New Documentary Celebrates the Voices of the Tar Sands Blockade | NationofChange
February 25, 2013
New Documentary Celebrates the Voices of the Tar Sands Blockade | NationofChange.
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
February 20, 2013
Oct 24th, 2012 | By fjgallagher | Category: Fracking, Lead Articles
Natural gas drilling rigs, similar to the one shown here in Colorado, are destroying thousands of acres of forest in Pennsylvania, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Natural gas drilling activity is destroying thousands of acres of forest in Pennsylvania, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey.
“This type of extensive and long-term habitat conversion has a greater impact on natural ecosystems than activities such as logging or agriculture, given the great dissimilarity between gas-well pad infrastructure and adjacent natural areas and the low probability that the disturbed land will revert back to a natural state in the near future,” the U.S.G.S. report states.
Much of the damage can be traced to the consequences of hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking,” as it is called in the parlance of our time — although the extraction of coal-bed methane has also contributed to the ongoing environmental degredation, the report notes.
Ed. note – If you enjoy the content and coverage provided by NaturalGasWatch.org, please take a moment to click on one of the advertisements on the right-hand side of the page. Your support will help us keep the site up and running. Thanks, fj.
Much of the damage, the report states, stems from fragmentation of the existing forest, where a habitat is divided by roads, drilling pads, pipelines and other infrastructure development associated with fracking into smaller, less functional areas.
From the U.S.G.S. report:
Although many human and natural activities result in habitat fragmentation, gas exploration and development activity can be extreme in their effect on the landscape. Numerous secondary roads and pipeline networks crisscross and subdivide habitat structure. Landscape disturbance associated with shale-gas development infrastructure directly alters habitat through loss, fragmentation, and edge effects, which in turn alters the flora and fauna dependent on that habitat. The fragmentation of habitat is expected to amplify the problem of total habitat area reduction for wildlife species, as well as contribute towards habitat degradation.
The picture, below, (Figure 2 from the U.S.G.S. report) illustrates the effect that fragmentation has on a forest.
A photograph from a recent report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey illustrates the degree of damage done to forest land in Pennsylvania by natural gas drilling activity. The report found that natural gas driling activity is a primary force behind the destruction of Pennsylvania forest land.
The bottom line, according to the report: natural gas drilling has profoundly altered the forest in Pennsylvania.
From the U.S.G.S. report:
The overall landscape effects of natural gas development have been substantial. (emphasis added) Over 9,600 Marcellus Shale gas drilling permits and over 49,500 non-Marcellus Shale permits have been issued from 2000 to 2011 in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2011) and over 2,300 Marcellus Shale permits in West Virginia (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 2011), with most of the development activity occurring since 2005.
With the accompanying areas of disturbance, well pads, new roads, and pipelines from both types of natural gas wells, the effect on the landscape is often dramatic. Figure 2 (below) shows a pattern of landscape change from forest to forest, interspersed with gas extraction infrastructure. These landscape effects have consequences for the ecosystems, wildlife, and human populations that are colocated with natural gas extraction activities.
Read the complete report here: Landscape Consequences of Natural Gas Extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010
February 19, 2013
I just received notification of a March public meeting in Truxton to discuss the Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley. I think it will be important to flood that meeting with concerned citizens from the area.
WHY: The Draft UMPs have been developed to address management activities on State lands. The Hill & Hollow UMP contains Morgan Hill and Kettlebail State Forests as well as Labrador Hollow Unique Area. The Taylor Valley UMP includes: Taylor Valley, Hoxie Gorge, Baker School House, Donahue Woods and Gee Brook State Forests as well as Papish Pond Multiple-Use Area.
The following action by the DEC is proposed in the January 2013 Draft Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/tayvy1.pdf ). Is the DEC anticipating a reversal of the decision not to allow surface activity associated with drilling in our state forests? The final paragraph of page 60 says the following:
“This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.”
Here’s a more extended quote from the Draft Unit Management Plan:
b. Consider future requests for oil and gas leasing using an open public process while protecting natural and recreational resources. Prior to leasing lands in this Unit, an open public process must be followed. This process includes coordination with the Division of Mineral Resources to determine: areas that can be leased with full rights granted (100% surface entry and no special conditions required); areas that may require special environmental and safety conditions; and areas that may be leased with no surface-disturbance/entry conditions (non-drilling clause). The following is a summary of the leasing process of State Forest lands:
Receive requests to nominate specific lands within the Unit for leasing of mineral rights, from interested parties.
Conduct tract assessments of nominated properties to determine where lands are able to support or accommodate related surface disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and extraction. Factors considered during the tract assessment process include the proximity to sensitive resources of the Unit. These resources include, but are not limited to certain management strategies, wetland, riparian zones, steep slopes, recreational trails and areas, unique ecological communities, habitat of rare and endangered species, archeological and cultural sites and scenic vistas and view sheds.
o Apply a hierarchical approach that classifies areas of each State Forest into four categories as part of a tract assessment to be conducted prior to leasing.
§ Category A ‐ Compatible with well pad, road, and utility development. These areas can be considered the least sensitive to surface disturbance and should be considered first for well pad development to limit the overall impact of development. Examples of Category A areas include open fields, conifer plantations, and even-aged management areas.
§ Category B ‐ Uneven-age Management Areas with one well pad per State Forest. These areas are being managed for species that require large blocks of un-fragmented (diameters of temporary openings in the canopy shall be no larger than 2.5 times the height of surrounding trees) forests.
§ Category C ‐ 250-foot stream and designated recreational trail buffers. Not compatible with well pad development; may be compatible with road and utility development.
§ Category D – Infrastructure Exclusion areas. Not compatible with well pad, road, or utility development. These include: ponds, wetlands, spring seeps, and vernal pools with appropriate 250-foot buffers; slopes greater than 15 percent; archeological and cultural concerns; and areas being managed as Natural Areas.
o Prohibit surface disturbance associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.
Is it a coincidence that there has been heavy logging in the state forest next to my home for the past two summers? Well-pad sized sections have been clear-cut or significantly thinned in Kennedy State Forest, and pipeline-width corridors have been cleared of debris. It could be coincidence, but this logging activity was well ahead of scheduled logging in the management plan for Kennedy State Forest (according to conversations I had with the forester). The clearing areas are congruent with the Department’s 2008(?) published maps of “Areas compatible with drilling. ” Now the Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley shows that the DEC is planning for a possible reversal of the prohibition against surface activity associated with hvhf. Has the DEC planned to allow drilling in the state forests all along -despite claims to the contrary in the revised SGEIS?
February 19, 2013
Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan.
I just received notification of a March public meeting in Truxton to discuss the Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley. I think it will be important to flood that meeting with concerned citizens from the area.
The following action by the DEC is proposed in the January 2013 Draft Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/tayvy1.pdf ). Is the DEC anticipating a reversal of the decision not to allow surface activity associated with drilling in our state forests? The final paragraph of page 60 says the following:
“This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.”
Here’s a more extended quote from the Draft Unit Management Plan:
b. Consider future requests for oil and gas leasing using an open public process while protecting natural and recreational resources. Prior to leasing lands in this Unit, an open public process must be followed. This process includes coordination with the Division of Mineral Resources to determine: areas that can be leased with full rights granted (100% surface entry and no special conditions required); areas that may require special environmental and safety conditions; and areas that may be leased with no surface-disturbance/entry conditions (non-drilling clause). The following is a summary of the leasing process of State Forest lands:
Receive requests to nominate specific lands within the Unit for leasing of mineral rights, from interested parties.
Conduct tract assessments of nominated properties to determine where lands are able to support or accommodate related surface disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and extraction. Factors considered during the tract assessment process include the proximity to sensitive resources of the Unit. These resources include, but are not limited to certain management strategies, wetland, riparian zones, steep slopes, recreational trails and areas, unique ecological communities, habitat of rare and endangered species, archeological and cultural sites and scenic vistas and view sheds.
o Apply a hierarchical approach that classifies areas of each State Forest into four categories as part of a tract assessment to be conducted prior to leasing.
§ Category A ‐ Compatible with well pad, road, and utility development. These areas can be considered the least sensitive to surface disturbance and should be considered first for well pad development to limit the overall impact of development. Examples of Category A areas include open fields, conifer plantations, and even-aged management areas.
§ Category B ‐ Uneven-age Management Areas with one well pad per State Forest. These areas are being managed for species that require large blocks of un-fragmented (diameters of temporary openings in the canopy shall be no larger than 2.5 times the height of surrounding trees) forests.
§ Category C ‐ 250-foot stream and designated recreational trail buffers. Not compatible with well pad development; may be compatible with road and utility development.
§ Category D – Infrastructure Exclusion areas. Not compatible with well pad, road, or utility development. These include: ponds, wetlands, spring seeps, and vernal pools with appropriate 250-foot buffers; slopes greater than 15 percent; archeological and cultural concerns; and areas being managed as Natural Areas.
o Prohibit surface disturbance associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.
Is it a coincidence that there has been heavy logging in the state forest next to my home for the past two summers? Well-pad sized sections have been clear-cut or significantly thinned in Kennedy State Forest, and pipeline-width corridors have been cleared of debris. It could be coincidence, but this logging activity was well ahead of scheduled logging in the management plan for Kennedy State Forest (according to conversations I had with the forester). The clearing areas are congruent with the Department’s 2008(?) published maps of “Areas compatible with drilling. ” Now the Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley shows that the DEC is planning for a possible reversal of the prohibition against surface activity associated with hvhf. Has the DEC planned to allow drilling in the state forests all along -despite claims to the contrary in the revised SGEIS?
BA
February 15, 2013
SkyTruth Custom Alert FeedThe following SkyTruth Alerts incidents have been reported in your selected geographical area since the last update was sent. |
Administrative violation issued on 2013-02-13 to Southwestern Energy Prod Co in Stevens Twp, Bradford county. 78.12 – Oil or gas well drilled, altered or operated not in accordance with a permit or the regulations.
Tags: PADEP, frack, violation, drilling
Administrative violation issued on 2013-02-13 to Southwestern Energy Prod Co in Stevens Twp, Bradford county. 78.12 – Oil or gas well drilled, altered or operated not in accordance with a permit or the regulations.
Tags: PADEP, frack, violation, drilling
Administrative violation issued on 2013-02-13 to Range Resources Appalachia Llc in Jackson Twp, Lycoming county. 78.56(1) – Pit and tanks not constructed with sufficient capacity to contain pollutional substances.
Tags: PADEP, frack, violation, drilling
Administrative violation issued on 2013-02-13 to Range Resources Appalachia Llc in Cogan House Twp, Lycoming county. 78.56(1) – Pit and tanks not constructed with sufficient capacity to contain pollutional substances.
Tags: PADEP, frack, violation, drilling
Environmental Health & Safety violation issued on 2013-02-05 to Catalyst Energy Inc in Hamilton Twp, McKean county. SWMA301 – Failure to properly store, transport, process or dispose of a residual waste.
Tags: PADEP, frack, violation, drilling
JAMES ALLEN CRIPE reports drilling started on 2013-02-15 00:00:00 at site TRAILER COURT 18 in Pleasant township, Warren county
Tags: PADEP, frack, spud, drilling, oil
CATALYST ENERGY INC reports drilling started on 2013-02-15 00:00:00 at site BIALCZAK LEASE 1945 in Brokenstraw township, Warren county
Tags: PADEP, frack, spud, drilling, oil
VISTA OPR INC reports drilling started on 2013-02-15 00:00:00 at site CHAGRIN 8 17A in Cranberry township, Venango county
Tags: PADEP, frack, spud, drilling, oil
SHEFFIELD LAND & TIMBER CO reports drilling started on 2013-02-15 00:00:00 at site WT 2980 142 in Howe township, Forest county
Tags: PADEP, frack, spud, drilling, oil
SHEFFIELD LAND & TIMBER CO reports drilling started on 2013-02-15 00:00:00 at site WT 2980 140 in Howe township, Forest county
Tags: PADEP, frack, spud, drilling, oil
GAS & OIL MGMT ASSN INC reports drilling started on 2013-02-15 00:00:00 at site LOT 523 12 in township, county
Tags: PADEP, frack, spud, drilling, oil
SkyTruth Custom Alert Feed
February 12, 2013
Economist Debates: Fracking: Guest.
Do the benefits of shale gas outweigh the drawbacks? I think that “benefits” and “drawbacks” are the wrong terms. I would question the idea that there are any benefits to be had at all, and I think using the word “drawbacks” to describe the absolute horror that results from shale-gas development is an understatement indeed. Be that as it may, let’s assess. The gas industry has argued that the benefits include: cheap energy; energy independence for America and parts of Europe; better implications for climate change than coal; jobs. The opposition argues that the drawbacks are: a vast fossil-fuel development that will push us to the brink of runaway climate change; permanent and widespread water contamination; a huge upswing in air pollution; a burgeoning public-health crisis; the destruction of the national landscape; damage to democratic institutions through billions spent in lobbying; and, of the utmost importance, delaying the global transition to the renewable energy sources that are available right now and are fully capable of providing truly clean energy forever. Regarding the benefits, it is clear that each of the goals that the gas industry puts forward can be achieved in other, better ways. However, there are no substitutes for the things that will be damaged by the drawbacks. There is no other planet we can inhabit if we tank the climate. Rising sea levels, increased drought, massive floods and brushfires—all of which we are witnessing right now—will increase to a point where we will have created a situation that reduces civilisation to permanent emergency management.
I guess one could say that there are initial benefits to burning your furniture to heat your house. For a short while you save money on other fuels and you heat your home. However, the long-term “drawbacks” are that you have a very uncomfortable house once you’ve finished with your supply. You‘ve been so busy chopping up the sofa, your grandmother’s picture frames and your children’s toys that you haven’t developed an alternative strategy to heat your home for the future. If your sofa is, say, the national forest or the Delaware River Basin or the Rockies, and your grandmother’s picture frames are your democracy, and your children’s toys are clean water and air, that’s a bad house to live in.
1. Shale gas is the worst form of fuel that can be developed with respect to greenhouse-gas emissions in the short term
Estimates vary but it is clear that between 4% and 9% of methane—enormous quantities of methane—from fracking escapes into the atmosphere. Methane is 105 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2 in the 20-year time frame. Combine this with the CO2 generated from burning the gas itself, and you get emissions higher than any other fossil fuel over a 20-year time frame. A conversion to shale gas means accelerating global climate change, not slowing it down.
2. Water contamination: leakage is not rare, it is rampant
For a video explication of this issue, please take a look at my short film, “The Sky is Pink“.
We’ve heard time again that strict regulation is the key to moving forward on fracking and that new regulations will ensure that the industry constructs leak-proof wells. There is no such thing as a leak-proof gas well. The gas industry knows this; in fact, it has known it for decades.
The part of the gas well that it is relying on to protect groundwater is simply cement; a 1-inch thick layer between the steel casing and the surrounding rock. When the cement fails, it opens a pathway for gas and other toxins involved in the drilling and fracking process to migrate into groundwater and to the surface.
The gas industry’s own documents and case studies show that about 6% of cement jobs fail immediately upon installation. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection bears this out: it found 6.2% of new gas wells were leaking in 2010, 6.2% in 2011 and 7.2% in 2012.
The gas industry has been studying the problem for decades, and knows it full well. In a report entitled “Well Integrity Failure Presentation”, Archer, a drilling service company, reports that nearly 20% of all oil and gas wells are leaking worldwide. A 2003 joint industry publication from Schlumberger, the world’s number one fracking company, and ConocoPhillips, an oil and gas giant, cites astronomical failure rates of 60% over a 30-year span.
3. Air pollution
In 2009, the 7,700 frack sites in the Dallas, TX, metro area (there are now more than 15,000) were pumping out the equivalent smog and CO2 emissions of all traffic in the entire Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex combined. In Pennsylvania, the industry goal is 100,000-200,000 frack sites, or another 10-20 DFW’s worth of emissions, in one state alone. Crazy.
4. Land destruction is ongoing, including public treasures
Large swathes of public parklands and forests have been handed over for drilling, creating unprecedented destruction of plants, animals, habitats and natural beauty. We estimate that the “shale gas revolution”, if fully pursued, will result in 1m-2m new wells in America alone. That is one well, at the high end, per 150 people. I hate to say something so simple, but that’s just insane.
5. A health crisis
There is a burgeoning health crisis related to chemical and hydrocarbon exposure in residential areas and chronic exposure to hazardous air pollution from drilling. Volatile organic compounds released on the sites include cancer-causing benzene and other carcinogens. Ailments from asthma to cancer to neurological disorders have been reported both anecdotally and in initial public health assessments (see Colorado School of Public Health’s HIA 2010).
6. Democracy and your voice are at risk
Oil and gas companies spent $747m lobbying congress to be exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Their lobbying expenditures and contributions in election cycles of hundreds of millions more mean that the fossil-fuel industries are literally spending billions of dollars to corrupt our democracy. Citizens don’t often have billions of dollars to speak for them.
So on to the so-called “benefits”.
1. Jobs
Barack Obama famously touted that there are 600,000 jobs to be had in the fracking industry by the end of the decade. But his former “Green Jobs Czar”, Anthony Van Jones, was quick to point out that the Brookings Institute (not some left-wing think-tank) stated there are vastly more green jobs to be cultivated right now—millions more. If we move towards shale gas full tilt, we will stall the drive to truly clean energy and the long-term jobs it will provide. Should we sell out a true new jobs market for a shrinking pot of jobs in the polycarbon industry?
2. Energy independence
True energy independence does not mean continuing to be dependent on multinational fossil-fuel giants. Renewable energy provides true independence from our fossil-fuel-addicted past. (See Mark Jacobson’slandmark article on the front page of Scientific American, which outlines how renewables can run the planet.)
3. Cheap energy
Considering all the real costs, fracking for shale gas cannot be considered cheap. The industry externalises the real cost onto the landscape, our water and air and the citizenry. For example, in Dimock, PA, the cost of a water line to replace water contaminated by drilling for just 18 families was $12m. Multiply these figures by millions of wells and the damage is in the trillions in just the Marcellus Shale alone.
Conclusion
So what is this really? The last gasp of the fossil-fuel era, an attempt to keep us addicted to poisonous fuels when the real clean green economy is waiting for democracy to reassert itself. Shale gas is long-term ruin for the many at the expense of short-term gain for the few.