MIT WellWatch
March 20, 2011
Capitol Confidential » Martens: SGEIS might be a tad after June
March 18, 2011
Capitol Confidential » Martens: SGEIS might be a tad after June.
Martens: SGEIS might be a tad after June
Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens appeared this morning on The Capitol Pressroom and said the DEC plans to release its Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale…this summer.
Gov. David Paterson, in one of his last acts in office, declared a moratorium on drilling until June this document — which will measure the cumulative impacts of the process, often called hydrofracking, and suggest mitigation — is finalized. The Environmental Protection Agency is also studying the issue; the DEC has not issued any permits for horizontal hydrofracking.
“We don’t know how long it’s going to take, number one, for EPA to complete its study. I have a lot of confidence that DEC has the resources – not just at DEC, but the state of New York – we’re taking advantages of the resources of other states, other state agencies, to look at all of these issues,” Martens told Susan Arbetter. “We’re going to do a very thorough job…I’m confident we are going to have all the information we need to complete the supplemental generic environmental impact statement.”
She asked if the study was still on track for June.
“It’s on or about June, is the precise words in the executive order,” Martens said. “It will come out when I’m satisfied that it’s ready to come out.”
“I’m satisfied it’s going to come out, but probably more like this summer some time,” he said.
Arbetter asked Martens how the document will compare to a draft document released in September of 2009. He stressed that there will still be opportunity for public input.
“The document that will come out this summer will be a final draft, so it won’t be the end of the line,” he said. “We’re going to give the public one more chance to look at the document, to look at all of our findings, to look at the document, to look at our responses to the 13,000 questions that we got in the process and then tell us whether they think we got it right.”
Jimmy Vielkind, Capitol bureau
Contact: 
Follow: 
Follow: Court allows condemnation of 9,100 acres in Kansas – BusinessWeek
March 17, 2011
Court allows condemnation of 9,100 acres in Kansas – BusinessWeek.
Court allows condemnation of 9,100 acres in Kansas
WICHITA, Kan.
A federal judge has confirmed a Nebraska gas company’s legal right to condemn more than 9,100 acres in south-central Kansas to contain gas migrating from an underground storage facility.
Omaha-based Northern Natural Gas Co. is seeking to use eminent domain to take the formations beneath property in Pratt, Kingman and Reno counties from unwilling sellers. U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown granted the company’s motion Tuesday.
In June, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted the firm authority to expand its Cunningham Storage Field in Kansas by more than 12,000 acres.
The decision comes in a lawsuit targeting at least 173 property owners who have some interest in 40 tracts of land.
Still to be determined is the compensation the owners will receive.
D. RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT GEIS Tbe
March 16, 2011
fgeisregch.pdf (application/pdf Object).
D. RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE
REGULATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT GEIS
Do not be confused by the common confusion of the SGEIS and “regulations”. That confusion is a tool the state and industry use to disarm doubters about its intentions.
The draft SGEIS as well as the current GEIS are about the PERMITTING PROCESS. They are not rules or regulations. No matter what the many thousands of comments received, information displayed, or areas of interest studied or not studied, the GEIS and its Supplement contain NO regulations. They are only the means whereby the SEQRA process for reviewing the expansion of WalMart parking lot, discharges from manufacturing facilities and the like – is exempted in the case of Gas, Oil and Solution (salt) mining. It is the legal requirement for such an exemption. It is neither statute nor regulation.
The regulations that apply to the gas, oil and salt industry are listed IN THEIR ENTIRETY at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2490.html (under sub-chapter B) Here is THE ENTIRETY of the policy statement introducing the regulations:
§550.1 Policy
The Department of Environmental Conservation, having been entrusted with the basic responsibility for administering to and regulating activities relative to the natural resources of oil and gas within the State, does hereby promulgate the following rules and regulations. These have been formulated after consultation with landowners, producers and other interested persons involved and a public hearing relative thereto. The rules have as their objectives:
(a) the fostering, encouragement and promotion of the development, production and utilization of the natural resources of oil and gas in such a manner as will prevent waste;
(b) the operation and development of oil and gas properties in such a manner that a greater ultimate recovery of oil and gas may be had;
(c) full protection of the correlative rights of all owners and the rights of all persons, including landowners and the general public;
(d) similar provisions for the underground storage of gas.
No protection of the environment or public health. That isn’t the point of the regulation. Read the poilicy statement again.
Now check ALL the regulations. It won’t take that long before you understand that the nature of the regulations, guided by the policy statement above. Impressed that New York has the toughest regulations in the entire universe? Try these:
§551.5 Amount of financial security:
(2) for wells between 2,500 feet and 6,000 feet in depth:
(i) for 1 to 25 wells, $5,000 per well, not exceeding $40,000;
(ii) for 26 to 50 wells, $40,000, plus $5,000 per well in excess of 25 wells, not exceeding $60,000;
(iii) for 51 to 100 wells, $60,000, plus $5,000 per well in excess of 50 wells, not exceeding $100,000; or
(iv) for over 100 wells, $100,000, plus $5,000 per well in excess of 100 wells, not exceeding $150,000.
[25 wells are secured by $40,000. Do the math. These are wells in the case of shales costing $1million to $5million each to drill]
§553.2 Surface restrictions
No well shall be located nearer than 100 feet from any inhabited private dwelling house without written consent of the owner; nearer than 150 feet from any public building or area which may be used as a place of resort, assembly, education, entertainment, lodging, trade, manufacture, repair, storage, traffic or occupancy by the public; nearer than 75 feet to the traveled part of any State, county, township, or municipal road or any public street, road or highway; or nearer than 50 feet from any public stream, river or other body of water. This regulation, which is adopted in the interest of public safety, does not apply to a building or structure which is incident to agricultural use of the land on which it is located, unless such building is used as a private dwelling house or in the business of retail trade.
[These figures are for the well bore, not the pad, and in the case of “any inhabited private dwelling house” can be preempted by lease terms (“written consent of the owner”)]
§554.1 Prevention of pollution and migration
(a) The drilling, casing and completion program adopted for any well shall be such as to prevent pollution.
(b) Pollution of the land and/or of surface or ground fresh water resulting from exploration or drilling is prohibited
Thats all I have time for: you have to read the regulations to see that they have nothing to do with the protection of the environment and citizens of the state. Then look at the GEIS http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45912.html and understand what it is and does, and why it and the forthcoming SGEIS is not regulation. You might be entertained by the nature of the recommendations for regulatory changes at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/fgeisregch.pdf
Hydrofracking: Most N.Y. treatment plants not equipped to handle wastewater | Press & Sun-Bulletin | pressconnects.com
March 16, 2011
Hydrofracking: Most N.Y. treatment plants not equipped to handle wastewater
John Greene, lab technician at the Village of Endicott Wastewater Treatment Plant, completes biochemical oxygen demand testing on water entering and exiting the facility on Tuesday. / REBECCA CATLETT / Staff Photo
Composted sludge is stored outside of the Village of Endicott Wastewater Treatment Plant. / REBECCA CATLETT / Staff Photo
Related Links
When New York’s guidelines for hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale are set in stone, officials say they will likely be stronger than those in Pennsylvania and other states that have long permitted the process.
But a major question remains: What will be done with the millions of gallons of chemical-laced wastewater and salty production brine that comes along with the process?
The wastewater, which flows back to the surface after being injected into shale formations to fracture the rock, can be cared for at treatment facilities, as long as those plants are properly equipped to remove the chemicals and the total dissolved solids in the fluid and radioactivity levels are within reason.
In New York, however, very few plants are equipped with that type of technology.
“There may be certain industrial facilities that may be qualified to handle these materials, but we don’t know of many,” said James Tierney, assistant commissioner for water resources at the state Department of Environmental Conservation. “We don’t know of anybody that is coming in right now and saying they want to be able to treat a million gallons of horizontal hydrofracking waste containing these chemical constituents.”
Accepting flow-back water from the natural gas industry could be a major revenue generator for local treatment plants, but upgrading plants to treat it would cost millions of dollars. Even with the upgrades, the composition of the fluid could be problematic.
“This stuff has a lot of iron and other things in it,” said Phillip Grayson, sewer pre-treatment administrator for the Village of Endicott’s treatment plant. “Even with some kind of pre-treating, I think it’s almost prohibitive for us because of our sewer-use ordinance. They would have to do a lot of work just to get it in the door for us.”
Gas companies reached out to a number of Southern Tier treatment plants in 2008, when the Marcellus gas rush had just begun in Pennsylvania and New York was weighing its options. In December of that year, the DEC sent out a memo reminding publically owned plants they could not accept the waste if it contained chemicals they weren’t permitted to treat, and that those plants would be required to complete an engineer-led analysis to determine whether it is feasible to fully treat the water before it is discharged. The plants would have to have a proper “pre-treatment” process, where the water is treated before it even gets to the main treatment facility.
Whether a plant could accept the water or brine would largely have to do with what kind of treatment technology it uses. In Endicott, for example, the plant uses a biological treatment process, where living, freshwater microbes clean the water. The amount of salt and total dissolved solids in the waste could harm that process.
“If all of a sudden the water taken in is salty, it could kill the microbes, and pretty significant technology is involved in desalination,” Tierney said. “That technology exists and it’s used for turning saltwater into freshwater in different technologies in places around the world, but it certainly isn’t standard and it can be costly.”
The biological treatment process could work if the salty fluid were bled in at low levels over time, allowing the microbes to become acclimated, Tierney said.
Radiation levels in the wastewater also are a concern. When the water is returned from below the ground, it collects a number of naturally occurring radioactive materials, or NORM. An analysis of wastewater samples by the Department of Health found levels of radium-226, and related alpha and beta radiation that are up to 10,000 times higher than drinking water standards.
A series of articles in The New York Times also brought to light concerns about the materials in frack water, analyzing samples from more than 300 gas wells in Pennsylvania that showed various levels of radioactivity.
In a memo sent to the DEC in 2009, state health officials said the radioactivity levels in the sample it tested “are not trivial but not insurmountable.” Health spokesman Tom Allocco said the department hasn’t tested any samples since then.
“The Department of Health is working with the (DEC) to address potential worker issues from the buildup of NORM in natural gas piping and equipment,” Allocco said. “This will be addressed in an upcoming Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Study.”
The SGEIS, an 800-page document that will guide the state’s permitting process for high-volume hydrofracking, is set to be released in June. As it stands now, gas companies would be required to set a plan for the disposal and transportation of the waste fluids before they would be able to obtain a drilling permit.
John Holko, president of Genesee County-based Lenape Resources and a board member of the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York, said the industry is reusing the wastewater through closed-loop systems, and said the rate of reuse will continue to rise.
“The focus is on 100 percent reuse. I think some of the companies are there now,” Holko said. “Were they there at the beginning of 2010 or the end of 2009? I don’t think so, but by the time it happens in New York, I think the fluid handling will be easy.”
GDACC 
