The Philadelphia Inquirer Digital Edition

The Philadelphia Inquirer Digital Edition.

 

Stats on shale are flawed 1

One firm misstated Marcellus wastewater produced, throwing off recycling figures.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s statistics on Marcellus Shale naturalgas activity contain serious flaws and inconsistencies, and do not accurately report the volume of wastewater being reused in the industry’s much-touted recycling efforts.

JOHN TIERNO / Staff Artist Liquid Waste Recycling OverreportedAn Inquirer analysis of a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report on liquid waste generated by natural-gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale between July and December of 2010 has revealed an error that led to a significant overstatement of the percentage of liquid waste that was recycled. SOURCE: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionThe DEP’s most recent statewide statistics on wastewater production overstate by nearly two times the amount of wastewater produced during the last six months of 2010 largely because one of the 39 operators who filed reports last month inadvertently entered the wrong data in its forms.

Seneca Resources Corp. says it mistakenly reported the number of gallons of wastewater it generated as barrels. A barrel contains 42 gallons, so Sene ca’s numbers were hugely inflated. And so was the amount of water that it reportedly recycled.

As a result, the 5.2 million barrels of waste that Seneca misstated in the reports accounted for half the entire state’s volume of 10.6 million barrels, though Seneca produced only about 3 percent of the Marcellus Shale natural gas extracted during that sixmonth period.

“It was in fact stated as barrels when it was actually gallons,” said Nancy J. Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company, a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co. of Houston. She said the employee who misstated the number was “mortified” to learn of the error.

Seneca’s actual wastewater numbers amounted to about 125,000 barrels. The statewide total has been revised down to about 5.5 million barrels of wastewater.

The miscue couldn’t have come at a worse time for the industry and the Pennsylvania DEP. On Monday, the federal Environmental Protection Agency put Harrisburg on notice that the EPA would increase its scrutiny of how Pennsylvania managed shaledrilling wastewater after news media reported that inadequately treated Marcellus wastewater may be polluting the state’s rivers.

“Obviously we’re under the microscope whatever we do now,” said Kathryn Z. Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group.

The episode also raises questions about the DEP’s ability to process the data generated by the fast-growing industry, since Seneca’s reporting errors should have been obvious to any knowledgeable analyst who waded through a 5,000-line spreadsheet that the agency posted on its website two weeks ago.

DEP officials did not respond Wednesday to questions about how the agency failed to notice the bad numbers. Seneca reported one of its wells produced more than 500,000 barrels of wastewater — 22 million gallons — an amount that would typically be generated by dozens of Marcellus wells.

“It is too early to draw any definitive conclusions or interpretations about the data being filed,” said Kevin Sunday, an agency spokesman. “We are still in the process of receiving and reviewing production data.”

John Hanger, who stepped down as DEP secretary in January when Gov. Corbett took office, said the agency was overwhelmed with data in November when he authorized the DEP to hire six new administrative employees to help address weaknesses in the agency.

“There’s just an enormous amount of data being submitted, and it would be fair to say that DEP data processing is not where it should be,” he said.

Industry officials said the problem was compounded because the detailed production and waste reports were mandated by a law that went into effect last year, and both the regulators and the industry are struggling to adapt.

There seem to be many inconsistencies in how operators report the wastewater — some is listed as brine, some as drilling fluid, and some as “frac fluid,” the liquids that flow back after hydraulic fracturing, the process for extracting gas from tight rock layers such as shale.

The reports have been closely reviewed by the public and the media partly to gauge how the massive volumes of toxic wastewater generated by Marcellus drilling is being managed.

Marcellus wastewater contains corrosive salts and some radioactive isotopes and metals that naturally occur in the deep formation where the gas resides. It also contains some chemicals used during the fracturing process.

While the industry initially sent much of the fluid to public sewage-treatment plants that are not designed to treat drilling wastes, the state has responded by restricting discharges. The industry has ramped up efforts to recycle the wastewater, reducing the need for treatment and discharge.

Before the Seneca error was discovered, the industry reported recycling about 6 million of 10.6 million barrels of wastewater during the last half of 2010 — about 57 percent of the total.

But Seneca’s inflated numbers represented about 5.2 million barrels of the recycled water. So when its numbers are revised downward, the total volume of wastewater reported recycled falls to 17 percent.

The DEP and the industry still maintain that at least 70 percent of all wastewater is being recycled by blending it into new hydraulic fracturing operations.

They say the waste reports are not comprehensive accounts of recycling, but of waste disposal. But there are inconsistencies — some operators report waste that is reused; others say their recycling efforts are not counted in the reports.

“The system was intended to track wastewater and not recycled water,” said Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources Corp., one of the largest Marcellus producers, which says it recycles nearly 90 percent of its wastewater, though those numbers are not reflected in the reports.

Considering the scrutiny the industry faces, Pitzarella said Wednesday that Range was calling for a new reporting system that accounts for recycled wastewater.

“The current system was developed at a time prior to widespread recycling and reuse,” he said. He said the company was calling on the DEP and the Marcellus Shale Coalition to “develop a transparent and accessible system that tracks water that is recycled and reused.” Contact staff writer Andrew Maykuth at 215-854-2947 or amaykuth@phillynews.com.

1 Comment(s)

the cost of treatment of all  the waste water needs to be absorbed by the company and not added to the tax payers burden. It’s bad enough the company is allowed to avoid taxes. I wonder who is being paid off.
Report abuse

No moratorium – Quebec ‘cautiously’ delays drilling

No moratorium – Quebec ‘cautiously’ delays drilling.

Bassett warns against hydraulic fracturing » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports

Bassett warns against hydraulic fracturing » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports.

March 9, 2011

Bassett warns against hydraulic fracturing

The Bassett Medical Center Board of Trustees and the health care network’s medical staff have each issued resolutions warning against hydraulic fracturing.

Both statements, arrived at separately, emphasize the importance of keeping water resources pure.

The statement by the 274-member medical staff, mostly physicians, reads in part:

“Whereas, the hydrofracking method of drilling for natural gas involves the use of millions of gallons of water mixed with known carcinogens, teratogens, endocrine disruptors, and other toxic materials which are injected under extremely high pressures deep into the earth, and …

“Whereas, contamination of ground water, air and other environmental damage has already been demonstrated in numerous locales with similar geology, such as Pennsylvania …

“We hereby resolve that the hydrofracking method of gas drilling constitutes an unacceptable threat to the health of our patients, and should be prohibited until such time as it is proven to be safe.”

The medical center’s board said: “The New York City Department of Environmental Protection has taken the position that hydraulic fracturing to recover natural gas poses unacceptable risks to the water supply and has asked the state Department of Environmental Conservation to prohibit natural gas drilling in the NYC watershed.

“The Susquehanna River watershed warrants the same consideration that assures protection for its aquifers and surface water reservoirs.”

The Susquehanna River’s source is Otsego Lake, situated in the towns of Otsego, Springfield and Middlefield, and the river flows right by the medical center.

Bassett President Dr. William Streck said Tuesday the board’s statement has been in the works since last fall and sprang “from the fundamental concern of the board about the safety of the water supply. That is our primary point of emphasis.”

In its resolution, which was approved unanimously, the board noted: “While the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates natural gas development in New York, the historic responsibility to preserve the safety of water has resided in the purview of the Department of Health.

“For this reason, the board of trustees of Bassett Medical Center supports the DOH’s (Department of Health’s) continued involvement and attention to the public health concerns that have been raised, including possibly contamination of the water supply.”

Asked if the board’s statement on such an issue is unprecedented, Streck said, “It is unusual.”

He noted that many Bassett employees live in the towns of Springfield, Middlefield and Otsego _ towns taking steps to ban or restrict the controversial technique.

 

 

Natural Gas Companies Send Workers to Hill to Make Case for Fracking – NYTimes.com

Natural Gas Companies Send Workers to Hill to Make Case for Fracking – NYTimes.com.

Natural Gas Companies Send Workers to Hill to Make Case for Fracking

Natural gas company workers plan to lobby lawmakers today on the safety of drilling techniques amid controversy over exploration for the fuel.

Eighteen workers from six states will visit House and Senate members in an event organized by industry influence group American Petroleum Institute. It started yesterday and continues today. Workers yesterday talked to the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality.

“It’s critical for our elected officials to hear from their own constituents about the importance of natural gas to local communities, to jobs, and our energy security,” said Marty Durbin, API executive vice president for government affairs. “These employees represent job creation among the thousands of suppliers and service companies that benefit from America’s investment in this abundant, clean-burning domestic fuel.”

The natural gas workers come from Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. Those are among the states where controversy has erupted over the natural gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, where fluid is injected into the ground to break up rock formations.

The employees are technical experts with service, supply and drilling companies, Durbin said. They are focused on areas like water quality management, he said.

Environmental groups have raised concerns that the chemicals used in the practice leak into water. Additionally, they argue that methane travels into people’s homes, creating the kind of events seen in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland,” where people can turn on their water faucets and ignite flames.

The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund both have campaigns to underscore what they see as the risks of the natural gas boom (Greenwire, Feb. 15).

“If the natural gas industry is truly committed to the safe production of natural gas, they should be working with Congress to close the regulatory loopholes the industry currently enjoys,” said Deb Nardone, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club. “Congress needs to put an end to the exemptions and exceptions given to the gas industry, privileges that no other industry receive.”

Congress, Nardone added, should require natural gas companies to disclose fully the chemicals they use for extraction.

“Given the significant number of violations across the country – for example, Marcellus gas drillers in PA commit an average of 1.5 violations a day – and recent findings of major flaws in safety regulations, we expect congressional leaders to push for better safeguards that protect Americans’ health and safety,” Nardone added.

Greenpeace has also raised concerns.

“Natural gas drillers can’t claim to represent any notion of ‘clean energy’ when they’re dumping toxic pollution into waterways, contaminating drinking water and getting a lobbying boost from the American Petroleum Institute against clean water protections,” said Kyle Ash, Greenpeace senior legislative representative.

API said that the industry “stands by its strong record over the past 60-plus years.

“We continue to work with engineers, geologists, and environmental and government experts to develop the best standards and practices,” Durbin said. “These standards address activities such as construction practices, the environment, and water use and management procedures to protect our drinking water and our communities.”

The lawmaker visits were planned about two months ago and were not motivated by any of the recent adverse publicity, Durbin said. The workers are not pushing for any particular bills, he said.

“It certainly is timely at a time when you have the issue” of hydraulic fracturing in the news, Durbin said. “This is a great opportunity for us to be in front of the policymakers who are going to have to make decisions on this.”

Natural gas is surging in use, pushed by record low prices for the fuel.

In 2010, natural gas constituted 24 percent of power generation, from 13 percent in 1996, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration.

EIA projects that by 2024, natural gas will drop back slightly to 21 percent because of growth in renewable power and because the price of natural gas will start to rise, making coal more competitive.

 

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.
Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. Read More »

Shale Gas Needs to Allay Environmental Doubts – NYTimes.com

Shale Gas Needs to Allay Environmental Doubts – NYTimes.com.

 

Shale Gas Needs to Allay Environmental Doubts

 

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

A shale gas rig in Pennsylvania. Shale gas is removed by hydraulic fracturing.

Safe havens are the rarest commodity in the energy patch. So oil and gas companies have been drawn to the hydraulic fracturing revolution in the United States by the perception of low political hazard. They’ve committed more than $70 billion to shale deals over the last two years, the consultancy IHS reckons.

But an environmentalist backlash is gaining momentum. One disaster along the lines of BP’s Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the whole investment thesis could crumble. Instead of stonewalling new regulations and calls for transparency, the industry — gathering this week in Houston for the annual conference of IHS’s Cambridge Energy Research Associates unit — may want to get out in front by voluntarily accepting some safeguards.

The drumbeat of public opinion against so-called fracking, which involves cracking rocks and injecting chemicals to release oil or gas, is growing louder — even though the polemical “Gasland” missed out on the Academy Award for best documentary last week. Footage of flammable faucets and pools of contaminated water have alarmed many.

Naturally occurring gas means that some people in Pennsylvania have been able to set their tap water on fire for generations. So charges that the mini-earthquakes used by gas drillers despoil the water supply directly are hard to swallow. In the Marcellus shale, a deposit in the Northeast roughly the size of Greece, up to 7,000 feet of solid rock separates the shale deposits from groundwater supplies. Most engineers agree that that buffer makes contamination unlikely.

Still, the concerns demand further study. Radioactive materials brought to the surface along with some toxic fluids used in drilling do constitute a realistic danger to drinking water. The storage and treatment of such fluids need to be unquestionably safe — and it’s not clear that they are.

Many operators are trying to minimize their environmental impact. Chesapeake Energy said it seeks to constantly recycle drilling fluids. Others, like Range Resources, voluntarily revealed the ingredients that make up their secret sauce — something BHP Billiton, which just acquired nearly $5 billion of shale gas assets, also intends to do. But not all players are exemplary corporate citizens.

A single egregious case of environmental damage — even one less severe than BP’s Gulf of Mexico spill — could undermine the assumptions underlying the billions of dollars invested. Last week the United States awarded the first deepwater drilling permit since BP’s debacle 10 months ago. The nuclear industry provides an even more vivid example of how public confidence, once broken, can take years to repair. No new nuclear plants have gotten off the drawing board since the relatively harmless Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

So companies like Chesapeake and Exxon Mobil, which spent $31 billion on the gas driller XTO Energy last year, ought to have an incentive to clamp down on rogue operators. Instead, they’ve formed a united front against regulation. This is myopic.

The industry contends it’s already well supervised by the states. But those standards are patchy. Moreover, the fiscally stretched states have much to gain financially by going soft on energy companies. It was this kind of conflict that reduced the effectiveness of the Minerals Management Service, the combination watchdog and tax collector that oversaw BP in the gulf.

The best solution is to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to draw up nationwide safety standards for the fracking industry. The geology of rocks may differ by state, as the industry points out, but the treatment of the fluids used can still be consistent. By submitting to uniform rules, the industry could lay many safety fears to rest.

In addition, the industry has little to gain from its hard-won exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Environmental activists have made much of this. And if fracking does not contaminate the water supply, as the industry insists, then it has little to fear. The industry is also taking a big risk in fighting to remain exempt from federal laws governing hazardous materials.

Lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding fracking fluids would also help, something a bill proposed by a New York representative, Maurice Hinchey, tries to address. Some concerns would be allayed by knowing contamination could be easily traced to its source.

The energy industry is engaged in the most aggressive onshore drilling campaign in the United States in a generation. It would behoove forward-looking energy chiefs to recognize that their shareholders’ interests are best served by avoiding a Macondo moment. CHRISTOPHER SWANN

For more independent financial commentary and analysis, visit http://www.breakingviews.com.

R40894.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues. R40894.pdf (application/pdf Object).  Congressional Research Service, 2009  No. R40894

Garfield County – Battlement Mesa HIA EHMS background & information

PUBLIC HEALTH

pages
Battlement Mesa HIA/EHMSBattlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment (2nd Draft) 

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Annotated Acronym Definitions

Part One: Health Impact Assessment
Preface
Regarding Ozone and Human Health
Regarding Climate Change and Human Health

1 Introduction
1.1 Antero’s Plan to Drill within the Battlement Mesa PUD
1.2 Community Concerns
1.3 Initial Responses to Community Concerns
1.4 Battlement Mesa Health Profile
1.4.1 Measures of Physical Health
1.4.2 Measures of Community Health

2 Information Gaps
2.1 Information Gaps and Implications
2.2 Remedies

3 Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Air Quality Assessment
3.2 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Water and Soil Quality Assessment
3.3 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Traffic and Transportation Assessment
3.4 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Noise, Vibration, and Light Assessment
3.5 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Community Wellness
3.6 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Economic and Employment Assessment
3.7 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Health Care Infrastructure
3.8 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions

4 Summary of Assessments on Health in Battlement Mesa
4.1 Summary of Health Assessments

5 Assessment of Health Impacts
5.1 Assessment of Air Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.1.1 Air Quality and Health
5.1.2 Current Air Quality Conditions
5.1.3 What We Know and What We Do Not Know
5.1.4 Human Health Risk Assessment
5.1.5 Antero’s Best Management Practices
5.2 Characterization of the Air Quality on Health
5.3 Assessment of Water and Soil Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.3.1 Water and Soil Quality Impacts on Health
5.3.2 Water and Soil Quality and Natural Gas Operations
5.3.3 Current Conditions of Water and Soil Quality
5.3.4 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Water and Soil Quality
5.3.5 Characterization of the impact on Water and Soil Quality
5.4 Assessment of Transportation and Traffic on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.4.1 Traffic and Safety
5.4.2 Current Traffic Conditions
5.4.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Traffic
5.4.4 Characterization of Traffic Impacts on Safety
5.5 Assessment of Noise, Vibration, and Light Pollution on Health in Battlement Mesa 5.5.1 Noise, Vibration, Light pollution and Health
5.5.2 Current Noise, Vibration, and Light Conditions
5.5.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Noise/Vibration/Light
5.5.4 Characterization of Noise, Vibration and Light Impacts
5.6 Assessment of Impacts on Community Wellness
5.6.1 Community Wellness and Health
5.6.2 Natural Gas Industry and Community Wellness
5.6.3 Garfield County and Battlement Mesa during the Garfield County 2003-08 Boom
5.6.4 Current Battlement Mesa Community Amenities and Services
5.6.5 Current and Possible Anticipated Impacts to Community Wellness from the Antero Project
5.6.6 Characterization of Community Wellness Impacts
5.7 Assessment of Economic and Employment Impacts on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.7.1 Ways Economic Activity can Influence Health
5.7.2 Past Natural Gas Economic Impacts in Garfield County
5.7.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa
5.7.4 Characterization of the Economy, Employment and Property Values Impacts on Health
5.8 Assessment of Impacts to Health Infrastructure in Battlement Mesa
5.8.1 Private and Public Health Services and Health
5.8.2 Current Health Infrastructure Conditions
5.8.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Healthcare Infrastructure
5.8.4 Characterization of Healthcare Infrastructure Impacts
5.9 Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions Impacts on Health
5.9.1 Accidents, Malfunctions and Health
5.9.2 Current Conditions for Accidents and Malfunctions
5.9.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Accidents and Malfunctions
5.9.4 Characterization of the Impact from Accidents and Malfunctions

6 Conclusions

7 References

Part Two: Supporting Documentation
TABLES
Table 1: Identified Stakeholders
Table 2: Stakeholder Meetings
Table 3: Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Table 4: Estimated Annual Emissions from Trucks

APPENDICES
APPENDEIX AA
1 HIA Methods
1.1 Screening
1.2 Scoping
1.3 Assessment
1.4 Recommendations
1.5 Reporting
1.6 Implementation
1.7 Evaluation

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE NATURAL GAS DRILLING PROCESS

APPENDIX B: NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICEANCE BASIN
B1 Geology
B2 Energy Development in the Piceance Basin: Past
B3 Energy Development in the Piceance Basin: Present
B4 Antero’s Plan in Battlement Mesa

APPENDIX BB
2 Site Description of the Battlement Mesa Community
2.1 The Battlement Mesa Community
2.1.1 Parachute
2.1.2 Demography
2.1.3 Economy

APPENDIX C: BATTLEMENT MESA BASELINE HEALTH PROFILE
C1 Measures of Physical Health
C1.1 Methods
C1.1.1 Cancer Data Methods
C1.1.2 Inpatient Hospital Diagnoses Data Methods
C1.1.3 Mortality Data Methods
C1.1.4 Birth Outcomes Data Methods
C1.2 Population/Demographics
C1.3 Vulnerable populations
C1.4 Cancer, Death, Birth, Hospital Inpatient Data
C1.4.1 Cancer Data
C1.4.2 Inpatient Hospital Diagnoses Data
C1.4.3 Mortality Data
C1.1.4 Birth Outcome Data
C.1.5 Health Data Gaps/Limitations
C1.5.1 Cancer data
C1.5.2 Inpatient hospitalization data
C1.5.3 Mortality Data
C1.5.4 Birth Data
C1.6 Conclusions for Physical Health
C2 Measures of Community Health
C2.1 Education/School Enrollment
C2.2 Crime
C2.3 Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Suicide:
C2.4 Sexually Transmitted Infections
C2.5 Limitations of Social Determinants of Health
C2.6 Summary and Conclusions for Social Determinants of Health

APPENDIX D: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT*

*This is a very large file. If you have trouble opening it, please send an email to jrada@garfield-county.com to have this document sent by email to you. Also, a browser issue may block the file from opening – click here for a fix.

APPENDIX E: COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 2010 DRAFT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT*

*This is a larger file and may not download without high speed internet. Please access through above recommendations if needed.

APPENDIX F: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 2010 DRAFT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figures
Figure 1: Locations of Proposed Well Pads within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit

Attachments
Attachment 1: BCC letter
Attachment 2: Surface Use Agreement

resources

Sierra Club: Atlantic Chapter

Comment on DRBC Plan for Drilling in the Delaware River Basin. Sierra Club by April 15th: Atlantic Chapter.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK–A Fracking To-Do List

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK.

 

March 7, 2011

A Fracking To-Do List

Last week, Environmental Advocates of New York rolled out our “fracking to-do list” for state leaders and lawmakers at a briefing in the state capital. Hydraulic fracturing, often called “fracking,” is an environmentally dangerous technique used to extract natural gas from underground shale deposits. We’re worried about all phases of the drilling process—the impact of the withdrawal of millions of gallons of water from area lakes, rivers, and streams, the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluids and their potential to leach into drinking water, and the state’s ability to treat and dispose of fracking wastewater, particularly when it’s radioactive.

Fracking has poisoned waterways from Wyoming to Pennsylvania. Our to-do list is comprehensive and designed to safeguard the health and safety of New York’s drinking water. Here’s what we want state leaders to do:

  • Pass legislation that will protect water resources and establish a regulatory permitting program to oversee large water withdrawals statewide.
  • Regulate fracking fluids by requiring the gas industry to disclose the chemical components in fracking fluids and prohibit the use of fluids that pose a risk to human health. New York’s environmental regulator shouldn’t be allowed to issue drilling permits until such regulations are adopted.
  • Close the hazardous waste loophole in current state law and require that all fracking wastewater that meets the definition of hazardous waste be considered hazardous for the purpose of transport and treatment.
  • Revise the state’s draft drilling plan and release it only when it’s ready and not a minute before. An Executive Order requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to update their draft plan on or about June 1st of this year.
  • Improve the plan so it updates and revises drilling regulations and include a cumulative impact analysis that addresses the worst-case scenario of up to 2,500 wells per year.

At the briefing, Susan Christopherson, the J. Thomas Clark Professor of City & Regional Planning at Cornell University, discussed the potential economic impacts of fracking for New York’s communities. Professor Christopherson’s research on fracking shows that individual New Yorkers may stand to benefit, but that the costs to local government are significant. Depending on the pace and scale of drilling, local governments may not have the capacity to respond to new demands.

New York is a battleground in the national debate about natural gas drilling and fracking. Drilling-related accidents across the country have contaminated drinking water, created air quality hazards and violations, and polluted streams.

Click here to see our own Katherine Nadeau interviewed about our fracking on Your News Now
.

Click here to read The New York Times‘ recent groundbreaking series, “Drilling Down,” on the dangers of fracking.

 

Cornell Cooperative Extension–Upcoming Events

Upcoming Events.

Upcoming Events
Seminar Series: #1 Gases in the Subsurface and the Marcellus – presented by Larry Cathles, Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 12:00-1:00 PM in 205 Thurston Hall, Cornell University. Open to the public. The Marcellus is a huge gas resource underlying our area that we have just appreciated can be remarkably effectively produced using horizontal drilling and hydrofracing.  Dramatic pictures of exploded water wells, faucets being lit on fire, and gas escaping  from the ground have been attributed to the fracing process, but in fact are not related at all in the sense that these hazards and phenomena would exist whether or not the Marcellus is produced. The talk will lay the geologic foundations for understanding where the Marcellus gas and the gas escaping from the surface fit in the natural petroleum generation system.  The size of the Marcellus resource and its potential value to the community and nation will then be outlined, and the areas of concern evaluated.  Finally we will tour Dimock County in Pennsylvania from the ground and air to  view the changes gas development have brought there.  In closing I will make recommendations on how I think we should proceed.

Seminar Series: #2 Developing Natural Gas in the Marcellus and other Sale Formations is likely to Aggravate Global Warming – presented by Robert Howarth, Renee Santoro and Tony Ingraffea, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology and School of Civil Engineering on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 12:00-1:00 PM in 205 Thurston Hall, Cornell University.  Open to the public.

A Systems Approach to Energy Transitions: Land, Economic and Community Transformations – a two-day conference will be held on March 30-31, 2011 at the Watkins Glen Harbor Hotel, Watkins Glen, NY. Primary audiences: municipal officials, professional planners, Extension educators, Planning/Zoning board members, community leaders and land managers. Conference objectives: to increase overall comprehension of major energy transitions, energy literacy and capacity to assess emerging energy development scenarios; and to encourage planning for the future.  Sponsors: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Community and Energy Program Work Team, Cornell Marcellus Shale Team, Community and Regional Development Institute (CaRDI). For more information, click here.  A draft agenda is now available.
To register:  Cornell or Association Employees |  General Public |  Hotel Information |  Information about having a Display

Gas Drilling, Sustainability & Energy Policy: Searching for Common Ground – a two-day Environmental Law Society Energy Conference hosted by the Cornell Law School will be held on April 1-2, 2011 in Myron Taylor Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.  For more information, click here.

Marcellus Shale Multi-State Academic Applied Research Conference – will be held beginning at 1:00 PM on Tuesday, May 10, 2001 through 12:15 PM Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at the Blair County Convention Center, One Convention Center Drive, Altoona, PA 16601. The conference will: 1) bring together researchers from across the Mid-Atlantic region to help identify the research needs related to the impacts of Marcellus Shale development, 2) identify on-going research activities related to Marcellus Shale, 3) build multi-institutional academic partnerships focused on Marcellus Shale, 4) endeavor to develop a broad applied research agenda that includes natural resource, wildlife, social, community and economic implications as well as research on production methods/technologies, and 5) help inform outreach and education. The conference is a collaboration between Cornell University, Penn State University and West Virginia University and is being coordinated by the Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research. For a summary of the conference, an invitation to attend, an event agenda, and information on registration, & lodging, please click here.