Silica handling in Owego

June 5, 2012

Stopping yesterday in Owego just west of Binghamton, I toured the town depot where silica is brought by rail from the west, stored in a large 4 chamber tower, loaded into silver tankers, and transported to Pennsylvania for fracking.  How many other such depots exist in our NYS towns, blowing dangerous silica dust over its citizenry in addition to the workers on the site?
Suzannah Glidden, Director
Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition
914-234-6470
www.newyorkwater.org
CrotonWshed@aol.com

Filed under Health, Infrastructure, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with , , , , , ,

Pennsylvania Game Commission accepting bids for leasing local game lands to gas companies – News – Daily Review

June 4, 2012

Pennsylvania Game Commission accepting bids for leasing local game lands to gas companies – News – Daily Review.

Filed under Drilling Permits, Governmental impacts, Leasing Issues, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Parks & Recreation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking

Minard-Run-Oil-Company-Finger-Lakes-Development-Plan

June 4, 2012

In March, Minard Run from Bradford PA  purchased from CHK, over 400
wells in Cayuga county and Onondaga county including wells near
Skaneateles Lake, just outside the 4000′ setback from the watershed
and many wells in Cayuga County near Cayuga Lake.

Included in their purchase is one of the three NY injection disposal
wells near the head of Cayuga Lake.

They intend to apply for permits to develop more Queenston wells, and
eventually go for the Utica.  they hold over fifteen thousand
Marcellus leasehold acres in Bradford county.  minardrunoil.com

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95762186/Minard-Run-Oil-Company-Finger-Lakes-Development-Plan

Thanks to Bill Hecht for the head’s up on this.

Filed under Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Sierra Club: No new gas plants | GJSentinel.com

June 4, 2012

Sierra Club: No new gas plants | GJSentinel.com.

Filed under Environment, Renewable Energy, Save the Planet, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with ,

In Land of Hydraulic Fracturing, a Battle Over Water Pollution – NYTimes.com

June 2, 2012

In Land of Hydraulic Fracturing, a Battle Over Water Pollution – NYTimes.com.

Filed under EPA, Health, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , ,

Abandoned wells

June 2, 2012

Yesterday on the NPR station WSKG broadcast of Living on Earth ( http://www.loe.org/) there was a segment on locating abandoned oil/gas wells in PA – very interesting and relevant.

Some excerpts:

DOE Looks for Orphan Wells

CURWOOD: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Steve Curwood. For more than 150 years prospectors in the United States have drilled countless holes in the ground in search of oil and gas. Most of the resulting wells were sealed once they became unprofitable. But improperly sealed ones can lead to explosions and other hazards.
With the gas rush now underway in the Marcellus Shale in the Eastern U.S., the federal Department of Energy has made the search for so-called “orphan wells” a high priority.

….The helicopter has special equipment mounted on long, white poles on either side. At the end of each pole is a white cylinder pointed at the ground. Inside, these canisters are essentially advanced metal detectors. They can pick up cars, natural metals like gold, or the metal casings found in abandoned oil and gas wells.

….An abandoned well, if it’s not properly plugged, it provides a conduit for gases to come to the surface. These gases could be, of course, methane, natural gas, or something like radon.

….The first natural gas well in Pennsylvania was drilled in 1859. But the industry wasn’t regulated until 1956. That left almost a century’s worth of wells drilled, with little or no records of where they were located. It’s estimated there are more than 100,000 of these so-called “orphan wells” sitting in Pennsylvania.

.…One problem with looking for wells, Carter says, is a lot of the metal casings used to detect these wells are gone. 
 (The program does not explain how these wells are located, as the sensing system is based on magnetism detecting the steel casing.)
…..Our story on orphaned wells comes to us from the radio show The Allegheny Front.
From the DEC’s revised DSGEIS
Preliminary Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Page 7-59
To ensure that abandoned wells do not provide a conduit for contamination of fresh water
aquifers, the Department proposes to require that the operator consult the Division’s oil and gas
database as well as property owners and tenants in the proposed spacing unit to determine
whether any abandoned wells are present.  If (1) the operator has property access rights, (2) the
well is accessible and (3) it is reasonable to believe based on available records and history of
drilling in the area that the well’s total depth may be as deep or deeper than the target formation
for high-volume hydraulic fracturing, then the Department would require the operator to enter
and evaluate the well, and properly plug it prior to high-volume hydraulic fracturing if the
evaluation shows the well is open to the target formation or is otherwise an immediate threat to
the environment.  If any abandoned well is under the operator’s control as owner or lessee of the
pertinent mineral rights, then the operator is required to comply with the Department’s existing
regulations regarding shut-in or temporary abandonment if good cause exists to leave the well
unplugged.  This would require a demonstration that the well is in satisfactory condition to not
pose a threat to the environment, including during nearby high-volume hydraulic fracturing, and
a demonstrated intent to complete and/or produce the well within the time frames provided by
existing regulations.
A criticism of the of this section is that this “proposal” could easily miss wells which have long since been abandoned, especially those from which the casing was removed for scrap steel.  From the DEC’s website:

Long Abandoned Wells Predate Strict Rules

DEC has a strict environmental regulatory program for oil and gas wells drilled in New York. New York has had an active oil and gas industry since the 1880’s and DEC estimates that more than 75,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled in the state. Most of these wells existed prior to the establishment of New York’s regulatory program in 1963 that ensures the proper plugging of wells. DEC has identified about 4,800 unplugged, abandoned oil and gas wells in New York for which no known owner can be located. It estimates that at least as many more unplugged and abandoned wells exist that are yet to be discovered. Many of the older wells were abandoned by their owners when low production and/or low prices made it unprofitable for them to continue production.
I expect that this airborne scanning technology will be cited by the DEC to deflect some of the criticism about undocumented wells.
Jim Weiss
1. They didn’t talk about cost to find/time to find
2. They didn’t talk about cost to plug
3. They didn’t talk about alternative technologies to find (there is ALWAYS som other way(s)
4. They didn’t talk about old abandoned water wells – another contamination vector
5. Sigh,  S

Filed under DEC, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Spills-Accidents-Suits Tagged with , ,

Group wants fracking study

June 2, 2012

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

Filed under Health, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Risk Assessment, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with , , , , ,

Meeting Minard

June 1, 2012

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


Filed under Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with , , , , , , ,

A Climate of Corporate Control

June 1, 2012


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.

Filed under Constitutional Rights, Environment, Industry claims, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, public opinion, Renewable Energy, Save the Planet, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , , , ,

Did Chesapeake miss Enron lessons?

May 30, 2012

Did Chesapeake miss Enron lessons?.

Filed under Economics, Industry claims, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →