Comment

Comment by John Reed on May 3, 2010 at 10:20am

The spill in the gulf further justifies the need to evolve to natural gas. Which I am sure is why none of you "environmentalists" and I use that term loosley, have mentioned it.

Comment by John Reed on May 3, 2010 at 9:45am

RFS, there is no way to reason with these poeple. Only time will tell the true story. And I for one will take great enjoyment in watching these radicals eat their words. I am a firm believer in the law of averages and statistics in general. Math does not lie. With not one absolute major disaster resulting in significant death or sickness it is safe to say that natural gas exploration is safe. Especially when you consider the half million or so wells that have been drilled. It's all political and they will never admit it. These people are pro government and anti big business. I'm not saying that's 100% wrong. But when you claim to be "pro environment" and yet do and say everything possible to thwart the smart, greener and ultimately logical natural evolution of our nations energy practices it convinces me these people are far left liberal extremists. Nothing more... Again, I am a registered democrat and I can see right through these people. They make no sense and contradict everything they supposedly stand for. Politics sucks !!! What a shame the nation has come to this. By the way I have not heard a peep out of any of these people regarding the spill in the gulf. Do they not care ? Hundreds of thousand of square miles contaminated by an oil spill. Millions of fish, birds and other wildlife will die, and not a peep out of these people. Truly unbelievable.

Comment by CJK on May 3, 2010 at 7:52am

That previous post was fom the League of Women Voters of PA. The President's Message.

This is the position statement:
The LWVPA recognizes that natural gas extracted from Marcellus Shale is a finite, carbon-based, energy resource and that its production significantly affects the environment and the economy of the Commonwealth. Under Natural Resources positions adopted by LWVUS, we believe government policies should promote an environment beneficial to life through the protection and wise management of natural resources in the public interest. Under the Fiscal Policy position adopted by LWVPA, we support an equitable and flexible revenue system for funding state and local government services. Finally, in concert with the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 27, we believe:
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

POSITION

The League supports

• the maximum protection of public health and the environment in all aspects of Marcellus Shale natural gas production, site restoration, and delivery to the customer, by requiring the use of best practices, and promoting comprehensive regulation, communication, and adequate staffing across government agencies.

• encouragement of employment opportunities at the local level and economic development related to natural gas extraction that will result in new streams of revenue for state and local government agencies–but not at the expense of tourism related to natural recreation areas.

• preventing a burden on Pennsylvania taxpayers by establishing a sufficient fee structure on natural gas extraction for permits, bonds, and surcharges for the funds to plug abandoned and orphan oil and gas wells, that reflects projected costs and unanticipated consequences.

• • creation of a severance tax on natural gas as a revenue source primarily designated for
- the preservation and enhancement of natural resources;
- the monitoring and protection of public health;
- an escrow fund for supporting community adjustment as the industry grows and declines; and
- research on the effects of natural gas extraction from Marcellus Shale on the economy, environment, and public health of Pennsylvanians.

• legislation and regulation that provides for

- transparency in all stages of exploration, drilling, and production stages;
- insures public input into decision-making regarding the location of facilities and related pipelines
- extends the timelines and parameters for testing water supplies;
- balances the rights of mineral and surface owners; and
- establishes an efficient and effective oversight system for reporting potential violations and accidents.

Comment by CJK on May 3, 2010 at 7:49am

Statement by Olivia Thorne, President
Press Conference on Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction
Monday, May 3, 2010
Capitol Rotunda, Harrisburg, PA


FRAC is a four-letter word, F, R, A, C. FRAC impacts everyone in Pennsylvania. It requires the immediate attention of all–from young and old, from rich to poor, from Pittsburgh to Easton, and from Philadelphia to Erie. Why? Fracturing is an explosive process that expels natural gas from Marcellus Shale, a rock that lies deep beneath two-thirds of our Commonwealth. Natural gas extraction impacts our water, our land, our air, our communities, our public health, and our economy.

Last June, members of the Indiana County League and other Leagues in the Marcellus Shale region, implored delegates at our 2009 convention to adopt a study of this issue. The purpose of the study on natural gas extraction from Marcellus Shale was to determine how our long-standing positions in the areas of Natural Resource Management and Fiscal Policy should be applied to this complex issue. It was imperative that we become informed in order to participate knowledgably in the critical political decisions involving this issue. We know we need to balance the anticipated economic boost to the Commonwealth with potential impacts on the environment, public health and local communities. We also needed to reach consensus on whether the League should support a severance tax on natural gas.

Twenty-seven local League chapters, in counties spanning the state from Washington to Susquehanna counties, became informed. How? They organized study groups, sponsored public forums with experts representing various viewpoints, visited drilling sites, and participated in webinars and other presentations at various universities and colleges. Earlier this year, over 350 members participated in consensus meetings that resulted in the position statement that we are releasing today.

Our findings and conclusions have led us to make the following observations on issues currently before Pennsylvania policymakers. First, there are the economic and environmental issues . Secondly, there are concerns regarding permitting, regulating, and monitoring.

We recognize the significant economic importance of extracting natural gas from Marcellus Shale. But we have serious concerns about the cumulative, long-term consequences of the process and the increasing number of accidents. We need to protect and conserve the pristine and nationally recognized public lands of our Commonwealth. Also, we need to plan ahead for when production ends and revenue ceases. Further, it is essential to protect future Pennsylvania taxpayers from bearing the burden of remediating the unanticipated consequences of natural gas extraction, production, and transmission.

The current economic crisis and its impact on state revenue have caused the Governor and the Legislature to look for new sources of revenue without raising taxes on Pennsylvania citizens. These new sources include leasing state lands for drilling and imposing a natural gas severance tax. Through consensus, our members have indicated their support for collection of a severance tax. Most other gas-producing states have one. Pennsylvania’s natural gas consumers are already paying money to other states. However, we believe neither the severance tax nor the leasing of state forestlands should be used as a short-term fix for an ailing budget.

The League prefers taking the long view. We would designate severance tax revenues to monitor the public health impacts of natural gas extraction: to preserve and enhance all the natural resources in the state; to create an escrow fund for supporting community adjustment as the natural gas industry grows and declines; and to conduct research on the effects of natural gas extraction from Marcellus Shale on the economy, environment, and public health of all Pennsylvanians.

Pennsylvania’s state forestlands are a rich legacy of past restoration projects to correct the devastating consequences of the timber, coal, and oil industries. These complex forest systems are an important health, recreational, ecological, and economic resource. When roads are built and land is cleared for drilling, these new open spaces become highways for wildlife that do not typically go into a dense forest. Natural ecosystems are disrupted with potentially disastrous ramifications. Not only is the wildlife affected, but also the tourist industry that depends on the attraction of recreational areas for hunting, fishing, and personal renewal. The role of forests in preventing soil erosion, as well as water and air pollution, is also compromised. We support a minimum five-year moratorium on leasing additional state forest lands. This would provide essential time to compile data, review implications, and develop adequate safeguards. Additionally, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has recently agreed to conduct a $1.9 million study to investigate the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water quality and public health. Let’s wait to learn what they have to say. Our water resources, unprotected in many parts of our state from hydraulic fracturing, are too precious to compromise.

Secondly, we believe that permitting, regulating, and monitoring processes are still evolving to meet the demands created by those who wish to profit financially from Pennsylvania’s natural resources. The centralized, streamlined issuing of drilling permits, without review of local County Conservation Districts, has created problems. Wastewater regulations have recently been revised but have yet to be implemented. Amendments are currently being proposed to bolster drilling regulations that do not adequately address the fracturing process. The volunteer efforts of concerned citizens cannot replace the consistent, systematic monitoring of drilling operations by adequate and appropriate State inspections. Time is required to bring essential money, manpower and expertise to meet the challenges of comprehensive oversight. Policymakers need to adopt the timeless adage of Ben Franklin, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

The League want to call your attentions to the enormous profits private industry will gain from the natural gas extracted from Marcellus Shale. History tells us that the prospect for big money encourages big spending on campaign contributions to gain access to decision-makers. Pennsylvania is one of only eleven states that places no limit on contributions to the campaigns of candidates for statewide public office. It is now, more important than ever, that this issue be addressed.

Our consensus did not address the fact that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Although it is a cleaner burning fuel than coal or oil, its use still contributes to carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming. In the long run, the discovery of greater access to large amounts of this cleaner burning fuel is no substitute for enacting policies that encourage conservation and the development of clean, renewable energy resources.

In conclusion, I would like to share with you Article 1, Section 27 of the PA Constitution:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

Comment by CJK on May 3, 2010 at 5:10am

What I was trying to show you was that there are reports of other contamintion in my area. There will continue to be those reports as well as the success stories you are talking about. In all fairness one could say that you have an agenda as well. There is not need for scientific findings to come to the realization that there are contamination problems happening. We need to address them before they become more prevelant not ignore them.

Are you aware that Chesapeake is finding it hard to get an insurance company to insure their drilling operations?( as reported in their annual report to shareholders, which I will post the link to as soon as I find it)Why do you think that is the case? When I get the link I will post the exact quotes but it was basically because no one wanted to ensure the potential environmental problems.

Comment by daniel cohen on May 3, 2010 at 4:43am

Dear rfs,
If you dispute the details, then do so. To paint the report as a whole without specifics as to facts doesn't help the reader.
Dan

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on May 3, 2010 at 4:27am

Again, it is pretty clear what blog this was taken from based on the writing. But that is what I have been trying to make some people understand all along. If you only read information put out by organizations with an agenda (such as Damascus Citizens, ProPublica, etc) you will never get an unbiased report. And you will never hear about the scientific findings after an event, which is the most important part. It is necessary to read multiple sources of information written by people who are NOT involved to get the right perspective.

Comment by CJK on May 3, 2010 at 3:09am

The following was taken from another blog (there are many other sites in Bradford County where there have been problems) I know you keep insisting that the methane is not caused by the drilling/fracking process, but how many times can these problems be ignored, they are happening as a result of the drilling/fracking process) Oh that's right these kind of problems are acceptabe to you, the cost of doing business. Let's see some real statistics of successes vs problems:

May 01, 2010

Chesapeake
Energy bans DISH Mayor from drilling tour

On Thursday, April 29, 2010, Chesapeake Energy refused to allow Calvin
Tillman to participate in a guided tour of their "model" drilling site.
This move by CHK left the group Tillman was traveling with scrambling
to make other arrangements for him when he was refused entry to the
site. (I mean, they couldn't just leave him standing outside the gate
on the side of the road while they took the tour.)

The tour was arranged as fact finding trip by Senator Antoine Thompson, Chair of the NY Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, and included "a group of state senators, some officials from the NYC DEP and an assembly person." From the report by New Yorkers for Sustainable Energy Solutions Statewide: the morning was devoted to a Chesapeake-guided tour of one of their model well sites near Towanda PA. Mayor Calvin Tillman of Dish, Texas had been invited by Senator Thompson's office to join the group. Well,
that's embarrassing. What can this group of dignitaries do with Tillman the Pariah?

While the group toured the "model" drilling site, Tillman toured the areas where Chesapeake drilling has negatively impacted residents leaving them with contaminated/flammable water. Oh,
the irony! It burns! It burns!

Michael Lebron, a principal of New Yorkers for Sustainable Energy Solutions State Wide (NYSESS) and a board member of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability (DCS), stepped in and took Mayor Tillman on a different tour: to locations where water well contamination has occurred in association with gas drilling activity by Chesapeake in Bradford County.
In each instance, a pattern of contamination was described as follows:
tap water would first turn black, then it would acquire a foul odor, and then methane levels increased to the point where the water could be lit. In one instance, the contamination occurred after a gas well was drilled one mile away. In another, it was reported that a one acre pond
turned black, then became bubbly, and that electrical had to be cut off from a woodworking shop and a utility transformer moved across the street because methane levels risked an explosion.

Comment by William Ladd on May 2, 2010 at 1:32pm

I have a question.

What does the hiway department use on your roads to melt the ice and snow in the winter time? What do you use to melt the ice on your slippery side walks? What do you use to control weeds in your lawn and garden? And what about bugs and the other critters that like to nibble on your flowers and garden veggies?

And what happens to all of these additives each year? Does the salt and calcium just go poof as soon as the warm weather appears. Or does it wash to the side of the pavement and eventually the ditches to the rivers and lakes?

Do you have an answer?

Years ago the country roads used to be lined by beautiful maple trees. Now a days many of these huge and friendly shady trees have been killed by the salt laid down to melt the snow.


Snow fences used to be put up on the windward side of the roads to trap these troublesome snowdrifts. I recall working on the township crew putting up these slatted fences and removing them each year many years ago.

Maybe some of the able bodied punky lazy kids should be required to put the fences up and take them down to compensate for some of the welfare payments they get.

Bill L.
aka Bummy

Comment by John Reed on May 2, 2010 at 12:55pm

At a public forum in DeWitt, Syracuse University hydrology professor Don Siegel thought he had presented enough unbiased, scientific information to prove that drilling for natural gas in New York would benefit the state far more than it might hurt.

Then someone in the audience of more than 75 stood up.

“With all due respect, Dr. Siegel,” she said, “it’s not about the science.”

Two months later, Siegel still stews over those words.

The debate should be about the science, he contends, as do two retired SU professors, Bryce Hand and Joe Robinson — who have defended high-volume hydraulic fracturing as a safe method to capture a huge supply of underground natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.

But opponents of hydrofracking have “dispensed with science and rely on fear” to turn the public against drilling, Siegel said.

The voices of scientists are being drowned out, the professors said.

“What I’m finding is that no matter how you make the argument about shale bed methane to the local community, they refuse to understand it or refuse to even consider it,” said Siegel, a 62-year-old Syracuse resident.

Hydrofracking opponents like Dereth Glance, executive program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment, say the gas industry is pushing New York to permit large-scale hydrofracking before the state formulates regulations that will adequately protect the environment.

“It’s about science, it’s about policy, and it’s about precautionary principles,” Glance said.

But Siegel said environmental groups have been doing everything in their power to block what he believes is the best solution to avoid a far worse environmental problem.

For Siegel, who considers himself an environmentalist, climate change is looming large. He said switching to natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, could help slow its approach by cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent. It would satiate New York’s energy needs until alternative energy sources become more viable.

Robinson, Siegel and Hand said they are perplexed that people continue to fight wind farms, nuclear power plants, and other forms of alternative energy, while at the same time resisting natural gas drilling.

“You can’t stop the climate crisis from happening by doing nothing,” Siegel said. “It’s easy to say ‘No, no, no, no,’ but we’ve got a clean energy source right under our feet.”

State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis said last month in Syracuse that he expects the DEC to issue its revised regulations on hydrofracking later this year and begin issuing permits by 2011.

But state Assemblyman Steve Englebright, a former curator of Geologic Collections at State University at Stony Brook, where he also earned a master’s degree in sedimentology/paleontology, is sponsoring a bill calling for a moratorium on hydrofracking in New York until after the Environmental Protection Agency completes a two-year study on its environmental impact.

Englebright isn’t the only one who wants to slow the natural gas rush.

“Not here. Not now. But not never,” said Tony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineering professor who specializes in fracture mechanics and wants the state to conduct more research, strengthen its hydrofracking regulations and improve its enforcement capabilities.

Horizontal hydraulic fracturing involves drilling into the shale — at least 2,000 feet below ground — then turning the drill horizontally to continue the well, or several horizontal wells, from the vertical bore. Piping is fed into the well and encased in cement.

After that, the shale is fractured and a fluid mixture of about 99 percent water and sand, and 1 percent chemicals is pumped into the well. The sand holds open the fractures so gas can seep into the well. The chemicals usually act as thickeners and lubricants, allowing the fluid to work its way through the fissures.

The pressure of the thousands of feet of earth and rock above forces the gas and some of the fracking fluid into the well casing, where it’s extracted.

Among the concerns critics most frequently raise are the potential risk to groundwater supplies, the scarring of the natural landscape and degradation of roadways, but some scientists say many of those concerns have been sensationalized.

Opponents point to Dimock, Pa., a town 100 miles south of Syracuse, where hydrofracking is occurring. Recently, , the Department of Environmental Protection ordered Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. to pay fines and plug three wells that the DEP believes led to methane contaminating the drinking water of 14 Dimock homes. Cabot must also install permanent water treatment systems at each of those homes.”

Siegel, Hand and Robinson, a petroleum geologist, acknowledge that high-volume hydrofracking is not without risks.

But Hand, a sedimentologist who taught for 30 years at SU before retiring in 1999, said many of the concerns are being “overblown.”

“In every basin, there might be one or two accidents out of tens of thousands of wells,” Siegel said. He guessed that Cabot made a mistake when pumping the concrete that surrounds the well piping, allowing gas to seep up outside the casing and eventually travel into the 14 homes’ water supply.

However, he said he has not been able to find any data from Pennsylvania DEP about the water contamination or drilling mishap, which he would like the independent scientific community to be able to evaluate for itself.

He said Pennsylvania DEP’s reaction to this “atypical, rare” mishap should be encouraging to New York, as it will push other companies to not repeat Cabot’s mistakes and will improve the drilling process.Some scientists say New York should take great care and time before allowing extensive drilling.

During an April 22 Thursday Morning Roundtable session, Bruce Selleck, professor of geology at Colgate University, said he was “comforted” by the state’s caution in issuing drilling permits. He said the state should learn from drilling that’s happening in other places.

“In a way, New York is very lucky that Pennsylvania has been bleeding on the cutting edge of technology development for hydrofracking,” Selleck said.

Selleck suggested that before New York issues permits for drilling throughout the state, it should use an isolated area of the Southern Tier. as a testing ground. That would let the state assess the effects on the local environment.

Hand, Siegel and Robinson say some hydrofracking opponents are exaggerating the risk to water supplies posed by chemical additives that make up around 1 percent of the fracking fluids.

The professors said these chemicals range from common food additives to acids. The additives used vary from well to well. Robinson said the chemicals are so diluted that they wouldn’t pose a significant risk, and many of them dissolve underground and become harmless before gas companies bring fluids back to the surface.

Critics argue that since the fluids are used in such high volumes, usually a few million gallons per well, the chemicals can still be harmful.

Hydrofracking opponents also say the environment could be damaged by the high salt content in the fluid that flows back up the well after the drilling process. This flowback fluid is stored in surface pits at the well sites until it can be disposed of or reused in a new well.

A tear in the liners of these pits might lead to spills that find their way into local water supplies, causing the salt content to rise to unacceptable levels, Siegel acknowledged.

Siegel said the state lacks facilities to treat the saline flowback fluids. These facilities would need to be set up, or the state would need to allow the fluids to be stored in deep injection wells.

The SU professors agree that hydrofracking needs to be heavily regulated and that the DEC needs more staff to do this effectively.

“We really don’t have to be in any enormous rush,” said Hand, who said that even though he felt the concerns were overblown, he was comfortable with the state taking its time. “The gas will still be there, it’ll always be there, until we get it out.”

Contact Nick McCrea at nmccrea@syracuse.com.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page