Shale Gas Review: Efforts to test Marcellus in upstate NY produces leaky well Carrizo crews on site to fix casing problem in Owego
May 15, 2013
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
May 13, 2013
*******
*******
(Excellent and comprehensive information from group fighting the Constitution Pipeline)


—————————
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
This final rule revises the Pipeline Safety Regulations to improve the reliability and utility of data collections from operators of natural gas pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. These revisions will enhance PHMSA’s ability to understand, measure, and assess the performance of individual operators and industry as a whole; integrate pipeline safety data to allow a more thorough, rigorous, and comprehensive understanding and assessment of risk; and expand and simplify existing electronic reporting by operators. These revisions will improve both the data and the analyses PHMSA and others rely on to make critical, safety-related decisions, and will facilitate both PHMSA’s and states’ allocation of pipeline safety program inspection and other resources based on a more accurate accounting of risk.Show citation box
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, 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:
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.
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
Regulations/Oversight
How to keep energy pipelines safe. By Donald F. Santa. Albany Times-Union. December 5, 2010.
Map Gas Lines to Ensure Safety. Stan Scobie. Albany Times Union. Dec. 19, 2010.
NPR 15 mins on pipeline accidents and poor inspection oversight. http://nogaspipeline.org/2010-12-17/pbs-exposes-egregious-lapses-in-pipeline-safety-no-gas-pipeline-in-jersey-city. 2-17-2010
PBS Need to Know Dec. 17, 2010 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-invisible-lines-the-dangers-of-natural-gas-pipelines/5874/
May 9, 2013
Export_GW_NY_PA+Sierra_Club Miller
PowerPoint presentation to Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County, May 5, 2017 by Todd Miller, Ph.D., USGS emeritus
April 14, 2013
Using Eminent Domain for Pipelines? That’s Right of Way Done Wrong –
April 14, 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.
March 25, 2013
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.
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.