Brewery Opposes Hydrofracking

November 20, 2010 1 Comment

BREWERY OMMEGANG NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Jan. 18, 2011

Brewery Ommegang Statement on Hydrofracking for Shale Gas.
Serious threat of water pollution and other environmental risks for Otsego County.
Revised: Jan 18, 2011
Contact: Larry Bennett, 607-544-1800, or larry@ommegang.com Executive Order
NOTE: This is an update of the Brewery Ommegang statement originally released on Nov 19, 2010.This update
follows then-Governor Paterson’s December 13, 2010 veto of the moratorium proposed by the NY State Assembly
and Senate, and his issuing of Executive Order No. 41. On Jan 1, 2011 incoming New York State Governor Cuomo
continued Executive Order No. 41without change. The Executive Order is attached.
Brewery Ommegang has completed a close examination of the development of hydrofracking for natural gas in Otsego
County. We reviewed extensive information provided by gas industry professionals, publications and supporters of
hydrofracking who propose that drilling is safe, necessary, and will be an economic boost to Otsego County. We also
reviewed information from gas industry professionals who are opponents of hydrofracking, as well as environmental and
historic groups who contend that the permitting procedure is flawed; drilling is not safe; our water is endangered; and
economic benefits will not be realized. We have endeavored to be objective in our analysis and we will make available the
information we have gathered to anyone who is interested in understanding both sides of the argument.
We have concluded that:
1. The gas industry has secured broad exemptions from federal regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 2005 (also known as the “Halliburton exemption”). However, the EPA has recently begun a
study which is scheduled for completion sometime in 2012.
2. Under New York State law, horizontal drilling remains halted (under Exec .Order 41) while the pending Supplemental
Generic Impact Statement (sGEIS) is reviewed. The review is to be completed by June 1, 2011, and then put up for
public comment for at least 30 days. In the interim, drilling of vertical wells with hydro fracking is proceeding in our
county under the 18-year-old 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Thus, gas companies are now drilling
and fracking in our county without local review, while both state and federal regulatory investigations into the risks and
regulation of the process are delayed.
Land-lease development and proposed drilling in the region has already reached a high level with very limited public
awareness of the issues any without meaningful regulatory control. Over 60,000 acres in Otsego County are known to
have been leased by drilling companies or their land agents, and drilling projects have already started .
The relative contribution of natural gas from hydrofracking to either the economy or the energy needs of the region may be
minimal, and development does not materially contribute to a larger national or regional energy policy.
The number of documented spills, blowouts, leaking wells and other environmental accidents is significant and the
environmental and human consequences have been serious in a number of states, including TX, PA, WY, and WV.
From our perspective, the critical threat is contamination of the aquifers occurring directly above the Marcellus
shale.5.
6. The withdrawal of huge quantities of fresh water estimated at 2-5 million gallons of water per frack cycle and the
heavy impact of thousands of truck trips per well hauling water and chemicals to and from the drill pads cannot be
sustained in Otsego County. Effective treatments of the millions of gallons of polluted processing waste do not exist
and there are no locations for waste disposal in New York capable of supporting the proposed scale of drilling.
Drilling presents a strategic risk to the entire Otsego County water supply and the Susquehanna watershed. Meanwhile,
the NY City watershed (in adjacent counties) is under special coverage by the DEC, effectively creating a protected
zone. This reflects awareness by DEC and NYC officials of potential risks. The protection requires site-specific review
and permitting and has effectively stopped gas exploration inside the NYC watershed. Our region of upstate NY is not
covered by the agreement and it’s now much cheaper to work in counties like ours, where there is no local regulation.
The plans for drilling also pose a direct and material threat to the Ommegang Brewery. We draw water for our beer from
aquifers beneath our 140-acre farmstead located close to Cooperstown, NY, at the head of the Susquehanna
watershed. Contamination of our water supply would end our brewery business and even the threat of potential
contamination could be sufficient for the future of our company to be at risk.
We also join others in concluding that industrial-scale hydrofracking in the beautiful rural upstate region will irreparably
damage the essential qualities that make Otsego County an excellent place to live, raise families, farm and brew beer.
We consider highly visible, potentially dangerous, industrial development as directly opposed to what our rural
location offers the people who have chosen to make their lives here and the millions who choose to visit the region
every year.
We therefore:
Call for an immediate moratorium and for an eventual ban on both vertical and horizontal hydrofracking in Otsego County
and NY State. It is not enough to protect only New York City residents’ land, water and health. All upstate residents
and their water, land, health and heritage deserve equal protection under law.
Call for complete reconsideration, rewriting and review of the NY State Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (sGEIS) by the Cuomo administration. The current sGEIS is based on outdated and inadequate data.
Support the transfer of control over local hydrofracking from NY State to Otsego County. And for the same all across New
York allowing local communities to determine if they wish to accept the impact on their lives.
Brewery Ommegang will:
Seek to defend the interests of our business, our employees and our community by actively campaigning for the
prevention of hydrofracking in Otsego county and NY state by every available means, including legal action.
Provide practical support for Otsego2000 as the principal focus for a coalition of many environmental and other citizen
groups working to prevent development of hydrofracking in the region. Otsego 2000 is coordinating the coalition of
groups opposing hydrofracking.
Bring together a coalition of other concerned upstate businesses in support of the Otsego2000 campaign.
Petition Otsego County and Otsego County town officials to support a local moratorium and a ban on hydrofracking, and
petition our state government leaders, regulators and other agencies for the same at a statewide level.
Simon Thorpe, President/CEO of Brewery Ommegang said: “Ommegang believes that opposing development of
hydrofracking is critical to the interests of our community, our people and our business. We are proud of our
accomplishment in building a thriving, sustainable and environmentally conscious business in upstate New York. We are
deeply concerned at the threat posed by development of drilling in the region and the risk to the purity of the water on
which we depend, and which is a key reason we are located here. We are a company that enjoys a national reputation for
super-premium quality beers produced in upstate New York and we hope that the state and local regulators attach value
to what we do for the region in terms of employment and our representation of upstate New York in restaurants and
grocery stores across the nation. We do not want the futures of our business, our employees, and our communities
damaged or destroyed by water pollution, or compromised by the industrialization associated with hydrofracking for shale
gas.”
For further information please contact:
Larry Bennett
Communications Director
Duvel Moortgat USA / Brewery Ommegang
363, County Highway 33
Cooperstown, NY 13326
Tel: 607-544-1800
Email: larry@ommegang.com
Brewery Ommegang is part of the Duvel Moortgat Group of breweries, which were founded in Belgium. It is the group’s
principal brewery in the United States and produces a super-premium range of beers that are distributed across the
country together with the other Duvel Moortgat beers including Duvel, Maredsous, Liefmans, Achouffe and De Koninck.
Issued Dec. 13, 2010 by NY State Governor Paterson:
Executive Order No 41
WHEREAS, the 2009 New York State Energy Plan supports the development of in-State energy resources, including
natural gas, to achieve the Plan’s multiple public policy objectives; and
WHEREAS, low-volume hydraulic fracturing, or conventional fracking, has been used successfully and safely in New York
State for many years to extract natural gas consistent with the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Oil,
Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program promulgated by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (Department) in 1992; and
WHEREAS, new technologies have emerged, and are being deployed in other states, to extract natural gas more
efficiently through a process known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for further study of this new technology prior to deployment in New York State; and
WHEREAS, in 2008, I directed the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation to initiate a formal public process to
update the 1992 GEIS to ensure that any new technologies deployed in New York State are first thoroughly analyzed and
regulated to ensure that all environmental and public health impacts are mitigated or avoided; and
WHEREAS, the Department issued a draft scope for an updated GEIS on October 6, 2008, held public meetings in the
Marcellus shale region, received more than 3,000 written comments, and issued a final scope for the Supplemental
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on February 6, 2009. The Department released the Draft SGEIS for
public review and comment on September 30, 2009, held four public hearings in the region and New York City, and
received more than 13,000 written comments during a public comment period that closed December 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, tens of thousands of citizens, landowners, local governments, large and small businesses, non-governmental
organizations, and other stakeholders have expressed their heartfelt support for or opposition to the new technology, but
most agree that an objective, science-based analysis is the best approach to setting new policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David A. Paterson, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by
the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, do hereby order as follows:
1. The Department shall complete its review of the public comments, make such revisions to the Draft SGEIS that
are necessary to analyze comprehensively the environmental impacts associated with high-volume hydraulic
fracturing combined with horizontal drilling, ensure that such impacts are appropriately avoided or mitigated
consistent with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), other provisions of the Environmental
Conservation Law and other laws, and ensures that adequate regulatory measures are identified to protect public
health and the environment; and
2. On or about June 1, 2011, the Department shall publish a Revised Draft SGEIS, accept public comment on the
revisions for a period of not less than thirty days, and may schedule public hearings on such revisions to be
conducted in the Marcellus shale region and New York City; and
3. Recognizing that, pursuant to SEQRA, no permits may be issued prior to the completion of a Final SGEIS, the
Department, subsequent to the conclusion of the public comment period, shall report to the Governor on the
status of the Final SGEIS and the regulatory conditions that are necessary to include in oil and gas well permits
to protect public health and the environment.
G I V E N under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State in the City of Albany this thirteenth day of December in the year
two thousand ten.
BY THE GOVERNOR
Secretary to the Governor

 

comments:

Hello all,

This is a powerful statement on the part of Brewery Omegang.

My prediction is that there will be more of such statements from food and
beverage companies.

From my discussions with wholesale buyers of beef, hydrofracking is a big
concern, which is already impacting on purchasing decisions. I’d like to
offer my recent experience.

During a recent meeting with a nutritionist with a large regional
supermarket chain, she mentioned out of the blue that she was avoiding
purchases of meat from northern PA where there is hydrofracking. (I had not
brought up gas drilling, as that was not the original topic of the meeting.)

And from my conversations with my wholesale buyers in NYC and locally (who
are buying whole steers on a regular basis) they are very aware of
hydrofracking. They have expressed deep concern about chemical contamination
of the food they are purchasing and the regional foodshed. They are also
quite clear that they will try to lower the risk of purchasing contaminated
food by avoiding purchases from farms near active gas drilling.

Given what I am hearing from wholesale buyers, it’s hard for me to visualize
my business surviving with gas drilling nearby. As is true of many
sustainable agriculture enterprises, 100% of my overhead, and 100% of my
sales are local, with both upstream and downstream economic multipliers
benefiting other regional business. With the elimination of businesses like
mine, these other enterprises will be harmed as well.

Ken

Ken Jaffe
Slope Farms
Meredith, NY
607-746-2294
917-543-0169  cell
www.slopefarms.com

Filed under agriculture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Pa. farmer: Natural gas drilling ‘a nightmare’ Nov. 16, 2010

November 17, 2010

Pa. farmer: Natural gas drilling ‘a nightmare’

By Derrick Ek
Posted Nov 16, 2010 @ 11:44 PM
Elmira, N.Y. —

Ron Gulla, a farmer from Hickory, Pa., says he had no idea what he was getting into when he leased his land for gas drilling.

“When I saw what was happening on my property, I couldn’t believe it,” Gulla said. “They totally misinformed us and misrepresented the lease.”

Over the past few years, he saw his farm – in a rural area just south of Pittsburgh – become a large industrial site over which he had no control, and had his water supply tainted by high levels of toxic chemicals, he said.

Gulla – who also sells construction and forestry equipment and once spent six years working in the oil and gas industry – tried to take out a mortgage loan to finance a lawsuit against the well operator, Range Resources, but was told by the bank that his land was basically worthless because of the drilling activity there.

Gulla told gutwrenching stories of other farmers in Washington County whose property was virtually ruined by drilling. Many of their calves have been born with strange deformities, he said. Cows and horses – even dogs – have been sickened or killed from drinking the water from streams and ponds near the well pads. Folks living near compressor stations have had serious health issues from air pollution, he added.

The farmers affected in his area have received nothing in compensation, he said.

“It’s been a nightmare for a lot of people,” Gulla said. “You’re going to hear some people say this is the best thing that’s happened to them, that it’s the best thing since sliced bread. And they’re making money, granted, but at what price, and what risk?”

Gulla was one of a half-dozen speakers to tell cautionary tales about the gas rush under way in Pennsylvania – and on the horizon in New York – at a public forum Tuesday night in a crowded parish hall at Trinity Episcopal Church in downtown Elmira.

The event was organized by area environmental groups People for a Healthy Environment, Coalition to Protect New York, Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes, and Pax Christi Upstate New York. It was clearly not a balanced panel on the issue, although recent chamber of commerce forums touting the economic benefits of gas exploration haven’t been either: those have mostly featured speakers from the gas industry and pro-drilling elected officials.

Not all of Tuesday’s speakers spoke directly against drilling.

One of them, Lou Allstadt, is a retired Mobil Oil Corp. executive vice president and a past director of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. A Cooperstown resident, he has extensively reviewed the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s proposed permitting guidelines – now being finalized – for high volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing, and believes they are insufficient.

In his remarks, Allstadt gave a list of suggestions on how gas drilling might proceed safely in New York, some of which are being developed but are not yet widely implemented, he said.

Among them:

Developing a “green” fracking fluid, and ending government exemptions that allow the industry to use the fracking fluid it currently does. In the meantime, identifying markers should be added to fracking fluid, so if there is a case of suspected water contamination, it can be traced to the source, he said.

Using a closed loop system for drilling wastewater, rather than storing it in open, lined ponds where toxins can evaporate into the atmosphere. “It’s a bad system, and it doesn’t have to be that way,” said Allstadt, who also called for greater recycling of fracking fluid at well sites.

Allstadt also called for seismic testing prior to each time a well is fracked, to identify underground cracks and fissures that could lead to toxins migrating to aquifers, he said.

Better standards are needed for the casings that line well bores near the surface and protect aquifers, he claimed.

There should also be greater setback distances for well pads from drinking water sources and residential areas. Also, the state should give local governments a say in regulating drilling locations, Allstadt said.

Saying human error contributes to most drilling accidents, he called for more stringent training for drilling crews, which often have a high turnover, he said. He also called for making gas companies post multi-million dollar “performance bonds” to fund cleanups should any incidents occur.

Allstadt also said the DEC needs to greatly increase its mineral resources staffing levels, saying it would be “impossible” to properly monitor a shale drilling boom with its current staffing levels. He also called for the state to form a separate agency to issue permits and collect revenues, so the DEC can focus solely on protecting the environment.

Organizer Susan Multer of People for a Healthy Environment said she counted approximately 240 people at Tuesday’s forum.

Filed under agriculture, Spills-Accidents-Suits Tagged with , , , , , , ,

NYS State Forest Management Plan Finalized

November 4, 2010

NYS State Forest Management Plan Finalized

This plan and generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) will guide the future management of the state’s 786,329-acre State Forest holdings. Key goals focus on ecosystem health and diversity, economic benefits, recreational opportunities, forest conservation and sustainable management.

The plan was presented in draft form on September 1, 2010. The draft plan was available for public comment until October 29th. Comments were also received and considered after the deadline. Over 3,000 written comments were received. Nine public hearings were held throughout the state from September 14th – 30th.

The plan has been edited based on public input and is now considered final DEC Office of Natural Resources policy for the development of State Forest Unit Management Plans. A responsiveness document will be posted on this website, and will include DEC’s responses to the many comments received.*** Revision of the plan is scheduled to occur every 10 years.  it is not up as of this writing

Notice of Acceptance of Final GEIS

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), as lead agency, has accepted a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Final Strategic Plan for State Forest Management. Electronic copies of the Final Strategic Plan and Final GEIS are available online at: www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html or by requesting a CD by e-mail at stateforestplan@gw.dec.state.ny.us or by calling NYS DEC regional offices.

NYS DEC announces the completion of the Final Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (Plan) and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). This notice has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. NYS DEC held public hearings in each NYS DEC administrative region on the Draft Plan, released September 1, 2010 and accepted public comments until October 29, 2010. These hearings also served as public hearings on the Draft GEIS pursuant to the applicable SEQR Act (6NYCRR §617.9(a)(4)).

The final Plan is an update and revision of the Draft Strategic Plan for State Forest Management which includes identifications of future management goals for NYS DEC administered State Forests. It establishes statewide management guidelines for NYS DEC staff through a process of public involvement and review. The plan provides a foundation for the development of Unit Management Plans (UMPs), which set forth the specific actions to be undertaken by NYS DEC on individual State Forests. As individual UMPs are developed, this plan will serve as a guide and will be included by reference. This plan will be revised at least once every ten years.

This Plan describes how State Forests will be managed in a sustainable manner by promoting ecosystem health, enhancing landscape biodiversity, protecting soil productivity and water quality. In addition, State Forests will continue to provide the many recreational, social and economic benefits valued so highly by the people of New York State. NYS DEC will continue the legacy which started 80 years ago, leaving these lands to the next generation in better condition than they are today.

Five goals were developed for the management of State Forests. These goals were based on the criteria developed in the Montreal Process and are as follows:

  • Goal 1, to provide healthy and biologically diverse ecosystems;
  • Goal 2, to maintain human-made State Forest assets;
  • Goal 3, to provide recreational opportunities for people of all ages and abilities;
  • Goal 4, to provide economic benefits to the people of the State; and
  • Goal 5, to provide a legal framework for forest conservation and sustainable management of State Forests.

Activities that have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts were addressed and include: increased public recreational use, facility development, prescribed fire, silvicultural activities, oil and gas drilling and control of competing vegetation and invasive species. Potential impacts were further discussed in the Draft GEIS including soil erosion, damage to vegetation, increased smoke and associated odors, surface and groundwater effects and effects of pesticides on the environment, including non-target species. The final Plan discusses all of these potential impacts and describes recommended management activities and mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts.

Contact: Justin Perry, NYS DEC – Division of Lands and Forests, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-4255, Phone: (518) 402-9436 begin_of_the_skype_

highlighting              (518) 402-9436      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, E-mail: japerry@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

Comments on:Final DEC Strategic Plan for Forest Management

Comparison of draft and final Strategic Plans for forest Management–Jim Weiss

The Strategic Plan for State Forest Management has been released by NYSDEC.
From the executive summary: Mineral Resources

  • The leasing and development of natural gas and oil resources can provide jobs and income to
  • the State while increasing domestic energy supplies. Oil and natural gas are valuable resources
  • which can provide energy and revenue, as well as the opportunity for improvements to the
  • existing infrastructure of the State Forests (such as improving access through upgrading existing
  • roads, culverts and gates).
  • As with any other human activity on State lands, oil and natural gas exploration and
  • development can impact the environment. The biggest risks from natural gas exploration and
  • development are potential impacts on underground aquifers and residential water wells in the
  • immediate area of drilling. While techniques used today are far more advanced and protective
  • of ground water, there are still risks   as with almost any construction or development project.
  • The Department will incorporate all available technologies and methods to reduce these risks.
  • Emerging issues include disposal by injection and carbon capture.  Neither of these activities is
  • currently taking place on State Forest lands.
  • Recommended actions include:
  • • Apply a hierarchical approach that classifies areas of each State Forest into specific
  • categories.
  • • Adapt the draft guidance for pipelines on State Forests to the DEC policy system and
  • expanding it to include guidance on strategies for dealing with existing pipeline corridors
  • and establishment of new pipeline corridors.  If the issue of existing unauthorized
  • pipelines cannot be sufficiently addressed at the policy level, propose legislation to
  • resolve the issue.
  • • Finalize and adopt the current draft policy on seismic exploration.
  • • Adopt policies addressing disposal by injection and carbon capture and sequestration.
  • • Adopt a policy on tract assessments for oil and gas leasing, based on mineral character
  • and expected mineral activity, site condition, and public use.
  • • Adopt a policy on water use for oil and gas extraction, based on information in theDivision of Mineral Resources GEIS

    • Starting on page 226 of Chapter 5 you will find the portion relating to hydrofracking.  The concerns raised by the public seem to have at least been considered on page 331 which the following link will take you to: Click here: Chapters 5-7 + Appendices Starting on page 226 of Chapter 5 you will find the portion relating to hydrofracking.  The concerns raised by the public seem to have at least been considered on page 231 which the following link will take you to: Click here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/spsfmfinal3.pdf . Text of Mineral Resources section: https://gdacc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/final-plan-mineral-resources.pdf

    Pipelines:

    The document appears to have sidestepped an important pipeline issue:  The DEC correctly points to the PSC (Public Service Commission ) as the controlling authority for lines that are outside the wellpad.

    However, the plan sidesteps when it come to handling the pipeline ROW (right of way). On non-state forest land this is handled in one of two ways: a) by a formal easement with the landholder or, b) thru an eminent domain (condemnation) procedure (whereby the ROW is “taken”, presumeaby against the owner’s wishes and the owner is compensated.

    Eminent domain applies in two cases: a) the pipeline is between states and the authority is federal (by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , FERC), lines permitted by FERC carry emminent domain authority. b) within state lines, these carry eminent domain authority IF the Co. has Public Utility status.

    Now, what’s the pipeline deal in the forests?  will the state negotiate for ROWs, or will it require eminent domain authority in which case the Co will, in conjunction with the PSC or FERC, determine the routing (in this case DEC will NOT be a controlling entity, but presumeably consulted)?

    Remember, no wells without pipelines.


     

    DEC Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (DRAFT)

    This draft plan and generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) will guide the future management of the state’s 786,329-acre State Forest holdings and is being made available for public review and comment. Key goals focus on ecosystem health and diversity, economic benefits, recreational opportunities, forest conservation and sustainable management.

    Press Release

    Guides to understanding the Strategic Plan:

    ——————

    Essay on Impact of Industrial Drilling in State Forests

    Lost in the Woods By Peter Mantius

    BURDETT, Oct. 25 — It’s open season on New York’s state forests.

    State regulators are asking for public comment by Oct. 29 on a proposal to let gas drillers hydrofrack the forests and criss-cross them with construction roads and natural gas gathering lines.

    In Schuyler County alone, this could affect — or decimate — more than 10,000 acres in five state forests: Sugar Hill, Coon Hollow, Cinnamon Lake, Beaver Dam and Goundry Hill.

    Most of this land was acquired about 80 years ago for about $4 an acre. The forests are used by hikers, hunters, horseback riders, snowmobilers and others.

    The idea of industrializing any portion of them would appear to violate both the spirit and the letter of the Depression-era laws passed to assemble and protect them. Those special woodlands, the laws said, shall be “forever devoted to reforestation and the establishment and maintenance thereon of forests for watershed protection, the production of timber and for recreation and kindred purposes.”

    The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation apparently isn’t worried about every fine point in dusty old statutes.

    Applying an extraordinarily broad legal interpretation, the agency is prepared to expand the list of legal “kindred purposes” to include so called high-volume hydraulic fracturing, toxic wastewater storage in ponds, underground natural gas storage, heavy trucking and widespread road and pipeline construction.

    This comes from the same agency that warns state forest hikers: “Don’t litter! Stay on designated trails. Do not cause damage by heedlessly trampling trail side vegetation.”

    So littering is bad, but hydrofracking is OK? Surely, this agency is lost in the woods. Read more of this post

    Filed under Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

    Public Hearing on Cortland Co. Landfill Dec. 6 at 6 pm

    October 27, 2010

    The public will have a chance to review the pros and cons of selling, leasing or expanding the Cortland County landfill at a public hearing set for 6 pm Dec. 6 at the County Office Building auditorium.   A Cortland Standard editorial (Oct. 25, 2010, p.5)  lists some of the things the citizens and the county government should consider in making this decision including control, truck traffic, liability and cost containment.   A further consideration is what materials might be brought to the landfill now that industrial gas drilling is a reality in PA and possibly in NY.

    The Ensol Report on Alternatives is on the County Website at http://www.cortland-co.org/Legislature/CORTLAND%20COUNTY%20LANDFILL%20ALTERNATIVES%20ANALYSIS%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%2010-15-10.pdf

    See https://gdacc.wordpress.com/resources/waste-disposal/ for documents and news of radioactive fracking waste being disposed of in nearby landfills.

    Filed under events Tagged with , , , ,

    EPA hydraulic fracturing Study

    September 9, 2010 1 Comment

     

     EPA Study on Hydraulic Fracturing Peer Review Panel Selected:  Jan 18, 2011.  http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommitteesSubcommittees/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Study%20Plan%20Review%20Panel       

    EPA Drinking Water Study Powerpoint Outline of  Study    http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/hftribalpresentation30aug2010.pdf           
    For additional questions or comments, please email hydraulic.fracturing@epa.gov or call 1-866-477-3635. Meeting information may be found on the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroout.cfm.

    Background Information Read more of this post

    Filed under EPA, Waste Tagged with , , , ,

    Termination/Expiration/Surrender of Gas Leases in New York State

    January 29, 2010

    Termination/Expiration/Surrender of Gas Leases in New York

    ATTENTION

    Lease Termination Packet for Rural Landowners!

    Do you have a gas lease on your property?

    Will it be expiring soon (2011 or 2012)?

    If so, the attached packet has some very important information for you!

    TEMPLATE FOR DEALING WITH GAS COMPANIES UPON EXPIRATION OF YOUR GAS LEASE PREPARED BY AN EXPERIENCED ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEYWORKING WITH GDACC

     

    Other Advice on lease termation

    How to Terminate a Gas Land Lease in New York State | eHow.com.

    Fleased Fleased is providing a voice for landholders who leased mineral rights before Marcellus shale gas exploitation was known to threaten our land, air, water and communities.  To learn more or join us, contact us at fleasedny@gmail.com.

    Mr. Kutney’s personal appeal to join him in a class-action suit after Chesapeake extended his lease against his will:  http://www.stevekutney.com/GasLease.aspx

    Comment: This  is a very educational link, even though Mr. Kutney says all he wants is a new lease with better prices.   It exposes the widespread abuse of the invocation of the force majeure argument, with links to private firms looking for clients, but also says the AG’s office in Binghamton is trying to get Chesapeake to settle.    At least they are aware of the abuse. if the AG’s office settles with no meaningful input from affected citizens, they sometimes fold too easily.
    This link also informs us about NY’s Martin Act that essentially says that contracts with clauses that are too vague and void and the company, in this instance, is responsible to make the contract clear.   It also provides for legal fees if one wins, [perhaps].– this is very similar to the federal civil rights laws, which can award legal fees–AT THE END OF A CASE–and subject to the judge’s whims.   Having done a bit of that work over the years, I can assure you this is not as good as it seems.   This is because the costs of bringing a suit against such a huge corp. are staggering and they paper you to death and try to wear you out.  Then when you get done and win, they and the judge nickel and dime you for the fees.   I think we once calculated that we made about 85 cents per hour for the 29 years of the Attica civil rights class action litigation.   It still is better than nothing.

     

    More on Leasing at: http://wp.me/PJm45-7L

    Filed under Leasing Issues Tagged with , , , , , ,

    Newer posts →