Group wants fracking study

Cortland Standard .net.

May 31, 2012

Group wants fracking study

FrackJoe McIntyre/staff photographer
Jim Weiss of Freetown expresses his opinion on hydraulic fracturing health issues during a protest to draw attention to Sen. Jim Seward’s position on hydrofracking. About 30 people demonstrated Wednesday afternoon outside Seward’s Cortlandville office on Route 281.

By CATHERINE WILDE
Staff Reporter
cwilde@cortlandstandard.net

CORTLANDVILLE — About 30 protesters gathered at noon Wednesday outside state Sen. Jim Seward’s office on Route 281, part of a larger statewide effort opposing hydraulic fracturing.
The group was pushing for Seward (R-Milford) to allocate state funding for a health impact study of hydrofracking, which injects chemically treated water into underground shale to fracture it so natural gas can be extracted.
Critics contend fracking has polluted air and water in some areas.
Approximately $100,000 that Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton (D-Ithaca) had called to be set aside in the 2012-13 state budget for a comprehensive health study of hydrofracking was eliminated from the Senate and governor’s versions of the budget in March.
Some protesters Wednesday carried signs and wore costumes.
Freetown resident Jim Weiss dressed like a doctor with a gag over his mouth, carrying a sign that read : “Pa. Doctors gagged about fracking. Why?”
Weiss, an outspoken critic of hydrofracking, said the sign represented the doctors in Pennsylvania and now Ohio, who are banned by law from speaking about cases of patients who might have been harmed by nearby gas drilling.
“What’s the industry afraid of?” Weiss said. “The Pennsylvania government is heavily dominated by the industry, and which way the New York government will go is a toss up.”
Weiss and other protesters wanted their presence outside Seward’s office Wednesday to draw public attention to the need for a health study. Similar rallies occurred in at least four other parts of the state as part of a “Day of Action” calling on state leaders to protect the public from fracking.
Truxton resident Joe Pullman was holding a sign with McLean resident Frank Ray that read, “Doctor’s orders: No fracking.”
“I want to see a thorough investigation into the health effects of fracking,” Pullman said.
Pullman visited Dimock, Pa., with his daughter and met many residents who were adversely impacted by gas drilling.
Ray, a member of anti-fracking groups like MoveOn and Citizens United for Action, said he was hopeful Seward could be swayed to push for funding of a health study.
Ray said he thinks a health impact study is inevitable.
“There will be such an assessment either done now when it could do some good and strengthen Seward’s reputation … or after hydrofracking is in action and a bunch of people get very sick,” Ray said.
He said if Seward pushes for a study to be done sooner rather than later, it would make him a “hero.”
Caroline resident Ellen Harrison carried a sign that read, “Drill a well, give a kid cancer.”
Harrison, a retired environmental scientist, said she used to study water pollution issues in Connecticut.
“Health assessments are not easy to do … but they’re essential,” Harrison said.
Potential exposure to toxic chemicals near drilling sites can come from water pollution and air pollution from evaporation, spills and compressor stations, she said.
Harrison wants a holistic and comprehensive study to assess all the health impacts of exposure to chemicals associated with hydrofracking.
Maryfaith Miller, a dairy farmer from Summerhill, stood waving a sign calling for Seward to protect his constituents and support the bill that would fund a health study.
“I’m concerned Senator Seward’s interests are in protecting the industry, not us,” Miller said.
She said a health impact study is essential, adding she won’t let her child be the “canary in the coal mine” for the industry.
Seward was in session in Albany at the time of the rally.
He said this morning the state Department of Health is reviewing all the comments on the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, a document outlining all potential concerns of hydraulic fracturing.
Seward said since the Health Department is going to respond to all the health concerns that have been raised in the document, it would be “redundant” to set aside state funding for a health impact study.
“Whether it’s public health or any aspect of gas drilling, I think it’s important we allow the process to proceed and ultimately have judgements made based on facts and science of all aspects of the issue. And I believe public health issues are important and in my view the Health Department is well equipped to deal with the health aspects,” Seward said.

To read this article and more, pick up today’s Cortland Standard
Click here to subscribe

Meeting Minard

Meeting Minard.

The Minard Run Oil Company, based in Bradford, Pennsylvania, claims to be the oldest family-owned and -operated independent oil producer in the United States. Founded in 1875 by Pennsylvania Senator Lewis Emery, Jr., the company today is run by four of his great-grandchildren and one of his great-great-grandchildren.

In mid-March, Minard purchased 415 natural gas wells in the Finger Lakes from Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas—at least for now. Chesapeake, formed in 1989, enjoys none of Minard’s stability: The company has been beleaguered by criticism of its corporate governance, the shenanigans of CEO Aubrey MacLendon (thoroughly documented by Jeff Goodell in Rolling Stone), and a business plan that has left it severely short of cash—perhaps $10 billion short this year alone. The company’s stock price has fallen 50 percent in the last year. How bad is the company’s management? This week, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who heads that state’s pension fund, recommended that Chesapeake’s stockholders refuse to renew the terms of two incumbent board members, saying it was a “necessary first step toward reconstituting a board that is currently entrenched and unaccountable to shareholders.” Corporate raider Carl Icahn, who is circling around the company, has indicated that he thinks the company’s problems are largely the result of poor management at the top.

The sale of Chesapeake’s New York assets to Minard is no doubt part of an effort to meet the cash shortfall. Minard’s new real estate interests, meantime, have augmented the company’s interest in the future of gas well drilling in New York State, especially the future of horizontal, deep-well, hydraulic fracturing, which is the subject of a state review.

Which may help to explain why, in the first week in May, James J. Macfarlane, Minard’s vice president for exploration, acquisitions, and operations, met with Republican State Senator Mark Grisanti in Buffalo’s Donovan State Office Building. Also in the meeting were Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association on New York, or IOGA; Stephen W. Rhoads, manager of state government relations, Appalachia Region, for Shell Energy; and Daniel M. Krainin, an attorney in the New York office of the law firm Beveridge & Diamond, which specializes in environmental and land use law. Macfarlane and Rhoads are both board members of IOGA.

Grisanti, who is chair of the Senate’s Environmental Conservation Committee, has been in a crucible of pressure from both industry-funded proponents of horizontal fracking and environmental activists opposed to the practice. So far, he has declined to take a public position on whether the state ought to permit fracking, preferring to wait until the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation completes its review of the permitting and regulatory scheme it released last year.

 

COMMENT:

Concern: Minard Run now owns one of the state’s three injection disposal wells.
minardrunoil.com  They own fifteen thousand acres of lease holdings in the Marcellus in Bradford County.
We’d better pay attention here.  Minard Run, in their acquisitions  in Cayuga and Onondaga County in March, picked up the injection disposal well near Cayuga Lake not far from Montezuma Wildlife Refuge, name of well on DEC database Quill 672.  
Many  of the wells Minard picked up from CHK were old (1980s) Queenston sandstone wells, lots in Cayuga County.
In Ohio, many of the injection wells are older sandstone wells which were subsequently permitted to flip to injection disposal wells. 

There is no mandated public hearing when the EPA permits an injection well in NY.  (EPA has oversight, NY one of ten states that has not requested primacy for oversight.)   EPA does have to post on their website for thirty days any pending permits – and IF they consider there is sufficient public interest, they MAY issue a press release which the municipality MAY choose to publish.    

John Holko, of Lenape,  who owns another of the injection wells southeast of Rochester, was at the Auburn City Council meeting when they rescinded the ban on taking waste at the municipal treatment plant.  He was also quoted in the NYTimes as saying the infrastructure on waste will be developed as it goes in NY.    His injection well, named Ranous on the DEC site, drilled and permitted for injection in 1985, is 640′ deep.  No zero missing there.  Ranous well is the only one of the three wells exempt from mandated biannual certified sampling of injectate and exempt from nearby ground water monitoring wells required at the two other injection wells.  Interesting as it is the most shallow, the other two wells being 1080′ and 1800′ deep,  shallow still in relation to the injection wells in OH and TX which are several thousand feet deep.

Something to watch, Minard now owning that injection well, they having Marcellus holdings. Waste being a wildcard.  

Mary M


A Climate of Corporate Control


A Climate of Corporate Control

How Corporations Have Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy
Download: A Climate of Corporate Control (2012): Full Report | A Climate of Corporate Control (2012): Executive Summary

[]

LINKS

Full Report

Executive Summary

FAQ

Appendix C: Company profiles


Appendix D: Summary of Key Climate-related Votes in Congress

Appendix E: Corporate Interview Questions and Transcripts

An overwhelming scientific consensus supports the reality of human-induced global warming and the importance of prompt action to limit its impact. Constructive, science-based public discussion of climate change impacts and policy solutions is urgently needed.

Unfortunately, many U.S. companies are using their influence to muddy the waters­ casting unwarranted doubt on the science, adding confusion to the policy discussion, and holding back or slowing down action on solutions.

The 2012 UCS report, A Climate of Corporate Control, looks at statements and actions on climate science and policy by 28 U.S. companies, shows how these contributions can be problematic, and suggests steps that Congress, the public, the media, and companies themselves can take to address the problem.

Corporations have the right, of course, to weigh in on public policy issues that affect their interests. But too often they do so irresponsibly, misrepresenting and misusing science at the public’s expense, and in recent years their influence has grown.

Corporations skew the national dialogue on climate policy in a variety of ways ­making inconsistent statements across different venues, attacking science through industry-supported organizations, and taking advantage of the secrecy allowed them by current legal and regulatory structures.

Inconsistency: Having It Both Ways

Some corporations are contradictory in their actions, expressing concern about the threat of climate change in some venues­such as company websites, Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, annual reports, or statements to Congress­ while working to weaken policy responses to climate change in others.

For example, Conoco Phillips has acknowledged on its website that “human activity…is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” Yet in its comments on the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding, the company claimed that “the support for the effects of climate change on public health and welfare is limited and is typified by a high degree of uncertainty.”

Using Outside Organizations: Contrarians By Proxy

One way a company can work against effective climate policy while avoiding accountability for that work is to provide funding to outside groups that lobby against climate legislation and regulation or engage in advocacy campaigns against climate science. Such groups range from business associations such as the National Association of Manufacturers to front groups like the Heartland Institute.

Echoing the inconsistency in their other statements and actions on the issue, many companies belong to groups lobbying on both sides of the climate policy debate. For example, Caterpillar is affiliated both with the World Resources Institute and Nature Conservancy, which advocate global warming solutions, and with the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, which oppose them.

Of course, corporations may point out that the organizations they support work on many issues besides climate­but the fact remains that many of these groups take starkly anti-science positions on climate change and work aggressively to challenge science-based climate policies.

A Lack of Transparency

When business interests can hide their influence on policy-making processes from public view, it becomes easier for them to manipulate perceptions of science and skew policy discussions. There are several areas in which greater transparency is needed:

Charitable contributions. Current law only requires corporate foundations to disclose their donations to the IRS; companies can get around this requirement by making their donations directly, bypassing their foundations. This information is also hidden from shareholders: several corporations have received proposals from their shareholders demanding access to the company’s charitable contributions, and legislation to require such disclosure has been proposed in Congress.

Lobbying and political expenditures. While companies are legally required to report their total expenditures on political contributions and lobbying, they are not required to disclose the particular issues for which these contributions are targeted. So it is not possible to determine how much lobbying corporations are doing on climate issues.

Business risks from climate change. Publicly traded companies are required to discuss risks that might materially affect their business in their annual SEC filings. The report shows that compliance with this requirement with regard to climate change is not consistent; some companies address climate-related risks fully, some discuss only the possible impacts of climate regulation, neglecting the physical impacts of climate change, and others ignore the issue entirely.

Good and Bad Behavior

It’s not all bad news out there: The report shows that some companies, such as NIKE, appear to be consistently constructive in their climate-related statements and actions.

At the other extreme, some companies appear to be almost uniformly obstructionist on climate issues. This list is dominated by fossil-fuel companies such as Peabody Energy and Marathon Oil.

But because of the lack of disclosure, it is impossible to say for sure whether companies are completely constructive or obstructionist.

Solutions: The Path Forward

Inappropriate corporate influence on the national dialogue on climate science and policy is a large-scale, complex problem requiring large-scale, complex solutions. However, there are a range of specific actions that can be taken in the near term to put the United States on the right path:

  • Companies should disclose more information on how they influence the conversation on climate change and other issues of public interest.
  • Congress should investigate ways to require more disclosure of corporations’ political activities.
  • The SEC should require companies to disclose their political contributions and should specifically require that climate change be addressed in reports on business risks.
  • Investors and consumers should continue to work both individually and collectively to demand transparency, accountability, and integrity in the private sector.
  • The media should be mindful of potential conflicts of interest among the experts and other individuals they rely on for information, and disclose such conflicts when found.

Did Chesapeake miss Enron lessons?

Did Chesapeake miss Enron lessons?.

Pipeline firm: Feedback from residents has been positive » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports

Pipeline firm: Feedback from residents has been positive » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports.

Keep American Natural Gas Here Act

Press Release – Markey Letter.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Keep American Natural Gas Here Act

Pa. Commonwealth Court says compressor stations are essential to production

Pa. Commonwealth Court says compressor stations are essential to production.

Constitution Pipeline Presentation – YouTube

Constitution Pipeline Presentation – YouTube.

Constitution Pipeline Presentation/maps

By Brian Brock, geologist. Taped 5-24-12. At Sidney Library, Sidney, NY.. Discussing Pipeline construction and the Constitution Pipeline coming in from Susquehanna County,
Pa. into Schoharie County, NY..  Published on May 25, 2012 by

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj-JMT-8MtE&feature=em-share_video_user

For those who just wanted a link to the FERC site where docket number
PF12-9  for the Constitiution pipeline, here it is:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/docket_sheet.asp
or
if there is a problem enter PF12-9 into the Docket number field and
hit submit.

Project over view map
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989420

Project maps on 7.5 minute maps.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989421
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989422

Project over view alternitive route map.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989424

Project alternitive routes on 7.5 minute maps.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989425
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12989426

Note: the route through the NYC reservior water sheds is still an
option.

For those of you that can not wait to oppose something, people have
already sent letters opposing this line and you can read them on
the site.  Remember you will be joining with people that do not what
this in their back yards and may have a different view of drilling
than you, but now went NIMBLY on us or OMDB which I think is a more
accurate observation.

How Fracking Threatens the Health of the Mortgage Industry

How Fracking Threatens the Health of the Mortgage Industry.