Poll: New Yorkers support drilling and jobs, but worried about environment | Press & Sun-Bulletin | pressconnects.com
August 11, 2011
Re-cycling Drilling Waste in PA
July 25, 2011
In response to the barrage of criticism about frack waste disposal and/or treatment, the industry now says it will “recycle” all water used in hydrofracking. Recycling is a nice green word and sounds benign. But the quote below shows otherwise. It is taken from an interview with David Bohlander. a highly respected accountant and business consultant in Pennsylvania. His farm has been in his family for 150 years.
The interview was posted on another list on July 19. After the quoted section I have attached the entire interview.
Jim Weiss
The intention is to refrack over and over the same drilled wells. They are now claiming there is 60 years of gas here. Simultaneously, although not on all pads, they use the pads for other things such as equipment storage, frack water storage, and the worst: frack water recycling which we have three in our neighborhood and 2 are 10 year permits (one is in the review process, 9 days to go). These are REGIONAL frack water recycling operations bringing in dirty radioactive brine from 15 miles away or more, operating 24/7 with extensive noise, lights and traffic.
RE: frack water recycling: They power huge lights that light of the pads for the whole night. They don’t use street electric but generators which contribute to the noise. The trucks have large pumps that due to the volume of 5200 gallons per truck are large motors, the trucks endlessly are using their backup safety beepers, horns for instructions to the ground crew, etc. The three sites in our neighborhood will generate 800 trucks a day, 1600 with return trip passes.
Complete Interview:
1. Pollution of your well (two wells?). How did this show up?
[Bohlander] We have two wells on the farm (190 acres). We had a detailed baseline water testing done on both before any of the gas activity happened in our area. We subsequently have had another 6 or so tests done on these wells. It is crucial to have certified baseline testing done prior to any activity by gas companies or they will claim there is no proof they are the cause and argue it was a pre-existing condition. We also retained a very competent hydrologist (who has the gas company clients) who was the plaintiffs hydrologist in the Dimock, PA contamination (highlighted in the movie Gasland). The well for the barn/and original farmhouse was so contaminated with methane they thought it would explode so the well pump was disconnected for six months and water was trucked in by the gas companies for the animals, and spring water for the humans!
2. The operations end up being more extensive than anticipated. The “pads” are large, and end up being used for other operations.
[Bohlander] Gas companies are major deceivers. They do this many ways. One is using land agents that are not their employees so that they can claim “we never said that ..they did”
Most all the neighbors were told that the gas wells would be drilled, it would take 3 months or so, and then land would be restored to earlier state. In reality this is what happens. They excavate a pad obliterating the natural terrain, hauling in 100’s of trucks of stone, gravel, etc. Once the pad is completed, they only drill 2-4 actual gas wells of what ultimately are likely going to be 12 or so on that pad. They may not frack the drilled wells immediately, but wait sometimes a year. The intention is to refrack over and over the same drilled wells. They are now claiming there is 60 years of gas here. Simultaneously, although not on all pads, they use the pads for other things such as equipment storage, frack water storage, and the worst: frack water recycling which we have three in our neighborhood and 2 are 10 year permits (one is in the review process, 9 days to go). These are REGIONAL frack water recycling operations bringing in dirty radioactive brine from 15 miles away or more, operating 24/7 with extensive noise, lights and traffic. DEP is way behind on enforcement. The neighbors are the enforcers, but it is David vs. Goliath (the gas companies). After four years now, I have not seen one well pad restored back to the original state. The stated plan by the gas companies is that there will be one well pad every 50 acres. If the well pad is 10 acres, 20% of our surface land area will be a perpetual well pad.
3. Extensive light pollution due to 24/7 operation.
[Bohlander] RE: frack water recycling: They power huge lights that light of the pads for the whole night. They don’t use street electric but generators which contribute to the noise. The trucks have large pumps that due to the volume of 5200 gallons per truck are large motors, the trucks endlessly are using their backup safety beepers, horns for instructions to the ground crew, etc. The three sites in our neighborhood will generate 800 trucks a day, 1600 with return trip passes.
The gas drilling when it goes on makes it almost impossible to sleep. 24/7, 7 days a week.
4. Extensive trucking.
[Bohlander] The gas companies make new roads over smaller older roads to accommodate their extensive traffic. The state allows them to exceed the weight limit of the road by paying some fee or posting a bond. The small country road in front of our farm is now elevated 3 feet in the air from normal ground level. Certain roads are used as main arterial roads after they have been rebuilt –this happened to ours. The trucks are hauling huge amounts of gravel, fill, fresh water for fracking and the dirty brine water out, as well as all the equipment for the drilling process. Each well on the pad uses 5 million gallons of water. 60% flows back and is recycled, but removed from the site. Our road was destroyed initially and impassible. The gas companies then closed 10 mile stretches of the road for months at a time as they began rebuilding it. One landowner could only get to and from his property with a four wheeler.
5. Feel free to add any other relevant details.
[Bohlander] The gas companies have a very systematic playbook from the years of operating and polluting Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, etc. They have two sides: a friendly neighborly “give $35K to the fire company” and then a ruthless no holds barred side. 3 times they threatened that in 24 hours they were going to stop trucking in water for the cows in our barn unless we agreed to things. These things include non-disclosure agreements, consent not to sue, etc. Read the book Collateral Damage. A lot of good environmental activist groups with websites and a lot of info. Many have been to our house. We were one of the first contaminated sites in this region from the drilling.
The public does not have any idea how bad the permanent environmental contamination is going to be. There has been major barium and radiation poisoning with some already. One not far from us is a 13 year old girl with barium poisoning. One of our immediate neighbors’ daughters is having clumps of hair fall out and his dog got sick and parakeet died from drinking his well water. He abuts one of the frack water recycling sites.
Air pollution is the sleeping giant. Each well pad on an ongoing basis emits things into the air (like toluene) as the gas goes through a preliminary filtering process at the well pad. The absolutely worst are the gas compression stations for both noise and air pollution.
As you may know, the gas drilling is exempt from the Clean Water Act — we actually are more apt to be fined if manure is spread on the road, than these major infractions the gas company are doing. The environmental enforcement agencies only slap their wrists with fines. Cost of doing business to gas companies –easier to just pay the fine.
—
Siena College Poll of NY Registered Voters on Hydrofracking July, 2011
July 17, 2011
SNY0711 Crosstabs.pdf (application/pdf Object).
Siena College Poll of NY Registered Voters on Hydrofracking July, 2011
Siena College Research Institute
July 6-7, 10-11, 2011
813 New York State Registered Voters
MOE +/- 3.4%
Total Dem Rep
Ind/
Other M F Lib Mod Conserv Yes No NYC Subs Upst White
Afr Amer
/Black Latino 18-34 35-54 55+ Cath Jewish Prot Other <$50K
$50K-
$100K $100K+
Great deal 19% 17% 19% 23% 24% 15% 21% 17% 20% 25% 17% 15% 13% 26% 23% 4% 14% 11% 19% 23% 19% 19% 18% 20% 14% 19% 25%
Some 28% 25% 35% 24% 30% 26% 32% 25% 29% 29% 27% 22% 24% 36% 31% 14% 23% 21% 25% 34% 25% 27% 27% 33% 24% 29% 29%
Not very much 24% 27% 20% 26% 22% 26% 22% 28% 22% 24% 25% 25% 28% 21% 22% 34% 29% 30% 27% 20% 27% 23% 24% 22% 26% 26% 25%
No attention at all 28% 30% 25% 27% 23% 33% 24% 29% 29% 22% 30% 37% 34% 16% 24% 47% 34% 38% 29% 21% 30% 31% 30% 25% 35% 27% 21%
Don’t know/No opinion 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Total Dem Rep
Ind/
Other M F Lib Mod Conserv Yes No NYC Subs Upst White
Afr Amer
/Black Latino 18-34 35-54 55+ Cath Jewish Prot Other <$50K
$50K-
$100K $100K+
Opponents 54% 58% 45% 58% 50% 57% 67% 54% 42% 55% 54% 53% 54% 55% 57% 44% 49% 64% 54% 51% 50% 52% 48% 67% 50% 54% 55%
Supporters 33% 27% 45% 35% 39% 28% 21% 36% 45% 32% 33% 30% 34% 36% 32% 34% 43% 29% 36% 34% 40% 34% 35% 24% 34% 34% 38%
Don’t know/No opinion 13% 15% 9% 7% 11% 15% 13% 11% 13% 13% 12% 17% 12% 9% 11% 22% 8% 6% 10% 16% 10% 15% 17% 10% 16% 12% 7%
Total Dem Rep
Ind/
Other M F Lib Mod Conserv Yes No NYC Subs Upst White
Afr Amer
/Black Latino 18-34 35-54 55+ Cath Jewish Prot Other <$50K
$50K-
$100K $100K+
Favor 45% 40% 53% 50% 53% 38% 36% 48% 52% 48% 43% 41% 47% 47% 47% 35% 48% 47% 47% 44% 54% 53% 43% 36% 43% 44% 54%
Oppose 43% 46% 35% 42% 38% 47% 52% 42% 34% 40% 44% 42% 40% 45% 42% 46% 42% 45% 45% 39% 37% 30% 43% 52% 43% 43% 39%
Don’t know/No opinion 13% 14% 12% 8% 9% 15% 12% 10% 14% 12% 13% 16% 13% 9% 11% 19% 10% 8% 8% 17% 9% 18% 14% 12% 14% 12% 7%
SNY July 14 2011 Poll Release –Hydrofracking
July 15, 2011
SNY July 14 2011 Poll Release — Hydrofracking
Voters Divided on DEC’s Hydrofracking Recommendation; Majority Trust Hydrofracking Opponents
“While only a little more than one-third of downstaters have paid a great deal or some attention to the debate over
hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale, nearly two-thirds of upstaters have been following the debate at least
somewhat,” Greenberg said. “That regional difference doesn’t, however, carry over to voters’ attitudes on the
DEC’s recommendation to allow hydrofracking, or on whether to trust hydrofracking supporters or opponents.”
Statewide, 45 percent of voters favor DEC’s recommendation and 43 percent oppose it. Upstate, 47 percent favor,
45 percent oppose; in the downstate suburbs, 47 percent favor, 40 percent oppose; and, 41 percent in New York
City favor while 42 percent oppose. By a 54-33 percent margin, voters statewide say they are more inclined to
trust hydrofracking opponents rather than supporters, a view held by 53 percent in New York City, 54 percent in
the downstate suburbs and 55 percent upstate.
“Although significantly more voters are currently inclined to trust the arguments of hydrofracking opponents over
those of supporters, the debate over whether or not hydrofracking should be permitted in New York has failed
New York NOW: News, Interviews and Analysis from the Capitol in Albany
July 15, 2011
New York NOW: News, Interviews and Analysis from the Capitol in Albany.
Poll 7/8/11 :
Do you agree with the DEC’s recommendation to allow hydrofracking on private land?
Yes: 18%
No: 82%
Karl Klein — op.ed
July 12, 2011
Karl Klein
4648 N Tower Rd.
Cincinnatus, NY 13040
Editor, Cortland Standard
Cortland, NY 13045
July 12, 2011
Dear Editor –
I am writing in response to the article about the disappointed landowners in regards to the DEC release of the draft hydrofracking standards.
I sympathize with the landowners who feel that their rights to their property have been violated. Private property rights are an important part of our society. Most of us don’t like being told what we can, or cannot do, with our property. However, I would like to ask your readers to consider the same private property rights issue from a different perspective.
When NYS passed the Compulsory Integration aspect of the existing gas extraction rules, they effectively violated my right to control the mineral rights under my property. When enough landowners in any given area sell their mineral rights (in this gas – natural gas), the industry is free to tunnel under my property using horizontal drilling and take my gas. It doesn’t matter if I want to sell this legacy now (with record low prices for natural gas) or want to wait till the price rises – which it surely will. Or, if I simply prefer to leave this legacy to my heirs, the law makes it impossible for me to protect my property.
The landowners cited in the article will have, in effect, (with today’s low prices) forced me to put my well water at risk and also potentially required me to put up with the hundreds, if not thousands, of massive trucks, tankers, earthmovers, and compressor stations that will be needed to extract and export the “fracked” gas from our rural area. Make no mistake, hydraulic fracturing is an industrial process. It is not the relatively benign operation used in the old gas wells that already dot the landscape.
Even though many landowners claim to be the aggrieved parties, most of them have received some money (in some cases thousands and thousands of dollars) – even though no drilling has yet taken place. So, it is really hard for me to feel very sorry for them having received this “free money.” To me, living in rural Cortland County is about the lifestyle, peace and quiet, and clean air and water. These things are far more important to me than the money I might get from a questionable gas extraction industrial operation. In this case, I believe my right to these things trumps the rights of my neighbors enable the burrowing under my land to take my property.
In educating myself on this issue, there seem to be a great many questions about the overall safety of the fracking industrial process. I think perhaps it CAN be done safely, but the record of the gas industry shows that it doesn’t always do so. Until they show that they can, let’s just put this process on hold and leave the gas where it is. They cover up their mistakes by settling with injured parties and requiring them to sign non-disclosure agreements that keep their errors and mistakes quiet and not part of the public record.
Let’s not risk what have right now for what might possibly be a short-term bonanza (which includes the arrival of out-of-state “roughnecks”, associated increased demands for social services, law enforcement, decreased real estate values, road damage, and air and water pollution).
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Klein
Solon, NY
GDACC 
