Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate.

Unconventional gas drilling is emerging as one of the most controversial energy & environmental issues in the United States and around the world today.

Advancements in extraction technologies, particularly horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), have enabled drillers to reach previously inaccessible gas in geological formations underlying several areas of the U.S.

Increasing public awareness of the threats posed by America’s dependence on foreign oil and dirty coal to public health and the global climate have led many – including some environmental organizations and progressive politicians – to embrace gas as a “bridge fuel” to help America kick its dirty energy addiction.

54 page report at: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf

But recent revelations about the dangers that unconventional gas drilling poses to drinking water supplies, public health and the global climate are raising important questions about how “clean” this gas really is.

Scientists studying the impacts of unconventional gas drilling warn that gas is likely to have a greater influence on water, air and climate than previously understood. Major scientific bodies have cautioned against a national commitment to gas as a bridge fuel, citing the need for further research into the potential consequences of continued reliance on this fossil fuel.

A growing number of land owners, former gas industry executives and elected officials are also challenging the notion that gas is as clean as its proponents argue, and questioning whether unconventional gas drilling can be done without threatening drinking water supplies, air quality and the global climate.

Yet the gas industry continues to benefit from lax oversight and several exemptions from existing public health protections, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and parts of the Clean Water Act that apply to other fossil fuel extraction industries. Recent attempts by federal agencies and lawmakers to improve oversight of gas operations have been met with strong resistance from the gas industry and its alliance of front groups and defenders in the media.

The gas industry’s influence in Washington has grown tremendously thanks, in large part, to the rapid consolidation of the gas industry into the hands of the largest oil companies in the past few years. Not long ago, the industry was made up primarily of what its proponents call “mom and pop” companies—small operators that drilled chiefly for conventional gas.

But with recoverable deposits of that relatively ‘easy’ conventional gas dwindling in the Lower 48, larger drillers have turned their focus to the more difficult and expensive unconventional gas plays.

Oil giants such as BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron now dominate the gas industry. The industry’s chief front group, Energy In Depth (EID), goes to great lengths to maintain the “mom and pop” image of the industry, claiming it represents small and independent gas producers.

However, its own documents prove that its early funding – and ongoing financial support – comes from many of the largest oil and gas interests.

EID and other gas lobby groups argue that federal oversight and increased scrutiny and accountability measures would harm the industry’s development and risk jobs. But big oil companies have made that same “economy-killing” argument for decades – a strategy they learned from tobacco companies and the chemical industry – while amassing record profits and enjoying spectacular growth.

Through intensive lobbying, campaign contributions and other forms of influence, these oil and gas companies have successfully thwarted efforts to hold the gas industry accountable for its impacts on health and the environment.

Now the same companies that brought us the Exxon Valdez spill, the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron’s destruction of the Amazonian rainforest in Ecuador and countless other pollution examples, want the public to blindly trust them – with zero federal oversight – as they pursue drilling for much riskier unconventional gas throughout the country.

The question is, given the oil industry’s track record of environmental and health disasters, can the public trust them to get it right with the more challenging unconventional gas?

This report is designed to shed light on the rapidly changing composition of the gas industry and to raise important questions about whether the rush to exploit unconventional gas may be coming at too high a cost to the environment.

While coal and oil certainly pose their own significant challenges to health and climate, it is important to recognize that unconventional gas is also a dirty fossil fuel and does not belong in any credible definition of “clean energy.”

Given the extensive uncertainties surrounding the impacts potentially connected to the unconventional gas industry’s current drilling practices, it is only prudent at this point to insist on a pause for further evaluation. In fact, as a direct result of the recent Chesapeake gas well blowout in Pennsylvania that spilled drilling chemicals onto nearby properties and waterways, a former gas company executive called for a moratorium on all fracking operations near waterways in Arkansas’s Fayetteville shale region, stating that:

“There is no reason on Earth, if they are going to close it down there, they shouldn’t close it down here.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the unconventional gas boom is happening too fast, too recklessly and with insufficient concern for the potential cumulative impacts on our most critical resources – clean air, safe drinking water and a stable climate.

DeSmogBlog joins those who are calling for a nationwide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other troublesome practices in the unconventional gas industry. Until independent scientists and experts conduct further studies, the public simply cannot trust the fossil fuel industry to continue with this dirty energy boom.

See:  http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf  for the full 54 page report

Fracking the Future DeSmogBlog

Media Centre. Media Resources

 

“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO

 

Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

Media Centre

Welcome to the DeSmogBlog Media Centre. If you’re looking for information on noted climate change skeptics, or on the use of PR techniques and spin by politicians, scientists, and in the media, you’ve come to the right place.

Since we launched the site in January 2006, we’ve compiled an extensive collection of resources. Please use this media centre to full advantage for your own reporting.

Should you want more information on a particular issue, skeptic or group, and cannot find it here, please feel free to contact us at brendan [at] desmogblog [dot] com.

As always, we’re always happy to receive tips from our readers. Please submit those to editor [at] desmogblog [dot] com. Spin is everywhere, and it’s clouding climate science and confusing the public. Help us in our mission for sound reporting on climate science. After all, you can’t spin Mother Nature.


About DeSmogBlog
DeSmogBlog exists to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change. An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable and wise choices for many reasons.


DeSmog Research Database
A database of individuals, “think” tanks, PR pros and corporations actively involved in clouding the science on climate change.


Resources and links to climate science websites

The Scientific Consensus
Here is a review by Science magazine that looked at 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change.” Not one of these studies disagreed with consensus view on climate change.

G8 Climate Statement (PDF)
Here is a 2005 joint declaration on the realities of global warming signed by the heads of the chief scientific advisors for all the G8 countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Russia, United States, Japan, Italy, India, Germany).

IPCC: The Scientific Basis
Here is the latest report issued by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – supported by the world’s leading climatologists.

The Royal Society – A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF)
“This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the pponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. … This document has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences.”

RealClimate.org
This is a climate change website run by leading climate change scientists. Here you will find out about the latest climate science, as well as information on the scientific myths on climate change.

The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming
Here is an article written by renowned author, and DeSmog contributor, Ross Gelbspan, that summarizes the scientific evidence on man-made climate change.

Climate Backgrounder
Here is a backgrounder on climate change written by DeSmogBlog writer Richard Littlemore.

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Country (also check here )

NationMaster GHG and Environment Statistics

Calculate your household’s carbon emissions

Helpful resources for researching the backgrounds of climate change “skeptics” and PR professionals

Exxon Secrets
Run by Greenpeace USA, ExxonSecrets exposes the campaign ExxonMobil has run for more than a decade to fund climate change skeptics and delay action to fix the problem.

PR Watch
Run by the Center for Media and Democracy, this site offers information on PR professionals in all sectors, including the fossil fuel industry and climate change. The CMD is run by John Stauber, author of 5 books on the PR industry, including Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Trust Us, We’re Experts.

Media Matters: Conservative Transparency
Run by Media Matters for America, this website reports the funding received by conservative US “think” tanks.

US Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program
A searchable database containing all US lobbyists, who they work for and the policies they are lobbying to change.

Government of Canada Lobbyist Registration
A searchable database containing all Canadian lobbyists, who they work for and the policies they are lobbying to change.

The Legacy Tobacco Documents
This site contains the entire library of documents relating to the Master Settlement Agreement between the US and the tobacco industry. In this searchable database you will find that many of the self-proclaimed climate change “skeptics” were also involved in confusing the public about the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.

DNS Stuff
Type in any website address in the “WHOIS” Lookup and see who really owns a website. We are constantly amazed at the information we find using this site.

Open Secrets
Check out this site for detailed information and analysis of industry donations to US politicians.

Dirty Energy Money
Run by Oil Change International, this site tracks the oil, gas and coal industry money flowing into the U.S. Congress.

Government of Canada Corporate Registry
Find out the who’s who of a corporation or a non-profit registered under Canada’s corporate registry act. For example, we found that the founding directors of a non-profit called The Natural Resource Stewardship Project were also lobbyists for the energy industry.


News Tips and Confidential Information
Have some interesting news stories, or some information that you feel needs to get out? Fill out our news tips form or fax your information to our confidential fax line at (604) 736-9902. Your anonymity is guaranteed.

FOLLOW US!

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER
Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.
DESMOG TIP JAR
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

DesmogBlog

ashleybraun profile

ashleybraun 10.1 billion people by the end of the century, huh? http://t.co/KcdNXtU yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite

DeSmogBlog profile

DeSmogBlog Solar struggle feeds into power cost blame game – The Canberra Times http://bit.ly/iuNXxK yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite

greenpeaceca profile

greenpeaceca RT @nytimesglobal: Japan to Halt 3 Nuclear Reactors Over Quake Fears http://nyti.ms/mjaKkk 13 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

greenpeaceca profile

greenpeaceca RT @info_activism: Inspiring exhibition touring UK this summer: Jiri Rezac photos tell the story of #tarsands http://ow.ly/4OCBs 13 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORKProgressive Bloggers

Agricultural Impacts Webinar May 11

FYI:

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/news/index.cfm#cornell_events

Upcoming Cornell Events


Marcellus Shale Webinar: Agricultural Potential Impacts

Marcellus Shale Webinar: Agricultural Potential Impacts will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 1:00-3:30PM.  Presenters: George Frantz, Dept. of City & Regional Planning, Cornell University, Kenneth Smith, Executive Director, CCE Chenango County, Judy Wright, American Farmland Trust.  To pre-register for the webinar and attend, click on the following link:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEpFdXFJUVBlbVlLWjZQMDVKMkZVbEE6MQ

Report: hundreds of gas wells drilled near schools, hospitals – News – The Times-Tribune

eport: hundreds of gas wells drilled near schools, hospitals – News – The Times-Tribune.

Report: hundreds of gas wells drilled near schools, hospitals


A state environmental group is calling on lawmakers to restrict natural gas drilling near places people live, learn and work after it released a study Thursday showing hundreds of wells have been planned or drilled next to schools and hospitals.

The study by PennEnvironment found that Marcellus Shale gas wells have been permitted or drilled within two miles of 320 day cares, 67 schools and nine hospitals in the state, putting “our most vulnerable populations at risk,” PennEnvironment field director Adam Garber said.

State law restricts drilling within 200 feet of an occupied building regardless of its use, but local and state elected officials have introduced bills and ordinances to expand that buffer.

The PennEnvironment study found that the closest day care is 400 feet from a permitted well site, the closest school is 900 feet away and the closest hospital is half a mile away.

Although the study shows that a school and day care in Lackawanna County are each within two miles of permitted well sites, the permits for those wells expired without drilling taking place.

In Susquehanna County, wells have been drilled on Elk Lake School District property, and another well is permitted within 2,000 feet of a district school. In Wyoming County, Tyler Memorial Hospital is about a mile and a half from the closest permitted well.

The study did not look at the proximity of gas processing plants or compressor stations to schools, day cares and hospitals and it did not take into account traffic violations or accidents involving trucks operating near those facilities.

Mr. Garber said blowouts and spills at shale wells in the state demonstrate the hazards of the extraction process. A recent blowout of a Chesapeake Energy well in Bradford County that allowed toxic wastewater to reach a waterway was in a remote area, he said.

“God forbid it happen next to an elementary school,” he said.

Andrea Mulrine, president of the League of Women Voters of Lackawanna County, said the report should spur legislative action to make sure drilling is done responsibly.

“The industry has moved with a lightning pace across the commonwealth and moved without the appropriate legislation in place at the state, local and county levels,” she said. “Legislation has to move faster than it’s moving right now.”

An industry group panned the report, saying it “fundamentally disregards the facts.” The group, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, also questioned the credibility of the report’s authors and reviewers.

“It’s unfortunate that some activists continue to peddle this kind of misinformation,” coalition spokesman Travis Windle said.

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

Worldwatch Institute Report Shows Nuclear Industry Was in Decline Even Before Fukushima

New Worldwatch Institute Report, Timed in Conjunction with Chernobyl Anniversary, Shows Nuclear Industry Was in Decline Even Before Fukushima

Washington, D.C.—Even before the disaster in Fukushima, the world’s nuclear industry was in clear decline, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute. The report, which Worldwatch commissioned months before the Fukushima crisis began, paints a bleak picture of an aging industry unable to keep pace with its renewable energy competitors.

To download a free copy of this report, click here.

“The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of the nuclear industry is written, Fukushima is likely to begin its final chapter,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the new report, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World, and an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy.

Some of the report’s key findings include:

  • Annual renewable capacity additions have been outpacing nuclear start-ups for 15 years. In the United States, the share of renewables in new capacity additions skyrocketed from 2 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2009, with no new nuclear capacity added.
  • In 2010, for the first time, worldwide cumulative installed capacity from wind turbines, biomass, waste-to-energy, and solar power surpassed installed nuclear capacity. Meanwhile, total investment in renewable energy technologies was estimated at $243 billion in 2010.
  • As of April 1, 2011, there were 437 nuclear reactors operating in the world, seven fewer than in 2002. In 2008, for the first time since the beginning of the nuclear age, no new unit was started up. Seven new reactors were added in 2009 and 2010, while 11 were shut down during this period.
  • In 2009, nuclear power plants generated 2,558 Terawatt-hours of electricity, about 2 percent less than the previous year. The industry’s lobby organization headlined “another drop in nuclear generation”—the fourth year in a row.

Despite predictions in the United States and elsewhere of a nuclear “renaissance,” the report concludes that the role of nuclear power was in steady decline even before the Fukushima crisis. The disaster will make the construction of new nuclear plants and extensions to the lifetime of current plants even more unrealistic.

“U.S. news headlines often suggest that a nuclear renaissance is under way,” said Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. “This was a big overstatement even before March 11, and the disaster in Japan will inevitably cause governments and companies that were considering new nuclear units to reassess their plans. The Three Mile Island accident caused a wholesale reassessment of nuclear safety regulations, massively increased the cost of nuclear power, and put an end to nuclear construction in the United States. For the global nuclear industry, the Fukushima disaster is an historic—if not fatal—setback.”

Notes for Media

For media in North America, please email Russell Simon at rsimon@worldwatch.org to interview Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. For media in Europe, please email Mycle Schneider at mycle@orange.fr. Other media may contact either Russell Simon or Mycle Schneider for more information.

Further Resources

About the Worldwatch Institute:

Worldwatch Institute delivers the insights and ideas that empower decision makers to create an environmentally sustainable society that meets human needs. Worldwatch focuses on the 21st-century challenges of climate change, resource degradation, population growth, and poverty by developing and disseminating solid data and innovative strategies for achieving a sustainable society. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than 20 languages.

About Mycle Schneider:

Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s General Directorate for Research, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. He is a member of the Princeton University based International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM).  In 1997, along with Japan’s Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize.”

Worldwatch E-mail List:

If you would like to receive Worldwatch press advisories regularly, please sign up at www.worldwatch.org/press-room.

Rally for a Statewide Ban on Fracking – Albany NY – May 2 on Vimeo

Rally for a Statewide Ban on Fracking – Albany NY – May 2 on Vimeo on Vimeo

via Rally for a Statewide Ban on Fracking – Albany NY – May 2 on Vimeo.

Rally for a Statewide Ban on Fracking – Albany NY – May 2
22 hours ago
More
See allShow me

VeccVideography’s videos
95. Rally for a Statewide Ban on Fracking – Albany NY – May 2
This is a report of the Rally for a Statewide Ban on Fracking. There are excerpts from many speakers including Josh Fox, Senator Avella and many more. Also, there are personal appeals to Governor Cuomo to pass the Ban bill now.
Kudos to Frack Action and all the 60 sponsors for a great event. Let’s have many more!
22 hours ago

69. The Snow Chute

4 months ago

Businesses and Towns Taking On Fracking | WBNG-TV: News, Sports and Weather Binghamton, New York | Local

Businesses and Towns Taking On Fracking | WBNG-TV: News, Sports and Weather Binghamton, New York | Local.

Businesses and Towns Taking On Fracking

By Brennan Smith
Bio

March 28, 2011 Updated Mar 28, 2011 at 11:36 PM EDTTown of Middlefield, NY (WBNG Binghamton) As state lawmakers try do decide what they want to do with hydraulic fracturing, some towns are taking the matter into their own hands.

The town of Otsego and Middlefield are discouraging drilling on their land.

One area business is working to ban fracking.

Brewery Ommegang operates in the Town of Middlefield.

It goes through one million gallons of water per year to make its beer.

Water, it believes, could become polluted if hydraulic fracturing were allowed in the town.

“Beer is water and any threat to our water quality is a threat to our business,” said Brewmaster Phil Leinhar.

The Brewery says it is urging its local government to take action against hydro-fracking.

It is also taking a stand with 250 other businesses in a coalition.

“This isn’t just the usual liberal, left-wing greeny thing. It’s people across the entire spectrum. We’re concerned about this as a business,” says Larry Bennett who does Press Relations for the brewery.

Environmental effects isn’t the business’s only concern.

The nearby Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce says its members rely heavily on tourism.

It released a statement against fracking after surveying its members.

Eighty-seven percent of its members who responded agree with the move.

The chamber believes the drilling industry would change the region and discourage travel.

“I think the area sees half a million visitors per year. This year, we’ll get forty-thousand coming to this brewery right here and that makes it important to us to have a pristine environment, not just the water.”

The Brewery says it doesn’t want New York Sate to be the testing ground for natural gas drilling.

It wants the DEC to continue to research the procedure before it approves it.

Bennett says he will be meeting with the DEC and state leaders tomorrow.

He will be sharing his own research with them and finding out where they stand on the issue.

The Towns of Otsego and Middlefield are looking into either rezoning or crafting bans to prevent drilling.

Gmail – Pa. well blowout tests industry on voluntary fracking disclosure – mary.beilby@gmail.com

 Pa. well blowout tests industry on voluntary fracking disclosure

NATURAL GAS: Pa. well blowout tests industry on voluntary fracking disclosure  (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter

Chesapeake Energy Corp., whose gas well blew out during hydraulic fracturing last month in northeastern Pennsylvania, hasn’t publicly disclosed chemicals that spilled, setting up the first test of an industry-backed voluntary disclosure program.

An official in charge of the disclosure registry said the chemicals should be disclosed in such a situation.

“You’d have to treat it like one that was completed,” Mike Paque, executive director of the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), said in an interview. “The chemicals were down the hole.”

Chesapeake has led the drive within the industry for disclosure and was among the first to join the FracFocus registry initiative. But company spokesman Jim Gipson said the company doesn’t plan to file a report until it is done with “completion,” the preparation of production after drilling.

“Information is uploaded on the site when well completion reports are filed with the state,” explained Gipson, citing the process in which a well is prepared for production after drilling. But it’s not clear when, or if, that process will ever take place.

“We won’t know for a while but it is entirely possible this well could be completed at some point in the future,” Gipson said.

Chesapeake’s Atgas 2H well in Bradford County’s LeRoy Township blew out April 19, spewing water for more than 12 hours.

U.S. EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have requested a list of the chemicals involved as part of their investigation of the spill. State and federal investigations and the threat of lawsuits may be making the company reluctant to publicly disclose the chemicals.

“We have fully and voluntarily complied with the DEP’s April 22 request for information, which includes chemical additives used in the hydraulic fracture stimulation of the Atgas 2H” well, Gipson said.

But if the accident had taken place in Wyoming, which has the strictest public disclosure rules in the country on fracturing, the public would already know at least what drillers planned to blast down the hole. Wyoming requires the list from well operators in advance to get a permit.

“We would have had prior approval and disclosure,” said Wyoming State Oil and Gas Supervisor Tom Doll.

But the FracFocus site doesn’t request information before a well is drilled or “fracked.” Paque said the chemical mix always changes from the original plans, and having two lists of ingredients would sow confusion. Paque said last week he had been told by Chesapeake officials that they would post the information, but as of this morning it was not posted.

GWPC administers the FracFocus registry along with another organization of state legislators, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

They began working on the registry last fall to provide a central place for drilling companies to post fracturing fluids (Greenwire <http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2010/12/03/archive/9

> , Dec. 3, 2010). The site launched last month (Greenwire <http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2011/04/12/archive/16> , April 12).

The initiative, backed by industry and paid for with help from the U.S. Department of Energy, is part of a larger effort by industry and state regulators to head off federal regulation of fracturing.

Chesapeake’s Gipson didn’t respond directly to a request for a list of the chemicals that were being injected. He said they should be similar to those used in nearby wells.

“This well shouldn’t be much different,” Gipson said.

Industry assurances, Md. lawsuit

The lists of additives injected in other wells in Bradford County include formaldehyde, ethanol, hydrotreated light petroleum distillate (a class of solvents that includes kerosene) and 2-Butoxyethanol, or 2-Be, a hazardous chemical linked to long-term health problems experienced following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The chemicals make up a very small fraction of the millions of gallons of fluid injected into a Marcellus Shale gas well. But human exposure to some of them is measured in parts per million.

The name of other chemicals was withheld as “proprietary.”

Gipson sought to assure that whatever the chemicals were, most didn’t get sprayed out of the well and into creeks.

“When comparing completion records, you need to keep in mind that this well was undergoing only stage three of a dozen or more stages when the equipment started leaking,” he said. “Also, much of the chemical additives are engineered to bond with the steel casing and the shale, so it’s a faulty assumption that large volumes of these already highly diluted (0.5 percent of total volume) additives returned to the surface.”

He added, “The overwhelming majority of what flowed to the surface [last month] was naturally occurring brine that had been trapped in the shale for 300 million years or more.”

That ultra-salty brine is generally more dangerous than the fracturing fluid itself, and can include metals like barium and strontium and traces of radioactivity.

Chesapeake has said testing during the spill showed “limited and very localized environmental impact,” and that tests a short distance downstream in the Susquehanna River found “no effect whatsoever.”

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansle (D), announcing earlier this week that he intended to sue Chesapeake, countered that “tens of thousands of gallons” of fracturing fluid came out of the well, and the fluid leaked into a tributary of the Susquehanna, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay (Greenwire <http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2011/05/03/archive/8> , May 3).

The debate about what chemicals are in fracturing fluid has gotten louder since drilling started to ramp up in the more heavily populated Northeast. And an exemption from public disclosure and EPA regulation, granted by former President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2005, has raised suspicions among drill-site neighbors. Voluntary disclosure is viewed as a way to alleviate some of that suspicion.

Chesapeake Chairman and CEO Aubrey McClendon was among the first gas executives to call for increased disclosure of fracturing chemicals (Greenwire <http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/10/01/archive/3> , Oct. 1, 2009). And the company joined in the launch of the FracFocus site with a press release <http://www.chk.com/news/articles/pressreleases/04-11-11%20gwpc%20registry.pdf>  announcing its participation.

Patchwork of state rules

State rules on disclosure of fracturing chemicals vary widely. Some have no requirements; some require disclosure only to regulators or medical personnel in an emergency.

Last year, Wyoming adopted the strictest public disclosure rules in the country.

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission requires drillers to post what they plan to inject in order to get a permit to drill. There are some exemptions for ingredients that are “trade secrets,” but they must be approved in advance. After the well is completed, they must come back and report what they actually injected. All of the information, including approval of trade secrets, is posted to the agency’s website <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/> .

The strict disclosure rules, requested by then-Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D), were also designed to head off federal regulation of fracturing.

“The governor felt if we did that, EPA would not need to step in and regulate fracking,” Doll said.

In the case of an accident like the blown-out well, all information about the chemicals in the fracturing fluid would be disclosed.

The accident in LeRoy Township will also test drillers’ claim that the fracturing process itself has not been proven to have contaminated water supplies. But industry representatives have generally made that assertion with regard to the underground escape of the fracturing chemicals, rather than surface spills.

The Marcellus Effect: Farce Majeure

The Marcellus Effect: Farce Majeure.

Take Action to Save State Forests

ROUSE

Take Action!

(1) Submit Written Comments on Gas Drilling in Shindagin Hollow and Danby State Forests
(2) Sign ROUSE’s Statement to Ban Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas Statewide
(3) Sign Town of Caroline Petition Asking Town Board to Ban HF within the Town of Caroline
(4) Medical Professionals Sign-On Letter Opposing High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
(5) Protest DEC’s Sacrificing of Upstate Water in Favor of Syracuse and NYC Watersheds
(6) Sign a Petition to Ban Shale Gas Drilling in New York State

Also check out the Action Steps at these websites:  NYRAD  Toxics Targeting

NOTE: The handouts on key shale gas drilling topics are now “Fact Sheets” on the “Links to Resources” page, under “Basic Gas Drilling Information.” Click here for a direct link.

(1) Submit Comments on DEC’s Forest Management
Plan that Allows Gas Drilling in Shindagin Hollow
and Danby State Forests

This is very important because it affects the future of state forests in our backyards!  Comments at the public hearing were unanimously opposed to allowing HVHF in state forests.  Now we must build on that by submitting written comments.

Please:  submit written comments (by May 14, 2011, see details below—they can be short!!!)

The Bottom Line:
Below is much information on the documents and commenting, all optional. You would be helping this cause to simply say that you don’t want leasing for gas or oil drilling in Shindagin and Danby State Forests (the “Rapid Waters Management Unit”) because you think the other uses of these forests are more important (list some), and mineral extraction will detract from these uses (you can say in what way). Links to sample comments plus a suit against DEC to force it to remove HVHF as an option in state forests are given below—we will be adding to this list as we receive comments and permission to post them.

In this fight, number of commenters on each side counts. The notice went out on landowner coalition listservs, whose members presumably will be commenting in favor of drilling in these forests

Written Comments: (by email or snail mail)
When:       By May 14, 2011 (NOTE: A week later than posted previously)
Where:     To John Clancy
(Senior Forester, Region 7, and principal author of the management plan)
NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests
Attn: John Clancy, 1285 Fisher Ave., Cortland, NY 13045-1090

The Details:
The DEC is developing management plans for state forests, and the draft plan for our area, including Shindagin Hollow State Forest and Danby State Forest, allows “exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources within the Unit’s State Forests.”

Last time the DEC came up with a plan to lease Shindagin (in 2006), public comment opposing it convinced them to NOT lease! This time, the stakes are higher, as gas drilling is more likely. If the forests are leased, our area might be more attractive to drilling companies, and more people might be affected by compulsory integration.

We can stop this again if a LOT of people speak out and send in written comments.
Most important is to have many people opposed, rather than a few people writing long, detailed critiques. Comments can be kept short, although it’s certainly ok if they are longer and more detailed.

Note: this is the general plan allowing them to lease; if a particular area is considered for leasing, there will be another public hearing. But, it’s important to stop this now, before it gets to the next stage.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Suit Against the DEC

On May 3, 2011, The Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition, Inc. (CWCWC) announced that they were suing the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in New York State Supreme Court to declare high-volume hydraulic fracturing in New York State Forests contrary to the New York State Constitution and applicable environmental laws. Click here to see information on the lawsuit.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Sample Comments:

Sample Comments #1
John Confer

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

To see the Draft Management Plan: (the “Rapid Waters DRAFT Unit Management Plan”)

1) Go to the NYS DEC web site http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/72384.html
You can download the Plan in 4 parts from this web site.

2) Go to the Town of Danby web site http://town.danby.ny.us/Documents/RapidWatersMgmtPlan.pdf
The entire document is in one 13.3MB file.

Sections Discussing Gas Leasing/Drilling:
pp. 11-13: Gives an overview of nearby leasing in the past and present, and forest leasing in the future.
pp. 71-73: Objective 3.2: Accept Nominations to Lease Natural Gas Exploration and Development Rights while Protecting Sensitive Areas and Other Management Objectives. Tells how they plan to allow leasing.

Key Gas Drilling Provisions in Plan (pp. 71-73):

(1) Recommends drilling at 1 pad per 320 acres, but does not require this and leaves the door open for more dense drilling in the future.

(2) Sets up a hierarchy of areas within the forests, A, B, C, and D, according to their suitability for drilling. A = most suitable; D = no drilling. It says 56% of the area would be in category D if assessed today, but they don’t actually make any area assessments.

(3) Pipelines will NOT follow the hierarchy, so they could go anywhere DEC decides to allow them.

(4) New roads will be placed “in consideration of the hierarchy,” but at DEC’s discretion.

(5) pp. 119-120 give setbacks for surface disturbance from mineral extraction: 250′ from streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, seeps, vernal pools (high water line), and recreation trails.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Info from the last round, in 2006, when leasing was shot down:

►There are insights to be gained by looking at what the Public and DEC said then, and also
you can get many good ideas of what to put in your comments:

The document Response to Public Comments: 2006 State Land Lease Sale discusses the leasing and public input process, and describes and lists the different types of comments made on both sides and responds to them. Definitely worth a skim!

For a few key notes on the 2006 Response to Public Comments document, click here.

For selected excerpts from the 2006 Response to Public Comments document, click here.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The following are listed as “stewards” of the 2 forests, in the management plan:

AANR Volunteer Stewards State Forest
Bethel Grove Bible Church Shindagin Hollow
Candor Valley Riders Snowmobile Club Shindagin Hollow
Cayuga Trails Club Danby and Shindagin Hollow
Cycle-CNY Shindagin Trail Committee Shindagin Hollow
Finger Lakes Trail Conference Danby and Shindagin Hollow
Friends of Bald Hill Danby
Spencer-Van Etten Snowbmobile Club Danby

If you know someone in one of these groups, please contact them and see if they oppose leasing and are willing to mobilize their group to help protect the forests from drilling.

To protect our local forests, we must come out in force at the April 14th meeting.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

DEC ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT THE PUBLIC MEETING:

http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/State Forest Leasing DEC Mtg Notice 4-11.pdf

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Comments from Others on the 2010 NYS State Forest Management Plan:
(In late 2010, comments were accepted on this statewide document. Here are comments from Barbara Lifton, the Finger Lakes Land Trust, the Town of Danby, and others, including why gas drilling should not be done in Shindagin and Danby. The same points could be made now. See first item at this link.)

http://www.tcgasmap.org/default.asp?metatags_Action=Find(‘PID’,’49’)#Effects on Forests and Wildlife

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Info on the Impacts of Gas Drilling on Forests and Wildlife:

Effects of Drilling on Wildlife, Forests, and Streams:
The following link is to a new “in press” section of the TCgasmap primer that is not yet on the web. It’s a summary of the most important info on this topic, and contains numerous references. (Ignore underlined links to other sections of the web page for now!)

http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Wildlife Impacts for State Forest Commenting.pdf

Summaries of articles on how drilling affects wildlife and forests:

http://www.tcgasmap.org/default.asp?metatags_Action=Find(‘PID’,’49’)#Effects on Forests and Wildlife

http://www.tcgasmap.org/default.asp?metatags_Action=Find(‘PID’,’21’)#Effects on Forests and Wildlife

The effects of ground-level ozone (increased by drilling) on trees:
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_wright_envisci_9/21/5497/1407388.cw/content/index.html
“Through its tissue-damaging effects, ozone also endangers valuable timber stands and fragile wilderness ecosystems. As a component of urban smog, ozone impairs the aesthetics of those systems and creates secondary impacts on urban and wilderness habitats. Such damage is already apparent in urban trees and in parks downwind of major cities around the world.”

Land area affected by each well pad in PA (article summary):
Johnson, Nels. November 15, 2010. “Pennsylvania Energy Impacts Assessment: Report 1: Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind.” http://pa.audubon.org/PDFs/energy_analysis report.pdf
Researchers in PA took aerial photos of 242 well pads in forested areas in the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania. They digitized the images and measured how much land was cleared for well pads, access roads, pipelines, and water impoundments. They found, on average, that 3.1 acres were cleared for each well pad, and that an additional 5.7 acres were cleared for the associated structures around that well pad (roads, etc.). Then, using well-established research that most edge effects extend at least 330 feet into a forest from the edge, they calculated the additional area disturbed indirectly as 21.2 acres per pad. Thus, each well pad disturbed at least 30 acres! Although Marcellus shale well pads are expected to eventually host 6 to 8 or more wells, these pads only hosted 2 wells, on average, so the disturbance is likely to be much greater in the future. In PA, many drillers are currently developing only a few wells per pad as they rush from pad to pad to establish activity on each lease, which allows them to keep the lease (called held by production) without paying more signing bonuses to landowners or renegotiating terms.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Excerpts from the 2011 State Forest Management Plan
Covering Shindagin Hollow and Danby State Forest

http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/State Forest Leasing 2011 Rapid Waters Plan Excerpts.pdf

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

(2) If you Live in NY State, Sign ROUSE’s Statement:
High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
should not be Permitted in NY to Extract Shale Gas.

ROUSE (Residents Opposing Unsafe Shale-Gas Extraction) is gathering signatures from all NY residents, and # acres owned from those who own land. The statement will be used to publicly counter the large number of people and acres being tallied by landowner coalitions to push drilling forward. Your name and contact info will be kept confidential upon request at the time of signing.

Click here for more information and a link to signing the statement