Hydrofracking leases may violate fine print on mortgages, title insurance

Hydrofracking leases may violate fine print on mortgages, title insurance.

Gas Houses

Hydrofracking drilling leases may violate fine print on mortgages, title insurance

Homeowners who lease their drilling rights to the oil and gas industry for hydrofracking may no longer be covered by their title insurance.

[+] Enlarge

By Susan Arbetter

A group of Tompkins County residents believe they have found a troubling new consequence of “hydrofracking” gas drilling in New York—not environmental but financial.

Reading the fine print on residential mortgage and title insurance requirements, they found many New York properties have tight technical restrictions on the size and location of drilling structures.

That means homeowners who lease their drilling rights to the oil and gas industry for hydrofracking may no longer be covered by their title insurance. They may not be able to take out second mortgages on their properties. In the worst case, they may not even be able to sell their land as long as a drilling lease is in effect.

“Economic development is expected to be the upside of this activity,” said Carol Chock, a Tompkins County legislator who headed a local committee reviewing how gas drilling would affect property assessments.

“The understanding is that if we’re willing to take the risk, the reward will be economic,” Chock said. “But are we sure that’s true?”

Gas drillers say the worry is overblown, but it has made its way to the governor’s office.

Assembly Member Barbara Lifton arranged for Chock, two local mortgage lenders and a real estate agent to meet in Albany last month with three aides to Gov. Andrew Cuomo—Anthony Giardina, Jim Malatras and Tom Congdon—as well as with officials from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The DEC is scheduled to release a detailed blueprint for gas drilling in New York by July 1, but the Cuomo administration has not said whether land financing will be addressed.

While landowners in economically depressed regions across the state are generally open to leasing their drilling rights, the Assembly recently passed a year-long moratorium on the controversial practice, because they fear hydrofracking will contaminate the water supply.

“Natural gas locked within the Marcellus Shale isn’t going anywhere. We’re not going to lose it,” Speaker Sheldon Silver said last week. “There’s too much at stake not to err on the side of caution.”

Though the shale isn’t going anywhere, cash-strapped New Yorkers in struggling areas of the state are going bankrupt. Some are going into foreclosure. Others are hanging onto their homes a month at a time, waiting for the state to allow drilling.

This friction between upstaters who support and oppose fracking is on vivid display in Tompkins County, home to the city of Ithaca, one of the only growth hubs in a region marked by poverty. Ithaca has insulated itself from its neighbors’ economic problems with the help of its 25,000 college students. Yet like the conservative farming communities that border Tompkins County, Ithaca sits atop 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Tompkins County discovered the potential mortgage and insurance pitfalls of hydrofracking after it formed a task force last winter to consider the impact of gas drilling.

At Chock’s request, Gregory May, the vice president of residential mortgage lending at Tompkins Trust Company, began digging into the assessment and valuation issues. His four-page report, issued in March, stunned county officials.

One problem he found: New York environmental regulations require a 100-foot setback between a drill and any dwelling. But the secondary mortgage market, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the State of New York Mortgage Agency, requires a 200-foot separation.

If a setback falls short of 200 feet, May wrote, a prospective buyer may not be able to get financing, and sellers may find fewer purchasers for their land.

Another problem: To qualify for title insurance, properties with gas leases in New York must not be used for any commercial purpose, have structures taller than 35 feet or store gas-drilling equipment on site.

If a property owner or a gas company that has leased the owner’s drilling rights violates those terms, May wrote, the title insurance on that land could be invalidated—blocking a homeowner from taking out a home-equity line of credit.

“The inability to sell loans to the national secondary market could potentially impact property values because of the lack of competitive mortgage financing available in the marketplace,” he wrote.

The Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, which represents drillers, calls that fearmongering. Randy Hansen, a spokesperson for the group, said no permanent gas-drilling structures are taller than one story, and he believes 200-foot setbacks are standard on most New York leases.

“I think common sense needs to be brought to bear in interpreting these regulations,” Hansen said.

There is no way to easily check setbacks and other provisions, because drillers aren’t required to file the full terms of a lease publicly. Tompkins Trust Company’s law firm, however, says it has seen plenty of problems caused by lease requirements—and that homeowners affected by them are simply stuck.
“If the gas companies would simply terminate a homeowner’s lease on request, or release the surface rights, this wouldn’t be an issue,” said Randy Marcus, a partner at Barney, Grossman, Dubow, Marcus & Orkin, which specializes in real estate transactions and finance. “The gas companies are absolutely intractable. They want to hang onto these leases.”

The state mortgage agency declined to comment, saying it is reviewing the potential problems. But as lawmakers become aware of the issue, nearby landowners who want to tap into gas-lease revenue are becoming impatient.

Said Bradd Vickers, president of the nearby Chenango County Farm Bureau: “We have faith in the DEC.”


Susan Arbetter reports from the Capitol in Albany for Central New York’s PBS station, WCNY in Syracuse. She hosts a daily live radio show, “The Capitol Pressroom,” and produces “The Capitol Report,” broadcast daily on television across New York State.

Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.

“Setting the Bar for Safety & Responsibility”

Gray bar

Homepage photoOn May 5, 2011, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu charged the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee to make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations. Secretary Chu extended the Subcommittee membership beyond SEAB members to include the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts. The Subcommittee is supported by the Departments of Energy and Interior, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

President Obama directed Secretary Chu to form the Natural Gas Subcommittee as part of the President’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” – a comprehensive plan to reduce America’s oil dependence, save consumers money, and make our country the leader in clean energy industries.

The Subcommittee will conduct a review, and will work to identify any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing. They will also develop advice for the agencies on shale extraction practices that ensure protection of public health and the environment.

Notice of Public Meeting

The SEAB Natural Gas Subcommittee will hold a public meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011, at Washington Jefferson College in Washington, Pennsylvania.

View the event live via webcast beginning at 7PM EDT.

On a Party Line Vote, Committee Rejects Lowey-Hinchey
Amendment to Make Shale Gas Panel Unbiased and Impartial

***NEWS RELEASE***

 

For Immediate Release

June 15, 2010

Mike Morosi (Hinchey) – (202) 225-6335

Matt Dennis (Lowey) – (202) 225-6506

 

Appropriations Committee Republicans Block Lowey-Hinchey Amendment

to Prevent Increased Financial Conflicts of Interest on
U.S. Department Of Energy-Sponsored Fracking Panel

On a Party Line Vote, Committee Rejects Lowey-Hinchey
Amendment to Make Shale Gas Panel Unbiased and Impartial

 

    Washington, DC – House Appropriations Committee Republicans today rejected an amendment offered by Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would have prevented natural gas industry executives from serving on what is supposed to be a neutral federal advisory panel on shale gas drilling.  The Lowey-Hinchey amendment would have eliminated report language authored by House Republicans that would force the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to have at least one-third of the members on the newly-created Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board be shale gas industry representatives.

 

The Lowey-Hinchey amendment was offered during a markup of the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill and was rejected by the Republican majority on the Appropriations Committee in a party line vote.  Currently, the DOE has filled six of the seven panel slots, including the chairman position, with individuals who have financial ties to companies involved with hydraulic fracturing operations.  The Republican measure, which Lowey and Hinchey were unable to overcome, would require the DOE to replace or add panel members with individuals who are employed by the very shale gas industry the panel is supposed to independently assess.

 

“It is outrageous that the Republican majority opposed our common-sense effort to ensure members of federal advisory boards are unbiased and without conflicts of interest,” said Lowey.  “Allowing the shale gas industry to put a thumb on the scale of this board makes it more likely that the decisions it makes will focus more on profits and less on the safety of our water sources, Americans’ health, and environmental preservation.”

 

“Federal advisory boards are supposed to be unbiased, impartial bodies that advise our agencies, but almost everyone who currently serves on the shale gas advisory panel has direct financial ties to the oil and shale gas industry,” said Hinchey.  “Now the Republican majority is calling for an even greater bias by requiring that one-third of the panel work directly on behalf of the shale gas industries. This isn’t an honest effort to give industry a seat at the table. Instead, it’s a blatant attempt to rig the decisions of  the panel in favor of industry and against the safety and security of our environment, drinking water and public health.”

 

A number of recent reports and incidents are raising serious concerns about hydraulic fracturing. A study by researchers at Duke University found a statistically significant correlation between methane contamination of drinking water wells and their proximity to shale gas drilling sites. On April 20th of this year thousands of gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid spilled into the Susquehanna River watershed, following a major fracking well blowout in Leroy Township, PA.

 

The text of the amendment, which was rejected on a party line vote follows:

 

Pages 99 and 100, strike ‘‘The Committee is concerned that the selected panel members will not adequately represent industry perspectives, and therefore will not foster a spirit of partnership among industry, environmental, and governmental parties. In order to strengthen these partnerships and industry support for any subsequent recommendations, no less than one-third of panel members should be industry representatives who actively work in the shale gas industry. Further, the’’ and insert ‘‘The’’.

 

Tompkins town drilling regulations | The Ithaca Journal | theithacajournal.com

 

Tompkins town drilling regulations | The Ithaca Journal | theithacajournal.com.

Tompkins town drilling regulations

 

Town drilling regulations

Here’s a look at the actions related to gas exploration adopted and under review by Tompkins County towns.

Ithaca: Adopted Road Excavation Law; Studying Road Use Preservation Law; Considering Critical Environmental Areas Legislation; Considering a zoning law to ban gas drilling in the town.

Dryden: Added industrial noise ordinance to new zoning code: Considering a zoning law to ban gas drilling in the tow:; Considered Critical Environmental Areas Legislation; Considering a zoning law to ban gas drilling in the town: Considering Aquifer Protection Ordinance; Contract with engineering firm to conduct Road Use Assessments for possible Road Use Preservation Law.

Lansing: Conducting Road Assessments with highway staff for Road Use Preservation Law.

Ulysses: Considering a zoning law to ban gas drilling in the town: Created a Citizen’s Advisory Board on Gas Drilling: Contract with engineering firm to conduct Road Use Assessments for possible Road Use Preservation Law: Funding stream monitoring by the Community Science Institute for water quality data: Passed legislation prohibiting town water from being used for gas drilling purposes.

Enfield: Adopted Road Excavation Law: Conducting citizen survey on attitudes toward gas drilling: Considering contract with engineering firm to conduct Road Use Assessments for possible Road Use Preservation Law.

Groton: The town is considering a road use assessment, and citizens are forming a landowners’ consortium to negotiate with drilling companies regarding leasing.

Newfield: Adopted Road Excavation Law: Contract with engineering firm to conduct Road Use Assessments for possible Road Use Preservation Law;

Danby: Adopted Stormwater Management Law: Adopted Road Excavation Law: Contract with engineering firm to conduct Road Use Assessments for possible Road Use Preservation Law: Working with first-responders to prepare for gas drilling accidents/emergencies: Researching possible noise/light protection ordinances: Considering Critical Environmental Areas Legislation: Citizens preparing petition for gas drilling ban.

Caroline: Adopted Road Excavation Law: Considering conducting Road Use Assessments for Road Use Preservation Law.

Two Caroline Town Board members, Linda Adams and Peter Hoyt have placed a resolution on the agenda of the June 14 board meeting that would prevent the town from taking any action to prohibit high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

BP, Colorado wildlife officials reach agreement | The Associated Press | News | Washington Examiner

BP, Colorado wildlife officials reach agreement | The Associated Press | News | Washington Examiner.

BP, Colorado wildlife officials reach agreement

By: The Associated Press 06/03/11 7:10 PM
The Associated Press

The Colorado Division of Wildlife and BP America Production Co. have reached an agreement on lessening the impacts of natural-gas drilling on wildlife.

Under the agreement announced Thursday, BP will purchase private holdings suitable as wildlife habitat in exchange for drilling rights elsewhere.

Division of Wildlife spokesman Joe Lewandowski tells The Durango Herald that only willing sellers will be sought. He says the agreement applies largely to La Plata and Archuleta counties in southwest Colorado.

The agreement streamlines the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission permitting process by allowing energy companies to sign agreements with the wildlife division to address many drilling sites at one time instead of piecemeal.

BP will contribute $475,000 over the next six years for studies evaluating the effects of natural gas development on wildlife.

___

Information from: Durango Herald, http://www.durangoherald.com

Howarth, Ingraffea Shale Gas Study on Global Warming Discredited by U.S. Department of Energy | Marcellus Drilling News

Howarth, Ingraffea Shale Gas Study on Global Warming Discredited by U.S. Department of Energy | Marcellus Drilling News.

Comment from Howarth:

We are working on a more detailed response, but in the meanwhile, I have
sent the following message out to some folks.  Feel free to share,
Bob
 “We are working hard to try to understand what the DOE/NETL analysis  is based upon.  This is not easy, as their data are not well documented in the PowerPoint from their talk.  Apparently, NETL is working towards publication of a technical report, which one would hope would have far better documentation.  But that is not yet available to us.  To date, the PowerPoint available to us and to the public has not seen any rigorous, independent peer review.
We have ascertained that the NETL analysis has an estimate for methane  emissions from coal  that is similar to ours.  Therefore, the reasons for the differences between their estimates and ours lie elsewhere.  At this point, we believe there are 4 major differences:
1) we believe they have underestimated the fugitive emissions of methane.  They apparently assume no emissions from storage and from distribution systems, and their estimate for >transmission losses are far lower than the estimates we developed for losses from transmission, storage, and distribution.  Their estimates are also far lower than those from the US EPA, which we also feel are too low (as is discussed in our paper).
2) they have a very high, optimistic estimate for the total amount of gas produced over the life of a well.  This has the effect of giving a low estimate for percentage losses from venting and leaks, particularly during the initial well completion period.  Only time will tell what the actual production of these wells will be, as the technology is too new to know.  However, we used the best available information on estimates of life-time production, thoroughly documented in our paper.  The NETL estimates are far higher.
3) they used a global warming potential for methane of 25, based on a 100-year time integral and the old data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  We used values of 33 for a 100-year time integral and 105 for a 20-year time integral, based on more recent science (Shindell et al. 2009).  Their use of the older science results in significantly down-playing the importance of methane venting and leakage on the climate system.
4) they focused solely on generation of electricity.  We included generation of electricity in our study, and the analysis by David Hughes for the Post Carbon Institute took that even further.  HOWEVER, only 30% of the natural gas in the US is used for electricity.  The other 70% is used in home and commercial heating and for industrial processes.  To focus on just electricity provides the most optimistic view of natural gas, as that is the only use where natural gas has an efficiency advantage over other fossil fuels.
This focus on electricity generation by the NETL group is curious, as in their own talk, they emphasized that it was not likely that natural gas from shales would replace coal for electricity generation over coming decades.  Rather, they predict a DECREASE in the amount of natural gas used to generate electricity in the US.  The development of shale gas is expected largely to replace conventional gas in its current uses, and they predict some increase in the use of gas for industrial purposes.  Both the replacement of conventional gas by shale gas and the increased use of gas for industrial purposes will significantly increase the overall methane emissions from the US, and the overall greenhouse gas footprint of our nation.  The NETL study chose to ignore these aspects.”
_____________________________________
Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D.
David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and
        Environmental Biology, Cornell University
Telephone:  1-607-255-6175

NYS Assembly Hearings on Health Effects of Hydrofracking

Assembly Public Hearing on Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques  Albany, NY May 26, 2011

Playlist: Sandra Steingrabber, PhD, distinguished scholar in Residence at Ithaca College; Adam Law, MD Endocrinology, Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy; Kevin Chatham-Stephens, MD Pediatric & Environmental Health Fellow, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine; Uni Blake, MS environmental toxicologist, Independent Oil and Gas Association of NY; Scott Cline, PhD, geologist & petroleum engineer, Independent Oil and Gas Association of NY. Note: Includes 1st three hours only. Audio improves after 1st clip (Sandra Steingrabber).

This was a combined public hearing of the NYS Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation chaired by Robert K. Sweeney and Assembly Standing Committee on Health, chaired by Richard N. Gottfried. The panel includes (left to right) Assembly Members Thomas J. Abinanti (Environment); Richard N. Gottfried (chair, Health); Robert K. Sweeney (chair, Environment); Steve Englebright (Energy); and Michelle Schimel (Environment).

DVDs of the complete hearings are available from: Public Information, 202 L.O.B, Albany, NY 12248. Refer to: “Assembly Public Hearing on Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques from Thursday, May 26” and Include a check for . A transcript of the hearing will also be available from the Assembly Public Information Office.

“NY Assembly Hearing on Fracking & Health Impacts” (05-14-11, The Marcellus Effect)- http://marcelluseffect.blogspot.com/2011/05/ny-assembly-hearing-on-fracking-health.html


1-Sandra Steingrabber- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mhDFYUQdq0 & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/1-sandra-steingrabber-5217824

2-Sandra Steingrabber responds to panel- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ZvOFSpyss & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/2-sandra-steingrabber-responds-to-panel-5217543

3-Adam Lawhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBgmeGiCXvU & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/3-adam-law-5216851

4-Adam Law responds to panelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRVeeJ7wPgg & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/4-adam-law-responds-to-panel-5216662

5-Kevin Chatham-Stephenshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN_1zZbMwVE & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/5-kevin-chatham-stephens-5215959

6-Kevin Chatham-Stephens responds to panelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYCC8BZxJU & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/6-kevin-chatham-stephens-responds-to-panel-5215816

7-Uni Blakehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KzqBDYuZ-c & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/7-uni-blake-5215662

8-IOGA Scott Klinehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZl9Dp_m-1k & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/8-scott-kline-5215468

9-IOGA Scott Kline Uni Blake respond to panelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9933iLt-k1c & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/9-ioga-scott-kline-uni-blake-respond-to-panel-5215366

10-IOGA Scott Kline Uni Blake respond to panel (con’d)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kly5pcgif1M & http://blip.tv/shaleshock-media/10-ioga-scott-kline-uni-blake-respond-to-panel-con-d-5214831

You can order a DVD of the hearings for $10 check from the Assembly Public Information Office   http://assembly.state.ny.us/req/

Scott Kline Testimony–Comment/Questions

The notion of an hermetically sealed layer by virtue of capillary blockage is also one that I heard made by a proponent of propane fracking in answer to my question, what about old gas wells or vertical faults near the fracking operation?

Theoretical knowlege has a place.  Without it, we’d have no progress.  But it can be wrong, and in this case the consequences are so bad, the precautionary principle needs to be operative.

In any case, Kline’s explanations did not pass muster with Richard Gottfried, chair of the Assembly Health Committee.

As I was recording the exchange, I got a sense of how difficult it must be for politicians, at least good ones, to deal with technical testimony.

Has this issue of ‘capillary blocking’ been adequately addressed in a scientific debate or exchange?

We keep talking about the risk of old gas wells and vertical faults.  The industry’s experts keep talking about how safe and sequestered it is in the shale layer.

We continue to make the point that the industry narrowly focuses on the fracking operation at depth when it makes the claim, repeated I believe by Kline, that no drinking water aquifer has been contaminated by hydro-fracking.

I know that I am not alone in being concerned with the long term consequences –long after the gas has been extracted.  The integrity of the well casing is often cited.  But when I here from Kline that the fracturing actually does extends above and below the shale layer, I am concerned.

As is Richard Gottfried, chair of the Assembly Health Committee, who responds to Kline’s assertion of capillary blockage with a question of capillary action transporting the liquid.  To which Kline responds, it all would go toward the well bore regardless, because of the pressure gradient.

That is the problem the theoretical knowledge.  There are coherent views, but we really don’t know what processes may unfold over time.

Though maybe it is not productive for activists to get involve with this sort of question over all else we need to focus on, certainly, some more expert scientific opinion countering the industry claims articulated by Kline would help those who in the legislature who support, or are leaning toward, and extended moratorium.

Some might say this is already out there, but I have no as yet read anything that directly addresses the industry/technical assertion that capillary blockage makes everything safe and contained.

It was a long exchange between Kline and the panel.  The assertion that the thermogenic methane that has contaminated water wells near drilling operations comes from shallow layers apparently is disputed by the Duke study.

Early, Sandra Steingrabber made the point that there are really only two studies –the ecent Duke study and the Ingraffea/Howarth/Santoro study.

On 5/27/11 9:13 PM, KatyaBelousBoyle@aol.com wrote:

No doubt now that Scott Cline holds a BS in geological science.  His statements about fracking are pure BS.   RHB

 
Visit the Sustainable Otsego website:
http://sustainableotsego.org/

message-footer.txt
1K   View   Download
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Reply
James Northrup to mmsteinberg, NYGCG, ROUSE, averettr
show details 1:11 PM (11 hours ago)
Melanie

The telling point is highlighted below – 


Kline goes out of his way to discuss one of the least likely vectors of pollution – the frack going out-of-zone via vertical faulting. 

It happens – and companies have paid fines for it (Encana / Garfield County). 

Plus of course, surface casing blows out – which is in effect the frack going way out of zone. 

The problems start when the well is spudded -and prior to its being cased, much less fracked. 

The open hole during drilling (with a column of drilling mud to provide hydrostatic pressure on the gas) is a vector for methane migration 

And gas that gets into the drilling mud can get into the aquifer/ ground water – before the well is cased. 

And the cased well remains a pathway, with increasing probability of contamination into groundwater as the casing corrodes. 


Which is why the original driller will sell the well before it reaches its economic life expectancy 

To avoid the P&A (plug and abandonment) liabilities of a leaking well. Of which there are thousands already in NYS. 

Basically man-made open vectors from the formation into groundwater. 

Think of old wells as equivalent to  “man-made vertical faults” 

With no money at the DEC to properly plug them.




– Show quoted text –
– Show quoted text –

Visit the Sustainable Otsego website:
http://sustainableotsego.org/

Could Smog Shroud the Marcellus Shale’s Natural Gas Boom? – NYTimes.com

Could Smog Shroud the Marcellus Shale’s Natural Gas Boom? – NYTimes.com.

Sandra Steingraber Assembly Testimony 5/26/11

The Potential Health Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Testimony before the New York State Assembly Standing Committees

on Environmental Conservation and Health

May 26, 2011

Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.

Distinguished Scholar in Residence

Department of Environmental Studies

Ithaca College

Ithaca, New York  14850

ssteingraber@ithaca.edu

 

Chairman Sweeney, Chairman Gottfried, and distinguished members of the committees:

 

Thank you for convening this hearing on a topic that is of urgent concern to all New Yorkers.  Hydraulic fracturing relies on pressure, water, and high volumes of inherently toxic chemicals to shatter the bedrock beneath our feet and beneath our drinking water aquifers.  Once shattered, the bedrock releases more than just bubbles of natural gas.  The rock itself releases inherently toxic materials that have been bound together with the shale for 400 million of years.  As we, in New York, consider whether to permit or prohibit this form of energy extraction, it is essential that we understand the possible consequences to public health as a prerequisite for making that decision.  Once shale is shattered, it cannot be unshattered, nor groundwater unpoisoned.

 

Some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing—or liberated by it—are carcinogens.  Some are neurological poisons with suspected links to learning deficits in children.  Some are asthma triggers.  Some, especially the radioactive ones, are known to bioaccumulate in milk.  Others are reproductive toxicants that can contribute to pregnancy loss.  Cancer, miscarriage, learning disabilities, and asthma are not only devastating disorders, they are expensive.  They add rocks to the pockets of our health care system and cripple productivity.[1]  A recent analysis published in our nation’s preeminent public health journal, Health Affairs, estimates that we now spend $76.6 billion each year on health care for children exposed to toxic chemicals and air pollution.[2]

 

So it is right that we ask if hydraulic fracturing brings with it involuntary environmental exposures that may increase our disease burden here in New York.  I applaud you for initiating this conversation.  It feels like an historic moment.

 

My name is Sandra Steingraber.  I’m a distinguished scholar in residence at Ithaca College, and my Ph.D. is in biology from the University of Michigan.  More specifically, my training is in systems ecology, which means I’m interested in understanding how a dynamic web of direct and indirect interactions—from pollination to groundwater flow—helps shape the natural world.

 

Early on in my career as a biologist, I had a profound personal experience that led me to the work I do now, which is focused on understanding how the cumulative impacts of multiple environmental exposures to toxic chemicals create risks for human health.

 

At the age of 20, I was diagnosed with bladder cancer, a quintessential environmental cancer with well-established links to particular classes of chemicals.  Questions about my possible chemical exposures posed to me by my own diagnosing physician led me, years later, to return to my hometown in Illinois and investigate an alleged cancer cluster there.  Among other things, I discovered the presence of dry-cleaning fluid in the drinking water wells.  That was a surprise because the underlying geology of the area should not have allowed toxic contamination to happen.  But there it was.  I came to appreciate how little we really know about the unmapped, subterranean landscape below our feet, which has intimate, unseen connections to the world above ground.  It’s not just an inert lump of rock down there.

 

My investigation of the environmental links to cancer became the topic of my book Living Downstream, which was released last year as a documentary film.  I’ve also published two books on pediatric environmental health, the most recent of which is Raising Elijah: Protecting Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis.  The book’s final chapter addresses the potential health threats of hydraulic fracturing, and I’m pleased to share the results of my research with you.

 

I’ll begin by saying that a comprehensive study of the long-term, cumulative, public health impacts of fracking has not been done.  However, we do know quite a lot about the risks to human health posed by some of the chemicals used in the process or released by it.

 

 

 

Health Effects from Air Pollution

 

Because breathing is our most ecological act—we inhale a pint of atmosphere with every breath—I’ll begin with air.

 

Air pollution is an inevitable consequence of horizontal hydrofracturing.  It is not the outcome of a catastrophic accident.  It is not a hypothetical risk.  Compromised air quality is a certainty.  Because four to nine million gallons of fresh water are required to frack a single well and because wells must cover the landscape for Marcellus shale development to be profitable, fracking is a shock and awe operation.  77,000 wells are envisioned for upstate New York alone.[3]  Each well requires 1,000 truck trips.  77,000 times 1,000 equals a number with six zeroes after it.  This represents a prodigious amount of diesel exhaust.  And, of course, in addition to endless fleets of 18-wheelers, gas production requires generators, pumps, drill rigs, condensers and compressors, which also run on diesel.  At the same time, the wellheads themselves vent volatile organic chemicals—such as benzene and toluene—that are themselves highly toxic and can combine with combustion byproducts to create smog.[4]

 

This kind of air pollution is lethal.  It contains large amounts of ultrafine particles, soot, ozone, and the carcinogen benzo-a-pyrene.  In adults, these pollutants are variously linked to bladder, lung, and breast cancer, stroke, diabetes, and premature death.  In children, they are linked to premature birth, asthma, cognitive deficits, and stunted lung development.[5]

 

Again, this harm comes with economic costs.  Premature birth, which is the leading cause of disability in the United States, carries  $26 billion a year price tag. The direct and indirect costs of childhood asthma are $18 billion a year.[6]

 

What’s more, the airborne contaminants from gas drilling travel long distances, up to 200 miles.[7]  That is to say, the health costs of drilling will be borne by children living in areas where no one is benefiting financially from land leases.  Albany will be affected.  So will New York City.

 

In the gas-producing areas of Utah and Wyoming, formerly pristine air now contains more ozone than downtown Los Angeles.[8]  As the mother of a child with a history of asthma, this concerns me deeply.  New York is not Wyoming.  Our starting point here is not pristine, and our population density is much greater.  The cumulative impact of the air pollution that would be generated by hydraulic fracturing and the air pollution already here in our state is a question that, I submit, requires investigation before any permits are issued.

 

Health Effects from Water Pollution

 

We are each of us in this room 65 percent water by weight.  As such, we enjoy an exquisite communion not only with the atmosphere but with the water cycle, too.

 

Fracking turns millions of gallons of fresh water into poisonous flowback fluid that requires permanent disposal.  The technology does not exist to turn this waste into drinkable water nor remove the radioactive isotopes.  You cannot filter radioactivity.  This much we know with certainty.  The unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan illustrates the point.

 

We also know that there are many documented cases of surface and ground water contamination with compounds associated with gas extraction, including the carcinogen benzene.[9]  However, because hydraulic fracturing has been granted the environmental equivalent of diplomatic immunity—and enjoys special exemptions from both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act—it is difficult for those of us in the research community to quantify the public health consequences.  Researchers lack knowledge about the behavior of groundwater, and, because of trade secrets, they also don’t know what chemicals to test for.[10]

 

We do know, from a study released earlier this month, that drinking water wells near gas extraction sites in Pennsylvania and New York have, on average, 17 times higher methane levels than wells located farther away.[11]

 

Other than possible explosions, what are the health consequences of drinking and inhaling methane?   For pregnant women?  For children?  For anybody?  We don’t know.  Those studies have never been done.  The federal government does not regulate methane in drinking water.

 

We do know that disinfection byproducts are created when water containing carbon-based contaminants is chlorinated.  These include trihalomethanes, such as chloroform, which are, in fact, linked to both bladder and colon and cancers.[12]  Can methane serve as a raw material for the creation of carcinogenic compounds during the disinfection of public drinking water?  To my knowledge, we in the scientific community don’t have an answer to that question.

 

I have brought with me a jar of water from my kitchen tap in the village of Trumansburg, which comes from a municipal well sunk into a groundwater aquifer next to Cayuga Lake, where fracking fluid from Pennsylvania has been dumped.  Every day, I pour this water into glasses and hand them to my children.  Every day, this water becomes their blood plasma.  It becomes their tears.  It becomes their cerebral spinal fluid.  According to the most recent annual Drinking Water Quality Report for my village, this water contains 29.2 parts per billion trihalomethanes.  That’s not in violation of regulatory limits, but it’s worrisome as there is no documented safe threshold level of exposure.  This water also contains nitrates, probably as the result of agricultural run-off.  Their presence in this jar is, all by itself, not a call for alarm.  But it is a sign that our municipal water, which draws from an unconfined aquifer, is vulnerable to chemical contamination.  It shows that there exist hidden connections between the surface of the earth and the watery vaults of groundwater deep beneath our feet.

 

What would happen to this water if the fields that surround my village—many of which are already leased to gas industry—become a staging ground for fossil fuel extraction?

 

This is not a hydrological experiment that I am interested in running.

 

 

 

Impact on Food

 

I have also brought with me a loaf of bread and a bag of flour.  Both are made from organic heirloom wheat and rye that is grown in my home county and milled right in my village.  You can find similar loaves of artisanal bread—made from this same flour—in Brooklyn bakeries.  This particular loaf was created by Stefan Senders of the Wide Awake Bakery in Mecklenburg, New York.  Baker Senders asked me to submit this loaf as his personal testimony to the Assembly today.  And it comes with a message:

 

“Please tell the committees that bread is mostly water.  The flour and the yeast are just a matrix to make water stand up. I can’t bake bread without a source of clean water.”

 

He also told me that the farmers who grew the organic wheat to make his flour are surrounded by leased land.  He believes whole farm-to-table enterprise is threatened by fracking.

 

Baker Stefan and his suppliers have reason to feel concern.  Organic farmers who raise food near fracking operations are facing potential boycotts and will lose their certification if their crops and animals are chemically contaminated.

 

Upstate New York was recently identified by the New York Times as a national hotspot for organic agriculture, which itself is the most rapidly expanding sector of the food production system that has continued to grow even during the economic downturn.[13]  Cows, wheat fields, vineyards, maple syrup, and apple orchards:  they are all part of a healthy human food chain.  They all require clean water, and they are all affected badly by exposure to air pollution.

 

Of course, public health is also served by employment opportunities in the form of non-toxic jobs.  The above-mentioned mill and bakery are currently hiring.  They both have plans to grow their businesses as demand for locally produced, organic bread is rising.  The grain farmers, too, are seeking additional land.  However, as baker Stefan Senders informs me, concern about the area gas leases and the possible end of the current state moratorium on horizontal drilling have negatively affected plans for locally expanding organic wheat agriculture and artisanal bread baking.  This raises a question:  is the human health of New York best served by jobs that involve organic bread production or fossil fuel extraction?

 

Conclusions

 

I fervently hope that these hearings are the beginning, not the end, of an essential conversation.  In its current incarnation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement—on which the future of hydraulic fracturing hangs—considers neither human health consequences nor the cumulative impacts of the numerous hazards that gas drilling has brought to our doors.

 

The human health impacts of fracking cannot be understood by looking at one chemical exposure by itself, one river at a time, one well pad in isolation.  We all know that it is not just the last straw that breaks the backs of camels.   I urge the Assembly to look at the all straws, employing the new tools of cumulative impacts assessment to do so.[14]  Until that work is complete, benefit of the doubt goes to New York’s children, water, cows, and wheat fields, not to things that threaten them.

 

 

 

 


[1] President’s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, 2008-2009 Annual Report (National Cancer Institute, May 2010)

 

[2] L. Trasande and Y. Lui, “Reducing the Staggering Costs of Environmental Disease in Children, Estimated at $76.6 Billion in 2008,” Health Affairs 30 (5): 863-70, 5 May 2011.

 

[3] This estimate is based on assumptions about how much of the shale will be tapped over what period of time.  77,000 wells assumes that 17 New York State counties are drilled and that the shale is 70 percent developed over 50 years at a density of eight wells per square mile.  T. Engelder, “Marcellus 2008 Report Card on the Breakout Year for Gas Production in the Appalachian Basin,” Forth Worth Basin Oil and Gas Magazine, Aug. 2009, pp. 18-22, and Anthony Ingraffea, Ph.D., personal communication.

[4] C.D. Volz et al., “Potential Shale Gas Extraction Air Pollution Impacts,” FracTracker—Marcellus Shale Data Tracking, Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, 24 Aug. 2010.

[5] American Lung Association, “Health Effects of Ozone and Particle Pollution,” State of the Air, 2011; President’s Cancer Panel, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, 2008-2009 Annual Report (National Cancer Institute, May 2010).

[6] American Lung Association, Asthma and Children Fact Sheet, Feb. 2010; J.M. Perrin et al., “The Increase of Childhood Chronic Conditions in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association 297 (2007); U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2006 and “Premature Birth,” 2010.

[7] S. Kemball-Cook et al., “Ozone Impacts of Natural Gas Development in the Haynseville Shale,” Environmental Science and Technology 15 (2010): 9357-63.

 

[8] M. Bernard, “Air Pollution Becoming a Basin Concern,” Vernal Express, 5 Oct. 2010; D.M. Kargbo et al., “Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities,” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (2010): 5679-84.

[9] A. Lustgarten and ProPublica, “Drill for Gas, Pollute the Water,” Scientific American, 17 Nov. 2008.

[10] For example, U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry, Evaluation of Contaminants in Private Residential Well Water, Pavillion, Wyoming, Fremont County, August 2010.

 

[11] S.G. Osborne et al., “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 2011, epub before print.

[12] R.D. Morris et al., “Chlorination, Chlorination By-products and Cancer: A Meta-analysis,” American Journal of Public Health 82 (1992); H.W. Weinberg et al., “Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study (Athens, GA: EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, 2002).

 

[13] H. Fairfield, “The Hot Spots for Organic Food,” New York Times, 3 May 2009.

[14] “Cumulative impacts” refers to the combined effect of numerous adverse impacts on public health or ecosystems from environmental hazards.  The Science and Environmental Health Network has launched a new website that describes the latest science on cumulative impacts assessment:  www.cumulativeimpacts.org.

__._,_.___

How gas drilling contaminates your food – Sustainable food – Salon.com

How gas drilling contaminates your food – Sustainable food – Salon.com.

How gas drilling contaminates your food

We know the controversial fracking process hurts our water supply — but it’s also affecting the things we eat

CS Report of Gas Lease Termination Workshop

May 18, 2011

Landowners dispute gas lease extensions

Seminar details tactics energy companies use to extend leases beyond original durations

By CATHERINE WILDE
Staff Reporter
cwilde@cortlandstandard.net
Energy companies are employing more and more tactics to extend expiring natural gas leases, landowners learned at an informational meeting Tuesday.
County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin told a crowd of about 60 that she is rejecting hundreds of lease extension documents gas companies are attempting to file, because they lack the landowners’ signatures.
Whether the sought after extensions are valid, remains to be seen as many landowners are arguing that they do not want their leases extended.
Larkin said she will continue to reject the extensions.
“If you’re going to convey an interest in real property, real property law says that the landowner has to acknowledge the lease, has to sign the lease,” Larkin said.
But the lease extensions continue to flow into the office without the landowners’ signatures.
Larkin was part of a three-member informational panel at the Cortland County Office Building auditorium. Onondaga Nation Lawyer Joe Heath and a Virgil landowner Mike Bosetti, who successfully terminated his lease, also sat on the panel.
Some residents were surprised by what they heard, unaware until the meeting that their gas leases may not simply expire at the end of the term, and may actually provide loopholes where landowners are trapped into leases they wish to end.
One such loophole occurs when residents, seeking to terminate their leases, contact the gas companies and actually open a window for the gas companies to then extend their leases.
According to the state general obligations law, which governs how gas leases are terminated, the landowner must notify all gas companies with an interest in the land, within 30 days after a lease termination date, calling for the lease to end. But doing so opens a 30-day window for the gas company to file an affidavit in the county clerk’s office stating the lease is not terminated.
The news that a lease could be so easily extended by gas companies, came as a surprise to Homer resident Patricia Martinez de la Vega Mansilla.
Mansilla said she is trying to get out of a lease on her property that she recently acquired. Since Mansilla is not the original landowner, she had to contact the gas company with a copy of her deed to show she is the person to contact regarding the lease.
Mansilla has since responded to a “force majeure” letter to contest the company’s claim the lease is extended, but now she worries the lease will not end in December as she hopes.
“I didn’t realize they could file an affidavit with no conditions, to automatically extend the lease,” Mansilla said.
Mansilla will wait until the lease ends at the end of the year and hopes to have a legal opinion by then about whether she should send the letter within the 30-day timeframe.
Heath is awaiting an opinion from the state Attorney General about the best way to end gas leases.
“We are trying to get an opinion from the Attorney General whether it is safe to do nothing when the lease is over, or whether or not they have to take that risk,” Heath said after the meeting.
Heath detailed a list of what he calls fraudulent practices on the part of gas companies that he has brought to the attention of the state Attorney General in an attempt to get laws written that would protect landowners.
Heath pointed to the tactics gas company representatives, known as ‘landmen’, use when trying to get leases signed. For example, landmen will deny that the process of hydraulic fracturing, the method of injecting high quantities of chemically-treated water into the shale to extract gas, can increase the radioactivity of groundwater, even though that has been documented to occur, he said.
Heath also pointed to force majeure letters which the gas companies are sending out to landowners to effectively extend their leases, saying these letters are, in the opinion of many lawyers, not valid.
The force majeure letters contend that the moratorium placed on high volume hydraulic fracturing last year and endorsed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo this year, was a force outside the industry’s control that effectively ceased gas exploration. Therefore, the companies argue for a right to extend leases beyond their agreed upon termination dates.
Most in the audience Tuesday had received such letters.
Binghamton residents Jack and Sonja Stanbro, who own leased land in Cortland County, left Tuesday’s seminar planning to send a reply contesting the force majeure letter they received.
“As far as I’m concerned, we don’t have a lease because they never paid us,” Jack Stanbro said, adding Chesapeake promised him $3,000 an acre before the moratorium went into effect but he was never paid.
The Stanbros said if sending the letter through the proper channels does not end the lease, they may have to seek legal counsel.
Town of Caroline resident Edie Spaulding came to the seminar to learn more about her options for ending a lease. Spaulding said she has received a delay rental check, a check that comes close to the lease termination date that, when cashed, automatically extends the lease.
The sum is considerable, over $4,000, she said.
“Those checks will not be cashed,” Spaulding said, adding she wants “out of” the lease because her property is in the Ithaca watershed.
Heath said landowners must respond to force majeure letters, and he urges people to understand their leases are “complicated legal documents that don’t necessarily end when the date says they do.”
Heath directed people to the website for the local group Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County: https://gdacc.wordpress.com, which defines examples of standard lease terminology and also provides sample letters for people to use when responding to gas companies.
Bosetti said he was surprised to hear of so many different issues landowners have been faced with.

http://cortlandstandard.net/articles/05182011n.html