ALL THE ‘FRACKING’ FACTS @ SCIFEST AFRICA 2011 | Grocott’s Mail Online | Grahamstown News

ALL THE ‘FRACKING’ FACTS @ SCIFEST AFRICA 2011 | Grocott’s Mail Online | Grahamstown News.

08/05/2011 15:30
Africa/Johannesburg

MEDIA RELEASE

SCIFEST AFRICA

APRIL 2011

ALL THE ‘FRACKING’ FACTS @ SCIFEST AFRICA 2011

Blurb: The definitive scientific facts about fracking are just one in a series of public lectures by South African and international scientists at Scifest Africa this year!

Body Copy:

With the fracas around proposed fracking in the Karoo reaching fever pitch, those for and against are both vocally expressing their opinion! Soon though at Scifest Africa in Grahamstown from 4 – 10 May 2011, one of the world’s leading scientific specialists on the subject will present the full “fracking” facts – as part of a fascinating lecture series by globally acknowledged authorities on various subjects at Scifest Africa this year.

Proff. Anthony Ingraffea, from Cornell University in the USA is just one of almost twenty worldwide experts on the Scifest public lecture programme. But what makes his presentation so special is not just that fracking is such a topical and hotly debated issue right now. Proff. Ingraffea will be the first person ever to give a Skype-facilitated public lecture in the fifteen year history of Scifest! And it promises to be a spectacular eye-opener, because of Proff. Ingraffea’s world renowned expertise!

Indeed, for many South Africans fracking is a recent discovery; and most of us had no idea what it was until its relatively recent arrival on news reports and in public debates. Officially known as hydraulic fracturing, fracking is used to access shale gas reserves locked in underground rock formations. This is done by drilling deepboreholes and injecting a chemical cocktail of water, sand and chemicals at extremely high pressure to crack open the rocks and release the gas.

One environmental report claims that “fracking could permanently damage the Karoo environment, cause catastrophic drinking water pollution and air pollution, be a health concern for humans and animals and cause general environmental degradation”. On the other hand, those for fracking claim that it will create jobs and that the environmental threat is ‘manageable’, albeit not guaranteed as absent.  Ultimately however, a definitive scientific answer is needed to debunk the myths and fully explore the fracking facts. Proff. Ingraffea’s lecture promises to do just that!

Proff. Ingraffea is a multi-award-winning Professor of Engineering in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University and a leading authority figure on the physical effects of fracking. His research concentrates on computer simulation and physical testing of complex fracturing processes; and with his students he also completed pioneering research in the use of interactive computer graphics in computational fracture mechanics.  Now, with Proff. Ingraffea’s public lecture, South Africans who are perplexed about what to believe about fracking will have direct access to a seminal presentation on the issue – whose content stems from decades of research data, intricate computer modelling and scientific insights on the subject. And it’s only happening at Scifest Africa 2011.

Proff. Ingraffea’s lecture “The Fracking Facts” will take place at 15h30 on Sunday 8 May 2011, but there are another eighteen lectures by worldwide authorities on a variety of topics throughout the week-long Scifest Africa schedule. And this public lecture series is just one of countless events, activities and exhibitions at Scifest this year – celebrating its 15th anniversary with the most comprehensive programme ever for visitors of all ages – with SASOL, Old Mutual, the Netherlands Embassy and Department of Science and Technology as sponsors!

The full programme is available on www.scifest.org.za and direct telephonic contact can be made on (046)603 1106 for all bookings. Be there and find out exactly what the fracking facts are for yourself!

Fracking the Future DeSmogBlog

Media Centre. Media Resources

 

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

 

Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

Media Centre

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

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

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

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


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


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


Resources and links to climate science websites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Country (also check here )

NationMaster GHG and Environment Statistics

Calculate your household’s carbon emissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

FOLLOW US!

 

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

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

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

DesmogBlog

ashleybraun profile

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

DeSmogBlog profile

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

greenpeaceca profile

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

greenpeaceca profile

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

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORKProgressive Bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

69. The Snow Chute

4 months ago

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

Protecting our Children – Sandra Steingraber May 13-Vestal

A FREE TALK BY DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER    Poster   Poster 2/page

Author whose book has been featured as an HBO movie “Living Downstream”

The audio for this event is here:
http://changetheframe.com/audio/sandra_steingraber_vestal_may13-2011/steingraber-audio.mp3

Friday, May 13, 2011 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:30 pm)

Clayton Ave Elementary School, 209 Clayton Ave, Vestal, NY

Dr. Sandra Steingraber is a mother, biologist, ecologist and cancer survivor who has won the Rachel Carson award for her writing about the connection between our health and the environment.  She looks at the toxic, ecologically fractured world our children now inhabit and invites all parents and those concerned to attend this event and learn about the increasing toxic load we all have to carry.  Toxins have been implicated in such problems as childhood cancers, asthma, autism, allergies, reproductive problems and autoimmune problems.  Dr. Steingraber will be available for a book signing of her new book, “Raising Elijah,” following the talk. 

*Sponsored by Binghamton Regional Sustainability Coalition

“Steingraber’s book is a deeply thoughtful, at times frightening, but ultimately hopeful book that describes in compelling and lyrical detail the two great, intertwined ecological crises of our time – the crisis of toxic chemical exposure and the crisis of global warming.  She argues that mastery of these crises will require heroic action, societal action on a scale as great as that which ended slavery in the United States, and is essential to save our planet and our children.”

-Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., MSc, Director, Children’s Environmental Health Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

“This could be the most important and inspiring parenting book ever written.  With fierce love and hard science, Sandra Steingraber convinces us that protecting children from the poisons that surround them cannot be left to conscientious mothers and fathers alone.  It must instead become our society’s highes collective priority.”

          Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine


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.”

Coming Clean–Western Org. of Resource Councils 04_20_11

Coming_Clean–W e s t e r n  O r g a n i z a t i o n   o f  R e s o u r c e   C o u n c i l s   4/20/11

WORC’s principles for measuring the effectiveness of policies for disclosure
of fracking fluids and other chemicals used in oil and gas production. *Coming
Clean *discusses disclosure as an important first step but only a first step
to controlling pollution of our air, land and water and threats to public.

WORC   www.worc.org is a regional network of seven grassroots community organizations that include 10,000 members and 45 local chapters. WORC helps its member groups succeed by providing training and coordinating issue work.

Our Member Organizations are:

WORC’s mission is to advance the vision of a democratic, sustainable, and just society through community action. WORC is committed to building sustainable environmental and economic communities that balance economic growth with the health of people and stewardship of their land, water, and air resources.

110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Suite 306, Washington, DC 20002
(202) 547-7040 FAX (202) 543-0978 E-mail: dc@worc.org http://www.worc.org April 2011


Coming Clean What We Should Know About Oil and Gas Chemicals
Concerns about the effects of oil and gas exploration and production on public health, air, water
and land are increasing with the spread of new drilling technology and development in new areas around
the country. Expanded production and potential impacts have increased the need for full and effective
regulation of all aspects of exploration and production.
Full disclosure of chemicals used in oil and gas development is an important first step towards
protection of our water, air and land, and it has become a widespread demand of people and groups
affected by oil and gas development. Although it is not a substitute for the effective regulation of well
drilling, completions and other aspects of the production process, full public access to information about
the chemicals used during the exploration and development is a step forward over current secrecy. With
full public access to this information, air and water can be tested for contaminants, health conditions can
be diagnosed and treated, and the effects of the chemicals used can be better understood. It’s time for the
oil and gas industry to come clean.
Policies requiring disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and other stages of oil and
gas development can be a significant first step towards effective protection from oil and gas pollution if
they are comprehensive and carefully written. Coming Clean sets out nine criteria that people and groups
affected by oil and gas development can use to evaluate existing and proposed disclosure policies.
Many states require oil and gas operators to keep records or submit reports of some type, but most
of these requirements are focused on waste injection wells, and not exploration and production wells.
Just two states – Arkansas and Wyoming – have mandated reporting of hydraulic fracturing
constituents and disclose these reports to the public. Although these state requirements are an important
step forward, both contain significant loopholes that allow companies to continue to keep important
information secret. Similarly, voluntary disclosure programs, while laudable, are no substitute for
mandatory disclosure.
As local, state, regional and federal governments consider new disclosure policies, these
loopholes must be closed to provide the public – especially people who live in the oil and gas fields –
with the information they need to protect their property, and the health and well-being of their families
and communities.


1. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers must be reported to provide a unique identifier for each
chemical constituent used in a well, as well as the volume and chemical concentration.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require CAS numbers to be reported for chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing.


2. All chemical constituents used during the entire life cycle of oil and gas exploration and
development must
be disclosed — drilling chemicals as well as those used in hydraulic fracturing
and any other methods of well stimulation.
Disclosure of the constituents of hydraulic fracturing has been the subject of most public attention, for
good reasons, but all chemicals used in exploration, drilling and production are of as much concern as
those used in hydraulic fracturing. Several states require recordkeeping and/or reporting of drilling
chemicals, including Colorado, Maryland and Pennsylvania, although this information is not
disclosed to the public in these states.

3. Any protections for proprietary information must be carefully defined, with a clear decision
making process and standard of proof, and must provide for the release of the adverse health
effects of each chemical that is kept secret, release of proprietary information in the event of a
medical necessity, and regular review and appeal of proprietary designations.
Wyoming offers fairly broad protections for proprietary information that have allowed at least nine
companies to keep at least 107 hydraulic fracturing constituents secret from the public. The Arkansas
rules incorporate the trade secret protections in the federal Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, which meets the criteria listed above.
4. Information must be disclosed to the public.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming release reports of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing to the public,
although publication of these reports is not required by statute or rules. Public disclosure should be
required by statue or rule, so that it cannot be rescinded without a legislative change, or at least a
formal rulemaking process.
5. Local landowners must be directly notified of chemical use in advance, with sufficient time before
drilling or stimulation to conduct baseline tests.
Wyoming requires operators to file plans for well stimulation in advance of hydraulic fracturing, and
this information is made available to the public online. Although no state currently requires advance
notice to landowners of chemical use, many states and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management have
statutes or policies requiring notification of landowners before entry and/or surface disturbing
activities. This notification should be expanded to include notification of chemical constituents to be
used.
6. A timely final report must be made after drilling or stimulation, with chemical constituents actually
used, pressures, fracture lengths and heights, the type, source and quantity of fluid used, and the
quantity of fluid recovered.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require reports after hydraulic fracturing with chemical constituents
used. In Wyoming, pressures used and fluids recovered are required in the completion reports.
The quantity and source of fluids used in well completions is a concern in many areas, particularly
where water supplies are limited and there are multiple uses. Arkansas requires disclosure of the type
and volume of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Wyoming requires detailed information as to the base
stimulation fluid source. New York requires oil and gas operators to submit annual statements showing
the volumes of fluids injected and produced.
7. Reports must be filed on a well-by-well basis.
Both Arkansas and Wyoming require most or all reports on a well-by-well basis.
8. In order to be effective and to earn the confidence of the public, a disclosure program must be
overseen by a regulatory agency with the expertise, resources and authority to monitor and enforce
disclosure requirements, recognize the public health consequences of the chemicals used, and take
action to protect public health and the environment.
Hydraulic fracturing disclosure programs in both Arkansas and Wyoming are overseen by Oil and
Gas Conservation Commissions, which have the primary task of ensuring efficient oil and gas
production. Although some oil and gas commissions are also tasked with protecting public health and
the environment but, as a general rule, expertise on the public health effects of chemicals is more
likely to reside within health departments. And, all of these agencies have limited manpower.
9. Penalties for failure to comply with disclosure requirements should be sufficient to encourage
compliance.

Bans and Moratoria on Hydrofracking 4/25/11 Unofficial list

MORATORIA, BANS, RESOLUTIONS

New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland Municipalities and A

Sampling of Key Organizations Opposed to Hydrofrack Drilling

New York State:

* Two legislative bills on hydrofrack drilling are being

considered by New York State. The Assembly bill calls for a 5 year

moratorium while the Senate bill calls for an outright ban.

* NYS Executive Order calling for a drilling moratorium by former

Governor Paterson has been affirmed by Governor Cuomo.

* Yates County resolution unanimously passed calls for similar

protection treatment of their watershed as that in NYC and Syracuse

watersheds.

* The Town of Jerusalem (Yates) at the February public hearing

enacted a moratorium ordinance for their entire township.

* The Town of Milo is drawing up a moratorium statement for board

action.

* Dewitt, Tully, Marcellus and Skaneateles have enacted moratoria

laws.

* Highland, (Sullivan Co) is developing a moratorium statement.

* Buffalo has banned hydrofrack drilling and wastewater disposal in

their city.

* Lumberland (Sullivan Co) is considering a moratorium statement.

* Town of Ulysses is establishing “industrial zones” attempting to

restrict the negative impact of drilling in their water supply.

* Tompkins County has enacted a ban on fracking on county land.

* Broome County: Ban on hydrofracking on county lands. Waste

restrictions for fracking cuttings and flow back water established.

* Ontario County and Onondaga Counties have enacted bans on

fracking on county owned land.

* Ulster County has banned hydrofrack drilling on county owned

lands.

* Gorham in Ontario County enacted a moratorium ordinance.

* The towns that ring Cooperstown’s reservoir, Otsego Lake —

Middlefield, Otsego, Butternuts, Cherry Valley and Springfield — are

moving to ban or restrict natural gas drilling and high-volume

hydraulic fracturing.

* The Medical Society of the State of New York has gone on record

supporting a moratorium on gas drilling using high volume hydraulic

fracturing.

* Cooperstown’s Chamber of Commerce has issued a position

statement supporting a total ban on fracking due to the impact it will

make on their watershed, farming and tourism.

* A group of residents have launched a petition drive designed to

ban the use of high-volume, slickwater hydraulic fracturing in the

Town of Caroline, Tompkins County.

* New York City has called on the US Congress to remove hydrofrack

drilling’s exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act.

* The Otsego County Planning Board approved changes to

Middlefield’s master plan and zoning law that would specifically

prohibit heavy industry, including gas and oil drilling.

* The Board of Trustees of Bassett Medical Center, based in

Cooperstown, New York, views the issue of hydrofracking as a public

health issue of the highest priority and resolves that the

hydrofracking method of gas drilling constitutes an unacceptable

threat to the health of patients, and should be prohibited until such

time as it is proven to be safe.

* A consortium of interested citizens is planning for a unified

moratorium and eventual ban of hydrofrack drilling in the entire Keuka

Lake watershed region.

* Lebanon town board members adopted a memorializing resolution

that calls on the New York State Legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo

to repeal and reform compulsory integration laws in the State of New

York that currently govern natural gas development.

* A petition drive has resulted in the Dryden Town Board

unanimously passing a resolution to move forward with an ordinance to

ban fracking.

Pennsylvania:

* Pittsburgh bans hydraulic fracturing in their city.

* Luzerne County Lehman Township, ordinance calling for “home rule” and a ban on drilling within their surrounding township area.

* Cresson has enacted legislation banning fracking.

* Washington Township has banned fracking.

* Philadelphia, Pennsylvania City Council unanimously passed the pro-moratorium Resolution on Marcellus Shale Drilling Environmental and Economic Impacts.

* Philadelphia refuses to purchase Marcellus Shale gas as the dumping of flow back waters is polluting their water supply.

New Jersey:

* The New Jersey Senate Environment Committee unanimously passed a bill to ban hydrofrack drilling in the state. The legislators now need to reconcile the Assembly’s Environment Committee’s moratorium

bill with the Senate’s Ban Bill. It will be going to the floor in the

coming months.

Maryland:

* The first community in Maryland, Mountain Lake Park, adopted an ordinance banning corporations from natural gas drilling.

NY, PA, NJ and DE – Delaware River Basin Commission has a moratorium on gas drilling in place in the Watershed located in these 4 states since May 2010 that is running concurrent with the development of natural gas development regulations.

Compiled by Joe Hoff, Chairman KCAH As of April 20, 2011

Shale gas drilling likely to be banned in France | EurActiv

Shale gas drilling likely to be banned in France | EurActiv.

Shale gas drilling likely to be banned in France
Published: 12 April 2011

The French government has backed a draft bill that would ban shale gas
drilling in the country, citing fears that the extraction method is a
risk to water quality. However, for other countries like Poland, shale
gas has become a national priority to win independence from Russian
imports. EurActiv France reports.

MPs from the ruling centre-right UMP party tabled the bill in the
National Assembly using an accelerated procedure. As a result, it will
only be examined in a single reading in the Assembly and the Senate.

If adopted, the text would suspend drilling permits granted in March
2010 to Total, GDF Suez, and Schuepbach Energy by former Environment
Minister Jean-Louis Borloo.

A shale gas drilling ban is also supported by the opposition Socialist
Party, which presented its own alternative text with the same aim.

In March, the French government had prolonged a moratorium on shale
gas drilling until June.

This had followed protests opposing the drilling method, notably in
the village of Villeneuve-de-Berg in southern France, with over 20,000
people voicing their opposition chanting “No gazaran!” Shale gas
drilling near the town had been planned for the end of 2011.

Scientists relieved, oil business fears red tape

After the announcement of the suspension of drilling, researchers at
the hydro-science centre at the University of Montpellier said they
were reassured. In the event of shale gas drilling, Montpellier’s
region “and all the water reserves close to the drilling area would
have been seriously threatened,” said researcher Françoise Elbaz.

“There is always a technological risk. In going back up, the drill can
release toxic gases such as the radioelements naturally contained in
the rocks,” she said. “And the authorities would have to cut off the
water supply.”

No such drilling has yet taken place in France, but researchers cite
the example of the city of Pittsburgh in the United States. Elbaz says
that following the use of chemicals to fracture the rock and ensure
permeability, the waters of the city have reached a salinity level
inappropriate for consumption.

During a presentation of his company’s annual results last February,
the director-general of Total, Christophe Margerie, said he was
“annoyed by the noise” surrounding shale gas. He expressed frustration
with excessive concern about the safety of drilling, saying “it’s good
to talk about the problems this can pose – if one day there are some –
but today, there are none”.

Margerie also raised fears that red tape could hinder production.
“[If] we need to ask the authorisation to one day ask for
authorisation, we’re going to start falling into useless paperwork,”
he said.

EU to assess shale gas potential in Europe

If the law is passed, the French debate on shale gas should be closed,
but the discussion continues at the European level.

Last February, European leaders agreed that “Europe’s potential for
sustainable extraction and use of conventional and unconventional
(e.g. shale gas, oil shale) fossil fuel resources should be assessed”.

A report by the consultancy firm McKinsey – commissioned by major gas
giants Gazprom, Centrica and others – claimed that shale gas could
meet the continent’s energy needs for 30 years.

Cuadrilla Resources, a British energy company, has begun exploratory
drilling near Blackpool, Lancashire. Drilling of shale gas is already
taking place near Gdansk, Poland.

For certain European countries, Poland in the lead, the drilling of
shale gas is seen as an alternative to Russian gas, which would allow
for greater energy independence.

Deep Drilling, Deep Pockets Expenditures of the Natural Gas Industry in New York to Influence Public Policy Part II – Lobbying Expenditures A Report by Common Cause/New York April 2011

CC_REPORT_FINAL.PDF (application/pdf Object).

Common Cause/NY Releases Report Reflecting Large Infusion of Money to Influence Policy Decisions on HydrofrackingPro Industry Lobby Groups Outspend Those Opposing

Gas Drilling by 4-1

 

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause/NY:  “New York State’s policies regarding hydrofracking will have a profound impact on the future of our state.  It is imperative that those policies are not unduly influenced by large infusions of special interest dollars. The fact that natural gas special interests outspent environmental groups 4-1 last year underscores the need for the public to monitor the state’s decision-making process and raises serious questions about our elected officials’ ability to remain independent and impartial.”

The proposed use of hydraulic fracturing technology, also called hydro-fracturing or, more commonly, hydrofracking, to drill for natural gas in New York State remains highly controversial.  Industry and some upstate landowners continue to press to be permitted to use hydrofracking, particularly to unlock the natural gas found in the Marcellus Shale, citing job creation and the need for new energy sources, while environmental groups and others urge caution, pointing to potential risks to New York’s water, air and natural resources. To assist the public in monitoring this difficult decision and how it is made, Common Cause/New York has continued and expanded its analysis of lobbying expenditures by those who seek to influence this critical decision.

Today, Common Cause/NY released the results of that analysis in their report, Deep Drilling, Deep Pockets, Lobbying Expenditures of the Natural Gas Industry to Influence Public Policy, Part II, which provides a detailed analysis of the presence of a large money push to influence New York State’s public policy decision-making process in regards to natural gas extraction policies.

The report’s analysis of lobbying disclosures shows that it is not only the natural gas industry that is seeking to influence the state’s policies regarding natural gas exploration.  A powerful consortium of business groups has allied itself with the natural gas industry to oppose the moratorium on hydrofracking.  That consortium, made up of energy companies, business and professional associations in addition to natural gas companies, spent a total of $2,869,907 lobbying last year, grossly outspending those that lobbied in support of the bills by $2,143,525 or four to one.

Much of this was due to substantial amounts spent for advertising by Chesapeake Appalachia, the nation’s second largest producer of natural gas and the biggest spender among industry advocates of hydrofracking. In the first half of 2010, Chesapeake spent an astounding $836,386 on advertising to the public via billboard signage, television advertisements focused on the benefits of natural gas, and even a short film production.

New York State’s policies on hydrofracking will have a profound impact on the future of our state. It is imperative that those policies are not unduly influenced by large infusions of natural gas industry dollars. The uneven balance in spending on lobbying and advertising by pro- and anti-moratorium groups  reflects the massive resources at the disposal of natural gas interests and is indicative of  the growing need for special interest money to be countered by the grassroots involvement of an informed public.

To prepare Deep Drilling, Deep Pockets, Lobbying Expenditures of the Natural Gas Industry to Influence Public Policy, Part II, Common Cause/NY accessed and obtained copies of the bi-monthly lobbying reports filed by the companies we had previously identified in our July, 2010 lobbying report. In that report, we analyzed the lobbyist expenditures of three natural gas companies from the year 2005 through the first half of 2010, as well as expenditures by five environmental groups. This report brings earlier data up to date with full year 2010 figures and expands our analysis to look more fully at lobbying expenditures spent lobbying in favor or opposition to two moratorium bills introduced last year. We examined the bi-monthly lobbying reports available for 2010 on the NY Commission for Public Integrity website in detail to compile the lobbying data for each company and entity identified as having lobbied on the moratorium bills introduced in the previous legislative session, S7592/ A10490 and S8129B/A1143B.

SEE FOLLOWING SAMPLE CHARTS FROM REPORT BELOW

 

 

###

_________________________________

For more information about Common Cause New York, go to:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4847595

Sign up to receive news updates from Common Cause/NY

 

Follow us on Twitter @commoncauseny

Like us on Facebook at:http://www.facebook.com/CommonCauseNewYork