Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Giant Straw to Suck up East Branch

Most water wells are in the range of a couple of hundred feet below ground level. These Marcellus shale wells are on the order of 3000-7000 feet down, well below where anyone would be drawing groundwater.

Also, the well bore is lined with a casing and cement. The frac'ing fluid never touches ground water, or ground, for that matter, unless it's thousands of feet down, in the impermeable layer it's meant to break up.

The real problem, as I see it is when this fluid is brought back to the surface. If placed in a lined pit, well, all sorts of negative things could happen. But if the fluid is "cleaned up" in a closed loop system, most of the water could be trucked back off site, to the next well. Then the concentrated waste could then be dealt with appropriately, either REALLY cleaned or treated as a hazardous waste and disposed of as such.

John,

If the "impermeable" layer is broken up, does it then become permeable?
 
Usually impermeable layers are above and below the target area. That is why it hasn't been able to migrate out of the target area. Before it becomes gas its oil. According to geologists no oil exsists in this area, everything has been pressurized and cooked to form gas only, very little brine. This gas is transmission line ready, doesn't need to be processed or conditioned.

The DEC requires incasement of the pipe past the aquafers. Well blowout are rare. Most contamination happens once the production fluids reach the surface, spills, leaks etc...

The Marcellus play is approx 7000'-9000' deep in Delaware and Wayne county with a thickness of 200'-800' thick.

A lot of articles you read about in other places around the country are not deep wells like the Marcellus. Western PA has a lot of coal bed methane wells, these are shallow wells just below the aquifers hence the potential for contamination is greater.

New Mexico has just recently started to use pit liners. Colorado the wells were drilled to close together. A lot of these problems have to do with inadequate regulations not the drilling itself.

More Heating oil is spilled, leaked in NY then any other contamintion source usually by old buried tanks. Just food for thought.
 
Kilgour Farms,do you or any of your family in the area have a gas lease on your property?It seems you are very pro drilling.I don't have anything against making money,and I am glad to see an infusion of money in the area,as it definitely needs it.I'm a business owner myself.But ones views on a subject are usually skewed to the side of profitability for themselves or their families.All the theory
and engineering is just that,the mistakes and catastrophic accidents are not usually caused by the engineers or on the planning boards ,they are caused by equipment failure,and mistakes made by the hungover high school drop out ,who is actually operating the equipment .The Upper Delaware watershed is too precious and irreplaceable to jeopardize it's value to millions of people and future generations on the word of people looking to make billions of dollars from it.I agree as a nation we do need to extract the gas from the underground reserves,but not at the expense of what cannot be replaced by man once it is ruined.Just because these gas companies went around buying off local land owners and laying gas line almost everywhere you look,does not give them the right to bulldoze this through with their money and influence.Backroom deals and money in politicians pockets often time win out over the good of the public,unless the public is fully aware of the dangers equipment or operator failure or lack of proper fail safe measures can present to them or their families.The only urgency to drill right away,is from the gas companies,and those looking to profit.The techniques and levels of monitoring should not be dictated and implemented by only the gas companies and underfunded state agencies.They should also be overseen by environmental agencies on the federal level funded by a mandatory fund paid for by the gas companies with total separation of influence from the gas companies. The Upper Delaware Watershed is a national treasure,not just a local issue,and should be treated as such and not threatened by a few who look to profit from exploiting the area.
 
Closed-loop systems are for drilling not fracing. CHK has already told the town that all production water will be contained and hauled away to reprocessing facilities, no pits.

The DRBC is requiring all gas companies to submit the chemicals they will use in the fracing process.

There is currently alot of confusion on who has what power to regulate the drilling.


Kilgour at this point there is no law mandating that the drillers must provide the information on what chemicals are used in the fracing process. The only legislation passed thus far requires they tell the FED DEP and only in certain circumstances which rarely mimic what takes place in real life. This has become an issue in Wyoming and other western states where there is evidence of well contamination and chemicals such as Benzene have been discovered. The Well drillers claim that providing this information to the public would damage their competitive advantage. Since fracing relies on proprietary methods.
 
Kilgour at this point there is no law mandating that the drillers must provide the information on what chemicals are used in the fracing process. The only legislation passed thus far requires they tell the FED DEP and only in certain circumstances which rarely mimic what takes place in real life. This has become an issue in Wyoming and other western states where there is evidence of well contamination and chemicals such as Benzene have been discovered. The Well drillers claim that providing this information to the public would damage their competitive advantage. Since fracing relies on proprietary methods.

I've been working on some of this lately and you're basically right on. The companies are claiming that the chemical constituents of fracing fluid are trade secrets and that disclosure of the information would damage their competitive advantage. Not only that, but Congress in its infinite wisdom has exempted Hydraulic Fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and other laws aimed at protecting public health.

Fortunately at least in NYS the review and permitting process for these wells is state jurisdiction and is thus governed by NY Law. Under NY law the companies cannot refuse to disclose the chemical consituents to the DEC based on a claim trade secrets. The law presumes that the government does not engage in commercial enterprises and thus the company's commercial position is not compromised because the government is not in competition.

The trade secret claim is relevant because NYS law allows the companies to restrict public citizens from requesting the list of chemicals under Freedom of Information Law. It's not a guarantee that this claim will succeed but it's definitely an issue. We need to know what is in the fracing fluid. Companies had been using diesel fuel - a harmful toxin. The EPA negotiated a non-binding, legally unenforceable (meaning it's basically worthless) Memorandum of Agreement that Halliburton and others would stop using diesel fuel.

In order to protect ourselves we absolutely must know what is in the fracing fluid. Each well requires upwards of 2 million gallons of fracing fluid which must be treated by sewage treatment plants before it can be disposed of. This raises concerns over spillage during transport, exceedance of capacity at sewage treatment plants in addition to the concerns over spills during operation and the possibility that well casings will break and cause underground leakage. This has happened in many places out west so it's not like I am being chicken little here.

Obviously we need natural gas as a clean(er) fuel source for the future. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to make sure that the process used to extract it is safe, sustainable and results in minimal impact to existing natural resources, particularly freshwater. Freshwater is 3% of the earth's water and only 1% of that 3% is potable. The fact that we live in the Northeast where fresh water is in abundant supply should not be taken for granted. This thread started with the disussion of water withdrawals for one well. Since each well requires a withdrawal of 2 million gallons, if other wells are started in the area and start drawing water out out of the East Branch the total amount of water drawn off could be significantly higher.
 
Usually impermeable layers are above and below the target area. That is why it hasn't been able to migrate out of the target area. Before it becomes gas its oil. According to geologists no oil exsists in this area, everything has been pressurized and cooked to form gas only, very little brine. This gas is transmission line ready, doesn't need to be processed or conditioned.

These impermeable layers are pierced by the drilling process, allowing fracing fluid, gas and other materials to migrate through these layers. Of course, if the well lining remains intact this should theoretically be prevented, but if anything goes wrong with the lining, these substances can migrate out of the "target area" and contaminate wells, groundwater and other resources as has been documented in Colorado and Wyoming among other locations where hydraulic fracturing has been used. In some cases the documented cause of the contamination was the shattering of the well linings, in other cases nobody knows why it happened.

Unfortunately very little study has been done yet, in part because the federal government has punted on the issue. The EPA produced a report finding that there is no risk with hyrdaulic fracturing despite its own research indicating that groundwater and well water adjacent to active gas wells were turning up contaminated with benzene and other contaminants. The result of this report was that Congress excepted hydraulic fracturing for natural gas from federal oversight. The EPA is now backpedaling and claims that their report was aimed only at Coalbed Methane Extraction and not Natural Gas, too bad it didn't clarify this before Congress enacted its findings into law.

There's hope that the new federal administration will begin a more robust review and oversight process for regulating these operations but for now it remains up to understaffed and underfunded state agencies to review the environmental impacts of the process. Those of us involved in the process are working to ensure that they get it right, but if you care about this it's important to get involved no matter where you stand on the issue. The DEC will be accepting public comments and everyone should submit their comments or attend the hearings. Otherwise we run the risk of them missing someting in balancing the economic concerns of people whose livelihoods depend on these wells, and the environmental concerns that arise in looking at this issue.
 
Kilgour Farms,do you or any of your family in the area have a gas lease on your property?It seems you are very pro drilling.I don't have anything against making money,and I am glad to see an infusion of money in the area,as it definitely needs it.I'm a business owner myself.But ones views on a subject are usually skewed to the side of profitability for themselves or their families.

I'm not pro drilling nor am I anti-drilling, I'm for land owner rights. Remember the American right to own property. I have not signed a lease and may never sign a lease or maybe I will? Thats my right as a landowner.
 
I'm not pro drilling nor am I anti-drilling, I'm for land owner rights. Remember the American right to own property. I have not signed a lease and may never sign a lease or maybe I will? Thats my right as a landowner.

Landowner rights have always been limited in our legal system and in the British system upon which ours is based. In Property Law class they refer to landownership as a "bundle" of rights. That bundle contains different rights depending on who you're asserting a claim against.

So if you own a house on a 2 acre parcel that is surrounded by other residences, you'd never succeed in opening a feedlot. Even if zoning laws didn't prevent you, your neighbors would be able to sue you for creating a "common law nuisance." Basically, all landowners have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property and just about any interference with that right by a nearby property owner creates a viable lawsuit. A massive, stinking animal feeding operation prevents me from quietly enjoying the view from my front porch - therefore i can sue you to have your operation moved or closed or for monetary damages. more likely than not, it would be cheaper for you to open a feedlot in another location than to try to deal with the lawsuits from all of your neighbors.

Now this is not an absolute rule, some things you can do and I as a neighbor can't sue you for. But courts have sustained nuisance claims for things as seemingly trivial as constant dog barking. In addition there are other ways that landowners can sue each other to limit an owner's right to use his property. For example, if you have a quarrying operation on your property and in blasting rocks you blow pebbles into my yard that is considered a trespass and i can sue you for that trespass.

These are two examples, not meant to necessarily apply in this situation but to illustrate the point that landowner rights are limited depending on the situation. In addition there are a number of limitations on land use implemented by local, state and federal regulations, all of which are constitutionally permissible widely accepted as part of government.

Landowners don't have an inherent right to do something that could potentially damage their land, other people's land, or endanger public safety. Limits on the rights of landowners are not considered controversial. It may seem "unamerican," and against the spirit of a free market economy but such limitations on property use have been accepted in our legal tradition for well over 400 years.
 
Last edited:
The Marcellus play is approx 7000'-9000' deep in Delaware and Wayne county with a thickness of 200'-800' thick.

Hello KF,

Where did you hear that the Marcellus was 800' thick? Is that noted somewhere I could find it?

You say that 1,000,000 gallons is 1cfs.

1cfs is approximately 7.48 gallons a second. So they would have to draw 1cfs for somewhere in the neighborhood of 133,690 seconds, or 2228 minutes, or 37 hours... well you get the idea.

If there are no closed loop systems for Frac'ing, you'd better tell NYS DEC who made it a bullet in a presentation (below if any one cares to peruse(page ten for the mention of the closed loop system)) and a geologist and a lawyer who have made the closed loop system a potential part of the gas lease they've designed for landowners groups.

I'm not saying that the closed loop system was not originally designed for drilling, but I'm pretty sure that they have also implemented the technology for the frac'ing fluids.

http://www.bcnys.org/inside/env/2008/fallconf/ws3-holt-baker.pdf
 
The system is setup to reuse the water not recycle the water. It takes heavier materials out. It still needs to be process through a recycle center to clean the water before releasing it.

It is primarily used for drilling bore holes which can run vertical and horizontal.
 
I knew they were trying to develope this but as of yet they have not used it on a production scale so the cost/unit is not yet known. It would be welcomed to the area if its not cost prohibited. Plus you have to get this equipment to site.

The more regulations you have the less likely they will drill and hence everyone will have to ride bikes.
 
From today's Press & Sun Bulletin:

DEC to discuss impact of drilling on environment at meeting today | pressconnects.com | Press & Sun-Bulletin

DEC to discuss impact of drilling on environment at meeting today
Public can comment at meeting
By Tom Wilber • Staff Writer • November 17, 2008

That inescapable fact has prompted the industry to develop methods to protect drinking water sources as drilling rigs bore through them to tap natural gas reserves a mile or more underground.

It has also raised concerns about the effectiveness of those safeguards, and who is accountable when something goes wrong.

It's an old issue with a new degree of urgency. Energy companies are staking claims to the Marcellus Shale, a world-class natural gas resource running under the Southern Tier and throughout the Appalachian basin. The push for domestic energy production and the heady economic potential of gas reserves under the Southern Tier have raised expectations that drilling will be far more intensive and extensive than ever seen in the region.

State officials gauging the environmental impact of full-scale natural gas production in Broome County will hear what the public has to say about it during a meeting at 4:30 p.m. today at Broome Community College.

For many, protecting water resources above and below ground tops the list of concerns for an industry with a notorious thirst for fresh water and voluminous capacity to produce waste. The horizontal style of drilling favored to tap the Marcellus requires several million gallons of fresh water for each well and produces like amounts of waste, ranging from brine to heavy metals, industrial sludge and unnamed chemical additives.

At the same time, the Marcellus offers an environmental salvation, of sorts, as well as economic stability, according to proponents. Ultimately, natural gas production can help displace dependence on foreign oil with relatively clean-burning domestic energy and provide a multi-billion-dollar charge to the regional economy.

Glenn Williams, owner of 64 acres in the Town of Chenango, understands both sides. His enthusiasm for the promising potential led him to join the Central Broome Landowners Coalition, one of several property owner groups joining together to maximize their bargaining power with energy companies seeking rights to their land.

He soon resigned. While the coalition was looking out for the interests of its members -- mostly people with larger tracts of land -- Williams was concerned about people with smaller parcels not represented by a coalition. Who is going to protect their wells?

"I don't think many people in the county know what's going on," he said, "that even if you own an acre or two and don't stand to get a lot of money or royalties, it can still affect you."

Protections and problems
Concerns over drilling's impact on nearby wells go back generations. Ask any farmer who has drilled new wells on the old family homestead or felt the impact from newly drilled wells on neighboring properties. Drilling into or through an aquifer carries the potential of disrupting it.

Safeguards established in the 1980s, including cement well casings that seal off the aquifer from the well bore, prevent problems from happening, said regulators and independent geologists interviewed for this article. But they don't eliminate them.

An aquifer supplying homes in Madison County was mucked up in 2007 by a drilling crew using compressed air to power a drill bit before the cement casing was installed, according to information from the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The drill bit became stuck, and crews working for Ardent left it running for the weekend instead of shutting it down.

The results were disastrous for the aquifer, as air and dirt mixed with the fresh water feeding neighborhood homes.

The operator and its insurance company spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars" fixing the problem, according to DEC records. That included providing motels and meals to affected residents, arranging for a company to repair wells, installing treatment systems in 11 residences and the town fire hall, drilling four new wells and providing lump-sum payments to residents for treatment-system maintenance.

The offending well was one of 509 developed in the state that year and the only one where a problem was documented, according to DEC records.

Other problems may go undocumented, said Don Baker, a Kirkwood property owner.

He lost water pressure at his home on Stratmill Road, shortly after Chesapeake Energy began work on a gas well last spring about 400 feet from his house. His water became so murky that the filter clogged with sediments.

The DEC found "no evidence of problems" with the well after analyzing water samples taken by the company, said agency spokesman Yancey Roy. Baker was left to deal with the problem on his own, which meant spending thousands of dollars redeveloping his water source.

The purpose of today's meeting, and others like it being held around the state, is to help regulators and policy makers gather insights to deal with potential environmental impacts from full-scale natural gas production.

Some fear too much regulation will drive gas companies away from the state, taking a golden economic opportunity with them. Others have the opposite concern -- that lack of oversight will lead to industry negligence harming the area's environment. Many appreciate both scenarios and want to proceed with caution.

"I think that anything that comes out of this process -- people should be paying attention to," said Stuart Gruskin, DEC executive assistant commissioner.
 
In general I agree with you. One million gpd is a lot of water and the impact will be swift and detrimental in the summer. But we need to exploit domestic energy now more than ever. I believe in that fervently and I am not a NIMBY person. If we need to use water to extract natural gas, then so be it.

So the answer is that NYC has to plan for this and release enough water during the summer so that the fishery is not impinged any further. We can have it all, but NYC (which has a lousy history of cooperating) must become more cooperative regarding water releases. This will not be an easy fight.
 
The permit CHK is seeking is for four test wells to be drilled in Hancock.

FF,
A geologist told me that the marcellus is about 800" thick and Delaware, Sullivan and Wayne county in Pa are gound Zero for gas, thickness, depth, TOC and maturation are all consistant with a well developed area.

The only way we will really know what's down here is to drill and see. Seismic tests do not tell all. For all we know there may be nothing here.

A golf course uses about 50 mil gallons/day, nuclear power plant 150mil gal. Taking water isn't the problem.
 
I remain highly skeptical about this topic. In the history of natural resources extraction in the US, the environment has always lost. Everytime. No exceptions. From poor logging practices to mineral mining to gas and oil drilling, the environment always loses. When the environment loses, our beloved fish and wildlife lose as well.

That said, I'm a conservative that believes we need to continue to extract these things to heat our homes, drive our cars and fuel our economy. Some environmental damage is a by-product of these activities and there is simply no way around that. What we need to do is continue to strive for responsible energy extraction. With regard to the Marcellus Shale, I'm not at all convinced personally that we are there yet. The "let's drill to see what's there" mentality is not the way to go, IMO. We can say that one well's water needs are relatively insignificant, but what about 1,000 wells? 10,000 wells? 100,000 wells? Remember that this shale formation runs through NY, PA and WV and encompasses a huge area where natural resource extraction has been the main focus of the local economies for hundreds of years - economies that continue to lag far behind others that do not rely on natural resource extraction. The people that live in these areas are well behind the national average for income, education, joblessness and health to name a few. Those are things that continue to concern me as we head down the very same path that has been problematic in the past. Just my two cents - your mileage may vary.
 
Taking any water from the system is no good, the trout are lucky to make it thru the summer now with the low flows.
 
The one factor that has not been discussed here is FLOODING! I agree we have to explore and pursue our natural resources,especially in the volatile world we live in. I have no doubt,someone will attack Iran within the next 6 months or so,whether it be the US or Israel with our blessing given the recent news that Iran has enough nuclear material processed to make a nuclear bomb.This will most likely spike fuel up to over what it was a few months ago and effect the economy in a detrimental way,which is something nobody wants,so extracting our own natural resources is a national priority that we should all agree upon.That being said,the amount of money ,and profit involved for the gas companies pursuing these natural gas reserves is in the billions of dollars.The shear manpower,and millions of dollars of equipment they are throwing at this shows that the gas companies and their investors have deep enough pockets to do this right,not just at the highest profit at the expense of the environment and the rivers that we all agree should be protected against catastrophic incidents of poisoning by processes and chemicals that these companies do not want to disclose due to "proprietary reasons".I say BULLS#$@ to their claim of "proprietary reasons".I understand the importance of competitive advantage in any business,but if they want to pump these chemicals down in the ground to be used in their drilling and fracking processes,the public needs to know,especially when it has the potential to poison the aquifers,wells and river systems.
The main point to this post is what I wrote in my first sentence.What about Flooding! All the precautions taken in an area that is not prone to catastrophic flooding like the Upper Delaware is prone to ,is worthless during the raging floods that can fill these wells during the drilling process and pump these chemicals only god knows where.Also with the technique of slant drilling,why do any of these wells need to be so close to the river! When I drive by Hancock and see the well they want to drill right next to the river at the bottom of the mountain where they clear cut to lay pipeline it is insane environmentally.There is no reason,besides profit and ease of access that that well has to be so close to the river.If it costs a few million to put that well a safer more reasonable distance from the river then so be it,the profit generated from this gas reserve will make that expense minuscule.We cannot let maximum profit and an extreme urgency by the gas companies to get at that gas override the potential for disaster during their drilling and fracking processes,and the locations of the wells and where they store their hazardous waste byproducts should be in absolute "failsafe" locations during raging flood waters! If the landowners who are profiting from these gas leases
were included in a massive class action law suit along with their "new friends" the gas companies due to poor planning in case of catastrophic damage to the environment,they would not be such cheerleaders for the gas companies rushing this through without utmost concern for the environment it impacts.
 
Howdy,

Just a reminder that the public hearing to comment on pending gas drilling in the Upper Delaware Watershed is THIS THURSDAY, December 4, at Sullivan County Community College, Fieldhouse, 112 College Road, Loch Sheldrake, NY. Doors will open at 4:30 p.m., with brief remarks by DEC staff starting at 5:15 p.m. Public comments will be taken beginning at 6 p.m.

* Be sure to sign up to speak when you arrive. People were limited to five minutes at some of the other hearings.
* It is best to also send written comments. They need to be received by the close of business on 12/15/2008

Submit comments to:
Scope Comments
Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, 3rd Floor
Albany, NY 12233-6500
or email them to dmnog@gw.dec.state.ny.us with
"Scope Comments" as the Subject line

For a copy of the scope of work, go to:
Draft Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

What should I say?
1. Pick a topic, or topics, that concern you.
2. Try to ask the DEC to study specific things about
that topic.
3. Ask them to review the literature, reports, and
impacts in other states where there has been
horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic
fracturing in shale for many years.
4. Ask them to provide raw data, their methodology,
and conclusions in the new GEIS
5. Ask them to do a new GEIS, not a supplement to
a GEIS that is totally out of date and irrelevant
6. Ask them to do a new draft scope of work with the
topics under review AND the methodology they
intend to use, as required by the SEQRA
regulations. (The current draft scope of work is
flawed in that it never mentions how they are going
to study any of the topics)

NO DRILLING IN THE DELAWARE WATERSHED...NOT ONE DROP....
 
Does anyone know if any of this exploration and extraction process is going to take place in the watersheds UPSTREAM from the NYC drinking water supply reservoirs? And if not, why not?

Now those are good questions to ask at the December 4 meeting.

Bob K.
 
Does anyone know if any of this exploration and extraction process is going to take place in the watersheds UPSTREAM from the NYC drinking water supply reservoirs? And if not, why not?

Now those are good questions to ask at the December 4 meeting.

Bob K.

I have HEARD :rolleyes: that:

1. NYC does not want ANY drilling in the watershed
2. NYC does not want ANY drilling within one mile of any reservoir and
3. NYS DEC was contemplating prohibiting drilling within 1000' of a reservoir

YOUR point, (no drilling in the watershed?, why not?) is critical.

Is drilling safe or is it not safe? If safe, what's wrong with drilling in the watershed? Or within 1000' of a reservoir? If it is not safe, why would they allow drilling near ANY New Yorker's water supply?

Another point, landowners have the right to extract the "gas, oil and minerals" that are located beneath their properties. How will they be compensated by the people of NY if NY takes away this right?
 
I have HEARD :rolleyes: that:

1. NYC does not want ANY drilling in the watershed
2. NYC does not want ANY drilling within one mile of any reservoir and
3. NYS DEC was contemplating prohibiting drilling within 1000' of a reservoir

YOUR point, (no drilling in the watershed?, why not?) is critical.

Is drilling safe or is it not safe? If safe, what's wrong with drilling in the watershed? Or within 1000' of a reservoir? If it is not safe, why would they allow drilling near ANY New Yorker's water supply?

Another point, landowners have the right to extract the "gas, oil and minerals" that are located beneath their properties. How will they be compensated by the people of NY if NY takes away this right?

You'll find these questions answered somewhat in NY law of conservation where state resources take priority over indivigual rights hence forced pooling in NYS.
 
You'll find these questions answered somewhat in NY law of conservation where state resources take priority over indivigual rights hence forced pooling in NYS.

What do you mean by "forced pooling"? Are you talking about "compulsory integration?"

Compulsory integration tries to ensure that no landowner's resources are extracted from underneath him without compensation (among other things).

What I am saying, is if NYS strips people of their right to extract their gas, oil or minerals to protect the people of NYC or the trout in the river, then how do the people of NYC or NYS plan to compensate landowners for their loss?
 
Daily Star article on the Oneonta meeting:

Gas-drilling fears abound
By Denise Richardson
Staff Writer

ONEONTA _ Kate Marsiglio, of Walton, told state officials she worries about water quality for her 2-year-old son, Isaac, who rode piggyback during a public hearing at the State University College at Oneonta on Tuesday night.

Marsiglio, a farmer, said the Department of Environmental Conservation needs to develop a new Generic Environmental Impact Statement, not a supplement as planned, to address the factors and concerns tied to proposed horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Those methods would extract natural gas from local shale formations.

More than 300 people attended the hearing in Hunt Union ballroom at the State University College at Oneonta. Between 30 and 40 signed up to comment on potential environmental impacts of horizontal wells and drilling in New York's natural gas-bearing Marcellus and Utica shale formations, DEC officials said.

Chemical toxicity, traffic, damage to roads, health impacts, flood perils and other hazards were among concerns some speakers raised. Others said benefits of the drilling projects included creating jobs, invigorating the economy, and producing fuel that can reduce reliance on foreign supplies.

Dr. Antoinette Kuzminski, an internist who lives in Fly Creek, said the state should at least pass a moratorium on the drilling until ``such time as robust methods are in place to ensure that no contamination of the water supply will occur.

``Even though the gas-drilling industry wishes to reassure us of the impossibility of these chemical entering our water supply, we know that no human technology is perfect, especially if it's carried out miles underground at high pressures,'' Kuzminski continued.

More than 1,500 property owners in Otsego, Delaware and Chenango counties have agreed to let firms prospect for natural gas on their land, according to county records. Interest has been building for a few years. State law guarantees landowners a 12.5 percent royalty on producing wells.

At the hearing, a consultant said reports and studies about horizontal drilling would be submitted to the DEC for consideration in the scoping process.

State Sen. James Seward, R-Milford, said drilling could provide a multibillion-dollar economic boost for areas surrounding the Marcellus Shale formation. The draft of the DEC's document is comprehensive, he said, but noted the important role of the state agency and local governments, which should be notified of drilling applications, not merely of granted permits.

``It is absolutely imperative that environmental protections are in place,'' Seward said. ``Local impacts are best judged by local officials and local citizens.''

Although there is a GEIS covering gas and oil drilling in the state, the DEC determined that a supplement was needed to address issues related to the large volumes of water required to hydrofracture shale to release the gas.

But several speakers agreed the existing GEIS was outdated.

Assemblyman Pete Lopez, R-Schoharie, said a balance must be found between economic opportunities, property rights and environmental protections.

``This issue is a sensitive issue,'' Lopez said.

The DEC must look carefully at wastewater issues, chemical additives used in the process and specifying site factors.

Glen Noto, New Lisbon town councilman, said open-pit storage of fluids cannot be allowed, and questions about possible developments in case of flooding must be addressed. And, he said, there must be an adequate number of inspectors to oversee permitting and projects.

The hearing was the fifth of six on the draft statement, with the final hearing Thursday in Loch Sheldrake in Sullivan County. The DEC will accept comments on the draft until 5 p.m. Dec. 15. DEC officials said the final document will be ready in the summer.

Bradley Field, director of mineral resources with the DEC, said 13 applications, including five in the past three weeks, have been filed for horizontal drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation. Five applications were for sites in Delaware County, at least two are in Chenango County, and others are in Tioga County, he said.

Firms filing the applications include Nornew Inc. and Chesapeake Appalachia, Field said, and issues raised Tuesday night in Oneonta were consistent with comments presented at other hearings.

``The protection of groundwater is crucial,'' said Florence Loomis, of New Lisbon, at the hearing.

Developments should be held to the highest standards, she said, and towns should be compensated for projects.

``We are not ready for the heavy industry of natural gas extraction,'' said Ronald Bishop, a chemist from Cooperstown. Bishop, a member of Sustainable Otsego, said he was alarmed by the large number of leases property owners in Otsego County had signed with drilling firms.

To Comment

The draft for the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement is available at Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Comments, due by 5 p.m. Dec. 15, may be sent to the Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulation, NYSDEC Bureau of Mineral Resources,

625 Broadway, Third Floor, Albany, NY 12233-6500, or by e-mail to dmnog@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

Submission should indicate ``Scope Comments'' as the subject.
 
I found this on the DEC website. It was presented at The Ground Water Protection Council's annual forum on September 21-24 2008.
Page 9-13 of the PDF is a good read on Frac'ing. They have a photo of a closed loop system in PA. They provide a chart on Frac Fluid Composition.
Page 14-16 touches on ground water, surface water and disposal...

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/GWPCMarcellus.pdf

Kilgour Farms posted a link to that same report last month in the Natural Gas Drilling thread. I printed it and read it cover to cover. I believe that table of chemicals used in fracking fluid is representative of a typical compound. The question is are they going to tell you how much ethylene glycol (antifreeze) they are pumping into the ground?

My question with the drilling itself is what happens to the spaces within the shale layers after the gas is extracted? Will the extraction cause sinkholes later on?
 
Kilgour Farms posted a link to that same report last month in the Natural Gas Drilling thread.


And he questioned the use of closed loop Frac'ing systems?!? ;)


My question with the drilling itself is what happens to the spaces within the shale layers after the gas is extracted? Will the extraction cause sinkholes later on?

The gas is located, not so much between layers, but in the spaces between the minerals in the rock itself (which is why they have to fracture it). Think of it kinda like a submerged stack of wood. If one was able to lift the stack of wood out of the water, the water that was in the spaces between each piece of wood would drain out, but the stack of wood would still be standing.
 
There are applications for six wells in Delaware county specifically Hancock along route 97 and the millennium. There filed with the DEC.

Peters: 3 wells, Milk: 2 wells, Anderson: 1 well. Peters and Milk are 640 acre units, Horizontal, Marcellus and Anderson is 167 acres, verticle, Oriskiny shale.
 
Back
Top