Shale Gas Review: Efforts to test Marcellus in upstate NY produces leaky well Carrizo crews on site to fix casing problem in Owego

Shale Gas Review: Efforts to test Marcellus in upstate NY produces leaky well Carrizo crews on site to fix casing problem in Owego.

Route I 81 Corridor Pipeline: proposed for Cortland, Broome, and Onondaga Counties

Do you know about the proposed new pipeline?  

The real name is“Millennium Phase-1 North-South Upstate Pipeline Connector” … but we call it the “I-81 Pipeline”.

It would affect the following towns:

ONONDAGA COUNTY: Onondaga,Otisco Lafayette.Tully

CORTLAND COUNTY: Preble, Homer, Cortlandville, Virgil, Lapeer

BROOME COUNTY: Lisle, Nanticoke, Maine, Union

Check the map to see if you live nearby…

Local Events:

Public Information Session on I81 Pipeline Joe Heath, Craig Stevens, Tues., Nov. 19th 6:30 pm at Lafayette High School, Lafayette, NY

Informational Meeting on I-81 Pipeline held Sept. 23 at Center for the Arts, Homer NY

Video Coverage

 SUNY Downtown, 9 Main St. Cortland.

*******

We need volunteers to help fight this invasion of our communities:

Technical experts in geology, ecology, hydrology, energy policy, GIS, mapping, education, communication, social media,  PowerPoint and other presentation skills, research, writing testimony for regulatory agencies as well as people who can help inform local communities, landowners and government officials of the implications of a pipeline.  If you have concerns, there is a place for you in this endeavor!

Contact us at: gdacc.cortland@gmail.com

*******

Additional Information Sources

Facebook Page: 

Like this new Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/StopThe I81Pipeline

StoptheI81Pipeline.wordpress.com 

Stopthepipeline.org

(Excellent and comprehensive information from group fighting the Constitution Pipeline)  

SANE ENERGY PROJECT Website

Several key projects are hitting all at once: The Constitution Pipeline, the Liberty LNG Port, and the Minisink compressor station all face mid-month deadlines. These are but three of the 24 gas infrastructure projects currently planned for New York State. The LNG port alone could change the landscape for New York and the tristate area by opening up the potential for a local export facility.

SUMMARY OF NORTHEAST GAS INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION PROJECTS

Details of Northeast Gas Infrastructure Expansion Projects

 

Industry Announcements of the I-81 Project

Maps

Natural Resources Along the Pipeline Route

Geology

Biology

Social & Cultural Resources

Aerial photos of Pipeline Construction

Background Information on Pipelines:

What Do Pipelines Portend?

 
Pipelines = Fracking.  The new federal fracking guidelines include an provision for no venting or flaring of gas at drilling, so pipes have to be in place before wells are drilled.  This lays the infrastructure for expanding the extraction of methane to more communities.
 
Pipelines = Eminent Domain.  A taking of your land “for the public good”.   Learn about what this means.
 
Pipelines = Danger.  From the PHMSA Pipeline Haz. Materials and Safety Administration – last decade 5600 fires and explosions and almost 400 deaths in the US alone from ‘significant’ pipelines incidents.  This does not count leaky pipes and ‘minor’ breaks resulting in dangerous incidents.
Pipelines = Compressors  Compressor stations are required every few dozen miles, and compressor stations outgas toxic gasses continually and have proven to be more dangerous to live near than wellpads.  This 24″ (at least) line would require large compressors to push the gas through, running 24/7 and outgassing known carcinogenic volatile organics that airborne, ultimately end up in the water, soil and our food.  
 
We have to get on top of the convoluted and segmented permitting process, to gather a voice against the further investment in unconventional gas and oil development.  
We need all hands on deck for this.   There is work to be done so this ‘proposal’ does not become a reality. 
Learn about the permitting process, easements, ramifications of eminent domain and restrictions on landowner rights re easements.   Learn how to become involved in the process.  Learn about the history of the old pipeline along the same route, and some of the geology of the route, and meet your neighbors and friends to stop this pipeline from bringing fracked gas t

Millennium Announcement of “Open Season”  https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumpipeline.com%2Fdocuments%2FOpenSeasonAnnouncementFinal.pdf

Natural gas shipper proposes new pipeline from Binghamton to Syracuse area | syracuse.com.  5/15/13

Pipeline Brochures:  

CDOG PIPELINES

—————————

Municipal Involvement

Video

Gas Pipelines: What Municipalities Need to Know (Video from 2012 Ithaca meeting)

Streaming Video (Playlist):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL03DAC2669C97191A

Downloads (Media RSS Video & Audio):
http://blip.tv/rss/bookmarks/255459

iTunes (Video):
itpc://blip.tv/rss/bookmarks/255459

Gas Pipelines: What Municipalities Need to Know
May 17, 2012. Ithaca, NY. Free Twenty interstate natural gas pipeline systems crisscross the region from West Virginia to Maine. As gas drilling operations expand, thousands of miles of new pipelines will be needed to connect existing pipelines to gas wells. Learn the difference between gathering, transmission, and distribution lines; what agencies have jurisdiction over the various types of lines; how pipelines are permitted, regulated, and monitored; and how municipalities can prepare for an increase in pipeline networks.

Presenters: Sharon Anderson, Environmental Program Leader, Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County; Jim Austin, Environmental Certification and Compliance, State of New York Department of Public Service; Deborah Goldberg, Managing Attorney, Earthjustice Northeast Regional Office; Meghan Thoreau, Planner, Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board.

Co-sponsored by Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County and Tompkins County Council of Governments.

Local Governments Should Officially Intervene in FERC Process http://wp.me/pJm45-2Xk

General information on gas infrastructure

Pipelines, Compressors, Storage, Metering Stations — Siteing, Regulation, Public Input, Safety

Note: I have used this. It is clunky and clumsy but the only thing I have encountered that let me find with some precision some lines that run within 4 mi west of me between the Tenessee line and the Millenium line. This is of considerable importance because those Rights of Way will very likely become major conduits and regions where compressors will pop up. One of the lines I was able to trace as far north as Cortland before I lost interest and tracing was getting hard.   There is a glitch when trying to trace over a state line, but there is a workaround by just tracing up to the border and then doing another run starting on the other side of the border.  Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY, 607-669-4683

Storage and Transport Infrastructure

Finger Lakes Gas Storage and Infrastructure Project.  Salt Caverns,  Watkins Glen, NY Even if no fracking occurs in NY, Inergy intends to turn our region into the gas storage and transportation hub of the Northeastern United states- the salt caverns are empty and waiting, the railways are in place, and we’re not paying enough attention to this!

Inergy: Making Marcellus Happen (Watch the video)

Inergy, LP (Finger Lakes LPG Storage, LLC) based in Kansas City is a pipeline and natural gas storage company with approximately 3,000 employees and annual sales of about $1.8 billion.
In 2008, Inergy purchased the U.S. Salt plant on the west side of Seneca Lake approximately 2 miles north of Watkins Glen to “build an integrated gas storage and transportation hub in the Northeast.”

Details of the Inergy proposal include:

  • Construct and operate a new underground LPG storage facility for the storage and distribution of propane and butane on a portion of a 576 acre site near the intersection of Rts. 14 and 14A in the Town of Reading.
  • Proposed storage capacity of 2.10 million barrels (88.20 million gallons)
  • Construction of a 14 acre brine pond located on a steep slope just above Seneca Lake with a capacity of 91.8 million gallons.
  • Construction of a new rail and truck LPG transfer facility consisting of:  A 6 track rail siding capable of allowing loading/unloading of 24 rail cars every 12 hours 24/7/365.  A truck loading station capable of loading 4 trucks per hour (with the possibility to expand) 24/7/365.
  • Construction also to include surface works consisting of truck and rail loading terminals, LPG storage tanks, offices and other distribution facilities and stormwater control structures.

Please refer to the “Resources” page for more detailed information on the project and its potentially devastating environmental consequences.

To stay informed please join the Gas Free Seneca Listserv.

  • Inergy CEO Statement on Making Marcellus Happen:
    Even if no fracking occurs in NY, Inergy intends to turn our region into the gas storage and transportation hub of the Northeastern United states- the salt caverns are empty and waiting, the railways are in place, and we’re not paying enough attention to this!

Eminent Domain:

Spectra Energy Watch–Property Rights Eminent Domain

  • Is a Gas Company a Utility? One of the things the Tioga County Landowners group has discussed in public meetings is the importance of making sure landowners have good pipeline leases – even if they don’t have drilling. The idea, I believe, is that by offering a way to get gas from well to major transmission line, the gas companies won’t be tempted to gain status as a utility which would allow them powers of eminent domain for the gathering lines.  Well, here’s how Chief Oil & Gas got around that little hurdle in Susquehanna County, PA – they got permission to use state highway ROW. Not a good precedent for those who would like to lease pipeline routes, and for those who want to have no pipelines across their property.
  • Report of Laser Hearings in Windsor 10-20-10

I was one of about 65 people in the auditorium of Windsor High School as officials of the Public Service Commission and Laser Northeast Gathering Company first gave their information presentations and then answered questions and listened to statements from the public.

A 5 member Commission body, under Administrative Law Judge Howard Jack, will, at some point in the future, make a determination to either deny, grant with conditions, or approve the application to construct a 16 inch pipeline capable of carrying up to 170 million cu ft of gas per day. (Asked if the pipeline was being planned to serve more than the 18 wells stated in the application, Laser reps answered with the flow volume, and admitted that it could serve hundreds of wells. At the same time they said that the wells in PA that are now producing are not producing gas at a high rate.) Because the application is for a line that is less than 10 miles in length the PSC is not required under Article VII <www.dps.state.ny.us/articlevii.htm>  to give the application its “full review”. Article VII was created in 1970 and actions under this law are not subject to SEQR (created at a later date). Neither does an Art VII certificate grant eminent domain or property rights.

We were told that Laser has been working for a year with not only the Town of Windsor but with the 1700 member Windsor Landowner Pipeline Coalition to put the pieces in place for this project. Windsor has enacted road protection and noise ordinances <http://tinyurl.com/2fc3hau>. The landowners have negotiated contracts. Laser owns the 40 acre parcel for the compressor station.

The audience asked questions about compressor station maintenance and noise, about emergency planning, odorizing the gas in the lines, depth under roads and rivers, and environmental protections during the construction phase.

I asked several questions about maintenance and gas leak monitoring. The Laser reps told me that the station will be monitored closely and that they have the capacity to “count gas molecules entering and leaving the station”. They did Not say that the incoming and outgoing volume is balanced but said instead that it is “reconciled”. And no, they have never considered using infra-red technology to look for leaks. And No, the gas “is not required to be” odorized.

There are 80 residences on the perimeter of the 40 acre parcel that will hold the compressor station. Several people asked questions about noise. The PSC standard is 40 decibels at any residence. The Windsor ordinance states: maximum noise levels  “During daytime hours: ambient noise levels plus five (5) dBA. During nighttime hours: ambient noise levels plus three (3) dBA. Additionally, until demonstrated by the applicant or by the Town, ambient noise or sound levels within the Town of Windsor shall be assumed to be 35 dBA.

Using the “Teacher’s Resource Guide” <http://tinyurl.com/c9zxdx > I find that they rate 40 decibels the noise level in a library.

I asked if compliance with the Windsor ordinance is required under the Art. VII certificate and was told that “it could be”.

During the public comment part of the evening, there were 7 presentations. Of those 7, 5 people lauded the Laser company for the wonderful job they have done in bringing this opportunity to the people of Windsor. Two people (one of them Deborah Goldberg) spoke for full review, no pipelines before SGEIS approval, cumulative impact study, and for tighter environmental protections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you have gotten this far in reading you understand that the landowner coalitions did a good job of getting their members out to this hearing. The company reps did their usual job of talking slick. The PSC administrators need to hear from lots more people who want a full review (this pipeline will be much more than 10 miles in length when they get any of the laterals in place).  Visit  http://tinyurl.com/2bbbzby , and scroll down to the comment section.

Pipelines are coming to your neighborhood folks! Do you want to live next to a compressor station with its attendant noise and air pollution? We need to make a larger stink than they plan to make or these things will be rubber stamped into place. Remember, they need pipelines to put the gas into before they drill. If the pipelines are here the drillers will come.

Request full review. Request infra-red monitoring and odorizing of the gas. Request environmental protections and full cumulative study.
Marie McRae
Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition.  Wednesday, July 7, 2010

  • Pa. to Corning gas line gets OK: “…Corning, N.Y. — A proposed $43 million gas pipeline from the Pennsylvania border up to Corning has received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, clearing the way for construction next summer. Empire Pipeline’s new 15-mile-long, 24-inch pipeline will carry Marcellus Shale gas produced in Pennsylvania north to Corning, where it will connect with the Millennium Pipeline…The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, based in Washington, D.C., determined the project would not have a significant environmental impact. The agency’s assessment was detailed in a 119-page report sent to The Leader last week. The report is posted online at http://www.ferc.gov . Several other local, state and federal agencies were involved in the review…FERC’s approval gives Empire Pipeline the right to use eminent domain, although company officials say that’s a last resort. They have already been negotiating compensation deals with landowners. About 50 area residents attended a presentation and public hearing in Corning back in late April, but no one voiced opposition…” ” (Corning Leader) (NY & PA)- http://www.the-leader.com/topstories/x1145377423/Pa-to-Corning-gas-line-gets-OK

Accidents, Spills, Explosions of Pipelines and other Gas installations: 

Ageing Pipelines

Regulations/Oversight

 

Improve Your World: No Fracking, Yes Renewable Energy – Steingraber at ESF commencement

Improve Your World: No Fracking, Yes Renewable Energy – EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service.

SRBC Defends its Limited Role in Overseeing Water Quantity | StateImpact Pennsylvania

SRBC Defends its Limited Role in Overseeing Water Quantity | StateImpact Pennsylvania.

Painted Post Water Export Case and Hydrological Concerns

Export_GW_NY_PA+Sierra_Club Miller

Painted Post Water Export Case and Hydrological Concerns

PowerPoint presentation to Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County, May 5, 2017 by Todd Miller, Ph.D., USGS emeritus

 

Sandra Steingraber, Others Get 15 Days in Jail for Civil Disobedience Against Gas Co. | Common Dreams

Sandra Steingraber, Others Get 15 Days in Jail for Civil Disobedience Against Gas Co. | Common Dreams.

Using Eminent Domain for Pipelines? That’s Right of Way Done Wrong –

Using Eminent Domain for Pipelines? That’s Right of Way Done Wrong –

Using Eminent Domain for Pipelines? That’s Right of Way Done Wrong

New York is a no-fracking zone—and many landowners are even losing money on gas flowing from other states.

By CHRISTOPHER DENTON

Elmira, N.Y.

Last month the New York State Assembly voted to create a legislative moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, until 2015 to further assess health and environmental concerns. The Senate may follow suit. The current executive moratorium has been in place since 2008.

But outside of Albany, many farmers and landowners have welcomed the revenues that have come with the drilling of the Trenton Black River formation and would likewise welcome drilling in the Marcellus and Utica formations, two of the largest natural-gas deposits in the nation, which have gone underdeveloped in the state since 2008. During this four-and-a-half-year wait, many farmers in rural New York have gone out of business, the oldest generation has begun to die off and the unemployment rate has hit near record highs.
In addition to being denied revenues from the oil and gas deposits beneath their feet, many New York farmers and landowners are also not being justly compensated for the pipelines running through their fields. Regardless of one’s stance on high-volume fracking, private companies should not be able to use eminent domain to seize land-use rights for pipelines at one price—deemed fair by the courts—only to turn around and sell those rights at a substantial profit.
I first became aware of this abuse of eminent domain in 2008, when I was approached by a landowner seeking legal representation concerning a proposed natural-gas pipeline on his farm in upstate New York. He explained to me that a pipeline company had offered him around $5 per linear foot to purchase a perpetual right of way for a gas pipeline. At 1,200 feet of right of way, my client would receive about $6,000.
After researching the issue, I discovered that the federal government and some Indian tribes—who by law are not subject to eminent domain—were not granting perpetual rights of way. Instead they were granting 10-year leases with rights of renewal and were charging rent accordingly.
This approach seemed reasonable, so on behalf of the landowner I requested a similar arrangement. To my surprise we were roundly rebuffed by the pipeline company, which then broke off negotiations and delivered to my clients a letter offering $1,000 per acre for a perpetual right of way. At 30-feet wide by about 1,200-feet long, the total area amounted to about 36,000 square feet or 0.826 of an acre. In other words, the $6,000 offer had been cut to $826.
The pipeline company’s attorney explained that his client had elected to exercise its right of “eminent domain” to condemn a perpetual right of way and that the $826 was the real-estate appraisal for the right of way. Pipeline rights of way are bought and sold on the open market by the linear foot among private pipeline companies, yet here my client was being offered a far lower price based on the per-acre value of the area to be used by the right of way.

State law determines just compensation in eminent-domain proceedings. In New York, as in many states, the courts use a system of “before and after” to determine the value to be paid for the right of way. The courts determine the highest and best use of the land underneath the right of way, then they value the land before the right of way is applied and after it is in place. The difference is paid to the landowner as his “just compensation.”

Valuing the right of way in this manner results in an extraordinary double-standard. Because a farmer can grow crops on the land again once the pipeline is in place, the loss to a farmer is deemed temporary and the land is worth, for all intents and purposes, the same before and after. Effectively the farmer receives a pittance for the right of way while the pipeline company enjoys a windfall of economic opportunity.

Clearly, the real value is not in the land but in the economic opportunity the right of way grants to the business entity. How is it “just compensation” that the farmer should be paid a fraction of the acreage value of his portion of the right of way, when anytime after eminent domain the pipeline company could sell the farmer’s right of way on a linear-foot basis at a substantial profit?

When the hammer of eminent domain is not available, the true market value arises. For example, in 2010 the 33-mile Laser Northeast pipeline, running from Susquehanna County, Pa., to the Millennium pipeline in Broome County, N.Y., did not have the right of eminent domain. The line is what is called a gas gathering line, which under New York law is not allowed the right of eminent domain. A coalition of landowners that I represented was therefore able to negotiate a 20-year right of way with a 20-year renewal.
The landowners were given the option of taking a lump sum or annual rentals. The lump-sum totals were about $55 per linear foot for the first 20 years and $65 per linear foot for the second 20 years. For nine miles of right of way in New York State, the company paid around $2.6 million for the first term. Annual rental rates were $3.50 per linear foot, indexed for inflation.
How did the pipeline company fare in this deal? It built its pipeline within a year for a total reported cost, including the rights of way, of $150 million. Last year it reportedly sold the rights of way and the pipeline within it for $750 million. The pipeline company did very well and the landowners were paid fairly.
How would this compare if Laser Northeast had eminent-domain powers? It would likely have paid around $1,000 per acre for 32 acres, for a total of about $32,727. Which of the above methods affords just compensation?
If New York state’s landowners must suffer the indignity of being denied the opportunity to develop their natural-gas deposits, they should at least be fairly compensated for the economic opportunity taken from them as other states’ gas passes through their lands.
Mr. Denton, an attorney, is co-founder of the Landowner Coalition Movement in New York State.

Medical Society of the State of NY Apr., 2013

April, 2013

The Medical Society of the State of New York (MSSNY) just finished their annual House of Delegates meeting and passed yet another resolution on hydrofracking. These types of resolutions become part of their lobbying effort.

 

First 2 Resolves are basically reaffirmations of existing positions (not, obviously, a bad thing) plus attention paid to the establishment of trust fund and opposing non-disclosure that has become such a problem in PA (doctor gag order, etc.) and elsewhere.

 

Just passed at the annual House of Delegates of the Medical Society of the State of New York (MSSNY)

 

RESOLVED, that the Medical Society of the State of New York reaffirm its Policy on high-volume hydraulic fracturing that states:

“The Medical Society of the State of New York supports a moratorium on natural gas extraction using high volume hydraulic fracturing in New York State until valid information is available to evaluate the process for its potential effects on human health and the environment” (Council Action, December 9, 2010); and be it further

 

RESOLVED, that the Medical Society of the State of New York supports the planning and implementation of a Health Impact Assessment to be conducted by a New York State school of Public Health: and be it further

 

RESOLVED, that the Medical Society of the State of New York advocate for the establishment of an industry-funded, independently-arbitrated state trust fund for people that may be harmed as a result of hydraulic fracturing: and be it further

 

RESOLVED, that the Medical Society of the State of New York oppose any non-disclosure provisions related to the practice of hydraulic fracturing that interferes with any aspect of the patient-doctor relationship and/or the ready collection of epidemiological data for future health impact studies.

 

Sierra Club v. Painted Post water withdrawal suit

Dear Petitioners,

Judge Fisher has issued his opinion.  Richard has read the case and reports that we have won pretty much across the board. An injunction has been issued to stop the water withdrawals until a proper SEQRA review is completed and the water sale agreement and the lease have been voided.  The judge agreed with us that a water sale is not a Type II action under SEQRA and that respondents improperly segmented their review.  On standing, he found that only John Marvin had standing so we are lucky that John joined our case.  Since he found that John did have standing, he said that he would regard all the petitioners as having standing.

We should talk about next steps–press release and possible press conference.

Rachel

SierraClubv.PaintedPost-MeritsDEC (1)

TENTATIVE PRECEDENT.  S.

March 26, 2013

Judge Enjoins Painted Post Water Sales

As the Corning Leader reports this morning, Judge Kenneth Fisher issued his rulling yesterday in Sierra Club v. Painted Post, Index No. 2012-0810, a legal challenge to the agreement made by the Village of Painted Post in Steuben County, New York to sell water to SWEPI, LP (an affiliate of Shell Oil Company) for gas drilling in Pennsylvania. I worked with attorney Richard J. Lippes from Buffalo to represent the petitioners in the case.

Petitioners are gratified that the relief they sought has been granted. In a learned and scholarly opinion, the court determined:

“In sum, the Village Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it classified the Surplus Water Sale Agreement as a Type II action and failed to apply the criteria set out in the regulations to determine whether an EIS should issue, and when 11 it improperly segmented the SEQRA review of the Lease from the Surplus Water Sale Agreement. . . . Accordingly, searching the record, summary judgment is granted to petitioners as follows: The Village resolutions designating the Surplus Water Agreement as a Type II action is annulled. Similarly, the Negative Declaration as to the Lease Agreement must be annulled, as in reaching the decision as to a negative declaration, the Village Board improperly segmented its review of the Lease from the Surplus Water Sale Agreement.

Petitioners also seek the annulment of the Village approvals of the Surplus Water Sale agreement and the Lease. . . . [H]ere . . . the Village short circuited the SEQRA process as to the Surplus Water Sale Agreement by an improper Type II designation and failed to consider the Surplus Water Sale Agreement when issuing its negative determination as to the Lease due to improper segmentation. Accordingly, the Village Board resolutions approving the Surplus Water Sale Agreement and Lease agreement of February 23, 2012, are annulled.

Petitioners are granted an injunction enjoining further water withdrawals pursuant to the Surplus Water Sale Agreement pending the Village respondent’s compliance with SEQRA.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that “it is not necessary to decide, and the court does not reach, the parties’ arguments related to SRBC except to hold that compliance with SEQRA is not excused by the fact that the Susquehanna River Basin Commission must issue a permit for the subsequent water withdrawal. Neither the Susquehanna River Basin Compact (ECL 21-1301) or its regulations (21 NYCRR §1806-8) provide for preemption of SEQRA.”

The court noted also that it did not “address whether compliance with SEQRA in this case means that the kind of comprehensive ‘cumulative impact study’ proposed by petitioners is necessary.” A copy of the judge’s decision and the other papers filed in the case are posted on my law office website.

Posted by Rachel Treichler at 03/26/13 4:00 PM

 

__._,_.___

 

The Marcellus Effect: 3rd NY Town Wins in Court over Frack Ban

The Marcellus Effect: 3rd NY Town Wins in Court over Frack Ban.