” to supplies of drinking water residing thousands – in some cases, tens of thousands – of feet from areas in which fracturing activities take place.”

Glad you are willing to put this issue aside with all the other half-truths typical of the gas industry documents I have read. The report done in 2004 did not address any of the issues currently on the table now. Which is precisely why the SGEIS was initiated in the first place, so that some of the issues LEFT OUT of the previous report could be addressed.

“Put aside the fact that hydraulic fracturing has been in commercial use for more than 60 years now, not once in that time having been credibly tied to the contamination of drinking water.”

FACT: There is a distinction between hydraulic fracturing “in use for 60 years” and the type of high-volume horizontal hydrofracking that will be in use in the Marcellus Shale in NY State. I wish the gas industry would stop spouting this misleading information. The technology HAS NOT, I repeat HAS NOT been in use for 60 years. That very fact is what the gas industry spouts from its own mouthpiece, as long as they are talking to investors and the stock market industry. Check any financial page, and you will see thousands of articles about the “new fracking technology” for Marcellus Shale. How these “new” and “improved” and “different” methods will make shale gas profitable. Yet to the environmental groups, and to the State regulators around the country the song is quite different—it is a “safe technology, same as in use for 60 years, 80 years, 100 years” So which is it? Who are you trying to hose? The investors or the politicians? Where is the truth?

Put aside all that. The real motivation here has nothing to do with comment periods, oversight, studies, or public participation. What it has everything to do with is shutting the process down – cold, hard and fast. And though it took them a while to work up the courage to say so, some activists in New York – including the president of the Manhattan Borough – are starting to ‘fess up to that true intent of this entire campaign:
Join Manhattan Borough president Scott Stringer’s Kill the Drill campaign. … Please join us at a rally and press conference in front of the school at 5:00pm.

The real motivation has everything to do with comment periods, oversight, studies and participation. If the facts are really in your favor, then why the rush? Why not let the process include the people's input? The very FACT that you have a problem with people taking advantage of their rights as citizens to object to issues, clearly demonstrates to reasonable people that the gas industry has something to hide. Therefore, the only SAFE and PRUDENT thing to do would be to shut down the drilling until the FACTS, the unbiased FACTS can be determined in a reasonable manner. When people don't play fair, they shouldn't get to play. Everything the gas industry has done so far indicates that there is more to this story that is hidden away somewhere. The rushing to get leases signed, the misinformation, the downplaying of various “problems” around the country all spell trouble, and spell a process that the people need to be wary of. This is obvious and should be to anyone that takes the time to read the various loopholes that the gas industry gets to walk through when other industries have to play by the rules.

“Scott Stringer’s “Kill the Drill” campaign? Doesn’t sound much like Scott Stringer’s “Extend the Comment Period” campaign to us. Of course, if Mr. Stringer was the only source of information we had on the safety and performance of hydraulic fracturing, we’d be worried about the process as well. This week, he posted a snazzy new video on the Huffington Post claiming that shale gas exploration “causes mini-earthquakes to extract the gas.” Worse than that, the process has contaminated “watersheds across the nation with plastics, carcinogens, mutagens, and endocrine disrupting chemicals.”

FACT: There are no studies of high-volume, hydrofracking in the Marcellus shale in New York State. All studies to date reflect a number of things that the gas industry would prefer that people not know about. They would prefer if people didn't know about the Halliburton loophole which prevents Federal monitoring of gas drilling activity near drinking water. The gas industry would also like people to believe that studies of well sites in unpopulated areas are just as accurate and can be applied to populated areas of NY State. No one knows what the differences will be in NY, because the gas industry has not done the type and scale of drilling that they intend to do here in NY. ALL DATA and all studies are from other parts of the country. Places that are less populated. Places where the geology is different. Places where the radiation levels in the shale are lower. Places where open pits for spent drilling water are easier to evaporate. Places where open pits are not subjected to rains and floods. Places where livestock and deer can't get into the pits and drink from them as easily as they can in NY State because of our terrain. Places where spent drilling water can be injected into old wells...NY geology is different, and the gas companies can't re-inject toxic spent frac water here in NY. What will they do with this water? No one knows. It hasn't been studied here. There is no data. No one knows the earthquake risks around here either, as that also has not been studied.
I think reasonable people can agree that data from situations other than NY is problematic when applying it to NY. It would be reasonable then to get new studies done, focusing on NY specific information. That is what the SGEIS was trying to do, but it has failed in that regard, as it is also using data from other parts of the country. That data may be OK to use in some instances, but not in others. So it is prudent for people to ask the questions, and get the answers about all the issues surrounding the drilling BEFORE drilling is allowed to proceed.

"Of course, it’s doubtful that Mr. Stringer caught the piece in the Dallas Morning News this past August debunking the claim that fracturing has anything to do with earthquakes. And naturally, he doesn’t take the time in his video or accompanying press release to back up his assertion that “secret” fracturing activities have contaminated “watersheds across the nation.”
But just in case his curiosity gets the better of him: DEC lists the materials used in the process here (page 130); Pennsylvania’s DEP does the same; the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) offers up the following on its site (page 62); and Energy In Depth breaks it down in a fact sheet as well."

FACT: There will be a number of drillers in NY State. The promises and “disclosures” offered by SOME of the drilling companies offer no reassurance that ALL drilling companies will be using the same recipe for their drilling fluids stated in these documents. Halliburton has stated that it will NOT comply with any efforts to reveal it's own recipe. Unless the entire gas industry is forced into some compliance, these little “disclosures” do little to protect the residents of NY State. If you want to test your well water in advance, and then try to prove contamination later on, these “disclosures” won't hold up in court, and neither will any other “generic” recipes, as each driller will use its own proportion of chemicals depending on the specifics of the well that they are drilling. The only way to know for certain if contamination has occurred is to force the drillers to use tracers so that water migrations can be monitored, and so that once and for all the people can be protected from evasive maneuvers in court and at regulatory agencies trying to “prove” something that is difficult to prove without tracers.

"One last point about Mr. Stringer’s “rally and press conference” going down at 5:00 pm: That’s happening TODAY at 5:00 pm, at Stuyvesant High School on Chambers Street in New York City. And it’s shaping up to be quite a party, too. This “tweet” comes from a major anti-energy activist in the state:

WE MUST OVERWHELM THE DEC AT THE NOV. 10TH MEETING ON DRAFT SGEIS AT STUYVESANT HIGH SCHOOL 6PM, 345 CHAMBERS ST – BE THERE & FIGHT THE FRAC!

Maybe when we’re done with that, perhaps we can fight the caps lock as well?"

Only a desperate writer would resort to ad hominem attacks on the caps lock, or lack thereof. If the facts were really in their favor, the gas industry would not be looking to defend themselves behind some perceived lack of netiquette.

Notwithstanding the circus expected tonight, New York residents interested in showing up to defend their property rights and speak out in support of responsible energy access have a few more bites at the apple in the weeks ahead. This schedule, posted on DEC’s website and excerpted below, is up-to-date. Additionally, folks can go here to submit a comment (until Dec. 31) – one we’re told will actually be read by someone in the department.

Tuesday, November 10, Stuyvesant High School, NYC

Thursday, November 12, Chenango Valley High School, Chenango Bridge, NY

Wednesday, November 18, Corning East High School, Corning, NY 14830.

So there you have it: The battle lines have been drawn, and the dates, times and venues for the fight have been established. Now it’s up to us to show. We know they will. And we know they’ll be in need of some half-decent facts when they get there."

On this last bit, we can all agree. The ball is in your court, Citizens of New York State. I would encourage you to seek out information from both sides and try to separate the fracturing facts from the fracking fiction. I hope you will come to the conclusion that I have, and realize that more regulations need to be in place before millions of gallons of water are removed from the ground, landscapes changed, air and water polluted by the inevitable 20 in 1000 gas well accidents that WILL happen. There WILL be toxic accidents. There WILL be drilling fires. There WILL be drilling companies doing illegal dumping of radioactive water or other companies illegally burying waste pits. There will be thousands of wells built, and only 14 DEP inspectors to police them all.

Therefore, the real question is, where do you want these “accidents” to happen New York? Is it worth the risk? Or should we wait for better technology to get that gas? We don't need it all, right now, today. Would reasonable, prudent people decide that un-needed drilling today might sacrifice water and resources we may need tomorrow?

Fracking Anthem

2009-11-04T16:24:00.001-08:00

Taxation Vexation

2009-10-27T20:23:00.001-07:00

It is a mystery to me after seeing the following articles, why the gas industry seems to be getting a "tax break" from the governments of Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia,and Maryland. Other states have seen fit to tax the profits of gas companies that remove valuable resources from the ground. In this economic downturn, one might make the case that these 4 states want to attract drillers to the state, so they are giving them a break. But it's not like these companies will go someplace else if they can't drill, would they? Not every state has the Marcellus Shale bed, so I can't figure out why in the world the gas companies would need an "incentive" to drill in NY when its pretty obvious that they have come here on their own spending lots of time and money buying up land and making leasing deals. Doesn't make much sense to give breaks to companies that will be tearing up roads with thousands of water trucks, doing environmental damage that they may not be able to pay for, and creating all kinds of extra costs for the state to monitor the work of the drillers. Why give them a break? People should be asking the Governor and everyone else in Albany why the gas industry is not going to be paying their fair share of taxes like every other industry doing business in the state. Something doesn't smell right here, and it ain't just the methane.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090925_Daniel_Rubin__Why_the_break_for_shale_gas_.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/gallery/Taxing_the_Natural-Gas_Industry.html?view=graphic

Great Videos About Fracking for Natural Gas

2009-10-25T19:36:00.000-07:00

Is Hydraulic Hydrofracturing of Natural Gas Safe?

Is Hydraulic Hydrofracing Safe? from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Pit Contamination Issues

2009-10-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

Pit Contamination Issues from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Why Gas Well Casings Might Fail

2009-10-24T17:47:00.000-07:00

Structure of Hydrofracked Wells from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

What is in those Frack Fluids Anyway?

2009-10-24T15:49:00.000-07:00

Toxic Frack Fluids from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Why NY State's Marcellus Shale is Different

2009-10-24T14:51:00.000-07:00

What makes NY State shale different than other gas drilling areas around the country? Do we want to experiment with drilling BEFORE we know how these differences might create problems like toxic contamination of drinking water?

Why Hydrofracking in Shales is Different from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Yes, Virginia, there IS Radiation in those Gas Wells

2009-10-23T19:54:00.000-07:00

Many people concerned about fracking of natrual gas in NY State are concerned with the content of the fracking fluid. This video describes the reason why it isn't just the fluid going DOWN the well we need to be concerned about, but also what the drilling picks up on the way out. Radiation in the spent fracking fluid. How will this toxic frack water be disposed? Where? What if there is a spill? Who will clean up this mess once it happens? (And it's pretty certain to happen) Love Canal was NEVER fully cleaned up to this day, even with Federal intervention. Take a lesson from history, New York. Don't let dumping of hazardous waste sicken and kill people again.

Radiation in Hydrofracked Wells from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Toxins found in Gas Wells

2009-10-23T17:02:00.000-07:00

Toxins in Hydrofracked Wells from Fight The Frack on Vimeo.

Extend The Comment Period!

2009-10-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

Please call Governor Paterson, DEC Commissioner Grannis, and your State Assembly member and Senator and demand that the comment period on the Department of Environmental Conservation Report- "Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program" (SGEIS) be extended. The report is 800 pages long and the comment period is only for another month--this desperately needs to be extended so that citizens and organizations have the time that they need to fully read the document and comment on it.

Please telephone the Governor, and your representative and tell them the following:

1.Your name and your town/city.
2. That the DEC must extend the comment period on the SGEIS to 120 days.
3. That the DEC must hold at least 7 public hearings in affected regions, including New York City.

Numbers to call:

Governor Paterson: 518-474-8390

DEC Commissioner Grannis: 518-402-8545

Your State Assembly member: to find their phone number here:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/

Your State Senator: To find out their phone number here:

http://www.nysenate.gov/senators

Another Love Canal in the Making

2009-10-15T21:00:00.000-07:00

This video was taken 23 days after EnCana completed a hydraulic fracturing operation. The liner is removed, some of the frackwater is pumped out but the remainder is just left and buried under the soil. Unless someone is watching every single cleanup, every single time, how will these drillers be policed? How will they get fines when no one sees what is UNDER the soil. Just like Love Canal, 20 years may go by, and the brutal past will be uncovered when someone gets sick, or water gets contaminated. Where will the drillers be then? Will anyone be able to sue them for damages at that point? NY State has less than 20 DEC inspectors for the ENTIRE State. Do you trust that the gas companies will ALWAYS do the right thing, every single time when they know that no one is going to be watching them?

Just Plain Disturbing

2009-10-12T23:07:00.000-07:00

This video is just plain disturbing and makes me wonder if many cancers that people get could be explained by their consumption of Texas beef. Makes me think twice about eating any free range animals, if their range includes open pits filled with toxic frack water. How many years has this been going on? Scientists like to blame the consumption of meat for many health problems; maybe meat would be OK to eat if it isn't filled with frac water.

The larger issue here is that regulations can only do so much. Common sense goes a lot further. If the gas industry wants any respect at all, it should be eliminating ALL CHANCES of things like this from occurring. We can't expect "regulations" to be enforced. So regulations need to be enforcement proof, meaning that they add common sense solutions that prevent stupidity from occurring. Common sense would say, NO MORE OPEN PITS that animals can get into, or that leak or that have to be cleaned up. Just get the toxic water into a secure container, and OUT of there the very next day. It's time for some sense in the industry, or make THEM eat the frack enriched beef.

Great Letter to the NYS DEC

2009-10-09T21:44:00.000-07:00

The following are portions of a letter by Wilma Subra, MacArthur (Genius) Award winning chemist, and author of the blog Splashdown PA. You can read the entire letter here:

Splashdown PA

Ms. Subra offers the following information to the NY State Senate Committee on Environmental Conservation's Clean Water Hearing:

Hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale requires large quantities of water. Vertical wells require in excess of one million gallons per fracturing event. Horizontal wells require more the three million gallons of water for each fracturing event. The water resources needed for fracturing come from surface water resources and/or groundwater resources. The use of surface water resources frequently impact the hydrology of the surface water bodies. Depending on the number of wells being fractured in a particular water body segment, the withdrawal of large quantities of surface water could substantially impact the availability of the surface water resources downstream, and damage the aquatic life in the surface water bodies. When groundwater resources are used in the fracturing process, the groundwater aquifers can be drawn down and result in water wells in the area going dry.

It is essential when a facility applies for a permit to drill a well in the Marcellus Shale that the regulations require that the permit requirements include identification of the source of hydraulic fracturing water and quantity of water to be used. The regulations must also require that the agencies within the state that have jurisdictions over surface water hydrology/resources and groundwater resources must review the permit information and concur or object to the use of the water resource based on proposed removal of the anticipated quantities of water. Concurrence by the appropriate agencies must insure that the removal of the water will not negatively impact the water resource.

"Hydraulic Fracturing generates a large quantity of flowback water during and following the Hydraulic Fracturing process. The flowback waters contains and are contaminated with fracturing chemicals and fluids that were incorporated into the water prior to the fracturing process. The specific chemical compounds that are contained in the additives used in the Hydraulic Fracturing fluids are not publicly available. There is a desperate need for the specific chemicals in each fracturing material to be identified for use by emergency responders, evaluation of chemical components in chemical spills, identification of specific chemicals causing damage to humans and animals, identification of chemicals in spills into surface water and groundwater resources, and identification of chemicals in drinking water resources. The state of New York should adopt regulations requiring full disclosure of chemicals contained in drilling and fracturing fluids"

"New York should evaluate the adequacy of the locations and capacity of treatment and disposal options available for handling waste water and flowback water from Marcellus Shale drilling and production activities."

The mismanagement of flowback water and produced water can result in negative impacts to surface water and groundwater resources due to spills and leaks on the drilling site, during off site transportation and at the disposal or treatment facility. Inappropriate treatment regulatory requirements or regulatory discharge limitations not covering all of the chemical constituents in the waste water can result in impairment of surface water resources down stream of the treatment facility discharge point.

"The concentration of chemicals in the flowback water are more concentrated that the normal wastewater stream being treated by the waste water treatment facilities and the resulting effluent from the plants have a very detrimental impact on the receiving waters."

Storage of flowback water and drilling waste water on the drilling site in pits can greatly increase the risk of contamination of groundwater, soils and surface water resources. If unlined or improperly lined pits are used on site to store waste the waste can leach into the soil and groundwater resources under the drill site. In improperly lined pits or pits that have had the integrity of the liner compromised, the waste in the pit can contaminate soil and ground water resources.

"New York should encourage a preference for the use of tanks for storage of waste on the drill site rather than pits and the use of closed-loop systems to reduce of eliminate the quantity of drilling muds and fluids dumped into pits on site."

The State of New York should adopt regulations that require the reporting of the horizontal and vertical extent of fracturing to insure that the fracturing activity did not extend fractures outside of the targeted formation. In addition, a requirement for the reporting of the volume of Hydraulic Fracturing fluids remaining in the fractured formation after hydraulic fracturing along with the complete disclosure of chemicals in the fracturing fluids will enable the State to track potential chemicals that may migrate and be detected outside of the fracturing zones.

In order to prevent migration of fracturing fluids out of the designated fracturing formation, a regulatory mechanism should be instituted to identify and evaluate the locations of orphan and abandoned well sites in the area of the proposed wells and in the areas to be fractured.

Natural gas condensate is produced with natural gas. The condensates contain extremely toxic volatile organic compounds such as benzene (a known human cancer causing agent), xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene and other probable and possible cancer causing agents. These toxic chemicals are releases into the air from the gas separation process and tank storage of condensates. Produced water stored in tanks release methane, toxic volatile organic chemicals and sulfur based compounds into the air. Elevated ozone levels result in increased respiratory impacts for community member in the area. Even though the call for this hearing is clean water, the potential for air emissions to negatively impact water quality is an important issue that must be considered.

With the hugh focus on drilling and production of shale gas in the Marcellus Shale, the regulatory agencies in the State of New York need to be provided with adequate resources and staff to review, evaluate, and issue appropriate permits for shale gas wells. The agencies also need sufficient resources and staff to observe field activities during drilling and fracturing processes, perform compliance monitoring, respond to citizens complaints and enforce the regulations in order to protect water resources and human health.

Fracking Realities

2009-10-08T20:46:00.001-07:00

The gas industry would have New Yorkers believe that "a few" wells won't bother the beautiful landscapes of New York State. They offer photos like the the one below as an example of what a well site would look like:

The reality is much different, however. As many people have begun to see what is happening in other states, one has to question exactly what will happen here in NY State if there is a "gold rush" on drilling. Many, many, wells could be built, on top of the 9,000 or so that we already have. These wells would be located near each other, because (a)it makes it easier for the gas companies to do their work at multiple sites close together, and (b) because right now, there are NO LIMITS put on how many gas wells can be built in an area, or in the whole state. There should be limits on how many wells can be near each other, and limits on how many are in operation at any given time; for safety's sake and for the preservation of one of the most beautiful parts of the country. If something is not done to make certain that gas drilling is limited, New York State could wind up looking a lot like this:

Fracking in the News

2009-10-06T19:37:00.000-07:00

Take note. The gas industry spokesman said that vertical and horizontal drilling is the same. This is not true. Horizontal drilling uses more water, chemicals, and everything else to do the job. They have to, as they have to drill deeper, and drill at a curve. They fracture more times too, because there is more rock to fracture when you go horizontally.

The gas industry spokesman also said that we shouldn't worry about too many wells being built because it will take 10, 20 years to build "all these wells". So I guess everyone's children will have to worry about NY State looking like a moon landscape from too many wells. Somewhat like this:

Support The Frac Act

2009-10-05T20:00:00.000-07:00

Through a loophole in the Safe Water Drinking Act, the gas drilling industry has been enjoying an exemption which allows them to keep the contents of the fracking fluid that they use during drilling secret. The hydraulic fracturing process was exempted from federal water laws by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This exemption prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from effectively investigating cases of pollution, and in effect prevents monitoring of the safety of the hydrofracking process. This non-disclosure policy is also a big problem for local environmental protection agencies, as they can not adequately deal with environmental accidents at the well sites, as well as test for possible contamination of ground water. Citizens and public officials have a right to know what is in these fluids or how will they be able to test to see that they are cleaned up correctly when they are spilled or inadvertently get into aquifers and groundwater?

There is a bill now pending in Congress called the FRAC Act.The bill was introduced by Diana DeGette , D-Colo., Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., and will be debated inside the House Energy and Commerce Committee. There is a Senate version by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. This legislation will close the loophole and force the gas industry to disclose what the actual components are in the fracking fluid. This legislation will also address the unfair economic advantage given to the gas industry. Other industries must comply with EPA regulations. Why the loophole for this particular industry? There is no reason given for this unfair exemption, when every other manufacturing industry has to comply with EPA and Safe Drinking Water regulations.

The gas industry claims that this legislation will increase their costs and negatively impact the industry. But think about it. What price do YOU put on clean, safe, drinking water?

The following is a draft of a letter that you can copy and paste and send to your State Legislators: (thanks to Catskill Citizens for Safe Engergy)

Dear Representative XXXX;

I am writing you to ask you to strongly support H 2766/S1215, called the "FRAC Act." This is vital legislation that will restore the federal regulations that protected our drinking water for over 30 years before the oil and gas industries secured exemptions to it under the 2005 Energy Act.

As you may be aware, shale gas extraction relies on a process known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Millions of gallons of chemically treated water ("fracking fluid") are pumped into the well bore to break up the rock formation that contains the gas. Despite industry claims to the contrary, the amount of chemicals used is significant. A May 2009 report published by the U.S. Geological Survey states:

"Whereas the percentage of chemical additives in a typical hydrofrac fluid is commonly less than 0.5 percent by volume, the quantity of fluid used in these hydrofracs is so large that the additives in a three million gallon hydrofrac job, for example, would result in about 15,000 gallons of chemical in the waste.

A single horizontal gas well may use up to 6 million gallons of water and 30,000 gallons of chemicals every time it is "fracked"-and most wells are fracked multiple times.

For any given well, drillers may use dozens of different chemicals in their fracking fluid. Some of these chemicals are biocides, some are lubricants, some anti-rust agents. Many are highly toxic. Spillage, flooding, defective well casings, improper disposal, and underground fluid migration are some of the ways these toxic fluids can, and do, find their way into our drinking water. "

The USGS report quoted above also said:

"While the… use of sophisticated hydraulic fracturing processes to extract gas resources from tight rock have improved over the past few decades, the knowledge of how this extraction might affect water resources has not kept pace."

And an April 2009 report by the Community Science Institute of Ithaca, New York, concluded:

"There is solid evidence that gas wells have contaminated drinking wells in the past. However very few systematic studies have been done."

The Community Science Institute recently estimated that anywhere from 1 to 5% of water wells in the vicinity of gas wells will become contaminated. The Penn State Cooperative Extension put the figure at 8%.

Last spring, in response to numerous complaints of changes in water quality and quantity, the EPA conducted a study in Pavillion, Wyoming, where the Canadian corporation EnCana has been carrying out extensive fracking operations. The EPA tested thirty-nine water wells and found that eleven of them were contaminated with a variety of chemicals, including methane and 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), which is a known constituent in fracking fluids. Methane is highly combustible, and 2-BE is an organic solvent used in paints and cleaning products. By federal law, employers are required to inform their employees when they are working with 2-Butoxyethanol.

With hydraulic fracturing now underway in thirty-five states, it is clear that a significant portion of the nation's potable water is at risk. Just last year, gas companies began fracturing operations in the Delaware River Basin, which supplies seventeen million Americans with their drinking water. We simply cannot afford to let this vital resource be jeopardized by dangerous, unregulated industrial activity.

One provision of the FRAC Act would require gas companies to disclose the chemicals they inject into the ground. Needless to say, this information is absolutely necessary in order to test for and detect contaminants in drinking water. Industry claims that this is proprietary information cannot be allowed to trump public health and safety.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the oil and gas industry insists that fracking doesn't pose a threat to our drinking water. In fact, it claims to have safely performed over one million hydraulic fractures with no adverse environmental effects. Now, faced with the prospect of once again being required to comply with the SDWA, oil and gas lobbyists are loudly complaining that they can't function if they have to worry about drinking water contamination. Frankly, it's impossible to square this claim with their assertion that fracking is perfectly safe. It is also impossible to reconcile the industry's claim to have successfully conducted hundreds of thousands of fracking jobs between 1974 and 2005 (when the procedure was regulated) with the assertion that re-regulation would somehow cause massive job losses.

The oil and gas industry insists it must be exempted from the same rules that govern every other sector of our economy. For reasons never clearly articulated, their lobbyists assert that regulation of their industry is best left to the states. It's easy to see why energy companies would prefer to deal with state regulators-understaffed and underfunded state agencies are simply no match for the richest and most powerful corporations in the world.

The days when the fate of our environment could be left to local governments or the tender mercies of large corporations are long past. Two generations ago, we recognized that our land, air, and water required the protections embodied in landmark legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. These federal statutes are nothing less than our promise to future generations of Americans.

If you have already shown your support for the FRAC Act by co-sponsoring the bill, I am deeply appreciative. If you have not already demonstrated your commitment to safe drinking water for all Americans, please co-sponsor this bill today.

Sincerely,

The FRAC-ACT (HR2766/S1215)
To find to your Congressperson's contact infomation:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To find your State Senator's contact information:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

What You Can Do to Stop the Drilling

2009-10-03T00:52:00.000-07:00

On September 30, 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released its long-awaited draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on “Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs.”

Public Comments:

There is a 60-day public comment period ending on November 30. DEC says it will soon announce the times and locations for a series of “Public Information Sessions” during which written comments may be submitted in person. There does not appear to be any means for submitting oral comments.

The complexity and length of this document are immense, and it is still worth pressuring the DEC and the governor to extend the comment period to 90 days, as U.S. Representative Hinchey recommends. Please call DEC (518-402-8540) and Governor Paterson (518-474-8390) to request this.

Throughout the comment period, you may submit comments in the following ways:

(1) through an on-line system, in which you can tag your comments to specific parts of the SGEIS, and can attach supporting documents: http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/SGEISComments/

(2) via email: dmnsgeis@gw.dec.state.ny.us

(3) in writing, to:

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

Links:

Full Draft SGEIS (809 pages, pdf): ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/OGdSGEISFull.pdf

DEC Press Release (9/30/09) on Release of Draft SGEIS
http://readme.readmedia.com/news/show/DEC-Proposes-New-Safety-Measures-Mitigation-Strategies-to-Govern-Potential-Marcellus-Shale-Drilling/959276
Note that the wording in this press release leaves much open to debate (for example, to whom will fracking fluid composition be disclosed?). Also, a quick scan of the SGEIS turns up contradictory language as to whether or not steel-lined tanks are required for all on-site storage of flowback fluids. Only a careful reading of the 809-page document over the next few days and weeks will clarify some of these issues.

Suggestions and Resources to Help You Make Comments:

(1) Rational comments, based on specific content are most effective.

(2) Support your comments with documentation, when possible.

(3) Comment on positive as well as negative content.
Undoubtedly, the gas industry will be screaming and lobbying to weaken many of the regulations, so citizens must mention both provisions they want to see kept, and provisions they would like to see strengthened or changed.

(4) Comments and testimony on the Final Scope, submitted in December 2008:
These comments are detailed and well-written, and were submitted by environmental agencies and experts after careful scrutiny of the Final Scope. Many of the same points will need to be reiterated, if they were not adequately addressed in the SGEIS.
http://www.tcgasmap.org/default.asp?metatags_Action=Find(%27PID%27,%278%27)#Draft%20Scope

Background Information on the SGEIS, GEIS, and Final Scope:

Oil and Gas drilling in New York is currently regulated by a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) written by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in 1992 (Link: GEIS). But the specific extraction processes to be used on the Marcellus Shale (horizontal drilling combined with slick water hydraulic fracturing) pose dramatically greater environmental risks than conventional drilling and were not addressed in 1992. Thus, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), companies wishing to extract gas by slick water hydraulic fracturing must carry out an Environmental Impact Statement for each well site.
The SGEIS, however, covers the use of slick water hydraulic fracturing. By setting statewide regulations for drilling in the Marcellus Shale (and other similar shale layers), the SGEIS streamlines permitting and allows companies to proceed without doing individual Environmental Impact Statements for each well site. Once all the comments are in, the DEC will produce a final SGEIS, and a flood of drilling permits are expected to be approved soon after that.
In February 2009, after public comment on a draft version, the DEC produced a document called the Final Scope (Link: Final Scope), which set out in great detail which topics would be covered in the SGEIS, and which would not be covered (such as pipeline siting, health effects, and regulation enforcement). It also gives a good summary of current drilling regulations and procedures.

From Outdoor Forum at Canaan Institute, Ithaca:

http://www.canaaninstitute.org/bikeski/viewtopic.php?t=343

Love Canal 2020

2009-10-02T00:03:00.000-07:00

The danger is looming. All across New York State, across an area known as the Marcellus Shale Bed, there is the potential for another Love Canal to be upon the residents of New York.

A time bomb is ticking beneath the soil, waiting...waiting.

The time bomb is natural gas. The natural gas that is found in the Marcellus Shale. In order to get that gas out of the ground, New York residents will be subjected to events that have never been experienced in the quiet hillsides, and clean streams around the state. People do not know that once the drilling begins, there is a potential for an environmental accident like the State has not seen since the days of Love Canal.

Right now, there is a battle brewing between those that wish to drill and those that don't. The battle is more than one about property rights, money, or economic development. The battle is really about whether or not New Yorkers want to risk ruining their drinking water, and the drinking water of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Drilling near the watershed, where over 8 million people satisfy their thirst, is an abomination that can not be allowed to go forward. The new process of drilling for gas, called Hydraulic Fracturing, has never been extensively tested in the New York area, and no one knows for certain if it will be safe. Safety records in other states mean nothing, as the landscape of New York State is very different. The technology is not yet ready to be introduced into an area as sensitive and populated as New York State. The industry points to a safety record of between 95% and 98% for their drilling methods.

That means 20 out of every 1000 wells that are drilled will have a problem. That problem could be the contamination of NYC drinking water or any local lake, river or stream in the State.

This is unacceptable.

Hydrofracking in NY State must be stopped.

Remember Love Canal

2009-10-01T16:16:00.000-07:00

The story of Love Canal began in the 1950's, when homes were built on property that was located near a chemical waste dump in Western New York State. Most families who moved into the area were unaware that there was an old landfill underneath their homes. The canal area looked pristine, yet hidden beneath it were 20,000 tons of toxic waste.

In 1978, there were about 800 private homes and 240 low-income apartments built around the canal. An elementary school was built on the actual site of the landfill as well. People began to complain of odors and substances surfacing in their yards and on the school playground. The city, responding to these complaints, visited the area and covered the area with dirt. Eventually, they were forced to investigate the site, and found toxic chemical residues in the air and in sump pumps of a number of homes at the southern end of the canal in 1976. Drums filled with chemicals, that had been buried, were also found to be surfacing all over the area. It was also determined that high levels of PCB's were in the storm sewer system. Yet nothing was done by the city at that time. They only placed window fans in a few homes that were found to contain high levels of chemical residues.

In March of 1978, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) did testing of the area and of the 239 families that immediately encircled the canal. The Health Department found an increase in reproductive problems among women and high levels of chemical contaminants in soil and air. Studies done by the homeowners association also found that miscarriages increased 300% in women living in the area of the canal, and there were almost three times as many birth defects.
During the 5-year period from 1974 to 1978, 56% of the children in the Love Canal neighborhood were born with a birth defect , including babies with three ears, double rows of teeth, and mental retardation. It was also noted that out of 22 pregnancies occurring among Love Canal women, only four normal babies were born. The rest of the pregnancies ended in a miscarriage, stillbirth or a birth-defected child.

Many of the chemicals that were found in Love Canal are known to affect the kidneys and the urinary system. Studies showed an increase of almost 300% in urinary tract disorders in children living in this area. The State health authorities quickly dismissed the homeowner's association studies calling them "useless housewife data," and said that residents' illnesses were "all in their heads, the birth defects were genetic, and the urinary diseases the result of sexual activity", (even though the urinary problems were found in children!).

Residents were outraged at the State response and wrote letters, and created pressure and public outcry. Finally, in February of 1979, the homeowners were vindicated when it was confirmed that the area was hazardous to health. In 1980 a total evacuation of the community was ordered by President Carter. Everyone who lived at Love Canal moved away, with the government purchasing their homes at fair market value.

Love Canal is a lesson about how even with scientific evidence, politicians and government agencies can still deny the reality of a toxic waste situation. If it had not been for the activism of the homeowners association in Love Canal, people would still be living there, and health officials would still be saying that there were no problems with the area. In fact, the area was deemed "habitable" in 1988, even though the area was never cleaned up, and even though a large portion of the area is still closed off. Only the creek and sewer systems were ever cleaned. To this day, 20,000 tons of toxic chemicals still remain in the area and continue to leach into the soil even with the dump being capped. Two treatment plants were built to catch the contaminants, but if there is ever a flood in the area or a large storm, these caps will be washed away and the chemicals will wash into the surrounding areas with them.

In 1995, Hooker Chemical, the company that originally buried the waste in the area was fined $129 million dollars, nearly 20 years after the problem was found. This is another lesson as to why restitution is often too little, too late.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

sources:

http://www.bu.edu/lovecanal/canal/index.html

http://www.chej.org/campaigns.html