Penn Land Owners

4/12/2010 PA Environment Digest.



Professional Geologists Issue Position Paper On Marcellus Shale Development

The PA Council of Professional Geologists this week issued a position paper on Marcellus Shale natural gas development saying they hoped it would promote "a balanced review and discussion of Marcellus Shale gas issues."

The paper is also "intended to dispel common misunderstandings, provide comments as to appropriate public and regulatory policy, from a technical and geologic perspective, and identify critical areas where additional information and study are needed."

It says in part--

"PCPG considers Marcellus shale gas exploration and production to be a worthwhile and necessary endeavor that will have a very significant and continuing positive effect on Pennsylvania’s economy. Additional shale gas production in Pennsylvania means more energy independence for the United States. As natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, there are positive implications for air quality.

'Marcellus shale natural gas exploration, like other energy production endeavors, involves risks that can be successfully managed and controlled, and is a source of significant benefit to the citizens of Pennsylvania. Potential adverse environmental impacts must be recognized and prevented via the use of best industry practices, appropriate regulations and strict enforcement.

"Natural gas well drilling and production can and must be done in an environmentally responsible and scientifically sound manner while minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impacts.

"It is important that state agencies such as the PADEP and the PADCNR (where drilling on state lands) have sufficient resources to enforce existing regulations and/or propose new regulations as appropriate, and to conduct continuing research, data-gathering, and database management to document the environmental effects, or lack thereof, of Marcellus well drilling and development.

"Continued regulatory and economic pressures on drilling waste management and disposal practices are already resulting in rapid advancements and improvements in waste treatment, minimization and beneficial water reuse and recycling."

A copy of the position paper is available online.



PA Council Of Geologists Supports Natural Gas Drilling



The PA Council of Professional Geologists has released the following position paper on natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale.


The Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists is a diverse group of licensed Professional Geologists (PGs) and allied scientists with an overriding ideology of advocating the use of sound science in the: (a) formulation of public policy; (b) protection of human health and the environment; (c) establishment and evaluation of regulatory programs; and (d) the dissemination of accurate information. Early participation by Professional Geologists and allied scientists in evaluations and decisions involving natural resources facilitates sound scientific outcomes.


PCPG supports the responsible development of Pennsylvania’s natural resources, including Marcellus shale gas, and has prepared this statement to provide a balanced review and discussion of Marcellus shale gas issues. This statement is also intended to dispel common misunderstandings, provide comments as to appropriate public and regulatory policy, from a technical and geologic perspective, and identify critical areas where additional information and study are needed. PCPG expects to periodically review and amend this statement as Marcellus shale gas exploration and development procedures evolve, and as geologic and technologic advances continue to change the exploration and production landscape across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Appalachian Basin.


The elements of PCPG’s position on the Marcellus are as follows:


1. PCPG considers Marcellus shale gas exploration and production to be a worthwhile and necessary endeavor that will have a very significant and continuing positive effect on Pennsylvania’s economy. Additional shale gas production in Pennsylvania means more energy independence for the United States. As natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, there are positive implications for air quality.


2. Subjective and selective interpretation of Marcellus shale gas exploration and development information, as is sometimes reported in print, broadcast media, and the Internet, often conveys erroneous information to the public and to public officials. This can result in the creation of misinformation, unnecessary confusion, and exaggerated concerns. Such reports should be carefully scrutinized for accuracy and agenda.


3. Natural gas well drilling and production can and must be done in an environmentally responsible and scientifically sound manner while minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impacts. 4. Historically, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracing) technologies have a low incidence of proven adverse impacts to potable water quality. Marcellus natural gas wells typically consist of a vertical bore (drilled with technically sound, time-tested equipment and methods) which is extended downward and then directionally drilled to horizontally tap into the Marcellus target, at depths between 5,000 and 9,000 feet below ground surface. Fracing of such wells occurs at those same depths, with a radius of influence designed to be limited to approximately 500 feet or less around the well bore. It is unlikely that a properly designed and constructed Marcellus gas well will have an adverse affect on the much shallower fresh water aquifer zones, which typically occur within 500 feet or less from the ground surface. Key to the successful installation of Marcellus shale gas wells is a proper well design and detailed permit application, PADEP approval based on a thorough review process, and correct execution and verification of the well drilling, casing and plugging programs, conducted by experienced and competent natural gas drilling operators.


5. Natural gas drilling and production can and must be conducted in accordance with best industry practices and well-established (existing) state oil and gas, and environmental regulations. Spills of drilling-related fluids and improper disposal of drilling wastes are relatively few, but should all be preventable. The natural gas industry bears responsibility for mitigating the effects of any ground surface releases and using lessons learned to continually improve best management practices.


Although rare, stray gas issues can arise from faulty surface and production casing implementation and when this occurs, the natural gas industry bears responsibility for mitigation.


6. It is important that state agencies such as the PADEP and the PADCNR (where drilling on state lands) have sufficient resources to enforce existing regulations and/or propose new regulations as appropriate, and to conduct continuing research, data-gathering, and database management to document the environmental effects, or lack thereof, of Marcellus well drilling and development.


7. PCPG believes that the careful management of effluent (drilling fluids, frac flowback water, and production brines) generated during well installation, treatment and production, is a significant concern. Technical research and innovation by industry, trade associations, stakeholders, and government must continue with regard to: a) drilling waste volume reduction; b) modification/construction of existing/new treatment facilities with advanced treatment technologies; and c) use of on-site treatment and reuse and recycling systems to properly handle remaining water and wastes.


8. Of great concern to Pennsylvania citizens is the withdrawal of surface water and groundwater for use in the drilling and fracing processes. PCPG believes that the Water Management Plan component of the well drilling permit application package, and the additional required approvals from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Delaware River Basin Commission for projects in those respective basins, provides ample protection of Pennsylvania’s groundwater and surface water resources and their inherent ecological values.


9. The majority of the volume of frac fluids currently utilized by industry consists of water and quartz sand. Small quantities of chemical additives are also typically utilized. The likelihood that the low concentrations of man-made chemical components will impact drinking water supplies is very low.


However, public concern over the use of chemical additives remains heightened and should be addressed. The natural gas industry therefore should prioritize continued research and development of frac fluid formulas that reduce and/or exclude the use of hazardous substances, and provide transparent and accessible reporting of frac fluid composition to the public and to regulatory agencies.


Summary of PCPG Marcellus Position Statement:


Bad news often travels faster than good news – much of the information in the news over the last several years regarding Marcellus shale gas exploration in Pennsylvania has contained sensationalized language, inaccurate statements and misrepresentations that have often been devoid of reasoned geologic science.


PCPG believes it is important to maintain perspective and understand that:


-Marcellus shale natural gas exploration, like other energy production endeavors, involves risks that can be successfully managed and controlled, and is a source of significant benefit to the citizens of Pennsylvania. Potential adverse environmental impacts must be recognized and prevented via the use of best industry practices, appropriate regulations and strict enforcement.


- Accidental spills or releases of chemicals or waste materials to soil, surface water bodies, or groundwater unfortunately can and have occurred from most manufacturing, transportation, or industrial activities. However, rather than discouraging manufacturing, transportation or industrial enterprises in Pennsylvania, PCPG strongly advocates environmental stewardship through best management practices and appropriate regulation and enforcement to minimize discharges to the environment and to promptly address discharges when they occur.


Such diligence is good for business and the community, as it helps to create and preserve jobs while protecting the environment. PCPG sees no rational basis to treat Marcellus shale gas development differently from any other industry. The actual drilling and fracing processes, when done prudently and in accordance with regulations and best industry practices, will minimize any adverse affects to the environment.


Existing regulations and enforcement provisions ensure that responsible parties are held accountable for damages and for restoration of environmental impacts; Continued regulatory and economic pressures on drilling waste management and disposal practices are already resulting in rapid advancements and improvements in waste treatment, minimization and beneficial water reuse and recycling.


Shale gas development is a source of widespread benefit to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the form of boosts to our state’s economy, increased energy independence, lowered energy costs, much needed jobs, and a cleaner-burning fossil fuel. With proper management, technological innovation and constant attention to Pennsylvania’s environment, the benefits of shale gas development are likely to persist for decades to come.

The gas companies are going to be asking for eminent domain in Pennsylvania. This will effect everyone. They should not be granted eminent domain on gathering lines which is what one company is in the process of asking for. Voice your opinions whatever they are. They need to hear from us!

PUC Reminds Interested Parties of April 22 En Banc Hearing on Marcellus Shale Jurisdictional Issues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



April 21, 2010

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/general/press_releases/press_releases.as...




HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today reminded interested parties of a special en banc hearing being held to examine PUC jurisdictional issues related to Marcellus Shale development.

The hearing will be held at 1 p.m. April 22, 2010 , in Hearing Room 1 of the Commonwealth Keystone Building , 400 North Street , Harrisburg , PA. The hearing is open to the public.

The agenda is available on the PUC website. Comments and testimony filed in the proceeding also are available on the PUC’s website.

Marcellus Shale development creates numerous issues and unanswered questions, many of which impact the Commission’s core functions. The en banc hearing is to examine these questions sooner rather than later so that the Commission can fully protect the public while not stifling economic growth. The hearing will not examine issues outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction such as water quality or other environmental issues.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission balances the needs of consumers and utilities to ensure safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates; protect the public interest; educate consumers to make independent and informed utility choices; further economic development; and foster new technologies and competitive markets in an environmentally sound manner. For recent news releases, audio of select Commission proceedings or more information about the PUC, visit our website at www.puc.state.pa.us.

# # #

Docket No. I-2010-2163461



Contact:
Jennifer Kocher


Press Secretary


717-787-5722


jekocher@state.pa.us




Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Press Office
P.O. Box 3265, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265
(717) 787-5722 FAX (717) 787-4193

The hearing transcript will be available when I get the link I will let you know, but it is not too late to let them know how you feel.

If this gets through, expect to see your land taken at the whim of all companies following suit.
TODAY is the hearing in Harrisburg.
EMAIL your distaste for this type of thievery!

Everyone, please take 30 seconds and send an email if you don't want a pipeline (Eminent Domain for Laser Midstream) rammed down your throat:


http://www.puc.state.pa.us//pcdocs/1073380.pdf
Assistan Consumer Advocate
James A Mullins
jmullins@paoca.org

It is my opinion that the gas companies will be bargaining for eminent domain in exchange for allowing the severance tax without lobbying hard against it. I am not against the severance tax but I DO NOT want the funds to be allocated to the General Fund, it needs to be allocated to the localities in which the drilling is occuring so they can use funds to improve infrastructure and keep funds in escrow for posssible environmental damages that occur, etc.

How are the gas companies going to move any gas that is produced from wells on your property except by pipeline? And why is there a big fuss over it anyway. Once a pipeline is in there should be no further problem.

The companies can negotiate for fair value, just as they have done in the past. No one is AGAINST the pipelines, just against the way they want to go about getting the rights.
In this case they don't want to be bothered and feel they should be able to take whatever they want. WRONG!

Does western Pennsylvania have a land owners coalition setup and if so what's their name?

Below is a very balanced articel written by Terry Engelder. This is a must read.

Gas drilling yields a gusher of hogwash
Both sides of shale debate could be more forthright.

By Terry Engelder
The exploitation of natural resources often spawns two camps, the industrialists and the environmentalists, each of which engages in disingenuous arguments - the bigger the resource, the more disingenuous the arguments. The debate over extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale has followed that pattern.

A pocket of gas may have exploded within 1,300 feet of a Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. well near Dimock, Pa., on Jan. 1, 2009. In a recent Associated Press story about a state shutdown of Cabot's drilling near Dimock, a company spokesman said, "It just isn't scientifically fair to say in any short period of time that Cabot's activities did or did not cause the methane in the groundwater."

This statement doesn't reflect well on Cabot for a couple of reasons. While it is true that methane naturally seeps into groundwater throughout much of the state, potentially leading to such accidents, drilling activity is known to accelerate the process.

Many private wells in the state have dissolved methane in their water, and people drink this water all the time with no ill effects. But if the volume of methane in the water is near saturation, it can collect in pockets of gas when underground pressure is released by water pumps that aren't properly vented.

In the course of our research, my colleagues and students at Penn State have drilled into pockets of methane gas at depths of 500 to 2,000 feet. When such a pocket is penetrated, gas rushes up to the surface, blowing foaming, white water out of the well - much as carbon dioxide drives soda out of a shaken bottle. Fourteen families in the Dimock area have described milky-looking water in their wells.

Penn State's research on the Marcellus Shale is supported by nearly a dozen leaders in the shale gas industry. More than one of these companies have engaged us in trying to solve problems associated with drilling through and isolating shallow gas pockets. Cabot's denials of culpability seem disingenuous given that other industry leaders have recognized the issue and are working with Penn State to address it.

The state Department of Environmental Protection is also working with the industry to make sure groundwater is protected, and the Cabot shutdown is clear evidence of this. Yet, in a long letter to the Centre Daily Times in State College, an environmentalist recently wrote that gas drillers and DEP regulators "can and do destroy communities and ecosystems, even when the people in those places don't want to be destroyed and say so." This is an equally disingenuous statement from the other side of the debate.

Whether groundwater is contaminated by chemicals employed in deep hydraulic fracturing - the process used to retrieve shale gas - is a controversial question. The industry claims there have been one to two million uses of the technology without a single report of such contamination. The physics of groundwater flow give some credence to that contention. (Surface spills are a different issue, but they are relatively easy to manage.)

One environmentalist recently pointed to alleged cases of contamination in Pennsylvania. But one was a clear case of methane migration from shallow pockets, not from hydraulic fracturing. Another involved the presence of arsenic at 2,600 times the federal standard for drinking water, but arsenic isn't used in fracturing.

As disingenuously, one New York academic recently wrote that exploiting Marcellus Shale gas is comparable to burning coal in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions. This is simply not the case.

The Marcellus Shale is too important to America's energy future to be the subject of disingenuous arguments from either side. It is a gift to the people of Pennsylvania and the greatest opportunity they will ever have to move away from foreign oil and toward a fuel with a smaller global-warming footprint. It is an opportunity that requires clear thinking on both sides of the debate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Engelder is a professor of geoscience at Pennsylvania State University. He can be reached at jte2@psu.edu.

Excellent!
You beat me to it.

With special thanks to Peacegirl, the following ought to be posted around the sites as we surf:

Report a Spill or Dumping
EPA Eyes On Drilling
Report non-emergency dumping, illegal & suspicious hauling, disposal:
1-877-919-4372
eyesondrilling@epa.gov

To report a spill in NY state:
1-800-457-7362

To report an emergency spill or release of hazardous material to the National Response Center:
1-800-424-8802

Dan

Be sure to report suspicious VW vans with peace signs and flowers carrying barrels marked with skulls and crossbones, and also having cable cutters, cans of spray paint and various other implements of destruction.
(just kiddin")

Various Comments, with important statements, from other sources with regards to Dr Engelders article:

I appreciate the fact that you only get 800 words with an op-ed, so
maybe you had more to say, but I found it disingenuous for you to
dismiss the arsenic claim so curtly. No, arsenic isn't used in Fracking:

but it does come up in flowback because it's in the ground. So it's
quite legitimate to site a spike in arsenic levels as potentially caused
by natural gas drilling.

What do you say to that?

And what do you say to the fact that in the many cases where there have
been cause for concern in the state so far, DEP and EPA have never done
a rigorous battery of tests on water to see whether or not industrial
contaminants are there?

Further, how do you respond to Michel Boufadel's research suggesting
that the hydrology of spilled or leaked flowback water is not the same
as freshwater and therefore our monitoring protocols will fail to detect
a contamination for many years?

Lastly, on the issue of natural gas as a greenhouse gas agent: this was
also disingenuous. You and I both know that released methane is a much worse global warming agent than CO2. You and I both know that a lot (and I mean A LOT) of methane escapes over the course of the drilling, treatment and transporting process. A whole lot. When you look at the process as a whole, the case for natural gas as a cleaner alternative really diminishes. It's much too simplistic for you, as a scientist, to dismiss this argument as simply untrue. Maybe natural gas isn't "just" as bad as coal, but maybe it's 75% as bad? Or 50%? Maybe it's much closer than we think?

I applaud you, however, for acknowledging in your piece that your work
is supported by the gas drilling industry. That's a disclosure that I
would submit your peers at PennState would do well in the long run to
admit to more often. As academics, I would argue, that it's really
essential.


Second set of comments:

Mr Engelder here gives a good demonstration of disingenuousness himself.

While he attempts to scapegoat Cabot as a bad operator, he fails to note
that problems with water and health are common where gas drilling takes
place, across the continent and likely the world, and Cabot isn't the
driller in all those instances.
DEP's recent action is of course not clear evidence that "the state
Department of Environmental Protection is also working with the industry to make sure groundwater is protected." That water was not protected, because DEP has put the desires of industry ahead of the needs of the environment and the people who live in it. I would like to encourage Mr Engelder to drink some of that "protected" water and see how "protected" it has been for the last two years.
Finally, the New York academic, Robert Howarth, has not claimed "that
exploiting Marcellus Shale gas is comparable to burning coal in terms of
greenhouse-gas emissions." The title of Professor Howarths' paper is
"Preliminary Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas
Obtained by Hydraulic Fracturing.
"
http://www.damascuscitizens.org/GHGemissions_Cornell.pdf "Preliminary," as Mr Engelder surely knows, means, 'these are the indications so far, and they are worth considering, but we don't have the final answer yet.' Mr Howarth recently wrote to me, "We ...continue to work hard to put the best science we can into the analysis." Since such an analysis has not been done before, and this one is not yet complete, therefore Mr Engelder cannot truthfully say about the possibility that natural gas is worse for greenhouse gas emissions than coal, "This is simply not the case."


My point is all of us need to read between the lines when anyone is reporting, as you all know there are many ways to interpret things.

Hmmm those comments sound exactly like Jim Barth from Damascus Citizens!
Now there's someone with NO AGENDA, right?

With special thanks to Peacegirl, the following ought to be posted around the sites as we surf:

Report a Spill or Dumping
EPA Eyes On Drilling
Report non-emergency dumping, illegal & suspicious hauling, disposal:
1-877-919-4372
eyesondrilling@epa.gov

To report a spill in NY state:
1-800-457-7362

To report an emergency spill or release of hazardous material to the National Response Center:
1-800-424-8802

Dan

rfs- my point exactly. Dr Engelder has an AGENDA as well, so take what he has to say with the same skepticism.
"One environmentalist recently pointed to alleged cases of contamination in Pennsylvania. But one was a clear case of methane migration from shallow pockets, not from hydraulic fracturing."
The methane migration is resulting from the fracking and now Engelder is tryin to say that arsenic, because it is not used in fracking canot be blamed on the industry, arsenic may not be used in fracking but if it results from the fracking procedure, the procedure can and should be blamd for that, and therefore the industry should be responsible for the cleanup needed for the damage.

I am tired of people trying to avoid responsibility for their actions and for those responsible having the ability to escape unscathed from the consequences they receive. For example the fine that Cabot received from DEP is a drop in the bucket for them, a mere cost of doing business, I find that intolerable and unjust. It certainly does not provide any incentive to correct their procedures.

Englander was correct with the statement you quote below. The methane in the water was not from fracing, and was either naturally occurring or pushed through by the drilling process.
He has no agenda. His accomplishments already surpass most others.

Responsibility must be accepted by the gas companies -- IF AND WHEN they are at fault. In this case it is my feeling that Cabot was sloppy with their management of contractors, and they should have just dealt with the issues right away since no pre-drilling water tests were done.

AND, that is why there are thousands of PA and NY landowners who have been spending every day of the last two or more years CHANGING the standard gas lease language to protect everyone.

So, brand X E&P company has just drilled a hole in your backyard. The casing is run, it's cemented in place, the rig is off location, the well is prepped for completion. Next comes in the evil frac company. They are going to pump poison into the ground in order to destroy your well water and kill all the fishes in the local stream right?

Come on, does anyone really think that the E&P and service companies are out to destroy the world? Although destroying the world may be appealing to some it's costly to be evil. Anyone in business is in it to make money, bad press and fines detract from profits and shareholder value.

Let's get something straight on fracking. It does not cause methane pockets, contamination of groundwater, etc. Poor zonal isolation does. What do I mean by this? Well, when fracturing a Marcellus well we are generally pumping into the formation at around 8,000' true vertical depth. It's debatable how high a frac grows, but let's say the frac grows 500' in height. Most fresh water aquifers are around 100-1,000'. So the frac and hydrocarbons are separated from the water by about 6,500' of rock. Now if the casing has not been properly cemented in place it is possible for the gas to migrate from 8,000' to surface. To protect the environment we need to focus on good zonal isolation.

As you may have guessed I'm in favor of the RESPONSIBLE development of our resources. I like to turn on the heat in the winter, I like having cheap food, I like to drive to work, I like working on computers, and I like having lights at night. I've worked oilfield, put in the 120 hour weeks outside at -40F to help America get the energy it needs. If you don't want to see our resources developed, don't fuel the demand for energy. Stay home, don't turn on your heat, don't watch TV, don't place posts on forums like these.

Kind Regards,
ebc120

You are entitled to your opinion about Engelder and I am entitled to mine.

You are correct about the importance of protection in new leases, but that should not absolve the gas companies from harming ones that do not have protection.

There will be more cases of fault by the gas companies and they will work hard to blame anything or anyone other then themselves for the harm they will cause. They have the money and the ability to do that. So others need to help protect those that did not get all of the safeguards or we will all be losers in the end.

BTW as you say the increase in the methane in the water might have been caused by the drilling process or the fracking process, and more importantly the methane migration is an indicator for the route that the surface water was and can continually become contaminated through. It did not exist at those levels and extent prior to the drilling/fracking process. Ergo it is caused by the action of drilling/fracking, whether from drilling or fracking it is still the fault of the gas company.

Eberhand- you have said it well- the companies are not taking the proper precautions when casing the wells, the integrity of the wells are being compromised and therefore the methane migration and whatever else seeks the path migrates to the water wells.

It is interesting that you speak of how hard you have worked, which I am sure was adequately compensated. If you would work a little harder in worse conditions for no money you might begin to understand what the farmers are facing, so that you can enjoy cheap food, which will provide you energy to continue these pursuits. Which is more vital food or gas? Try living without food.

If at this point in time when the companies are trying to establish good relations with the region and at the same time they are not owning up to their mistakes and causing unnecessary harm to residents, as in the case of Dimock.( The families in Dimock had to wait over a year to get ANY action with regards to their damages.) If this is what we have to look forward to in the industries infancy in the area, what are we to expect 5 years from now?
What is their reluctance for taking responsibility for the damages that they have caused? If it is not such a problem why is the industry avoiding it or covering it up?

Thank you, Eberhard, for a realistic statement by someone with experience. It is refreshing to hear firsthand the how's and why's, instead of being pummeled constantly with virtual lies and fantasy.

I find it quite sickening when certain people and organizations accuse the gas companies and their sub contractors of PURPOSELY trying to poison the world. I wonder what these detractors do for a living - do you suppose they could harm someone by accident in THEIR business?

CJK - Now we are getting somewhere. We have to start by understanding the process. The proper casing of the well is what we need to push for. The surface string is the most important, not to say that the other strings are not important, but that is the final safety net to protect the ground water. Now I'm not familiar with PA's regulations, or the common practices there. What I have seen in other areas is that some operators will try and save a buck by using a cheaper system, i.e. extended C cement and minimum excess. Other operators would spend more and run a G neat with 100% excess. These operators never had issues with their surface pipe. Most if not all states require that surface string be cemented to surface, they usually require a bond log of this as well. With a less sophisticated bond log the cement may appear complete, but there can be channels that do not show up. Through these channels gas, water, and /or oil can migrate. If you want to protect yourself when leasing make sure there is a clause in the lease regarding the quality of the surface pipe and the surface cement job.

Regarding my compensation, not that it's relevant, I was making about $12/hour when I started. Hard work and dedication pay off I'm doing better now. My farming friends and I would defiantly take a heated / AC combine cab with the XM radio over being 60' up in a Derick in the middle of winter (uh ah my tractor is sexy.) I can't argue with you on the guaranteed compensation part. It does suck not knowing when, or if income will be coming in. Living without food... Yah, Yah, yah, you need food. I'd take water over food, and air over water. That's not the argument. To enjoy a modern lifestyle, we need energy, end of story.

The companies always want, "good relations." They will continue to give back to the communities and do their best to operate in a responsible manner. Sometimes things go south. Sometimes things were already south before the first microseismic study was done. Did Dimock already have Shallow gas pockets? I don't know the full story there, I'll have to read up for next time.

Now I'm pretty new to this, I haven't read all the posts, nor do I have the time. I'm guessing that you CJK do not have a well on your property. A question for you and everyone out there:
Lets take the worst case scenario of having a well drilled on your property. There was a bad cement job and now your well water is contaminated. Let's suppose that at first the gas company denies any responsibility, so you have to buy water out of pocket. Let's say you spend $50/week on water. Your royalty check is $30,000 / month, so you are up $29,800 / month. I know bottled water isn't as good as the tap water and its a bit inconvenient. So would you rather have the $29,800 / month or the convenience of good tap water?

Now, who knows what the odds are of your water being contaminated by drilling on your property? Real odds. Anyone?

What do you think the chances are that the gas company will maintain it's license to operate if they do not remedy the problem? You can make up odds for this one.

Again, Best Regards.
Eberhard

If I recall, the odds of water contamination are less than 1%

Odds of company losing license, at least 80% (if it were my company, then 100%)

Eberhard, I have been trying to reason with CJK for months now. I've been using statistical sampling logic. I've posted the number of operating gas wells in the country as well as the number in the state of PA. I've tried to expain that if we sampled an adequate number of wells to arrive at a confidence level of close to 100%, we would find that the number of instances of methane migration and water well contamination caused by the gas companies would be miniscule and the percentage or odds would be very low. Now, this is just my opinion but if I wasn't certain I would not post.

Bottom line is people are not dropping like flies and the overwhelming majority of landowners have had a positive experience with natural gas exploration. If this was not the case we would certainly be hearing and reading about it. Natural gas exploration and hydro-fracking is relatively new to our area of PA however it is not new at all to the country. If the instances of methane migration and water well contamination were anything other than miniscule, again, we would be hearing about it. The problem is that media outlets tend to report bad news much more often than good news. They're intent is to sell newspapers and improve ratings by reporting what will catch the eyes and ears of the general public. Creating controversy is a great way to accomplish this. So when they have the chance to report things like what happened in Dimmock they jump on it, then they stomp on it, then they beat the issue into submission. This causes the environmentalists to jump on board and a massive frenzy of panic appears out of nowhere. Then they use these minimal instances as an avenue to scare as many people as possible. I'm surprised so many people fall for this. Another important note is that many media outlets are politically motivated and choose to report whatever supports their agenda. It didn't used to be like this. Some of us are smart enough to realize this and do not buy into it. We choose to take a more logical and educated approach to all of this. We do our homework and arrive at educated conclusions as opposed to allowing the negative press to influence our decision making process. Some of CJK's points are moderatley valid and we should be concerned and continue to safeguard our land and water by ensuring our lease agreements are protective. She seems however to be buying into the panic and placing a large blanket over the entire gas industry.

From what I understand she owns a working farm. Also, from what I understand, the farming industry has been recognized to be near the top of this list of pollution causing industries in the US. WIth her being so passionate about the environment, I sure hope she recognizes this and is doing her best to limit the pollution potential. I'd be very disappointed if I found out she contributes to this by allowing the delivery of sediment to receiving waters, contaminates our natural streams, creeks and aquifiers with pathogens and nutrients caused by animal waste. I sure hope she does not use pesctices. We all know these poisions have a far greater chance of reaching water sources than the flowback water utilized in the fracking process. Oh did I mention irrigation, and the detrimental effects it has proven to have on the environment. Really I have no problem with farming. I respect the industry. And I must admit my family and I would be lost without the services all farmers provide However, I do have a problem if a farmer or anyone else for that matter chooses to threaten my ability to provide a better way of life for my family. Especially, if at the same time is guilty of his/her own contributions to polluting the environment.

Oh, no kidding!
Yes, I stay out of religion and politics as much as possible (ha ha). Gas issues have been taking all my time anyway.

Dear John &rfs,
CJK reports on what she reports. Why do you have a problem with that? She reports the facts that she has uncovered, and shares it with the rest of us. You guys do the same. What is wrong with that? Shouldn't our focus be on how best to minimize/eliminate potential hazards and to protect ourselves best? Decrying to facts don't change them-attempting to drown them in statistics or in the broader context don't change them. Both of you guys come across as bright, but the focus is wrong-headed isn't it? With special thanks to Angel shouldn't we be focused on the following for our area?
Subject: Continuous Air Monitor Online

The continuous air monitor is now up and running in DISH. It is now available 24 hours a days seven days a week. I am thrilled of this development, and this is a real victory for the citizens of this community. You may see the data at the link below, and please spread the word.

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/monitoring/air/monops/agc/ag...

Calvin Tillman
Mayor, DISH, TX
(940) 453-3640

Dan

John: If pollution is not acceptable to you from the farming industry how can you justify it from the gas industry? Is it because it is more profitable for you and others?
I have never once insulted your intelligence by saying you were not "smart enough to realize". By the way Dimock has not been the first contamination it has happened more often than it should have out west and in fact in the western part of the state what about the Monongahela River? Also the fact is that many of the problems go unreported and settled by the gas companies to avoid bad press. I know of three in my area.

Thank you for acknowledging that "some of my points are moderately valid", time will tell if your arguments are valid.People might not "drop like flies" the effects of this will be long-term and broad. It will be our children and our great children that will be dealing with the damage.
At a meeting this week a woman discussed how she had to be taken to the hospital because she could not breathe. Apparently the drilling company was using lime in the drilling process. Her house and things around it were covered in a film of lime. Her lungs were burned by the lime. Her animals, horses, dogs etc., all now have respiratory problems. My point: this area is in for alot of respiratory problems as a result of all sorts of air pollution, from the trucks on the road, to the chemicals used in the drilling process, to the compressor stattions that will be on many of the well pads. Just more more thing to think about. This is not panic, this is what will happen as a result of the Industrialization of the area. This may be acceptable to some, and for others this may not be what they were expecting.

CJK, farming is 100% acceptable to me. My point is the farming industry is known to be at the top of the list when it comes to polluting water aquifers and other natural water sources. You seem to be hell bent on squashing natural gas exploration yet you are contributing to water pollution every day, even though you know your business is known to be a great contributor to water pollution. Your passion is directed at the gas industry, not fixing water pollution in general. Yes, most people involved in this would take offense to your stance. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Isn't lime used on farms? I recall using lime on my pasture fields.
Also, not so sure we can blame the contaminated water in the Mon River on gas drilling. When, in our lifetime, has that water ever been clean? Not in my 39 years.

And with regard to your piece about coal being comparable to natural gas with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, Engleder gave a detailed explaination as to why this is simply not the case. I posted it a few weeks back. Here it is again.... Please feel free to send his response to your sources who feel he is wrong. I'd be interested to see/hear their response.

Howarth states, “Natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas with 72 times more potential than carbon dioxide to warm our planet (per molecule, averaged over the 20 years following emission). I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal.” Let’s assume he is referring to just to replacing oil and coal by gas equivalences from the Marcellus.



Global warming potential GWP of methane is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance (CH4) relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. This definition comes from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a gas has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth –atmosphere system. As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the ratio of incoming to outgoing energy increases. The same amount of CH4 has a much larger effect which is implied by Howarth’s statement. What Howarth does not tell the reader is that methane is easily oxidized in the atmosphere and has a half life of only 7 years. CO2 is very stable in the atmosphere once it is released. This is why the atmosphere is Venus is mainly CO2.



Because of the oxidation of CH4 in the Earth’s atmosphere, methane’s GWP drops rapidly from 72 times CO2 after 20 years to 21 times after 100 years CO2. In fact, it is this rapid decay that will limit the amount of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere to a few parts per million under the present rate of gas production in the world. Note that the concentration of CO2 is presently about 400 parts per million (ppm) and this will continue to climb because it is NOT being systematically removed at the rate of CH4 removal by oxidization. What this means is the CO2 is presently king in terms of radiative forcing and its influence will continue to grow.



Here is the kicker! According to DOE EIA, the US uses about 25 trillion cubic feet of methane per year (25 Tcf/yr). Converting to mass this is 552 Tg/y (teragrams/year). According to US EPA figures, the methane production industry releases 104 TgCO2 Eq. The US EPA uses the 100 year equivalence between CO2 and CH4 (not the 20 year equivalence used by Howarth) which was calculated to be 21 within the IPCC 2nd Assessment Report. So, methane emission by the gas industry is 4.9 Tg/y which means that 0.9% of all methane produced gets into the atmosphere. Note also that total methane emission is just above 578 TgCO2 Eq which means that gas production is responsible for 18% of all methane fed to the atmosphere by the USA. Obviously, these numbers are larger if this tranche of methane is tracked for a shorter period. It should be noted that methane production by the USA has stabilized over the past several years and the measured concentration of methane in the atmosphere has not increased because of its short half life. Presumably it has stabilized by somewhat less than 2 ppm.



Suppose that all coal fired power plants were converted to methane power plants tomorrow. The USA uses about 25 Quads (quadrillion BTU) annually from both coal and natural gas. Coal production would stop and natural gas production would double. Methane emits half the CO2 as coal on a BTU basis. Presently coal releases 2,000 TgCO2 Eq. Burning CH4 would release 1000 TgCO2 Eq for a net savings of 1000 TgCO2 Eq. At the same time, this additional methane production would release 104 TgCO2 Eq worth of methane emissions. The USA emits about 5800 Tg in CO2. A complete conversion from coal to natural gas saves the USA about 900 Tg or roughly 15% in greenhouse gas emissions. Converting vehicles to natural gas would save an additional 15% in CO2 loading. This is calculated using the US EPA standard of a 100 year oxidation period for CH4.



I don’t have any idea what Howarth means when he says that Marcellus methane is as damaging as coal but to my way of thinking he is clearly out to foil Marcellus production for reasons that he does not make clear!



Terry

Gas has it's place, as does coal. Gas is approximately double that of coal per BTU. This means if we switched from all coal to all gas our electric bill would be approximately double. Is it worth that cost to maybe slow down global warming? Is global warming real? didn't we just have one of the coldest winters on record? Is global warming bad? Wasn't the scare in the 70's global cooling? Do humans really have any control over our climate / the weather? I think we were supposed to hit peak oil by now and be out of food as well.

I apologize for being off topic. Just because some of us are in favor of gas production we shouldn't discredit the most abundant and efficient fuel source that we have in this country, coal.

Eberhard

Carol- yes lime is used in farming but not to the extent and quantity that was placed in the air at one time. There are also different types of lime, do not know what used by gas company. Certainly I am careful not to put the amount of lime in the air at one time as did the gas company. The point here Carol is that when used in this circumstance in this fashion it caused irreparable damage to humans and animals.

As far as the reference to Mon River- yes it was the gas industry that caused the contamination at the levels it had never been before. Your excuse for it never being clean does not justify compromising it more. Just because there are industries that have polluted in the past does not justify continuing to allow more industries to pollute.

John-My "industry" might pollute but I have chosen not to. No pesticides, streambank buffers, NMP, Conservation Plan, Ag Security. My farm pollutes less than the average household does, what do you pour down your drains and use for cleaning? You and other households are polluting more than my farm is, so please do not attempt to discredit me with that misinformation.
My passion is directed at the gas industry the same as it has been towards the agricultural industry. I have worked hard to improve things in my agricultural practices and I think the gas industry should be required to do the same. There are many ways in which they could greatly improve their practices as I have discussed before but because they are expensive they are choosing not to. Plus they should be asked to slow down so that we can contain the mistakes that are inevitably going to happen.

Attached is a watershed plan for a town in Colorado. http://www.dola.state.co.us/osg/docs/PalisadeWatershedPlan.pdf
Please take you attention to pages 4-7. I would like to know why something like this cannot be done by the gas industry in this state to help to protect the people, why is PA allowing the gas industry to basically self monitor their operations. Once again I will say my position is that we should not rush into this gas business without doing it properly. There is no need to rush, which is what we are doing now.

Eberhard, nobody is discrediting coal. The point being made is that methane has a much lower half life than CO2. Engelders comments explain this in detail. Howarth claims of natural gas being 72 times more likley to contribute to global warming is yet another half truth and can be easily used as a scare tactic. Engelders explaination is therefore very relevant. CO2 remains stable in our atmosphere for a much longer time period than methane.


Is global warming real? I think it is. Is it man made ? I think to a degree. Basically my belief is that natural gas is a logical choice for us as a nation to be used as a transition stepping stone. It's advantages to us as a nation far outweigh the negatvies.

BTW, global warming doesn't necessarily mean that we will not have extremely cold winters. As a matter of fact, if the polar ice caps melt at a steady pace we in this region are more likely to experience colder weather patterns. As the cold fresh water at the caps melt, it actually will cause currents such as the gulf stream to migrate in a southern direction. The US norhteast is very reliant upon the gulf stream to warm this area as is Western Europe. Yes, this is off topic but interesting none the less.

John- you need to take in all of the aspects of gas extraction to make the comparison- gas extraction has alot of equipment, especially water trucks that no one has figured into those statistics what they are contributing, their statistics are just based upon usage not all that is involved in the extaction.

So har does coal get to market ? Osmosis ?

Do you think I am that ignorant? I am aware that the stork does not bring coal.But do they emit as much pollutants in the process? The hydrofracing process seems to use alot from what I have witnessed so far. all I am asking is has anyone compared the two in the extraction process? I would be curious to see those statistics.

Speaking of air pollution.

About 1960 when I was station TDY at Ft Bucanan, Puerto Rice, tracking the very early rockets There was two very bad sources of air Pollutions. One was an oil refinery. At times the wind would blow a heavy black and very acrid smoke over the Ft. Buchanan area. But even worse, there was a cement manufacturing plant right next to the fence around the military area. The dust and dirt from grinding or pulverizing very often would settle right on the road inside the fence. You could not see or even breathe as it was so thick.

Bill L.
aka Bummy

Bummy, thank you for serving our country.

CJK, the easiest measure of the resources used in the extraction of a commodity is it's price. Coal is cheaper than gas, gas is cheaper than oil, oil is cheaper than bottled water, bottled water is cheaper than gold, etc. Of course their are exceptions on account of price fixing, marketing etc. Now keep in mind when we talk about cheap coal extraction, this usually involves strip mining. Most individuals who oppose gas drilling oppose strip mining as well. Again, the energy has to come from somewhere.

Eberhard

CJK-
Here is a quote from your post:
"By the way Dimock has not been the first contamination it has happened more often than it should have out west and in fact in the western part of the state what about the Monongahela River? Also the fact is that many of the problems go unreported and settled by the gas companies to avoid bad press."

This one sentence bothered me for three different reasons. And the fact that you wrote and believe this is unsettling, because it means that either you are gullible or paranoid (but I hope neither is true). Here is why:

1. Dimock. Good Lord, it has been proven by everyone involved that naturally occurring methane gas is in the water there. It may have come up when underground pressure was changed, but it was certainly NOT caused by fracing. Ask a geologist why it happened and get the scientific answer.

2. Monongahela River was contaminated by gas drilling? And you have proven this how? Please read this article in the NY TImes which explains how the river became polluted most recently. The short version is that coal burning power plants were putting out air pollution, people complained, the plants had to install scrubbers to clean the air and it worked, but the scrubbers dump the pollution into the river instead now. How quickly people forget when they are looking for someone to blame. Here is the link to the article. I think you would be interested anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1

3. This brought to mind the phrase, "judge, jury and executioner". The last sentence I quote from you regarding the FACT that gas companies are constantly causing problems which go unreported and get swept under the rug. It made me think of those people who think the government is watching them with black helecopters. WHERE IN THE WORLD DID THAT FACT COME FROM? Please, I'm dying to hear the source.

I have a couple comments to make.

It is really not necessary to infer that someone is gullible or paranoid is it? Or make other derisive comments to folks who are trying to understand what this marcellus shale is going to mean to this country. All that does is to create anger and hard feelings. It does nothing to solve the problem of pollution wherever it appears.

In past years, byproducts were often thrown away as being useless. Research was done and consequently found that these "useless byproducts" were in deed very valuble.

Instead of being at each other's throats, maybe it would be a good thing to insist that more effort be done to find ways to reclaim these byproducts from the coal burning powerplants and USE THEM instead of just dumping them whevever.

Sure it will take money for research! If these wall street big Monkety Monks would invest in education instead of lining their pockets, every one including themselves could have a much better standard of living.

Our natural resources are being used up or more likely being wasted faster and faster in the name of making another dollar. Look at the oil rig fire in the gulf of Mexico and what is is going to cost. Seems like the priorities are all out of perspective.

Many Government people do not want any checking or overseeing of what industry is doing. Industry loves this thought as they can do as they please regardless of safety or health issues. These people dont want better education because their bank accounts will not be quite as overstuffed if they have to fork over a few extra dollars for better schools or less well off financially students, but just as bright or maybe even better qualified as far as intelligence goes.

Bill L.
aka Bummy

Bummy,
I generally try to reason with people and it's always good to avoid name calling. Every now and then it takes more force to get their attention. Not that I expect new information to flow in that direction anyway.
It appears that normal give and take won't work on this issue. Too polarizing, unfortunately.

Yor are right in a sense about getting attention of some folks. The problem however might be the inability of articulating exactly what the thought is. Lots of folks, including me have difficulties in finding just the right words to express themselves. In fact very often the words they are using might just take other people off their idea entirely.


Like take the word "cool". To me, the word "cool" means "not warm."

Many folks do not have the education that others do. And some so called educated folks have even received misinformation their entire lives about something.

Better to listen, digest the information, look at different sources about the same subject and then discuss it with an open mind. That is all I am saying.

I read in the paper that there is a place near Laurenceville being built to take the waste water from fracking and then reusing it at other wellsites after being treated.

Maybe a whole new industry can be created with this treatment plant if the right people can become involved with it.

Bill L aka Bummy

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”