EARTHWORKS | Environmental Groups Praise EPA’s First-Ever Clean Air Protections for Fracking
April 18, 2012
EARTHWORKS | Environmental Groups Praise EPA’s First-Ever Clean Air Protections for Fracking.
Albany Residents, Business and Faith Leaders Join Albany Common Council Members In Rally Before Fracking Ban Vote
April 17, 2012
For Immediate Release
CONTACT: John Armstrong, Frack Action, 607-220-4632
Albany Residents, Business and Faith Leaders Join Albany Common Council Members In Rally Before Fracking Ban Vote
Albany Is 95th New York Municipality to Ban Fracking
1.2 Million New Yorkers Now Live In Towns and Cities With Bans
ALBANY – On Monday evening Albany residents including business and faith leaders joined members of the Common Council for a rally before the Albany Common Council votes on legislation to ban fracking in Albany. The ban is all but certain to pass, making Albany the 95th New York municipality to enact a ban on fracking. Those 95 municipalities represent 1.2 million New Yorkers.
“We applaud the Albany Common Council for joining almost a hundred other municipalities across New York in acting on the will and best interests of their residents by banning fracking. If Albany Mayor Jennings bows to gas industry pressure and vetoes Albany’s fracking ban, we believe we have enough support in the Common Council to override the veto,” said John Armstrong, Communications Director with Frack Action.
Local leaders in Syracuse and Buffalo, which have also passed fracking bans, expressed support for Albany joining the nearly one hundred cities with a ban in place. Buffalo is the second largest city in New York State and is where the local ban movement started in 2011. Buffalo has banned fracking/wastewater in the city, and this March they also passed a resolution calling on Governor Cuomo to ban fracking statewide.
“I applaud the Albany Common Council’s vote to ban fracking within their city limits,” said Buffalo Councilmember Joseph Golombek Jr., sponsor of Buffalo’s fracking ban. “Many times, politicians are accused of putting their own interests before the community’s. The Albany Common Council’s vote, along with the votes conducted by many other municipalities in New York State, show that the citizens of their communities come first, especially when it deals the dangerous impact fracking has on the environment.”
“It’s good to hear that Albany may soon have a citywide ban on hydrofracking. The Syracuse ban is strongly supported by local residents, even more so now that we know there’s a glut of natural gas
and the Marcellus and Utica shale gas, which comes with such environmental risk, is being exported to Europe! Cities like Syracuse and Albany must invest in jobs with staying power, not transient jobs that could leave environmental hazards behind, said Jean Kessner, Syracuse Councilor-at-Large.
Participants in the rally also called on Governor Cuomo to follow the lead of municipalities across the state and ban fracking in New York.
“Governor Cuomo should heed the growing body of science that shows fracking cannot be done without sacrificing our health, environment, and economy,” said Julia Walsh, Campaign Director of Frack Action. “The decision on fracking rests with Governor Cuomo — if he breaks it, he owns it.”
“Banning fracking from the City of Albany and drilling wastes from our local treatment and disposal facilities is more than just a symbolic act — we are already finding the hazardous by-products of fracking discarded well outside the current zone of drilling, with little State oversight or concern,” said Roger Downs, Conservation Director for the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter. “We applaud the Albany Common Council for filling the leadership void on industrial gas development. Governor Cuomo has offered only the assurances of a half-baked regulatory program to New Yorkers who stand to lose everything to this out-of-control industry. We hope this stand in Albany does not go unnoticed.”
BACKGROUND
High volume hydraulic fracturing, combined with horizontal drilling, involves pumping millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand underground to extract natural gas from shale bedrock. Multiple studies show how inherently dangerous it is. Most New Yorkers are wary of fracking. A recent Marist poll found a majority of New Yorkers oppose legalizing fracking due to its potential to contaminate New York’s watersheds with carcinogens and other toxicants.
With or without regulations in place, fracking is a menace to public health. It lays down blankets of smog, fills roadway with trucks hauling hazardous materials, sends sediment into streams, and generates immense quantities of radioactive, carcinogen-laced waste for which no fail-safe disposal options exist.
Since fracking began in states outside of New York, there have been more than a thousand reports of water contamination. New studies link fracking-related activities to contaminated groundwater, air pollution, illness, death and reproductive problems in cows, horses and wildlife, and most recently human health problems. A recent study from the Colorado School of Public Health found that those living within a half-mile of a natural gas drilling site faced greater health risks than those who live farther away.
New York has seen a surge of local fracking bans enacted across the state Overall, 94 towns and 6 counties have enacted bans or moratoria in New York State. Sixty-eight municipalities are also considering or staging a ban or moratorium. In the past month,Buffalo, the second largest city in New York, and Niagara Falls both passed resolutions calling for Governor Cuomo and the state legislature to pass a statewide ban on fracking.
The Buffalo Common Council also recently passed a resolution of support for bills S4220/A7218 a fracking ban in New York, stating that a law to prohibit natural gas drilling in New York will protect residents and neighbors from the harmful effects of drilling, as well as safe-guarding air, land, and local waterways. The DEC, while prohibiting fracking in certain watersheds in Syracuse and New York City, has not prohibited drilling in any Western NY watersheds.
###
—
John Armstrong
Albany, NY
607-220-4632
Gas Drilling: A Community Forum, Virgil, NY
April 15, 2012
A presentation, Gas Drilling: A Community Forum, will be held on Wednesday, April 25,
7 pm – 8:30 pm, at the Virgil School on Rte. 392, Virgil. This event is free and open to the public.
Do You Have Questions About Gas Drilling And Its Impacts On The Community
William Podulka, PhD Physicist, will explain the process of shale gas drilling. He will also talk about the possible economic impacts on our area.
Mary Jane Uttech,The Deputy Director of the Cortland County Health Department, will speak about the potential impacts to drinking water, air quality, and public health.
These knowledgeable presenters have given talks to many groups in CNY.
Sponsored by Virgil Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition
Shale Gas Regulation-Univ. of Texas study
April 15, 2012 1 Comment
Univ. of TX study de-bunked:
Fracking-Study Conflicts Prompt Head of Institute to Quit – Bloomberg.
Shale Gas Regulation.
Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development
Note: Click the above images to view exclusive Energy Institute documents on the subject of Shale Gas Development. These documents include include: (1) Press Release; (2) Booklet; (3) Report Summary; (4) Full Report; (5) List of Experts at UT; and (6) Links to Video Clips.
Assessing the Real and Perceived Consequences of Shale Gas Development
The astonishing surge in domestic natural gas production, brought on by the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has transformed the outlook for U.S. energy. Conservative estimates project the use of these techniques in shale gas development will all but assure a clean and affordable natural gas supply for generations to come, creating new jobs and enhancing our nation’s energy security.
That sanguine view has been tempered, however, by concerns that hydraulic fracturing may contaminate groundwater and pose other threats to public health. While little evidence exists directly linking the practice to environmental harm, such fears have ignited a controversy that has dominated public discourse on the issue. In fact, some areas have halted shale gas development altogether, at least temporarily.
Click the above image to view the Shale Gas Regulation booklet.
In response, the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin funded an independent study of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas development to inject science into a highly charged emotional debate.
For this study, the Energy Institute assembled an interdisciplinary team of university experts to examine a broad array of issues associated with hydraulic fracturing in three prominent shale plays — the Barnett Shale, in north Texas; the Marcellus Shale, in Pennsylvania, New York and portions of Appalachia; and the Haynesville Shale, in western Louisiana and northeast Texas.
The Energy Institute team investigated an array of issues related to shale gas development, including groundwater contamination, toxicity of hydraulic fracturing fluids, surface spills, atmospheric emissions, water use, drilling waste disposal, blowouts, and road traffic and noise.
The goal of this research is to provide policymakers a fact-based foundation upon which they can formulate rational regulatory policies that ensure responsible shale gas development.
Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development
For this study, the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin assembled a team of experts with broad experience and expertise, from geology and environmental law to public affairs and communications. In addition to university faculty, the Environmental Defense Fund was actively involved in developing the scope of work and methodology for this study, and reviewed final work products.
Dr. Charles Groat
Under the leadership of Institute Associate Director Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat, researchers examined three critical areas related to shale gas development:
- Environmental and health effects related to all phases of shale gas development in the Barnett, Marcellus and Haynesville shale plays, including hydraulic fracturing, groundwater contamination and air emissions. Where problems were reported, researchers determined the actual cause of problems, based on a review of scientific and other literature.
- Public perceptions of shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing, as well as the tone of popular media — positive, negative, or neutral.
- State and federal regulations related to shale gas development, including an analysis of individual states’ capacity to enforce existing regulations.
“Our mission is to alter the trajectory of public discourse in a positive manner, as exemplified in our credo — good policy based on good science.” – Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Energy Institute, The University of Texas at Austin.
Video Clips Featuring UT Experts
Dr. Raymond L. Orbach
In these clips, Drs. Orbach and Groat discuss preliminary findings from the Energy Institute’s study on hydraulic fracturing: “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.”
Click on the following video clips to view:
- Overview on Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas Development
- Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin
- Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat, Associate Director, Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin
The following is an overview of key findings from the Energy Institute’s study.
Scientific Investigation into Groundwater Contamination and Other Environmental Impacts
The public debate over hydraulic fracturing in shale gas production has been marked by fears that the process will contaminate groundwater. Concerns also have been raised that underground methane releases are contaminating water wells.
Though little scientific evidence exists to support such claims, policymakers in some areas have banned the practice, and others have imposed moratoriums on shale gas development until additional research is conducted.
For this report, the Energy Institute research team focused on reports of groundwater contamination and other environmental impacts of shale gas exploration and production in states within the Barnett, Marcellus and Haynesville shales.
Key Findings:
- Researchers found no evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing operations, and observed no leakage from hydraulic fracturing at depth.
- Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g., failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
- Methane found in water wells within some shale gas areas (e.g., Marcellus) can most likely be traced to natural sources, and likely was present before the onset of shale gas operations.
- Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater sources than from hydraulic fracturing itself.
- Blowouts — uncontrolled fluid releases during construction or operation — are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.
Regulation of Shale Gas Development
Researchers surveyed federal and state laws and regulations related to shale gas development in 16 states that have or are expected to have shale gas production. This analysis covered all major phases of the shale gas lifecycle — exploration, well siting, drilling and fracturing, production, well plugging, and site closure.
The research team also examined several exemptions of shale gas development from federal environmental laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Key Findings:
- Primary regulatory authority for shale gas is at the state level, and many federal requirements have been delegated to the states.
- Most state oil and gas regulations were written well before shale gas development became widespread.
- Some states have revised regulations specifically for shale gas development, with particular focus on three areas of concern:
- Disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals
- Proper casing of wells to prevent aquifer contamination
- Management of wastewater from flowback and produced water
- Gaps remain in the regulation of well casing and cementing, water withdrawal and usage, and waste storage and disposal.
- Regulations should focus on the most urgent issues, such as spill prevention — which may pose greater risk than hydraulic fracturing itself.
Enforcement of State Regulations
Click the above image to view the illustration
Researchers also reviewed state agencies’ enforcement capabilities, including a review of staff responsible for conducting inspections and attorneys supporting enforcement. The review covered violations recorded, enforcement actions, field sampling, and monitoring.
Key Findings:
- Enforcement capacity is highly variable among the states, particularly when measured by the ratio of staff to numbers of inspections conducted.
- Most violations recorded are of the type associated with conventional gas drilling rather than being specific to hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production.
- Enforcement actions tend to emphasize surface incidents more than subsurface contaminant releases, perhaps because they are easier to observe.
Public Perception of Shale Gas Development
Energy Institute researchers analyzed print, broadcast and online news media coverage of shale gas development in the Marcellus, Haynesville, and Barnett shale areas. They found that the tone of media coverage has been overwhelmingly negative in all forms of media. Roughly two-thirds of the articles and stories examined were deemed negative, a finding that was consistent nationally and at local levels.
Researchers also found that less than 20% of newspaper articles on hydraulic fracturing mention scientific research related to the issue. Similarly, only 25% of broadcast news stories examined made reference to scientific studies, and about 33% of online news coverage mentioned scientific research on the issue.
The Fracking Debate: A Policymaker’s Guide
April 14, 2012
The Fracking Debate: A Policymaker’s Guide.
The Fracking Debate: A Policymaker’s Guide
Content Items
- Hydraulic Fracturing: The 2012 Debate
- Domestic Resource and Production Projections
- Low and Stable Prices, for Now
- Economic Benefits: Impact Studies and Their Omissions
- Public Health and Environmental Concerns
- States Take Action: The Balancing Act
- 2012 Legislative Trend Overview
- State Policy Actions
- Generating Revenue
- Increasing Transparency
- Water Quality Protection
- Monitoring to Improve Knowledge Base
- Federal Action
- Outlook
- Appendix
- Notes
NCSL Staff Contact
April 2012
By Jacquelyn Pless
Concerns about hydraulic fracturing are behind many states’ reluctance to tap the economic benefits created by natural gas development. Hydraulic fracturing—“fracking”—is an oil and gas extraction method that uses hydraulic pressure to break up rock. Millions of gallons of pressurized liquids, usually a water-based mixture of sand and chemical additives, are pumped deep underground to help release trapped gas.
This report provides an introduction to the domestic natural gas picture, explores the motivation behind state legislative involvement in fracking regulation, and summarizes state legislation that is being developed to address environmental concerns.
Hydraulic Fracturing: The 2012 Debate
Fracking allows access to previously inaccessible resources, such as shale gas, which is making up an increasingly large portion of the overall energy supply in the United States.
Combined with recent advances in horizontal drilling, the technology has opened up resources that, only a decade ago, were too expensive to develop. Some forecast that this increase in supply could sustain current U.S. consumption levels for another 90 years. Rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing in densely populated regions where the process is unfamiliar, however, has focused attention on its potential to affect public health and the environment.
Domestic Resource and Production Projections
Cumulative natural gas production from 2010 through 2035 is projected to be 7 percent higher than expected just a year ago.1 This is mainly due to technological advances in hydraulic fracturing that now make shale gas more accessible. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), shale gas production alone will increase nearly threefold from 5.0 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 13.6 trillion cubic feet in 2035. This equates to 23 percent of total U.S. dry gas production in 2010 and 49 percent of total U.S. dry gas production in 2035 (Figure 1).
The EIA expects domestic natural gas production to exceed consumption early in the next decade. By 2016, the United States is projected to become a net exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and an overall net exporter of natural gas by 2021.2
Download PDF (18 page document) to access the full report.
Executive Order — Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources | The White House
April 14, 2012
Executive Order — Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources | The White House.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies responsible for overseeing the safe and responsible development of unconventional domestic natural gas resources and associated infrastructure and to help reduce our dependence on oil, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. In 2011, natural gas provided 25 percent of the energy consumed in the United States. Its production creates jobs and provides economic benefits to the entire domestic production supply chain, as well as to chemical and other manufacturers, who benefit from lower feedstock and energy costs. By helping to power our transportation system, greater use of natural gas can also reduce our dependence on oil. And with appropriate safeguards, natural gas can provide a cleaner source of energy than other fossil fuels.
For these reasons, it is vital that we take full advantage of our natural gas resources, while giving American families and communities confidence that natural and cultural resources, air and water quality, and public health and safety will not be compromised.
While natural gas production is carried out by private firms, and States are the primary regulators of onshore oil and gas activities, the Federal Government has an important role to play by regulating oil and gas activities on public and Indian trust lands, encouraging greater use of natural gas in transportation, supporting research and development aimed at improving the safety of natural gas development and transportation activities, and setting sensible, cost-effective public health and environmental standards to implement Federal law and augment State safeguards.
Because efforts to promote safe, responsible, and efficient development of unconventional domestic natural gas resources are underway at a number of executive departments and agencies (agencies), close interagency coordination is important for effective implementation of these programs and activities. To formalize and promote ongoing interagency coordination, this order establishes a high-level, interagency working group that will facilitate coordinated Administration policy efforts to support safe and responsible unconventional domestic natural gas development.
Sec. 2. Interagency Working Group to Support Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources. There is established an Interagency Working Group to Support Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources (Working Group), to be chaired by the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, or a designated representative.
(a) Membership. In addition to the Chair, the Working Group shall include deputy-level representatives or equivalent officials, designated by the head of the respective agency or office, from:
(i) the Department of Defense;
(ii) the Department of the Interior;
(iii) the Department of Agriculture;
(iv) the Department of Commerce;
(v) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(vi) the Department of Transportation;
(vii) the Department of Energy;
(viii) the Department of Homeland Security;
(ix) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(x) the Council on Environmental Quality;
(xi) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(xii) the Office of Management and Budget;
(xiii) the National Economic Council; and
(xiv) such other agencies or offices as the Chair may invite to participate.
(b) Functions. Consistent with the authorities and responsibilities of participating agencies and offices, the Working Group shall support the safe and responsible production of domestic unconventional natural gas by performing the following functions:
(i) coordinate agency policy activities, ensuring their efficient and effective operation and facilitating cooperation among agencies, as appropriate;
(ii) coordinate among agencies the sharing of scientific, environmental, and related technical and economic information;
(iii) engage in long-term planning and ensure coordination among the appropriate Federal entities with respect to such issues as research, natural resource assessment, and the development of infrastructure;
(iv) promote interagency communication with stakeholders; and
(v) consult with other agencies and offices as appropriate.
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 13, 2012.
One analysis:
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:58:48 -0400
> From: jr@amanue.com
> To: citizensconcernedaboutnatgasdrilling@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [CCNGD] Obama to Planet: BURN BABY, BURN
>
> > Before we start blaming the POTUS once again for the ongoing affects of
> > previous GOP policies, we should ask ourselves what important budget items
> > were held hostage if the POTUS didn’t sign on to this idiocy.
>
> Well, sorry, but I don’t buy this. Obama is clearly spooked about gasoline
> prices costing him the election. So, he does this:
>
> > Today, three federal agencies announced a formal partnership to
> > coordinate and align all research associated with development of our
> > nation’s abundant unconventional natural gas and oil resources.
>
> Let’s understand what this means. The EPA has just been **STRIPPED** of its
> authority to do its own research. That fracking study that hasn’t quite
> come out yet? Well, that gets to be “coordinated”. With an “Interagency
> Working Group”. Translated into English this means: a group of
> industry-heavy politicos coordinated from the White House. If you saw the
> composition of Secretary Chu’s SEAB (Secretary of Enegry’s Advisory Board)
> — about 2/3 industry types — you’ll get a pretty good forecast of what
> this “Interagency Working Group” will look like. *BUT* it gets worse: What
> do you suppose the EPA is required to do before it can do a rulemaking? Um,
> that little thing called … research …
>
> So, here’s what this means: As far as unconventional gas is concerned, the
> EPA just got ***EVISCERATED***. It’s over. And no, Obama **DIDN’T** “have
> to” do this. And yes, we do have to call him out for it.
>
> This is a dark day. There is no other way to say it.
GDACC 
