Analysis: Gas is killing green energy in price war | Reuters

Analysis: Gas is killing green energy in price war | Reuters.

Gas drilling debated, discussed in Norwich June 16, 2011

Gas drilling debated, discussed in Norwich

By: Melissa deCordova, Sun Staff Writer (Evening Sun)
Published: June 17th, 2011

NORWICH – Yesterday afternoon’s meeting of a regional natural gas group to discuss government regulations on road use and pipeline infrastructure went off without a hitch despite a large crowd of anti-gas drilling activists who attended and later proceeded to rally in West Park afterwards.

The approximately 85 attendees at the County Office Building meeting were given a set of guidelines and asked to sit in designated areas for government officials, department directors, regulators, the general public and the press. Following a presentation from four speakers, Chenango County’s economic development consultant within the natural gas industry, Steven Palmatier fielded questions first from municipal leaders and from the public second.

Responding to a question from Adrian Kuzminski, moderator for a network of environmental Otsego County activists, who suggested that the group should be discussing the dangers of hydraulic fracturing and threats to the state’s drinking water supplies, Palmatier said the meeting was “not intended nor ever intended to be a debate of hydraulic fracturing.”

“We are dealing with the regulatory structure for our county to deal with the natural gas industry we have and to prepare for what we could have in the future,” he said.

Coventry resident Kim Michels asked about right-of-way set backs and surface and subsurface rights, particularly as they pertained to a natural gas pipeline company currently seeking a franchise in the towns of Sidney, Bainbridge and Coventry. A planning consultant, Chris Kale, asked about New York Department of Environmental Conservation set back requirements that she said don’t comply with Federal Housing Administration title insurance requirements and is causing problems in the secondary mortgage market.

At the rally, Kuzminski characterized the multi-county meeting as “outrageous” and told the about 40 in attendance, “I hope you don’t let them get away with that.”

“It’s important to work on the federal level, important to work on these issues in Albany, but we probably aren’t going to get bailed out by either. The only place to make things happen is on the ground level, through grassroots efforts like this. We have leverage at the local level,” he said.

Other speakers called for a complete ban on high water volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, a 60-year-old energy stimulation technology that uses high-pressure water mixed with chemicals and sand to crack open shale formations.

Town of McDonough Supervisor Arrington Canor, one of eight elected officials who attended the Regional meeting, said not knowing the facts about natural gas drilling is making people afraid.

“We aren’t here to argue. We officials need to know what the rules are and how we can work within them. It’s the only industry that we have that is promising jobs. We’re not hear to argue. We’re here to get the facts,” he said.

One of the meetings speakers, Gregory H. Sovas, of XRM, LLC, said the practice would require very minimal land disturbance. He pointed to the estimated 15,000 to 18,000 jobs that would be generated in the Southern Tier by 2015 if the state allows gas companies to drill into the massive Marcellus Shale formation.

“I get emotional even thinking about the landowner. Who is speaking up for them? I get emotional when others tell landowners what to do with their land,” he said.

The pending natural gas industry is also expected to result in $11.4 billion in economic output by 2020 and $1.4 billion in tax revenues for state and local governments over the next nine years.

The DEC is preparing to release an environmental impact statement in July that would outline new permit guidelines for natural gas exploration using horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracture stimulation.

—

Bradford Co. PA Map of Compromised Water & Gas Wells

I created an earlier draft of this map in Dec ’10 because when I called the DEP Williamsport office, they said they did not keep systematic records of this data; indeed, at the time (the regs have since been changed, in part due to the story Laura Legere of Scranton TimesTrib did when I explained the situation to her), the gas companies did not even have to report if they could resolve the complaint privately with the landowner. So, as of this date, none of the data is from the DEP.

I suspect that there are many more than I have here whose silence has been bought, who don’t know, or who don’t want to know, in addition to the ones I just don’t yet know about but are known to some, and I would like to ask everyone in Bradford County to help me keep this map as accurate and up-to-date as possible by writing to me at this address with any information they may have.

I will be updating the map approximately every two weeks.

Thank you,

Michael Lebron
NYSESS | DCS

Caroline Council Tables Resolution

The Marcellus Effect: Caroline Council Tables Resolution.

Video by Cris McConkey.  CC Attribution/Non-commercial. Playlist duration ~ 3-1/2 hrs: Rally; Privilege of the Floor and Reading of Resolutions; Presentations; Public Hearing; Vote on the resolutions.  Downloads.

SUMMARY BY SANDY PODULKA
Brooktondale Community Center, June 14, 2011

Two hundred or more people attended a Caroline Town Board meeting about a resolution to prohibit the Town from taking any action to enact a ban on hydraulic fracturing. Two of the three proponents of this resolution (Toby McDonald and Pete Hoyt) have gas leases and a third (Linda Adams) is the head of the Tompkins County Landowners Coalition. Of the 40 people who spoke, 35 were against the ban and 5 were for it. Since the resolution was apparently in response to the news that local citizens had gathered more than 900 signatures on a petition asking the Town Board to ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Town, many people stated their anger that the board was trying to stifle democracy. Many pointed out the conflict of interest issue, as well, and some asked board members with conflicts to recuse themselves from any vote on this issue. Another theme was the preservation of Caroline as a safe, tranquil community. People asked the Town Attorney, Guy Krogh, and Town Board not to put the avoidance of a lawsuit higher than protecting residents. Guy Krogh indicated that a ban might be possible if crafted carefully and thoughtfully after much analysis of state law. Most of the speakers did a very good job of voicing the concerns of Caroline residents who were dismayed that this resolution popped up on June 7. Local attorney David Slottje, of the Community Environmental Defense Council, spoke eloquently and passionately against the resolution. It was tabled at about 10:45 PM.


PRIVILEDGE OF THE FLOOR and READING OF RESOLUTIONS

Supervisor Barber opens Priviledge of the Floor; Comment on resolution before board in support of New York State Senata and Assembly bills S.3472 and A.3245 “home rule” 0m0s
Comment regarding statement made by town’s attorney at the April 12th board meeting in regard to Adams’ and Hoyt’s resolution. 2m36s
Response by Councillor Hoyt and reading of pertinent parts of the minutes which were not approved in a timely fashion to notify the public. 4m41s
Reading of resolution is support of 90-day public comment period after DEC promulgates new rules upon completion of its review of the SGEIS follwed by discussion and vote. 8m8s
Introductory remarks regarding Public Hearing 12m24s
Reading of resoution “Clarifying the town’s role regarding gas development based on current Environmental Conservation Law” 18m02s
Reading of Resolution in support of A.3245 / S.3472 19m15s

PRESENTATIONS

Linda Adams, Town Councillor 0m0s
Bill Podulka, Resident and Chair, Residents Opposed to Unsafe Shale-Gas Extraction (ROUSE) 3m51s
David Slottje, Attorney with Community Environmental Defense Council 12m49s
Guy Krogh, Attorney for Town of Caroline 26m18s
PUBLIC COMMENT

1-9 Public addresses Caroline Town Board

1 Pat Brhel 1m47s
2 Sandy Podulka 4m25s
3 Jim Raponi 7m40s
4 Ann Boehm 9m52s
5 Bendidt Pauli 13m44s
6 Anna Gibson 18m31s
7 Elisa Evett 19m56s
7a Councillor Linda Adams 23m57s
8 Karen L. Allaben 26m06s
9 Rita Rosenberg 28m20s

10-18 Public addresses Caroline Town Board

10 Kim Knight 0m0s
11 Irene Weiser 2m12s
12 Todd Schmit 7m02s
13 Tony Tavelli 9m32s
14 Bruce Murray 14m33s
15 Rebecca Dewit 17m05s
16 Michele Brown 20m42s
17 David Kauber 22m20s representing Steve Kress & Elissa Wolfson
18 Nelly Farnum, former Town Councillor 25m36s

19-27 Public addesses Caroline Town Board

19 Jonathan Comstock 0m0s
20 Bert Cooley 3m37s
21 Mary Alyce Kabler 10m52s
22 Leanne Avery 14m25s
23 James Burlitch 17m46s
24 Elliot Swarthout 20m01s
25 John Reed 21m30s
26 Frank Verret 22m14s
27 John Confer 26m16s

28-39 Public addresses Caroline Board

28 Sue PK 0m0s incomplete
29 Milt Taam 1m51s
30 Cyrus Umrigar 5m12s
31 Glen Robertson 9m13s
32 Picilla Timberlake 10m28s
33 Aaron Snow 13m12s
34 Bob Andeson 14m55s incomplete
35 Barbara Lynch 15m34s
36 Ellen Harrison 16m57s
37 Phillip Shapiro 20m20s
38 Bill Crispell 22m31s
39 Beth Hollier 25m09s

Public Discussion on Resolutions and Vote by Board duration: 18m57s

 

5 water wells, stream contaminated by methane – SunGazette.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information – Williamsport-Sun Gazette

5 water wells, stream contaminated by methane – SunGazette.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information – Williamsport-Sun Gazette.

Warning–Water testing as ruse to Hold a Gas Lease

This is also very possibly related to the “Duke” study on methane in water wells. The Duke study concluded that a) water wells withn 3000 ft of a gas well had about a 50% liklihood of dangerously high levels of methane, and b) that beyond 3000 ft the levels of methane were quite low.

This latter result is the “baseline issue for which the Duke study was criticized. That is “around here most water wells have methane in them and so that could not be a result of gas drilling.” This is how the O&G folks characterize things.
According to a 5-17-11 ProPublica article, the O&G Cos are sitting on thousands of such test data and will not release them.
My conclusion after a review of the baseline literature on this (thin as it is) is that the data are just enough to make a scientifically credible statement that “dangerous levels of methane in drinking water, absent nearby gas drilling, are very rare, probably likely to occur in less than 1% of water wells.
Thus, it is possible that this testing gambit, as noted below, is an attempt by industry to collect data favoring their position or possibly by a lawsuit firm attempting to gather data for a lawsuit, or some other kind of scam related to water quality that attempts to sell water quality mitigation stuff to unwitting homeowners (this is fairly likely since we know USGS data that 20-40% of water wells are contaminated, most with bacteria).
 Of course we do not know what the purported testing may be for or even if the assertion about “certified letters” is legit.

S

Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY  <scobies@frontiernet.net> 607-669-4683
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:40 AM
Subject: Water Testing Request
TGL Logo
Tioga County Landowners Group


To All:A company called Western Solutions has been sending certified letters to landowners in Tioga County especially in the Nichols area.  Western Solutions offers to do water testing on the landowner’s property at no cost to the landowner.  They claim to be representing several different energy companies (Chesapeake, Victory, and Columbia).  Depending on your leasing status the water test could constitute work performed by the energy company which could obligate you to your lease.

They are not beholden to the landowner, and these results could and most likely would be used against the landowner.  In its current form it should not be agreed to.  Whenever you get a certified letter beware.

Nick

Shale gas: Not a ‘game changer’ after all | Energy Bulletin

Shale gas: Not a ‘game changer’ after all | Energy Bulletin.

3quarksdaily: Try not to wreck the place on your way out

3quarksdaily: Try not to wreck the place on your way out.

‘Fracking’ for Natural Gas Continues to Raise Health Concerns | PBS NewsHour | June 15, 2011 | PBS

‘Fracking’ for Natural Gas Continues to Raise Health Concerns | PBS NewsHour | June 15, 2011 | PBS.

Another “he said/she said” report.  Check out the comments

COLUMN-Shale revolution hits snag along the Delaware: Kimmerle | Energy & Oil | Reuters

COLUMN-Shale revolution hits snag along the Delaware: Kimmerle | Energy & Oil | Reuters.

COLUMN-Shale revolution hits snag along the Delaware: Kimmerle

Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:10pm GMT

— Chris Kimmerle is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own —

By Chris Kimmerle

NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) – Shale gas and hydraulic fracturing have transformed the U.S. gas market in less than five years and are now central to the administration’s strategy for reducing emissions, boosting energy security and improving the balance of payments by cutting reliance on imported oil.

But the transformative potential of these technologies is threatened by rapidly escalating political opposition to the environmental impact of drilling and potential chemical contamination from fracking fluids.

The flash point centers on the giant Marcellus Shale in the Northeastern United States, which covers portions of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and New York. (here)

Development is pitting the gas industry and communities anxious to benefit from jobs and the income from royalties and leases against environmental groups and residents concerned about increased traffic and the risks to the environment from the disposal of a cocktail of chemicals injected into gas wells as part of the fracking process.

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

While the relatively poor state of West Virginia has welcomed shale development as a way to supplement income and jobs from its troubled coal industry, opposition has mounted in other states.

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection called for a prohibition on drilling within the watershed of the city’s reservoir system in December 2009, and the governor of Pennsylvania banned new wells on state forest lands in 2010.

Last month, the speaker of the New York State Assembly announced the Environmental Conservation Committee had reported out legislation to suspend the issuance of new drilling permits for hydraulic fracturing in the state until June 2012.

But one of the most serious public challenges to drilling in the Marcellus has come from grass roots opposition to regulations being proposed by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC).

The commission regulates water use and quality along the Delaware River under a 1961 compact among the states of Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania and the Federal Government. Its commissioners are the governors of the four riparian states as well as division engineer for the North East Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (here)

In May 2009, the commission notified the natural gas industry that new Marcellus wells cannot be drilled within the river’s drainage area without first applying for and obtaining its approval. At the same time the commission released a set of proposed development rules as part of its water quality regulations.

The regulations are intended to protect the river’s water resources and apply to all gas-development activities including withdrawing water from the river system and the disposal of wastewater (including fracking fluids) from fracking projects.

The public comment period on the proposed regulations, which closed on April 15, drew a heavy response with approximately 58,000 public submissions received, of which more than 36,000 were hostile to the further expansion of Marcellus drilling.

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

The combination of shale gas discoveries and the hydraulic fracturing process, which makes it possible to exploit them, has probably been the most important new development in the oil and gas industry in last decade.

The revolution began with exploitation of the Barnett Shale under the Texas city of Fort Worth in the late 1990s. It has since spread to the Greater Green River Basin in Wyoming, the Uinta-Picenance Basin in Colorado and Utah, the Haynesville Shale stretching across the Texas-Louisiana border, the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma, and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas. (here)

Production from unconventional shale reservoirs has leapt from 0.39 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to 1.3 trillion in 2007, 3.1 trillion in 2009 and 4.87 trillion in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration. It now accounts for 23 percent of all gas production in the United States.

Burgeoning shale production has transformed the outlook for the U.S. gas market. In 2005, the Hirsch Report for the U.S. Department of Energy forecast “Gas production in the United States now appears to be in permanent decline” and a period of rising gas prices.

Gas companies built a raft of regasification terminals to import LNG to alleviate predicted shortfalls in domestic production. Now surging output has caused prices to fall sharply and the gas companies are applying for permits to reverse the LNG terminals and use them to export domestic production.

Shale technology is now being deployed around the world and has effectively doubled the global resource base for natural gas. As a result, the International Energy Agency expects gas will play a much greater role in the global energy mix in future, according to a recent report in which it asked “Are we entering a golden age of gas?”

But that technological revolution has now run into an unexpected problem: mounting concerns about the content and disposal of fluids used.

CHEMICAL COCKTAIL

Key to winning natural gas from low permeable shale is hydraulic fracturing, a process that involves the injection of typically 1-4 million gallons of water at high pressure into a well in order to break the rock and allow gas to follow.

The water is combined with sand, chemicals, and gels to lubricate the process and help keep the rock open after it is broken. During the fracking process the fluid is returned to the surface for recirculation and ultimate disposal.

Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas industry introduced 780 million gallons of fracking fluid into U.S. wells, according to a staff report issued by the Democratic minority on the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives.

According to the report, the fracking fluids used contained a total 750 chemicals and other components. The most widely used chemical, as measured by frequency of use, was methanol – designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a hazardous air pollutant and candidate for inclusion on the list of regulated substances under the U.S. Safe Water Drinking Act.

Other widely used chemicals included benzene, lead, isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol (also used as a paint solvent and in cleaning products) and ethylene glycol (also used in automotive antifreeze).

The report identified 29 chemicals used in fracking that are known or possible carcinogens and regulated under the Safe Water Drinking Act or listed as hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

It also identified 94 million gallons of fracking fluid that contained at least one chemical or component that its manufacturer deemed proprietary or a trade secret and is not available for public scrutiny.

POLITICAL CONTEXT

The unconventional gas revolution was born in the belt of midcontinental and western states stretching up to Wyoming where there was a favorable political, business and regulatory environment for energy producers. Shale production was welcomed as creating jobs and generating state and local tax revenues.

The political context in the Northeast is very different. The region has a broader economic base so it is less dependent on the energy sector for jobs and tax revenue. It also has poisonous legacy of 250 years of heavy industrial development along some of its rivers, including abandoned oil wells, acid drainage from abandoned coal mines, underground fires in the anthracite field and industrial pollution.

In New York state, the upper Hudson River is contaminated with PCBs (a known carcinogen) and the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia remains scarred by the legacy of steelmaking and bituminous coal extraction industries.

Unsurprisingly, these states are more divided about shale development. The Delaware is part of the country’s Wild and Scenic Rivers System and provides drinking water for over 15 million people including the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan regions.

Coming from the more benign climate in the south, southwest, and west the industry appears to have been blindsided by the extent of local opposition. In a belated attempt to reverse industry groups have saturated local television and radio with advertisements extolling the virtues of oil and gas.

Even if the commission gives its approval, the lack of an environmental impact assessment is likely to form the basis for a court challenge. Litigation may delay implementation for 2-3 years, and open up fracking practices to greater scrutiny. (Editing by John Kemp and Marguerita Choy)