New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact May, 2011

 New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact –

For Release 12 May 2011Tod BrilliantPOST CARBON INSTITUTEtod@postcarbon.org707-823-8700 x105
New Report: The Truth About Natural Gas Supply, Costs & Environmental Impact

San Francisco, CA (May 12) A detailed new energy report argues that the natural gas industry has propagated dangerously false claims about natural gas production supply, cost and environmental impact. The report, “Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century” is authored by leading geoscientist and Post Carbon Institute Fellow J. David Hughes.

The most significant of the natural gas industry’s claims – one that has been bought hook, line and sinker by everyone from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the Obama Administration, to leading environmental groups – is that the United States has a 100-year supply of cheap natural gas. The report shows this to be a pipe dream. Natural gas would require higher costs and unprecedented drilling efforts to meet even baseline supply projections. In fact, the U.S. faces a decline in domestic gas supplies in the very near future unless drilling rates quickly increase.

Also debunked is the perception that shale gas is better for the climate than coal. Building on other recent analysis, the report shows that shale gas is worse than coal over a 20-30 year timeframe, even after efforts to mitigate fugitive methane emissions. This should have major implications for those who have touted natural gas as a near-term bridge to a clean energy future.

Download the report at: http://bit.ly/pcinatgas

Report author David Hughes will present his findings and participate in a Q&A session next week.

LINK: http://bit.ly/jZfykT
TELECONFERENCE ONLY: Toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Access Code: 492 172 835
For international toll free access: http://bit.ly/jgcUWx

Post Carbon Institute’s report concludes that we face serious, and heretofore unacknowledged, production constraints with shale gas that mean the following three things are very unlikely to happen:

  1. Meeting the Energy Information Agency’s projections for natural gas to 2035.
  2. Replacing significant amounts of coal-fired electricity with natural gas (not included in EIA projections).
  3. Transitioning significant % of the vehicle fleet to burn natural gas (also not included in EIA projections).

All of three of these would require much higher levels of drilling and higher prices than projected by the EIA. At least 35,000 new wells will need to be drilled each and every year to meet EIA projections. More still to provide more natural gas-fired electricity and far more than this number to transition the vehicle fleet.

Bottom line, we will be living with less domestic natural gas in the future, not more, unless we are prepared to pay higher prices and tolerate a major scale up of climate and other environmental impacts. This is a major challenge to the nearly ubiquitous assumption that we will have abundant, cheap, and “clean” natural gas to power our future.

ABOUT J. DAVID HUGHES

J. David Hughes is a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He developed the National Coal Inventory to determine the availability and environmental constraints associated with Canada’s coal resources. As Team Leader for Unconventional Gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee, he coordinated the recent publication of a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s unconventional natural gas potential. He is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Canada and is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute. He is currently president of a consultancy dedicated to research on energy and sustainability issues.

ABOUT POST CARBON INSTITUTE
Post Carbon Institute provides individuals, communities, businesses, and governments with the resources needed to understand and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, and environmental crises that define the 21st century. PCI envisions a world of resilient communities and re-localized economies that thrive within ecological bounds.

In addition to Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute Fellows include Bill McKibben, Sandra Postel, Wes Jackson, David Orr and 24 others.

POST CARBON INSTITUTE
Tel: +1.707.823.8700 • Fax: +1.866.797.5820
http://www.postcarbon.org   •   media@postcarbon.org

Energy Management Resources Reports on the Volatility of Natural Gas Prices

Energy Management Resources Reports on the Volatility of Natural Gas Prices.

Energy Management Resources Reports on the Volatility of Natural Gas Prices

Shale continues to take center stage, albeit with mixed opinions, which is adding volatility to the direction of natural gas prices.

Quote startThe new drilling technologies that have proved so successful for natural gas may now provide an impact on the world oil supplyQuote end

(PRWEB) May 03, 2011

EMR – Based on last months New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), Natural Gas prices are holding between $4.20 to $4.30 per MMBtu. Many factors come into play with when pricing commodities on NYMEX; however, all eyes continue to focus on the game changer – Shale Gas. Energy Management Resources is seeing a lot of clients re-analyze their hedging strategies as a result.

Shale continues to take center stage, albeit with mixed opinions, as compared to previous robust projections. These mixed opinions are adding some volatility to the direction of natural gas prices. Yet, it looks like North American producers are scaling back due to economics.

Here are the some facts regarding the economics of shale gas:

  •     There are 2,300 drilled but yet to be completed wells in the Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford and Barnett plays alone. As a result, producers have an inventory position whose cost structure will continue to put price caps on future price increases.
  •     There are potential environmental hazards that can be associated with the process of drilling for shale gas. Consequently, larger investments may be needed to deal with any new regulatory oversight and unanticipated regulations.
  •     Storage and pipeline capacity limits are being tested, as U.S. dry natural gas production is expected to grow by about 5.4 Bcf/d through 2015 from the 2010 average.

What some know about this game-changer is that the new drilling technologies that have proved so successful for natural gas may now provide an impact on the world oil supply. Oil brings much higher returns than gas, so many investors have already begun to pressure Boards of Directors about their investments. While debt rollovers, new equity offerings, and asset lease sales have financed the shale gas boom, disappointing cash flows are leading some investors to jump off the bandwagon. A thousand cubic feet (Mcf) of U.S. natural gas once sold for a tenth of the price of a barrel of oil, but now that spread has widened tremendously – One (1) Mcf of gas now sells for a twentieth, or less, of the price of a barrel of oil. Major shale producers see today’s gas prices making the economics of shale gas, as well as conventional gas, increasingly unprofitable. Weak cash flows have spurred investor concerns that these companies may no longer be able to meet wellhead break-even costs at those prices.

  •     Chesapeake Energy Corporation announced they had decided to sell all of its Fayetteville Shale assets and its equity investments in Frac Tech Holdings, LLC and Chaparral Energy, Inc.
  •     Chesapeake also announced ramped up investments at the Niobrara oil/shale formation, primarily an oil play, situated in northeastern Colorado and parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas.
  •     Voyager Oil & Gas has made similar investment decisions. It will reduce production in its Bakken shale formation and refocus on its Niobrara fields.
  •     In response to deteriorating, if not negative profit margins, other shale gas producers are suddenly redeploying their rigs to drill for more lucrative oil. That includes the likes of Petrohawk Energy Corporation, EOG Resources, Forest Oil Corporation, and Quicksilver Resources.

Low natural gas prices are the result of many factors and the technology behind shale gas is seen as the central game changer, as it may assume a similar role in oil exploration. Although the potential environmental impacts of producing shale gas are being questioned, shale gas producers are redeploying their drilling dollars to oil targets searching for higher returns. According to Baker Hughes last week, the number of natural gas rigs operating in the US fell for a fifth consecutive week to a ten-month low. By shifting from gas to oil, the technology has lifted hopes of the first significant rise of onshore U.S. oil production in decades. In five to eight years, the technology could add a million barrels of oil a day to U.S. supplies.

Analysts stress the importance of this switch in exploration activity. Moving from shale gas to oil won’t be without consequences for future gas supply, as the effect of more rigs drilling for oil will have an impact gas prices. The oil exploration industry has already moved to riskier finds, such as Alberta tar sands and deep-water drilling. There probably isn’t a whole lot of “easy oil” left to find. Thus, the oil industry thinks it can benefit from the shale gas technology developed by its siblings in the natural gas sector.

About Energy Management Resources:
Energy Management Resources (EMR) helps energy intensive industrial and commercial companies across North America optimize their energy requirements. The costs, risks and regulatory issues associated with high demand energy consumption are complex. We take the complexity out of the equation to reduce your operating expense and manage your company’s risk.

###

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

Some Seekers of Rural Life Move Out of Pennsylvania as Gas Rigs Move In | Reuters

Some Seekers of Rural Life Move Out of Pennsylvania as Gas Rigs Move In | Reuters.

By Elizabeth McGowan at SolveClimate

Tue May 3, 2011 10:30am EDT

The Aubrees were the lone holdouts against a developer’s plan to tap gas in their small town. Now, living in the shadow of drilling rigs, they’re leaving

Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News

Editor’s Note: SolveClimate News reporter Elizabeth McGowan traveled to Northeastern Pennsylvania in late March to find out how the gas drilling boom is affecting the landscape and the people who call it home. This is the fourth in a multi-part series. (Read parts one , two and three)

MONTROSE, Pa.—After three consecutive nights of tossing and turning, Anna Aubree was so desperate for sleep that she packed a pillow, a blanket and Jasmine the family golden retriever into her car early one March morning.

The 60-something retiree drove seven miles to the relative peace and quiet of the local high school parking lot just to try to refresh her exhausted self by catching a few winks.

All she sought was a brief respite from the constant barrage of pounding, banging, booming and grinding that penetrates the walls of the little yellow one-story house she shares with her husband, Maurice.

“This is my humble abode. But the truth is, I want out,” she told SolveClimate News in her thick Brooklyn accent while seated at a dining room table covered with stacks of research documents. “We’re surrounded. This noise is horrible. And it never stops. It’s all night long.”

Anna and Maurice AubreeThe Aubrees bought their 3.75-acre wedge of paradise off a dirt road in rural Pennsylvania in 1988, settling there permanently from Long Island four years later. They planted passels of Colorado spruces along its borders and sketched out plans for a retirement refuge that included a horse farm for their three sons and yet-to-arrive grandchildren.

Two decades ago, hardly anybody thought about their prefabricated house in the tiny Susquehanna County community of Forest Lake resting atop what geologists refer to as the “sweet spot” of Marcellus Shale. It’s considered the drilling nirvana of Northeastern Pennsylvania because the band of black sedimentary rock — remnants of an ancient sea bed now buried deep underground — is consistently 400 feet thick and saturated with treasured natural gas.

Holdouts in a Doughnut Hole

A year ago in May, on Mother’s Day, the Aubrees discovered that all of their farming neighbors had opted to take advantage of lucrative leasing offers from the Pittsburgh offices of Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation.Rig behind the Aubrees’ property

The Aubrees, situated on a comparative sliver of land, were the lone holdouts.

Even though they didn’t sign a lease, they soon started to find out what it means to live in the midst of an energy boom. Last summer, Cabot began orchestrating a series of seismic tests involving helicopters, dynamite and “thumper trucks” that help companies determine where to situate their wells and accompanying infrastructure.

By October, Cabot orchestrated a heavy-duty equipment movement to clear the land just a stone’s throw from the Aubrees’ property line. Soon, a lengthy roadway led to a staging area designed to accommodate a spacious pad for a series of wells.

As autumn turned to winter, the company continued setting up a jarring and complex network of drilling architecture. Come February, Anna and Maurice were treated to the ominous view of 142-foot metal drilling rig when they peeked out their back windows. Now, one well is about complete and at least seven more are in the preparation stages.

“It’s eerie looking,” Anna said about the looming, lighted behemoth that resembles some sort of set-up from a NASA rocket launch. It’s especially otherworldly at night. “We couldn’t even open a window during the summer because all of that machinery was so loud.”

She spent the summer, fall and winter calling agency after agency, hoping to find somebody who could offer relief from the cacophony. But she couldn’t even find evidence of a municipal or county noise ordinance.

“Cabot told us that we’re in a doughnut hole,” Anna explained. “And all everybody else tells us is to take the money and sign the lease we were offered. But we’ve made it clear to Cabot that we’re not interested in a lease.”

Not Everybody Is a Petroleum Engineer

Upon hearing about the Aubrees’ plight from SolveClimate News, Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the natural gas advocacy group Energy in Depth, extended his sympathies from his Washington, D.C., office. He admitted that gas companies should be rethinking the way they reach out to the general public.

“Folks don’t know their stuff about Marcellus Shale drilling and quite frankly why do we expect them to?” Tucker asked in an interview. “It’s our job to educate them. They’re not petroleum engineers.”

No doubt, drilling for natural gas creates construction and industrial sites that are loud, dirty and inconvenient, he stressed, even though companies are constantly seeking to mitigate those drawbacks.

“For years, the industry has focused its communication efforts on engaging financial analysts, regulators and landowners with gas on their property,” he said. But this issue of Marcellus Shale drilling “has garnered so much attention that our audience needs to be expanded to include the general public. It makes sense to do that. A lot of producers are starting to do that.”

Gas companies’ greatest assets, he concluded, are informed landowners.

“We’re going to be there for at least 40 years,” he said. “Why do we want to start off on the wrong foot by trying to take advantage of people?”

Long, Loud Time Coming

While the Aubrees’ house might not be in the shadow of a drilling rig forever, harvesting gas from the Marcellus Shale isn’t a quick in-and-out venture either.

Drilling road and infrastructure next to the Aubrees’ houseIt can take up to eight months to create a functioning well, according to information Energy in Depth provided via a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article.

Each stage is labor intensive and reliant on high-volume internal combustion engines. Crews are often working 24/7 because so much of the drilling equipment is so expensive to rent.

Site construction, which includes clearing and leveling acreage for the well site, the well pad, the accompanying roadway in and out, and short-term quarters for workers takes a minimum of two months.

Each vertical well, which can be 4,000 to 10,000 feet deep, takes at least two weeks to drill. Many pads can accommodate up to 10 wells. Horizontal drilling, which can extend about a mile but is about 3,000 feet on average, adds another two weeks per well to the timeline. Trucks use the newly carved roadway to haul away the “cuttings” — the soil, rock and other pieces of earth dislodged by drilling — to landfills.

The actual hydraulic fracturing of a well takes three or four days, but preparation can take up to two weeks because it’s such a technically precise operation. The water, sand and chemicals used in the fracturing process then have to be extracted from the well before companies can begin to harvest natural gas. Expelling what’s known as “flowback” lasts at least a week.

Those last two stages require millions of gallons of freshwater to be trucked in and “flowback” to be carted away when it can no longer be recycled for fracking. Plus, machinery is needed to install the underground pipelines to deliver the natural gas to its destination.

Once a well is “delivering” natural gas — and most are expected to do so for anywhere from five years to 30 years, or beyond — the site left behind can appear quite tame and unobtrusive to passersby.

Indeed, the roadways to the drilling pad are permanent fixtures. And, sets of meters and brine tanks poking up through the ground are the only other intruders visible for the long-term. Wells are monitored electronically from afar and well tenders also make regular rounds to physically check on them.

Drilling Sites Forever Changed

Cabot’s Pittsburgh offices hired George Stark as the company’s director of external affairs more than a year ago when tension over hydraulic fracturing began peaking. In Pennsylvania, his company opted to lease land for drilling solely in Susquehanna County because of its abundant natural gas supply in the Marcellus Shale and access to an existing transcontinental pipeline.

Cabot gas drilling site near Montrose, Pa.He wasn’t familiar with the particulars of the Aubrees’ situation but he is aware many county residents assume the somewhat foreboding drilling rigs are fixtures that will mar landscapes forever.

Cabot, he said, prides itself on partnering with a nonprofit sportsmen’s group, the Quality Deer Management Association, to rehabilitate acreage that was cleared and flattened to make way for drilling. The company doesn’t restore the original topography but it does put preserved topsoil back in place. As well, Cabot is collaborating with a local seed company to hasten the reclamation process and minimize erosion.

“Of course, the land will never be the same,” Stark explained to SolveClimate News as he pointed to a completed and functioning well site off a rural Pennsylvania road near Montrose. “But we’re not abandoning the site and letting whatever would grow there take over. What we don’t have is an attitude that we’re going to do whatever we want. We restore the site in a respectful manner.”

“This notion of a moonscape is wrong,” he continued. “I don’t think what people are left with in the long term can be called scarring. I think we leave the land much better afterward than most extractive industries.”

Executing an Exit Plan

Tucker’s sympathies and Stark’s restoration assurances, however, are of little consolation to Anna and Maurice Aubree. Their sense of security and serenity has dissipated into the ether.

“I see ourselves as the silent sufferers here,” Anna said. “Who can speak for me? Where can my voice be heard?”

Though she has tried to drown out the drone of diesel generators and 18-wheeler engines with Doris Day tapes rented from the library, sleep in any room of her house comes in fits and starts. That lack of rest exacerbates her challenges with asthma and a sore back.

“I moved up here to maintain my health,” said Anna, who cared for hospitalized veterans on Long Island. “But we’re stuck. You don’t know how we’re praying.”

At the end of January, the two opted to put their house on the market. Ironically, the “For Sale” sign that vibrates in the spring breeze is planted in their front yard just a short walk from a message painted on slate and propped on their front porch that cheerily declares: “A Day in the Country is Worth a Month in Town.”

The thought of uprooting themselves and packing up all of their worldly belongings at this juncture in their lives makes them heartsick.

Even though they don’t blame their neighbors for benefiting from the natural bounty beneath their own land, neither of them can envision continuing to endure a situation where they feel constantly on edge.

“When you’re getting older, it’s extremely stressful and it’s hard all around,” said Maurice, 75, a retired driver for the local school district who admits to “sneaking in a few cries about it.”

“If you don’t laugh, you cry,” he added. “So you better learn how to laugh.”

Their sons, two live in New York and the third in Florida, are helping them sort out their next destination.

“We don’t know where we’re going,” said Anna while giving her pet dog a loving pat on the head. “But you know what? We’re going.”

See Also:  Tiny Pennsylvania Land Trust Is Tempted by Marcellus Shale Gas Riches Fracking’s Environmental Footprint to Transform Pennsylvania Landscape Number-Crunching the Footprint of a Gas Fracking Boom, Forest by Forest MIT Web Tools Help Small Landowners Navigate Gas Leasing Frenzy

Alternative Radio : Vandana Shiva : War on the Earth

Alternative Radio : Vandana Shiva : War on the Earth.

War on the Earth
Vandana Shiva
Available Formats
CD: SHIV016aC $16.00
MP3: SHIV016aM $5.00
Transcript: SHIV016aD $7.00
Where recorded: New Dehli, India
Date recorded: 11 Feb 2011

The predatory practices of corporations are increasingly turning our fragile garden into a junkyard. Citizens are told by their political masters and the corporados who pay them that there is no alternative. That’s true if one’s only concern is profits. That approach is fast turning our planet into a toxic waste dump. The landscape of environmental devastation extends from radiation leaks in Japan to drilling in the Alberta tar sands to hydofracking in Pennsylvania and New York to leveling mountains in West Virginia to more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. However in India, the site of some of the worst corporate abuses, there is tremendous popular resistance. Some of the poorest people anywhere are saying, Stop the plunder. No to the war on earth.

Vandana Shiva
Vandana Shiva is an internationally-renowned voice for sustainable development and social justice. She’s a physicist, scholar, social activist and feminist. She is Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy in New Delhi. She’s the recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, the alternative Nobel Prize. She is the author of many books, including “Water Wars,” “Earth Democracy,” and “Soil Not Oil.”

Fracking’s Environmental Footprint to Transform Pennsylvania Landscape | SolveClimate News

Fracking’s Environmental Footprint to Transform Pennsylvania Landscape | SolveClimate News.

Fracking’s Environmental Footprint to Transform Pennsylvania Landscape

Residents fear that fracking for gas will cause permanant harm to their forests, state parks and agricultural fields — in addition to their water and air

By Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News

Apr 25, 2011
Image: Map showing the Marcellus Shale formation/Credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Editor’s Note: Some laud natural gas as cleaner burning, home-grown energy — a “bridge” fuel to a renewable future. But others fear the environmental costs of the industry’s newest extraction technique — a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking — are too high. SolveClimate News reporter Elizabeth McGowan traveled to Northeastern Pennsylvania in late March to find out how this quest for energy is affecting the landscape and the people who call it home. This is the second in a multi-part series. (Read part one.)

MONTROSE, PA.—Executives in the energy exploration and drilling industry practically salivate when talk turns to possibilities in Pennsylvania.

Perhaps fittingly, their nickname for the Keystone State is “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”

Being heralded as twin energy founts, however, is about where the similarities between the natural gas-rich Middle Atlantic state and the oil-laden Middle Eastern nation end. Their geographies are studies in extreme contrast and size-wise, two Pennsylvanias could be shoehorned into just one Saudi Arabia.

Right now, the hydraulic fracturing fever sweeping their state has many Pennsylvanians in turmoil. In addition to concerns about impacts on their water and air, state residents are worried about the indelible footprint fracking infrastructure is in the midst of stamping on the forests, open spaces, rural hamlets, agricultural fields and public lands they call home.

After all, William Penn is the Englishman and Quaker credited with founding the state. Back in 1681 he christened the region Sylvania — the Latin word for woods — for obvious reasons.

So, just how will this hunt for buried energy treasure transform the landscape of a state that draws millions of tourists to its state parks and prides itself on its productive forests?

“This is going to be like a spider web spun across the state,” John Quigley, a former state environmental leader, told SolveClimate News in an interview. “The scale of this is just unimaginable. At this point, I don’t think anybody can fathom how much.”

Quigley served as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources from April 2009 until January when a new administration headed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett took office. He is now an adviser to a former employer, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future. Known as PennFuture, it’s a statewide public interest organization based in Harrisburg.

“Hydraulic fracturing will dwarf the cumulative impact of all of the previous waves of resource extraction that punctuate Pennsylvania history,” Quigley said, ticking off a list of successive destructive acts that began with the clear-cutting of old growth trees across the states northern tier to fuel the Industrial Revolution, then morphed into the drilling of the first oil well in Titusville and the rise of King Coal. “It’s impossible to downplay or avoid the environmental impacts.

“Not only is this going to cause massive habitat fragmentation but what emerges will be a fundamentally different Pennsylvania,” he continued. “The question is, are we going to repeat the mistakes of the past?”

Why Pennsylvania?

Geologists hail Pennsylvania as a natural gas mother lode because nearly two-thirds of the state’s 28 million acres rests atop a yawning sheath of sedimentary rock formed around 400 million years ago during what scientists label the Devonian Period.

What’s called the Marcellus Shale is basically a thick horizontal seam undulating anywhere from 4,000 feet to 10,000 feet beneath the Earth’s surface. It measures about 150,000 square miles and stretches from the lower tier of New York State south through parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia and a sliver of Virginia.

The Appalachian Basin is reportedly packed with enough natural gas, experts estimate, to meet the nation’s energy needs for nearly two decades — or perhaps longer.

The organically rich shale is already naturally pocked with fissures. Companies use a relatively new technology known as hydraulic fracturing to open up those cracks and release the trapped gas.

This technology, which combines traditional vertical drilling with horizontal drilling and rock fracturing appeared on the scene in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale close to six years ago.

In a nutshell, fracking requires companies to drill a vertical well about a mile deep. From that point, the well can “grow” a long “arm” that bores horizontally into the shale formation for close to a mile. Drillers then inject sand, millions of gallons of water and a special recipe of potentially toxic lubricants and chemical additives under extremely high pressure to further fracture the dense black shale and draw the liberated gas to the surface. Wells can be fracked numerous times.

Unparalleled Footprint

In Pennsylvania, the Marcellus Shale rests beneath the entire western half of the state and the northeastern corner. Numbers gathered by state authorities reveal that natural gas companies have thus far leased about 7 million acres of public and private property — about one-quarter of the state’s entire land mass.

That high volume prompted the Pennsylvania chapter of The Nature Conservancy to delve into what impact such an intense fracking footprint will have on the flora and fauna the nonprofit organization is dedicated to protecting.

Already, 2,000-plus wells have been drilled statewide. But state figures reveal that the number of permits issued to companies has ballooned from a mere four in 2005 to 3,314 through 2010.

By collaborating with state authorities and gas companies for its research, the conservancy figures at least 60,000 new wells will be drilled through the year 2030. That will eat up at least 90,000 acres over the next two decades, with the potential to double to 180,000 acres if the number of new wells grows at the same pace through 2050.

That might not seem egregiously enormous in a state as massive as Pennsylvania, but consider this. A footprint such as that would stomp over close to one-third of Rhode Island.

Nels Johnson, director of conservation programs for the conservancy’s Pennsylvania chapter, told SolveClimate News that the northwestern segment of the state has a long tradition of shallow natural gas development.

“With the Marcellus, there might be fewer pads because of a company’s ability to drill horizontally but the tradeoff is that each pad is bigger and much of this infrastructure is going into areas not previously impacted by gas development,” Johnson emphasized. “It’s a new impact.”

Alarming Conservancy Arithmetic

The Nature Conservancy lays out its concerns about the effects of hydraulic fracturing in a November 2010 report titled “Pennsylvania Energy Impacts Assessment.”

“Many factors — including energy prices, economic benefits, greenhouse gas reductions and energy independence — will go into final decisions about where and how to proceed with energy development,” the report states. “Information about Pennsylvania’s most important natural habitats should be an important part of the calculus about trade-offs and optimization.”

Arithmetic shows that while each drilling pad covers a relatively reasonable 3.1 acres, the footprint for each well actually rings in at 8.8 acres because of the accompanying roadways and other infrastructure — such as that for hauling and storing water — that have to be built.

Each pad can accommodate up to 10 wells; the conservancy used an average of six for the sake of its calculations. So 8.8 acres multiplied 10,000 times (60,000 total wells with six wells per pad) is where the 90,000-acre figure originated.

“When you look at how much of the Marcellus Shale covers Pennsylvania, 90,000 acres isn’t a huge percentage but this is about where it happens and how it happens,” Johnson said.  “A lot depends on where those 90,000 acres get cleared because this is a major conversion.”

Johnson and others pointed out that Pennsylvania’s mountainous terrain is forcing gas companies to be more judicious with drilling decisions than they might be in a state such as Texas with mile after mile of flat, open terrain.

Oddly enough, even though everything about Marcellus development is big — including pad size, water use and supporting infrastructure — the ability to accommodate up to 10 vertical wells per pad actually offers a bit of solace to conservationists.

Think about this. One vertical well on a single pad can “drain” natural gas from, say, 10 to 80 acres. But a heftier pad with numerous vertical wells to accommodate far-reaching horizontal drilling technology can pull in gas from 500 to 1,000 acres.

Thus, the impact on forests, freshwater and rare species can be lessened if those pads are strategically placed instead of scattered willy-nilly without forethought.

“The lateral reach of Marcellus wells means there is more flexibility in where pads and infrastructure can be placed relative to shallow gas,” the conservancy report states. “This increased flexibility in placing Marcellus infrastructure can be used to avoid or minimize impacts to natural habitats in comparison to more densely spaced shallow gas fields.”

Conservancy in Midst of Second Study

Soon, the conservancy will be releasing a second report that piggybacks onto its initial release by examining the environmental impact of the four levels of underground pipelines that are constructed to eventually deliver natural gas to customers once it is harvested from the Marcellus Shale.

For instance, a gathering pipeline is built near each drilling pad to collect the freshly extracted gas. From there, it is shipped to what’s called a midstream pipeline, an intermediary that connects it to the backbone of the system, a transcontinental pipeline that delivers natural gas long distances to major markets. These large cities have storage facilities that tie into a network of distribution pipelines that deliver the finished product to commercial, industrial and residential customers.

“Those distribution lines don’t have too much impact on the environment,” Johnson noted. “The concern is with those other three levels of pipelines.”

Preliminary estimates collected by researchers at Pennsylvania State University show that new well development will require about 10,000 miles of gathering lines that measure 18 to 24 inches in diameter and require 100 feet of right-of-way. That alone would devour another 90,000 acres of land — doubling the impact of wells, roads and accompanying infrastructure by the year 2030 to 180,000 acres.

The Penn State figure doesn’t include the potential footprint of midstream or transcontinental lines, Johnson said, adding that they likely won’t be included in the conservancy report because those numbers are too difficult to project at this juncture.

“Clearly, the heart of some of Pennsylvania’s best natural habitats lies directly in the path of future energy development,” the conservancy report warned. “Integrating … conservation priorities into energy planning, operations and policy by energy companies and government agencies sooner rather than later could dramatically reduce these impacts.”

Tomorrow: Number-Crunching the Footprint of a Gas Fracking Boom

MARCELLUS SHALE: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UNKNOWN NYS Grange Apr. 11 at 7pm

MARCELLUS SHALE: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UNKNOWN

LESSONS LEARNED FROM BRADFORD COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

An educational seminar on natural gas exploration is scheduled for

Monday April 11th, from 7pm to 9pm at the New York State Grange Headquarters in Cortland, NY.

The seminar will focus on the issues associated with natural gas production in shale formations and lessons learned by our neighbors in northern Pennsylvania (PA).

With over 400 wells, Bradford County, PA is considered to be at the forefront of development in the Marcellus shale “natural gas play”. When the race for natural gas development in shale formations came to PA, the State and Bradford County were not as prepared as they would like to have been. The PA Department of Environmental Protection was quick to issue permits for extracting gas through the use of horizontal hydrofracturing. Horizontal hydrofracturing brought a wide range of opportunities and impacts to the local communities.

With the current moratorium on horizontal hydrofracturing in New York State, local communities have an opportunity to hear firsthand what is happening in northern PA in order to be better prepared for natural gas development, should it come here. With over 30 years of experience at the Bradford County Conservation District, Manager Mike Lovegreen knows every nook and cranny of his county and has seen firsthand the impact this industry can have on small rural communities. Mike will be discussing his experiences relating to the natural gas industry and what the Conservation District and local municipalities roles are regarding issues such as water quality monitoring, roads, economic development, etc. He will discuss the importance of maintaining a good working relationship between local government, the gas industry and the community. All landowners, local officials and community members are invited to attend this informational seminar focusing on Bradford County’s experiences with the natural gas boom of recent years.

This seminar is sponsored by the Cortland County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and is free and open to the public. If you have any questions about the seminar or any of the services or programs provided by the SWCD please call 607-756-5991 or visit the SWCD website at http://www.cortlandswcd.org.

=========================================================

Previous presentation

Mike Lovegreen, Bradford County Conservation District Manager, spoke at the Otsego County Water Quality Coordinating Committee meeting on Tuesday, February 22 on first-hand experiences there. He had a lot of interesting things to say — some expected, some not. The boom town information is worth a look. Please see the article in the current issue of OCCA’s newsletter, “The Lookout.” A video is available, and there is a link to his PowerPoint presentation on the OCCA website homepage.

===============================================

Comment:

Most of what has happened in Pennsylvania is a good lesson – in what not to do:

1. The major assets – the gas wells themselves – are tax exempt from property (ad valorem) tax in Pa.

The schools, counties, towns get nothing from them = zero.

Pa. is perhaps the only (?) state that exempts gas wells from local property tax.

Payoffs in Harrisburg that keep it this way.

No money for regulation, no money for EMS, for roads, nada

2. The product – natural gas –  is tax exempt under Pa. law – one of only 2 states (with gas production) that exempts it

Because Pa. has the best politicians that money can buy. No money for regulation, for roads, for nada

3. Since most of the producers, suppliers and crews are from out of state,  most of the money leaves the state tax free


4. The fracking flowback ends up on the roads and rivers in Pa. because there is no safe place to dispose of it in Pa.

The closest disposal wells are across the state line in Ohio.

So it gets dumped illegally or sold as “de-icer”. They catch some dumpers – most they don’t.

“Recycling/re-use” simply increases the toxicity with  each pass.

“Processing” simply separates the toxic radioactive sludge from the toxic radioactive water.


So far as shale gas development is concerned, Pa. is a bad joke.

More like a 3rd world country.

Suggest you treat any “expert” from Pa. accordingly. . .

James Northrup

Lancaster Online : State geologist discusses Marcellus Shale in talk here

Lancaster Online : State geologist discusses Marcellus Shale in talk here.

State geologist discusses Marcellus Shale in talk here
Posted:  03/10/2011 11:17 PM
Caption: “In this file photo, a natural gas drill sits atop a ridge near Knoxville, Pa.”Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania will not be denied, predicts the man responsible for natural gas leases in state forests and state parks. 

“The reason Pennsylvania is hot, hot, hot is because we potentially have the largest gas field on planet Earth in Pennsylvania, situated in the middle of the largest integrated gas market on planet Earth. Transportation costs are virtually nil. You couldn’t ask for any better situation,” said Teddy Borawski, chief oil and gas geologist for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

“This thing is going to go on for 50 years,” Borawski said, adding that Marcellus natural gas from Pennsylvania alone could supply all the country’s needs for 20 to 25 years.

Controversy swirls around aspects of the just-taking-hold natural gas boom in Pennsylvania. But Borawski predicts the northern and western portions of the state will become pocked with gas wells over the next five decades.

Specifically, he said, the number of wells to be drilled on both public and private land will increase from about 6,400 wells today to 120,000 wells, perhaps even 180,000.

He said he thinks that can be done safely, with constant vigilance.

And the manager of subsurface programs for the state Bureau of Forestry made some other bold predictions, such as Williamsport rivaling Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as an economic hub in the state.

Also, he said, the extent of the Marcellus Shale reservoir of gas, and other untapped formations here and in other states, will move the United States to a natural gas-driven economy.

“Because it’s there and it’s going to be cheap and plentiful,” he said.

Borawski gave an hour-plus rundown on Marcellus Shale on Thursday in Neffsville before about 50 attentive members of the Pennsylvania Dutch Chapter of the Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters Society.

Among the audience were at least two representatives of out-of-state energy companies currently operating Marcellus Shale wells in Pennsylvania.

Borawski’s former boss, former DCNR secretary John Quigley, said last August that the 2.2-million-acre state forestlands couldn’t withstand any more gas pads without environmental damage.

Asked about that, Borawski replied, “I have no comment I can make.”

But referring to a de facto hold on additional gas leases on public land that former Gov. Ed Rendell made in the last few months of his administration, Borawski said Rendell “wanted to push companies as hard as he could” in seeking a severance tax on gas drilling.

Gov. Tom Corbett has removed those roadblocks, is opposed to a severance tax, and wants to get gas extraction running full-tilt.

Borawski did say he hoped Corbett doesn’t seek “wholesale leasing” of gas on state forests. There is room for expansion and to generate revenue for state coffers, he said. “We can do that, but let us do that on our own terms. But we’re subject to what the governor tells us to do.”

Borawski, who has been involved with oil drilling on the Gulf Coast, was asked about the recent documentary “Gasland,” an Academy Award-nominated documentary made partially in Pennsylvania that portrays drilling as harmful to the environment and residents.

“Joseph Goebbels would have been proud,” Borawski replied. “He would have given him the Nazi Award. That, in my opinion, was a beautiful piece of propaganda.”

Borawski also was asked about a recent New York Times series of stories that painted a picture of lax environmental laws and enforcement in Pennsylvania regarding Marcellus Shale drilling.

“It confused the situation and was very poorly written technically,” Borawski said.

But he said the story raised legitimate issues about water concerns.

Water needed for gas drilling will not cause water shortages anywhere and currently uses much less than the state’s golf courses, he said.

But, he added, “Where we have a problem is where you are taking it from and when you are taking it. And flowback being treated.”

He said state regulators will have to remain vigilant in protecting the state’s water resources because if unguarded there always will be companies looking to take shortcuts.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency is doing a study on the impacts of hydraulic fracking and will use Bradford and Susquehanna counties as study areas.

acrable@lnpnews.com

By: AD CRABLE

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

Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR

Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR. 3-1-11

 
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-01/drilling-natural-gas-rewards-and-risks

* Comments (2)
* Share
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 – 10:06 a.m.
* 10:06 a.m. (ET) Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
* 11:06 a.m. (ET) Environmental Outlook: Light Bulbs

The jack-up rig Rowan Gorilla III is loaded on to the semi-submersible heavy
lift ship Triumph in Halifax harbor Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. The rig was drilling
on the Deep Panuke natural gas development offshore Nova Scotia.
AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Andrew Vaughan
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
More sophisticated drilling techniques are unlocking this country’s enormous
reserves of natural gas. But many say environmental concerns – including
radioactive waste water – have yet to be fully addressed. Efforts to reduce the
risks of extracting natural gas.
The state of Pennsylvania is in the forefront of the current rush to extract
natural gas, and it also seems to be in the middle of an increasingly
contentious debate over related environmental risks. The process of extracting
natural gas involves forcing millions of gallons of water deep into the earth to
break up rock and release the gas. Environmentalists say that in some states,
including Pennsylvania, this waste water which is often laden with heavy salts
and naturally occurring radioactive materials is being improperly discharged
into rivers and streams. Please join us for conversation on the risks and
rewards of drilling for natural gas.
Guests
John Quigley
former secretary Pennsylvania’s Department of conservation and Natural Resourses
Ian Urbina
reporter, NY Times
Tony Ingraffea
Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering
Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow
Cornell University
Kathryn Klaber
president, Marcellus Shale Coalition
Amy Mall
policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council
John Hanger
former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.