mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
NY GEIS will not protect me. I live in NJ. It will also not protect my interests in PA, or others interests in Ohio.
Rapid expansion of gas drilling has led to problems with disposal, contamination
- Thread starter Frankcoz
- Start date
NY GEIS will not protect me. I live in NJ. It will also not protect my interests in PA, or others interests in Ohio.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
What other reason would there be to do this other than financial gain? Although I like the idea of energy independence, I admit it's second on my list.
But, it is NOT unregulated, as you'd like others to think. My state seems to be off to a fine start. Of course we need to wait to see how enforcement goes...
I was defending the technology. I would also defend my right to extract the gas and minerals below me, too.
NYS has a legal "concept" called "compulsory integration". It sounds bad, but is an attempt to be FAIR to everyone who owns land(and therefore the gas beneath it). The DEC determines a UNIT, based upon an application to drill from a gas company. The gas company MUST have at least 60% of the land within that unit(lets say the unit is 640 acres, so the gas company must have signed leases for at least 384 of the acres within the unit, let's say they have 400). This means that 240 of those acres are NOT leased. The people who own those acres have three options, but for simplicity, let me just say that they are STILL entitled to the gas under them. When it is "piped out" they will recieve money based upon the percentage of land that they own within the 640 acre Unit.
In short, the neighbors are compensated for their portion of the gas that comes out of the entire 640 acres.
I don't think so. I like the idea of increasing the application fees for drilling to pay for the oversight. Unfortunately NY politicians would like to put THAT money into a "general fund" instead of dedicating it to enforcement.
I've said I do---in my last post in this thread and others.
First of all, I don't intend to leave. In fact I hope to use some of the money I earn to purchase more property here. I don't believe that there will be a "your mess" to clean up.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
I've tried being civil...
You seem to think you know me well enough to tell others all about my motivations... Do you really think you know me THAT well?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you're drinking too much of that Jersey ground water...(could the gas companies really make it MUCH WORSE?)
I have NOT negotiated a lease.
I have not SIGNED a lease.
NO check is IN THE MAIL.
When I sign a lease, I'll let YOU know(and just for kicks i'll buy you some really good toilet paper.)
Because you do have one thing right, you are a horse's ass.
"Compulsory integration" is a fancy way of saying eminent domain. Here's how it really works: if your property is chosen by the state to be part of a spacing unit, like it or not, they are drilling under your property, even if it's the last thing you would ever want to happen to YOUR property. Yes, you will receive some sort of royalty, but what if you don’t want them drilling (i.e. pumping toxins) under your property in the first place no matter how much they would pay? Too bad.
Ironic that eminent domain is a one of those flash point issues for the rugged individual, small-government advocates. I guess not when it means the same rugged individual small-government advocates will be getting rich at the expense of their neighbors. For some of us landowners, it’s not about getting rich -- it’s about being a steward of your land for your grandkids. Pumping toxins into the ground for a quick buck is not being a good steward.
Want some insight into the mindset of the pro-drilling, rugged landowner set, read this thread from PA Gas Lease forum. Here’s the link. Read it; it’s worth it: Columbia U. publishes slick anti-drilling rag It sounds like some landowners would just assume get paid by NYC not to drill than to drill. Kind of like holding your land hostage at the expense of clean water. Doesn't seem very nice and neighborly.
Lastly, here’s something from that radical bunch of environmental wackos, Trout Unlimited. Not good. It’s time to write letters to the DEC…
Trout Unlimited angles on gas impacts
World class fisher and television host filmed on the Delaware
By SANDY LONG
UPPER DELAWARE REGION — “It’s changed the region where I live in Colorado entirely within a decade,” said Frank Smethurst, on the topic of natural gas extraction. Host of Trout Unlimited’s (TU) “On the Rise,” a nationally broadcast television show that airs on the Sportsman Channel, Smethurst spent three days along the Upper Delaware River last week, casting in the clear waters and filming for a future segment to be broadcast next April.
Smethhurst was guided by local longtime river advocate, Lee Hartman, chairperson of Pennsylvania TU’s Delaware River Committee and vice president of Friends of the Upper Delaware.
At the Buckingham, PA access, Smethurst spoke with Elizabeth Maclin, vice president for Eastern conservation at TU, about the potential impacts to the river and its watershed. Maclin identified one of the organization’s major concerns to be the massive amounts of water needed for hydraulic fracturing and said the organization has called for a cumulative analysis of water consumption for the multiple wells expected to be drilled.
Maclin also said that wastewater disposal is another important issue, due to the presence of toxic chemicals mixed into the fracking fluids. She cited recent examples of contamination in Dimock, PA, related to drilling operations there. “Even with the best environmental regulations, there will be negative impacts to the cold-water habitat,” she said. “It will be critical to work with the states to ensure protections for streams and trout habitat.”
Maclin called development of the Marcellus Shale “the biggest issue to impact trout habitat in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia in decades.”
She lamented the current move to lease more publicly owned land for gas exploration. “The state gamelands are the last remaining stretches of intact habitat for many species,” she said.
“Based on what we’ve seen in other parts of the country, there will be accidents and unanticipated impacts,” she said. “It will be a daunting prospect to try to protect that habitat.”
Such impacts will also affect sportsmen. “We expect to see a lot of disruption of habitat that will have a significant impact on hunting and fishing,” said Maclin. “It will radically change their experience. Thousands who come for this may no longer want to. Some of the best habitat is targeted for exploration and extraction.”
Maclin said that TU is working with many diverse partners, such as sportsman groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice and others. She urged fishermen to make their voices heard by contacting their state representatives and getting involved with the efforts of groups like TU to advocate for appropriate regulatory measures and increased funding for enforcement of those regulations. “We’re aggressively raising funds to hire someone to work full time on this,” she said.
TU staffer Deb Nardone has been lobbying in support of the S. 1215, commonly called the FRAC act, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing. “It’s a huge issue for TU, to effect change on this,” said Maclin. And while she noted that sportsmen are generally well informed on this issue, she said that they aren’t as engaged as they could be. “We hope to provide support for them to do so,” she added.
Smethurst, who has lived with gas exploration near his home in Telluride, CO for the past 10 years, acknowledged the lure of the windfall that accompanies natural gas development. “Some profit immensely; some not at all,” he said. “It’s not hard to identify with these landowners, yet it’s such a toxic process.”
Ironic that eminent domain is a one of those flash point issues for the rugged individual, small-government advocates. I guess not when it means the same rugged individual small-government advocates will be getting rich at the expense of their neighbors. For some of us landowners, it’s not about getting rich -- it’s about being a steward of your land for your grandkids. Pumping toxins into the ground for a quick buck is not being a good steward.
Want some insight into the mindset of the pro-drilling, rugged landowner set, read this thread from PA Gas Lease forum. Here’s the link. Read it; it’s worth it: Columbia U. publishes slick anti-drilling rag It sounds like some landowners would just assume get paid by NYC not to drill than to drill. Kind of like holding your land hostage at the expense of clean water. Doesn't seem very nice and neighborly.
Lastly, here’s something from that radical bunch of environmental wackos, Trout Unlimited. Not good. It’s time to write letters to the DEC…
Trout Unlimited angles on gas impacts
World class fisher and television host filmed on the Delaware
By SANDY LONG
UPPER DELAWARE REGION — “It’s changed the region where I live in Colorado entirely within a decade,” said Frank Smethurst, on the topic of natural gas extraction. Host of Trout Unlimited’s (TU) “On the Rise,” a nationally broadcast television show that airs on the Sportsman Channel, Smethurst spent three days along the Upper Delaware River last week, casting in the clear waters and filming for a future segment to be broadcast next April.
Smethhurst was guided by local longtime river advocate, Lee Hartman, chairperson of Pennsylvania TU’s Delaware River Committee and vice president of Friends of the Upper Delaware.
At the Buckingham, PA access, Smethurst spoke with Elizabeth Maclin, vice president for Eastern conservation at TU, about the potential impacts to the river and its watershed. Maclin identified one of the organization’s major concerns to be the massive amounts of water needed for hydraulic fracturing and said the organization has called for a cumulative analysis of water consumption for the multiple wells expected to be drilled.
Maclin also said that wastewater disposal is another important issue, due to the presence of toxic chemicals mixed into the fracking fluids. She cited recent examples of contamination in Dimock, PA, related to drilling operations there. “Even with the best environmental regulations, there will be negative impacts to the cold-water habitat,” she said. “It will be critical to work with the states to ensure protections for streams and trout habitat.”
Maclin called development of the Marcellus Shale “the biggest issue to impact trout habitat in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia in decades.”
She lamented the current move to lease more publicly owned land for gas exploration. “The state gamelands are the last remaining stretches of intact habitat for many species,” she said.
“Based on what we’ve seen in other parts of the country, there will be accidents and unanticipated impacts,” she said. “It will be a daunting prospect to try to protect that habitat.”
Such impacts will also affect sportsmen. “We expect to see a lot of disruption of habitat that will have a significant impact on hunting and fishing,” said Maclin. “It will radically change their experience. Thousands who come for this may no longer want to. Some of the best habitat is targeted for exploration and extraction.”
Maclin said that TU is working with many diverse partners, such as sportsman groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice and others. She urged fishermen to make their voices heard by contacting their state representatives and getting involved with the efforts of groups like TU to advocate for appropriate regulatory measures and increased funding for enforcement of those regulations. “We’re aggressively raising funds to hire someone to work full time on this,” she said.
TU staffer Deb Nardone has been lobbying in support of the S. 1215, commonly called the FRAC act, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing. “It’s a huge issue for TU, to effect change on this,” said Maclin. And while she noted that sportsmen are generally well informed on this issue, she said that they aren’t as engaged as they could be. “We hope to provide support for them to do so,” she added.
Smethurst, who has lived with gas exploration near his home in Telluride, CO for the past 10 years, acknowledged the lure of the windfall that accompanies natural gas development. “Some profit immensely; some not at all,” he said. “It’s not hard to identify with these landowners, yet it’s such a toxic process.”
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Yeah, the state can't win with this one. Nor the landowner. On the one hand, people cry "eminent domain!" because the state is forcing them to do something they don't want with their land. On the other hand, people would be crying (like they started to here) that one "neighbor" could do something like drill wells along the borders of his property and extract gas under the neighbors who border him WITHOUT compensating them. I guess the state went with what would be fair MONETARILY for its citizens. (btw, if someone you know gets integrated into a drilling unit, let them know that they have three options(nys will send a letter that they have to act upon quickly) with vastly different outcomes to choose from. FIND A LAWYER that is well versed in the topic. There is one option that the Gas Companies hate...I'd suggest it.
I did not read the thread, but
If a landowner has gas under his property that is worth X number of dollars, but NYC does not want him to convert that gas to capital for reasons that may benefit NYC, shouldn't the landowner be compensated by them to do what they want him to do? It is his gas that NYC wants to stop him from accessing...
Didn't you just rail against the government forcing landowners to do something they did not want to do? This would be the government forcing him to NOT do something he wanted to.
NYC has NOT been a good neighbor to the folks in the Catskills anyway, so make 'em pay.
Hey, I read through this, there is no date on it, but if it was recent, wouldn't have some of these TU guys and gals been at the same meeting with Ryan to hear about the legal spreading of frack water on PA highways? With all that talk in that article...Frack water this, Frack water that, not one quote in the article about it. I read it twice, just to be sure. Maybe they forgot.
We've GOT to get to the bottom of this, don't we Ryan?
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Your worried about being poisoned?
You chose to live in Jersey. You chose to live on a superfund site where you can't drink the water. Please.
You know what the crazy part is? The money you are paying for the gas to heat your house, will help pay me. In fact, the gas from my land, might someday heat your home. Nice doin' business with ya'.
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
I love you man. I aspire to be you.
You certainly put me in my place.
You have shown me the light at the end of the landowners gas drilling tunnel, and you are the master of usenet.
I have much to learn from you.
My apologies to all the others for wasting bandwidth.
FOAD, best regards, all that-
-mike
You certainly put me in my place.
You have shown me the light at the end of the landowners gas drilling tunnel, and you are the master of usenet.
I have much to learn from you.
My apologies to all the others for wasting bandwidth.
FOAD, best regards, all that-
-mike
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Here is a link: http://www.pressconnects.com/assets/pdf/CB1446181016.PDF
which leads to a pdf. It is a report on the spills in Dimock, PA and what the company plans to do in the future to prevent it again.
Notable: It reports the two chemicals used in the Frac process (polysaccharide and paraffinic solvent) AND the concentration of the fracking agent and water(.5%).
which leads to a pdf. It is a report on the spills in Dimock, PA and what the company plans to do in the future to prevent it again.
Notable: It reports the two chemicals used in the Frac process (polysaccharide and paraffinic solvent) AND the concentration of the fracking agent and water(.5%).
Uh no, unfortunately Liz (who works for TU National and not PATU) could not make our meeting this year, though she has been in other years (but a representative from TU National was there and heard the comment(s), actually it was PATU's Fall Membership Meeting and Leadership Training. The agenda wasn't about fracking fluid and the comment was brief and was made to make us aware of some of the potential problems that could arise from fracing in PA, with such little protection and oversights currently available under PA DEP.
Apparently you suck at reading, or at least making connections within articles (and you're teaching students?) Here's something you missed both times: Maclin identified one of the organization’s major concerns to be the massive amounts of water needed for hydraulic fracturing and said the organization has called for a cumulative analysis of water consumption for the multiple wells expected to be drilled.
Maclin also said that wastewater disposal is another important issue, due to the presence of toxic chemicals mixed into the fracking fluids. She cited recent examples of contamination in Dimock, PA, related to drilling operations there. “Even with the best environmental regulations, there will be negative impacts to the cold-water habitat,” she said. “It will be critical to work with the states to ensure protections for streams and trout habitat.”
Maclin called development of the Marcellus Shale “the biggest issue to impact trout habitat in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia in decades.”
As far as the "we" in needing to get to the bottom of this, there is definitely no we when it comes to you and I. Except maybe for the fact we mutually despise each other!
Last edited:
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Ryan, what sucks is your ability to read posts and connect what is written by others to what you yourself has written. (You also love the word "apparently" as also in " Here's a shocker I learned over the weekend: apparently it is legal to dump frack water on highways, as long as it is not near a water body! " Then, "As far as where I learned about the legality of dumping used frackwater on highways a roomful of conservationists we're told it straight from a PFBC Commissioner's mouth. ", Then, " (he was the one that informed us that it was apparently legal in order to get the word out to others that might not know it. It was a shock to him as well... "
A recap:
1. You told everyone here that a PFBC Comissioner told a bunch of PATU people and other "conservationists" that it was legal to dump Frac water on PA highways.
2. He did this to "get the word out".
3. A bunch of PA TU people are talking with a reporter about issues pertaining to gas drilling (including Fracking issues)and do NOT mention that in PA it is legal to dump TOXIC water on PA roadways?
This stretches the bounds of credulity... This FRACK water that will kill us all when it gets into our drinking water (after it kills all the trout) spread on the highways and byways in PA, discussed with TU folks with a PFBC Commissioner with the intention of getting the word out, NOT discussed by Tu folks with a reporter IF FOR THE ONLY REASON of SHOCKING(and not protecting) the papers reporters and readers...
If you as a resident of PA (let alone a PATU guy, don't care to get to the bottom of this Frack water on PA highways, you leave me no choice, I must go it alone...
I suggest that PATU revamp their "PATU's Fall Membership Meeting and Leadership Training". It seems they are NOT training people to LEAD.
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Hey you're back! I thought I had killed this thread!
I hope you're feeling civil again. I'm sorry I got you so angry that you lashed out at my stupidity.
I really am starting to get on board w/ you and Kilgore Farms. Landowners rights: -pry this lease and deed from my cold dead hands, defend my rights as a property owner, live off the land, gas drilling is coming let's take advantage of it before it takes advantage of us, all that. I think 'we' might not want to give all the tree-hugging bunny-humpers on this site anymore useless amunition (like that damn draft GEIS) to throw back in our faces. We need to find something more concrete. We need laws that are already written. Can't you find us some of those?
I think I have an absolutely outstanding idea that I'd lke to run past you. there might be some investigation involved on your part, as i'm just an idea man...more on this later.
Here are a few more personal items of interest for you should you feel the urge to lash out again:
- I not only knowingly bought a house OUTSIDE a superfund sight (I'm not so sure you caught 'overlooking a valley'), I moved from a town that had five (5)! I thought it was a move up (truly I'm a horses ass). I should have married into land, or it could have even better if I were born into it.
Really, Superfund sites aren't so bad. The kids and teachers down in Franklin Tnsp School will be just fine now that the VOC's leaking into classrooms issue has been remediated.
I see the EPA is actually monitoring a few sites in the Unadilla area (Libbey dump, plywood manufacturer, etc). You might luck out and have a superfund site waaay before gas drilling starts. Between that and the rumors of the triple murder, and the racetrack, property values should be plummeting. I think you were thinking about buying more land in the area...I can help you with the Superfund thing. Don't worry about any of the sites they discover; the feds throw big money at them! They can afford it. It's the undiscovered ones...well... don't worry about those either. Don't have any children do you?
- I was stupid enough to actually buy a house, and I'm even more stupid because I took out a regular mortgage (horses ass!) on a house that I can almost afford. AND, I took out one of those fixed-rate mortgages, so now I can't get the Feds to help me out by paying my mortgage! Stupid, hardworking me...but I'm learning! I just need a lease-
- I'm a little overweight since my lower back injury. Go easy on this one.
Anyway, I've turned up the heat a few clicks and stopped splitting wood.
I think I need to get everyone burning more NaturalGas. The sooner you start receiving lease money the sooner the Feds get your Capital Gains taxes! (It's really like one big happy financial circle!) I need to get those taxes funneled back into the Superfund sites. I'm pretty far outside the affected area, but all this reading on gas exploration make me realize that as unlikely as the site is to move my way the 'experts' in geology just aren't really that good at it. It would be great if your Coalition got taxed in 2010 so we could dump more money down here...
Of couse if my genius plan pans out I could be living in MT or maybe NZ soon!
Last edited by a moderator:
Stonefly
Conservation isn't a tag line...
<TABLE style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=top>Gas Drilling Vs. Drinking Water: New York City Consultant’s Report Sets Stage for Fight With Albanyffice
ffice" /><O
></O>
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - October 7, 2009 11:11 pm EDT <O></O>
NYC mayoral candidate William Thompson criticized the state's tentative proposal to allow drilling in the watershed. Mayor Bloomberg's office said water safety is "not a fringe issue for this administration." Photo credit: Water drop (
A version of this story appeared in the Albany Times-Union [1] on Oct. 8, 2009. <O></O>
A preliminary report [2] from a consultant hired by New York City warns that "nearly every activity" associated with natural gas drilling could potentially harm the city’s drinking water supply and that while the risk can be reduced with strict regulations, "the likelihood of water quality impairment … cannot be eliminated [2]."
That assessment contrasts sharply with the picture presented by an environmental review released by state officials last week [3]. Aside from clauses that ban some waste pits and promise additional consideration for drilling within 1,000 feet of the city’s reservoirs and water infrastructure in upstate New York, the environmental review does little to respond to New York City’s long-standing concerns [4] that the watershed deserves special environmental consideration and instead paves the way for drilling to proceed throughout the watershed.
The issue appears to be emerging as a point of controversy in New York City’s mayoral election.
City comptroller and mayoral candidate William Thompson criticized the state’s environmental review in a news release and said Mayor Michael Bloomberg should be more outspoken. "I am also concerned that the City and the Water Board have been extremely lax in responding to this threat," he said.
Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Bloomberg’s office, said the mayor will withhold judgment until he sees the final version of the report the city commissioned from Hazen and Sawyer, a New York City-based environmental engineering firm. The full report isn’t expected to be delivered until December, after the public comment period for the state environmental review has ended.
LaVorgna emphasized that the Bloomberg administration has invested heavily in the city’s water system and would not rule out a protracted fight to protect it.
"This is not a fringe issue for this administration," LaVorgna said. "This is a mayor that adamantly orders tap water every night he dines out."
In one of his few statements on the subject, Bloomberg, who has generally supported the idea of energy development, told WNYC radio Thursday [5] that "if this has the danger of polluting, we would fight it."
The clashing reports seem poised to reignite long-standing tensions between upstate New York and New York City, which depends almost entirely on water delivered from rural, upstate areas.
"The stakes are very high based on the conclusions of this report," Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said in an interview with ProPublica. The report, he said, "suggests that city elected officials have a role to play here and a responsibility to step up and say, ‘What does frack drilling mean to New York City residents?’"
Last week Stringer announced he was launching a Kill the Drill campaign.
New York is one of four major cities in the United States with a special permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowing its drinking water to go unfiltered. That pristine water comes from a network of upstate reservoirs and rivers spread across 1,600 square miles in five upstate counties. Those reservoirs – which all lie west of the Hudson River – supply 90 percent of the drinking water for 9 million downstate residents, nearly half the state’s population. If the EPA were to rescind the city’s special permit, New York City would have to build a treatment facility that could cost between $10 billion and $30 billion, according to various estimates.
Hazen and Sawyer’s early findings [2] were summarized at a city meeting last week and posted on the city Department of Environmental Protection’s Web site Tuesday evening, after repeated requests for the document by ProPublica over the past several days.
The report [2], and an accompanying summary PowerPoint presentation, lay out several areas of concern. The consultants found that drilling "introduces hazardous chemicals into the watershed" and that "the well bore, which acts as a conduit between geologic formations, can allow previously isolated contaminants to flow into shallow groundwater or surface water."
The research also warned of "enormous volumes" of wastewater and said there are no treatment plants in the region designed to treat these wastes. It said the disturbance from hydraulic fracturing could cause seismic shifts or otherwise damage the tunnels or aqueducts that bring the water to the city. Hydraulic fracturing shoots millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground with such force that it breaks rock and releases pockets of gas.
So far, New York City’s top officials have preferred a behind-the-scenes approach as the public debate over the state’s natural gas drilling policy unfurls in Albany. City DEP officials have protested to the state Department of Environmental Conservation in private letters, but have said little publicly.
In a letter obtained by ProPublica in July 2008, then New York City DEP commissioner Emily Lloyd asked the DEC commissioner [6] to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to consider a partial ban on drilling near the reservoirs that supply New York City’s water. Shortly afterward, and following an investigation by ProPublica, Gov. David Paterson ordered the environmental review [7] that was released Sept. 30. Called the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, it supplements gas and oil drilling rules established in 1992 [8]. New York City officials have since sent several additional letters to the state DEC voicing their ongoing concerns.
A spokesman for the state DEC did not return repeated calls for comment.
The state supplemental draft report discloses many of the drilling chemicals, as Lloyd had requested, and it also strengthens several other environmental protections. But it did not recommend a full or partial ban on drilling in the watershed.
The supplementary impact statement is now subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which final guidelines will be issued. But Stringer and others are pressing the state for a 30-day extension, which would allow the findings from the Hazen and Sawyer report to be included.
Read the "Rapid Impact Assessment Report [2]" by consulting firm Hazen and Sawyer.
Read our full coverage of natural gas drilling [9].
ProPublica reporters Joaquin Sapien and Saprina Shankman contributed to this story.
Tags: Bill Thompson, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Environmental Protection, Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing, Michael Bloomberg, Natural Gas, New York, New York City, Water Contamination<O></O>
<O></O>
This story can be found on the web at the following address:
Gas Drilling Vs. Drinking Water: New York City Consultant’s Report Sets Stage for Fight With Albany - ProPublica<O></O>
<!-- END CENTER COLUMN --><?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 class=inlineimg title="Stick Out Tongue" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" alt="" src="http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif" smilieid="6" border="0" v:shapetype o<>
<!-- END RIGHT COLUMN -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</v:shapetype>
ffice" /><O></O>by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - October 7, 2009 11:11 pm EDT <O
></O>NYC mayoral candidate William Thompson criticized the state's tentative proposal to allow drilling in the watershed. Mayor Bloomberg's office said water safety is "not a fringe issue for this administration." Photo credit: Water drop (
A version of this story appeared in the Albany Times-Union [1] on Oct. 8, 2009. <O
></O>A preliminary report [2] from a consultant hired by New York City warns that "nearly every activity" associated with natural gas drilling could potentially harm the city’s drinking water supply and that while the risk can be reduced with strict regulations, "the likelihood of water quality impairment … cannot be eliminated [2]."
That assessment contrasts sharply with the picture presented by an environmental review released by state officials last week [3]. Aside from clauses that ban some waste pits and promise additional consideration for drilling within 1,000 feet of the city’s reservoirs and water infrastructure in upstate New York, the environmental review does little to respond to New York City’s long-standing concerns [4] that the watershed deserves special environmental consideration and instead paves the way for drilling to proceed throughout the watershed.
The issue appears to be emerging as a point of controversy in New York City’s mayoral election.
City comptroller and mayoral candidate William Thompson criticized the state’s environmental review in a news release and said Mayor Michael Bloomberg should be more outspoken. "I am also concerned that the City and the Water Board have been extremely lax in responding to this threat," he said.
Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Bloomberg’s office, said the mayor will withhold judgment until he sees the final version of the report the city commissioned from Hazen and Sawyer, a New York City-based environmental engineering firm. The full report isn’t expected to be delivered until December, after the public comment period for the state environmental review has ended.
LaVorgna emphasized that the Bloomberg administration has invested heavily in the city’s water system and would not rule out a protracted fight to protect it.
"This is not a fringe issue for this administration," LaVorgna said. "This is a mayor that adamantly orders tap water every night he dines out."
In one of his few statements on the subject, Bloomberg, who has generally supported the idea of energy development, told WNYC radio Thursday [5] that "if this has the danger of polluting, we would fight it."
The clashing reports seem poised to reignite long-standing tensions between upstate New York and New York City, which depends almost entirely on water delivered from rural, upstate areas.
"The stakes are very high based on the conclusions of this report," Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said in an interview with ProPublica. The report, he said, "suggests that city elected officials have a role to play here and a responsibility to step up and say, ‘What does frack drilling mean to New York City residents?’"
Last week Stringer announced he was launching a Kill the Drill campaign.
New York is one of four major cities in the United States with a special permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowing its drinking water to go unfiltered. That pristine water comes from a network of upstate reservoirs and rivers spread across 1,600 square miles in five upstate counties. Those reservoirs – which all lie west of the Hudson River – supply 90 percent of the drinking water for 9 million downstate residents, nearly half the state’s population. If the EPA were to rescind the city’s special permit, New York City would have to build a treatment facility that could cost between $10 billion and $30 billion, according to various estimates.
Hazen and Sawyer’s early findings [2] were summarized at a city meeting last week and posted on the city Department of Environmental Protection’s Web site Tuesday evening, after repeated requests for the document by ProPublica over the past several days.
The report [2], and an accompanying summary PowerPoint presentation, lay out several areas of concern. The consultants found that drilling "introduces hazardous chemicals into the watershed" and that "the well bore, which acts as a conduit between geologic formations, can allow previously isolated contaminants to flow into shallow groundwater or surface water."
The research also warned of "enormous volumes" of wastewater and said there are no treatment plants in the region designed to treat these wastes. It said the disturbance from hydraulic fracturing could cause seismic shifts or otherwise damage the tunnels or aqueducts that bring the water to the city. Hydraulic fracturing shoots millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground with such force that it breaks rock and releases pockets of gas.
So far, New York City’s top officials have preferred a behind-the-scenes approach as the public debate over the state’s natural gas drilling policy unfurls in Albany. City DEP officials have protested to the state Department of Environmental Conservation in private letters, but have said little publicly.
In a letter obtained by ProPublica in July 2008, then New York City DEP commissioner Emily Lloyd asked the DEC commissioner [6] to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to consider a partial ban on drilling near the reservoirs that supply New York City’s water. Shortly afterward, and following an investigation by ProPublica, Gov. David Paterson ordered the environmental review [7] that was released Sept. 30. Called the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, it supplements gas and oil drilling rules established in 1992 [8]. New York City officials have since sent several additional letters to the state DEC voicing their ongoing concerns.
A spokesman for the state DEC did not return repeated calls for comment.
The state supplemental draft report discloses many of the drilling chemicals, as Lloyd had requested, and it also strengthens several other environmental protections. But it did not recommend a full or partial ban on drilling in the watershed.
The supplementary impact statement is now subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which final guidelines will be issued. But Stringer and others are pressing the state for a 30-day extension, which would allow the findings from the Hazen and Sawyer report to be included.
Read the "Rapid Impact Assessment Report [2]" by consulting firm Hazen and Sawyer.
Read our full coverage of natural gas drilling [9].
ProPublica reporters Joaquin Sapien and Saprina Shankman contributed to this story.
Tags: Bill Thompson, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Environmental Protection, Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing, Michael Bloomberg, Natural Gas, New York, New York City, Water Contamination<O
></O><O
></O>This story can be found on the web at the following address:
Gas Drilling Vs. Drinking Water: New York City Consultant’s Report Sets Stage for Fight With Albany - ProPublica<O
></O><!-- END CENTER COLUMN --><?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 class=inlineimg title="Stick Out Tongue" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" alt="" src="http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif" smilieid="6" border="0" v:shapetype o<>
- Buried Secrets: Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat<O></O>
<!-- END RIGHT COLUMN -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</v:shapetype>
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Future Fanatic, Kilgore Farms:
I'm there. You have made a very convicing argument. Gas drilling is coming, and we all need to get on board!
I'm reading through all the old posts (I might offer some suggestions regarding these) and making a "pro" list. the "con' list should be relatively short!
-NY law provides for the mining of mineral (incl gas) under the landowner's property. (Lets' not make a big deal about the horizontal wells. I see data that says these could extend for up to 5,000 feet; can you guys confirm? It's probably best that we don't let this get out to all those GreenPeas granola bar eating pot-smoking hippie neighbors that we can take their gas from almost a mile away.)
-NY law for oil and gas drilling appears to have last changed in 1992. There is now an EIS that is quite detailed (800+ pages) that exists to protect ALL NY residents. (Let's go ahead and assume that this is written in stone. Others don't need to know that this is a draft, and will probably remain open for comment for many months, and that it could change significantly before it becomes law. It's really best to show that the landowners are interested in an "Environmental Impact Statement". The tree-hugging bunny-humpers don't need to know any more about this document than what we cut and paste for them. They won't read it. )
-EPA Clean Air and Water Acts are currently protecting everyone, even those NYCity 'people' and horses asses like me in NJ. Only a portion of the Act was modified in 2005 to make it easier for us to become "ENERGY INDEPENDANT". (The hippies from GreenPeas can't argue against this. Let's push this term hard. If you get any objections confront them w/ this. It makes objectors seem un-American. Be very careful when someone says that the gas exploration companies couldn't afford to retrieve the gas if they had to worry about maintaining the same standards as a car wash, laundromat, or dry cleaner. Leave this alone if possible. Quickly tell them "it's in the gEIS" and let them go read those 800+ painful pages. They'll get sidetracked soon enough.)
-It will bring JOBS and much-needed INCOME to a depressed area. (The hotel rooms that would nomally be deserted by the tourists and fishermen who will stop coming will most likely be filled by the drilling crew personel. Same w/ the restuaraunts and gas stations and such. Don't mention the resulting lack of tourism and the bunny-humpers will just assume an increase in these service areas. Don't let on about it being a wash at best. If there are enough frack fluid spills some towns might bring on additional special services and equipment to supplement the volunteer fire departments. We'll need to watch for this and let all the proponent websites know, and call the local papers to get it covered in the news. It will make us seem more like real towns instead of the podunk little villages the tourists like so much. just make it seem like this id just the beginning of a revitalization. No one will question how long the drilling will last.)
-Landowner's rights! It is absolutely the right of the landowner to allow drilling! (We need to stress this again and again. THIS IS HUGE. It's not the same as 'NYS law provides...' Landowners' rights make it an American issue, and brings out huge feelings of patriotism and settling the West! Just come right out and say you're expecting a huge windfall from your lease if you're asked, but don't volunteer this info. Anyone who questions this will seem un'merican. I suspect if you do this correctly Republicans will offer up their flag lapel pins and their support.)
-Income for landowners so they don't lose the farms that have been in some families for generations. (Probably shouldn't mention anything about 'keeping developers at bay'. Some may not be totally convinced that drilling and the associated activity is better than a dozen or 2 dozen nice homes on 5 or 20 acre lots. Just because the rest of the country is in a depression, and 'we' are about to be rolling in it doesn't mean we should rub their noses in our gas, so to speak. Let's not compare forclosures in our area to other areas and just yet... Also, the naysayers don't need to know about how we're getting huge property tax breaks just for letting the local farmer cut some old hay fieilds, or for letting our freinds cut a few pines on our 'xmas tree farms'. We're "gentleman' farmers, that's all. They also don't need to know that we took money for logging, or sand and gravel pits, or stone quarries and our land is now worthless. Some of your neighbors might just be bad businessman, or poor farmers, but it doesn't mean they should'nt get some of this $$. There's plenty $$ to around provided we get all on board!)
More tomorrow. Wait until we get to the "technology" part of the pro list.
You're gonna love my 'plan'.
I'm there. You have made a very convicing argument. Gas drilling is coming, and we all need to get on board!
I'm reading through all the old posts (I might offer some suggestions regarding these) and making a "pro" list. the "con' list should be relatively short!
-NY law provides for the mining of mineral (incl gas) under the landowner's property. (Lets' not make a big deal about the horizontal wells. I see data that says these could extend for up to 5,000 feet; can you guys confirm? It's probably best that we don't let this get out to all those GreenPeas granola bar eating pot-smoking hippie neighbors that we can take their gas from almost a mile away.)
-NY law for oil and gas drilling appears to have last changed in 1992. There is now an EIS that is quite detailed (800+ pages) that exists to protect ALL NY residents. (Let's go ahead and assume that this is written in stone. Others don't need to know that this is a draft, and will probably remain open for comment for many months, and that it could change significantly before it becomes law. It's really best to show that the landowners are interested in an "Environmental Impact Statement". The tree-hugging bunny-humpers don't need to know any more about this document than what we cut and paste for them. They won't read it. )
-EPA Clean Air and Water Acts are currently protecting everyone, even those NYCity 'people' and horses asses like me in NJ. Only a portion of the Act was modified in 2005 to make it easier for us to become "ENERGY INDEPENDANT". (The hippies from GreenPeas can't argue against this. Let's push this term hard. If you get any objections confront them w/ this. It makes objectors seem un-American. Be very careful when someone says that the gas exploration companies couldn't afford to retrieve the gas if they had to worry about maintaining the same standards as a car wash, laundromat, or dry cleaner. Leave this alone if possible. Quickly tell them "it's in the gEIS" and let them go read those 800+ painful pages. They'll get sidetracked soon enough.)
-It will bring JOBS and much-needed INCOME to a depressed area. (The hotel rooms that would nomally be deserted by the tourists and fishermen who will stop coming will most likely be filled by the drilling crew personel. Same w/ the restuaraunts and gas stations and such. Don't mention the resulting lack of tourism and the bunny-humpers will just assume an increase in these service areas. Don't let on about it being a wash at best. If there are enough frack fluid spills some towns might bring on additional special services and equipment to supplement the volunteer fire departments. We'll need to watch for this and let all the proponent websites know, and call the local papers to get it covered in the news. It will make us seem more like real towns instead of the podunk little villages the tourists like so much. just make it seem like this id just the beginning of a revitalization. No one will question how long the drilling will last.)
-Landowner's rights! It is absolutely the right of the landowner to allow drilling! (We need to stress this again and again. THIS IS HUGE. It's not the same as 'NYS law provides...' Landowners' rights make it an American issue, and brings out huge feelings of patriotism and settling the West! Just come right out and say you're expecting a huge windfall from your lease if you're asked, but don't volunteer this info. Anyone who questions this will seem un'merican. I suspect if you do this correctly Republicans will offer up their flag lapel pins and their support.)
-Income for landowners so they don't lose the farms that have been in some families for generations. (Probably shouldn't mention anything about 'keeping developers at bay'. Some may not be totally convinced that drilling and the associated activity is better than a dozen or 2 dozen nice homes on 5 or 20 acre lots. Just because the rest of the country is in a depression, and 'we' are about to be rolling in it doesn't mean we should rub their noses in our gas, so to speak. Let's not compare forclosures in our area to other areas and just yet... Also, the naysayers don't need to know about how we're getting huge property tax breaks just for letting the local farmer cut some old hay fieilds, or for letting our freinds cut a few pines on our 'xmas tree farms'. We're "gentleman' farmers, that's all. They also don't need to know that we took money for logging, or sand and gravel pits, or stone quarries and our land is now worthless. Some of your neighbors might just be bad businessman, or poor farmers, but it doesn't mean they should'nt get some of this $$. There's plenty $$ to around provided we get all on board!)
More tomorrow. Wait until we get to the "technology" part of the pro list.
You're gonna love my 'plan'.
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
My plan is long-term (details later). It relies on the success of gas drilling. Well, it can never actually be considered a success. It relies on gas drilling,and there WILL be some "acceptable" associated environmental costs...
When I mentioned to the wife that I had a plan that in fact relied on completely changing the area we backpacked and fished in when we first met, she was as horrified as I first was.
Then I mentioned that gas drilling would only be good for us, and there are landowners RIGHTS involved, and I used some the same gas company propoganda that I found here in this very thread! And we don't go there anymore so...
I'll get back to helping the proponents w/ their selective use of propoganda.
Meanwhile the wife whipped up a quicky presentation for us. I thinks it's a great idea! It's just an outline of an idea.
This gas battle could go on indefinately (or until the availability of natural gas gets critical) in NY, so we need to get the younger generation aboard...
Smokey the Bear
Hootie The Owl
Joe Camel
...and now...
FRACKY!
When I mentioned to the wife that I had a plan that in fact relied on completely changing the area we backpacked and fished in when we first met, she was as horrified as I first was.
Then I mentioned that gas drilling would only be good for us, and there are landowners RIGHTS involved, and I used some the same gas company propoganda that I found here in this very thread! And we don't go there anymore so...
I'll get back to helping the proponents w/ their selective use of propoganda.
Meanwhile the wife whipped up a quicky presentation for us. I thinks it's a great idea! It's just an outline of an idea.
This gas battle could go on indefinately (or until the availability of natural gas gets critical) in NY, so we need to get the younger generation aboard...
Smokey the Bear
Hootie The Owl
Joe Camel
...and now...
FRACKY!
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Golly, you've got some time on your hands! A for effort!
But there is no need to hit the sarcasm button anymore and get yourself all worked up. The New York Times (I might add VERY liberal and Cheney/Haliburton haters for SURE) wrote this:
If done carefully — and in carefully selected places — drilling should cause minimal environmental harm.
They wouldn't lie, so the world is safe!
And I wanted to post this map again... Looks like Fracky will be unemployed in Jersey.
But there is no need to hit the sarcasm button anymore and get yourself all worked up. The New York Times (I might add VERY liberal and Cheney/Haliburton haters for SURE) wrote this:
If done carefully — and in carefully selected places — drilling should cause minimal environmental harm.
They wouldn't lie, so the world is safe!
And I wanted to post this map again... Looks like Fracky will be unemployed in Jersey.
Attachments
Last edited:
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Golly, you've got some time on your hands! A for effort!
But there is no need to hit the sarcasm button anymore and get yourself all worked up. The New York Times (I might add VERY liberal and Cheney/Haliburton haters for SURE) wrote this:
If done carefully — and in carefully selected places — drilling should cause minimal environmental harm.
They wouldn't lie, so the world is safe!
And I wanted to post this map again... Looks like Fracky will be unemployed in Jersey.
I Concur
Needs to be done carefully and with full transparency. If its not done that way than its likely unecessary damage will be done and someone other than those responsible will have to clean it up (like AK) while we get stuck with the bill. On the flip side if you just say no to any drilling than you at least have to have some credible alternative that provides the same amount of clean energy with roughly the same costs. Right now there are environmental activist groups that are protesting wind farms out west and large solar panel farms in the desert. This kind of activism is an example of why these folks get labeled extremists. Like so many of these issues there is a common sense middle road approach that gets ignored while the 2 extremes go at it.
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Golly, you've got some time on your hands! A for effort!
But there is no need to hit the sarcasm button anymore and get yourself all worked up. The New York Times (I might add VERY liberal and Cheney/Haliburton haters for SURE) wrote this:
If done carefully — and in carefully selected places — drilling should cause minimal environmental harm.
They wouldn't lie, so the world is safe!
And I wanted to post this map again... Looks like Fracky will be unemployed in Jersey.
Actually the wife whipped up the Fracky! idea and presentation in just a few minutes while I was refilling her fly box...marketing genius!
I place little stock in the NY Times. I will check in to their science and tech section if it's laying around, but that's usually old news by the time it hits print. I'm not a Cheney hater; frankly I voted for him the second time around. He was part of a "known" package, when voting for the unknown was just too scary, and a vote for my preferred team would have been wasted. LESSER OF ALL THE EVILS. I just find myself horrified that he pushed this oil and gas discovery exemption through, and did so with a smile.
I'm over the "environmental harm" stuff.
There is just too much money (gas) at stake. Gas drilling is coming to NY, and residents who are proactive about securing new guidlines will help to minimize the damage that will occur.
It is fortunate that gas drilling isn't coming to NJ. We're stupid enough here, and have enough graft in our goverment that we really would turn the Delaware into an open septic system / CHEMICAL DISPOSAL PIT while using it as drinking water.
I am looking forward to becoming part of a much bigger plan...
Last edited:
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Re:massive Nuclear waste disposal site found!
I've always been a big proponent of nuclear power. It responds to demand (unlike solar and wind power that simply can't be 'banked' for nights and windless days). I even was certified by the NRC (I think it was called the AEC then) and worked on a nuclear plant.
Nuclear energy is the answer.
THE TECHNOLOGY IS SAFE, it was human error that caused the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters (this is how we need to sell gas drilling!).
Of course there is the matter of storing the spent material for 240,000 years. NOW WE HAVE THE ANSWER!
There will be an awful lot of very deep holes in the ground in the Marcellus region. Local residents (those who didn't make enough $$ from their leases to move away) will already have been living w/ the mess left after the drilling has stopped. They will be very receptive to a very small stipend for dropping a few harmless pounds of Plutonium-239 down a dead hole! It also solves the security issue (apparently this is a preferred material for backyard nuclear weapons). Simply drop a package down the hole and throw in a few bags of concrete, and the disposal and security issues are resolved!
I'm sure there are some that will complain about the hazards of transportation, the possibility of radiation leaking into ground water, all the same old objections that they had for gas drilling...
But we can use the same arguments, even if there was a problem! "The technology is safe...the same issues could happen transporting fuel oil or gasoline...". We can have the nuclear waste disposal companies talk to a few lawyers. They'll form "non-profit organizations" that will flood the internet w/ propoganda about how much safer it will be than gas drilling!
They will promise the few large landowners that might still be in the area that they can get "special consideration" for pushing the nuclear waste issue through legislation (read: MONEY).
So, what do we need to do to expedite all this? If NY is going to drag it's heels and let silly newsrags like the NY Times get in the way I can always
go to PA. I was feeling a litlle guilty about overreacting so giving you NY guys a chance at getting the ball rolling is the least I can do...but let's get on board! The nuclear waste train is leaving the station!
(By the way, I've already explored the option of putting it (nuclear waste) into hot dogs (except Johnny's). The FDA frowns on such things: apparently they eat waaaay more hot dogs than I do.)
I've always been a big proponent of nuclear power. It responds to demand (unlike solar and wind power that simply can't be 'banked' for nights and windless days). I even was certified by the NRC (I think it was called the AEC then) and worked on a nuclear plant.
Nuclear energy is the answer.
THE TECHNOLOGY IS SAFE, it was human error that caused the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters (this is how we need to sell gas drilling!).
Of course there is the matter of storing the spent material for 240,000 years. NOW WE HAVE THE ANSWER!
There will be an awful lot of very deep holes in the ground in the Marcellus region. Local residents (those who didn't make enough $$ from their leases to move away) will already have been living w/ the mess left after the drilling has stopped. They will be very receptive to a very small stipend for dropping a few harmless pounds of Plutonium-239 down a dead hole! It also solves the security issue (apparently this is a preferred material for backyard nuclear weapons). Simply drop a package down the hole and throw in a few bags of concrete, and the disposal and security issues are resolved!
I'm sure there are some that will complain about the hazards of transportation, the possibility of radiation leaking into ground water, all the same old objections that they had for gas drilling...
But we can use the same arguments, even if there was a problem! "The technology is safe...the same issues could happen transporting fuel oil or gasoline...". We can have the nuclear waste disposal companies talk to a few lawyers. They'll form "non-profit organizations" that will flood the internet w/ propoganda about how much safer it will be than gas drilling!
They will promise the few large landowners that might still be in the area that they can get "special consideration" for pushing the nuclear waste issue through legislation (read: MONEY).
So, what do we need to do to expedite all this? If NY is going to drag it's heels and let silly newsrags like the NY Times get in the way I can always
go to PA. I was feeling a litlle guilty about overreacting so giving you NY guys a chance at getting the ball rolling is the least I can do...but let's get on board! The nuclear waste train is leaving the station!
(By the way, I've already explored the option of putting it (nuclear waste) into hot dogs (except Johnny's). The FDA frowns on such things: apparently they eat waaaay more hot dogs than I do.)
Last edited:
Stonefly
Conservation isn't a tag line...
City squeamish over state plan for watershed drilling<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
A Bloomberg administration interim study finds risks to city’s drinking water from natural gas drilling process<o></o>
<!-- ShareThis Button BEGIN -->By Erik Engquist, October 23, 2009<o></o>
The Bloomberg administration’s concern about the impact of drilling in the city’s upstate watershed is increasing, officials said Friday. Every phase of the extraction of natural gas from the underground Marcellus Shale deposit, which could begin as soon as next summer, poses risks to the city’s drinking water, according to interim findings of an administration study.<o></o>
The horizontal drilling being proposed in New York is already happening in at least eight other states. In conducting its analysis, the Department of Environmental Protection and two engineering consulting firms looked at those operations and found that “failures occurred with every activity associated with horizontal drilling,” said Paul Rush, deputy commissioner of the DEP’s Bureau of Water Supply at a City Council hearing.<o></o>
He outlined a number of risks such drilling would pose to the watershed, which is one of five supplying large cities that operates without filtration, thanks to a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revocation of that waiver when it expires in 2017 would force the city to construct a filtration system, which would cost at least $10 billion to build and $100 million a year to run, said DEP Acting Commissioner Steven Lawitts.<o></o>
Energy companies contend that the risks of drilling in New York would be insignificant under the far-reaching regulations proposed last month by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Proponents of drilling acknowledge there have been incidents in other states, but deny that they have contaminated drinking water supplies. In any event, they say, New York’s regulations will be substantially more stringent and will virtually eliminate any threat to aquifers and reservoirs. “We have the most restrictive DEC in the nation,” said Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Gas and Oil Association of New York, which represents drilling companies.<o></o>
Horizontal drilling emerged only a few years ago as an economical method to extract natural gas from shale, a dense rock that is common 3,000 to 7,000 feet underground in Appalachia. The process involves hydraulic fracturing—the injection of massive quantities of water mixed with sand and chemicals to break up the shale and allow gas to escape. Two years ago, the Paterson administration stopped granting permits for horizontal drilling without a comprehensive environmental review until the state could develop new regulations for it.<o></o>
Last month the state DEC unveiled a draft of those regulations, which totaled more than 1,000 pages, including appendices. The city has asked that the 60-day period to comment on the draft be extended for 45 days, until mid-January, to allow for the completion of its study. “We have not yet received a response from Commissioner [Peter] Grannis,” said Mr. Lawitts at the council hearing.<o></o>
The council hearing was held to consider a non-binding resolution to ask the state to ban horizontal drilling in the watershed, which supplies drinking water to half of the state’s 19 million residents. The watershed sits above about 8.5% of the Marcellus Shale formation, which stretches into Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.<o></o>
Mr. Lawitts said the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are just one of the risks to water supplies. The activity associated with drilling increases the potential for industrial runoff and the migration of saline water and radioactive isotopes into drinking water. Drilling is diametrically opposed to the city’s watershed protection, he said.<o></o>
fficeffice" /><o></o>A Bloomberg administration interim study finds risks to city’s drinking water from natural gas drilling process<o
></o><!-- ShareThis Button BEGIN -->By Erik Engquist, October 23, 2009<o
></o>The Bloomberg administration’s concern about the impact of drilling in the city’s upstate watershed is increasing, officials said Friday. Every phase of the extraction of natural gas from the underground Marcellus Shale deposit, which could begin as soon as next summer, poses risks to the city’s drinking water, according to interim findings of an administration study.<o
></o>The horizontal drilling being proposed in New York is already happening in at least eight other states. In conducting its analysis, the Department of Environmental Protection and two engineering consulting firms looked at those operations and found that “failures occurred with every activity associated with horizontal drilling,” said Paul Rush, deputy commissioner of the DEP’s Bureau of Water Supply at a City Council hearing.<o
></o>He outlined a number of risks such drilling would pose to the watershed, which is one of five supplying large cities that operates without filtration, thanks to a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revocation of that waiver when it expires in 2017 would force the city to construct a filtration system, which would cost at least $10 billion to build and $100 million a year to run, said DEP Acting Commissioner Steven Lawitts.<o
></o>Energy companies contend that the risks of drilling in New York would be insignificant under the far-reaching regulations proposed last month by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Proponents of drilling acknowledge there have been incidents in other states, but deny that they have contaminated drinking water supplies. In any event, they say, New York’s regulations will be substantially more stringent and will virtually eliminate any threat to aquifers and reservoirs. “We have the most restrictive DEC in the nation,” said Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Gas and Oil Association of New York, which represents drilling companies.<o
></o>Horizontal drilling emerged only a few years ago as an economical method to extract natural gas from shale, a dense rock that is common 3,000 to 7,000 feet underground in Appalachia. The process involves hydraulic fracturing—the injection of massive quantities of water mixed with sand and chemicals to break up the shale and allow gas to escape. Two years ago, the Paterson administration stopped granting permits for horizontal drilling without a comprehensive environmental review until the state could develop new regulations for it.<o
></o>Last month the state DEC unveiled a draft of those regulations, which totaled more than 1,000 pages, including appendices. The city has asked that the 60-day period to comment on the draft be extended for 45 days, until mid-January, to allow for the completion of its study. “We have not yet received a response from Commissioner [Peter] Grannis,” said Mr. Lawitts at the council hearing.<o
></o>The council hearing was held to consider a non-binding resolution to ask the state to ban horizontal drilling in the watershed, which supplies drinking water to half of the state’s 19 million residents. The watershed sits above about 8.5% of the Marcellus Shale formation, which stretches into Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.<o
></o>Mr. Lawitts said the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are just one of the risks to water supplies. The activity associated with drilling increases the potential for industrial runoff and the migration of saline water and radioactive isotopes into drinking water. Drilling is diametrically opposed to the city’s watershed protection, he said.<o
></o>Great news here. Now we need to get it out of the Delaware watershed.
October 28, 2009
Gas Company Won’t Drill in New York Watershed
By JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Bowing to intense public pressure, the Chesapeake Energy Corporation says it will not drill for natural gas within the upstate New York watershed, an environmentally sensitive region that supplies unfiltered water to nine million people.
The reversal seems to signal a more conciliatory tone from the gas industry, which is facing mounting opposition in New York to its drilling practices. The decision also increases the pressure on state regulators to reverse their decision to allow drilling within the watershed.
“We are not going to develop those leases, and we are not taking any more leases, and I don’t think anybody else in the industry would dare to acquire leases in the New York City watershed,” Aubrey K. McClendon, the chief executive officer at Chesapeake Energy, said in an interview on Monday in Fort Worth. “Why go through the brain damage of that, when we have so many other opportunities?”
He spoke on the eve of the first scheduled hearing on proposed state rules governing the drilling, on Wednesday in Loch Sheldrake in Sullivan County.
Chesapeake, one of the nation’s biggest gas producers, is the largest leaseholder in the Marcellus Shale, a subterranean layer of shale rock that runs from New York to Tennessee. The shale is believed to hold substantial natural gas reserves.
But extracting gas from shale relies on a method called hydraulic fracturing that has stirred broad concerns. Water, laced with chemicals, is blasted down gas wells at high pressure to break the rock and allow gas to flow out more easily. The technology has vigorously expanded in recent years, allowing for enormous growth in the nation’s natural gas reserves.
But the concerns include the use of chemicals, the disposal of wastewater and the danger of leaks and spills into groundwater and deep aquifers. There also has been a string of explosions from Wyoming to Pennsylvania.
Under energy legislation passed in 2005, the industry won an exemption from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Chesapeake acquired 5,000 acres in the watershed when it bought Columbia Natural Resources a few years ago, and it is currently the only leaseholder in the area.
Over all, Mr. McClendon said, the company’s holdings in the watershed are “a drop in the bucket” compared with the Marcellus field’s potential. He suggested that Chesapeake had more to lose by drilling there than by forgoing it, even though he contended such drilling would do no harm.
“How could any one well be so profitable that it would be worth damaging the New York City water system?” he said.
But Chesapeake and other companies are still expected to drill for gas in areas of the state outside the watershed.
State officials have been eager to embrace the drilling because of its potential economic benefits, especially in the current downturn. This month, the state’s environmental agency said it would allow companies to drill throughout the state, imposing few specific limits on operations.
The proposed regulations, which were requested last year by Gov. David A. Paterson, do not ban drilling in the watershed, as many New York City officials and environmental advocates had urged, but would require buffer zones around reservoirs and aqueducts.
Gas industry representatives say the rules, if enacted, will be among the most restrictive in the country. Opponents say they would be inadequate to prevent contamination.
The New York watershed is an area of about one million acres, representing 4 percent of the state’s total surface. Thanks to gravity, water from the region’s rivers and streams flows to six reservoirs in the Catskills, and then, through a series of aqueducts and tunnels, to the taps of New Yorkers. This system provides unfiltered drinking water for half the state’s population, including 8.2 million people in New York City and about one million people in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties.
Some New York City politicians welcomed Chesapeake’s decision and said they hoped it would have a broader impact. “To proceed with drilling doesn’t make any business sense and doesn’t make environmental sense, and I think Chesapeake understands this, and I am happy they have come to that decision,” said James F. Gennaro, chairman of the City Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection. “If only we could get the state government to come to the same realization. It is strangely ironic.”
Chesapeake’s announcement was also praised by environmental advocates. They said the company’s position should encourage the state to reverse its decision and impose an outright drilling ban throughout the watershed.
“When the industry says it will not drill in the watershed, it sends a strong message to state regulators that drilling there is inappropriate,” said James L. Simpson, an attorney at Riverkeeper, an environmental group.
Hydraulic fracturing pumps huge volumes of water laced with chemicals like benzene into the shale to break it and release the natural gas. The process has been linked to contamination of water wells and the death of livestock exposed to potassium chloride, one of the chemicals used.
State environmental regulators have said they saw no “realistic threat” to water quality that would warrant a drilling ban in the two watersheds in the Catskills region. Their review noted that the city controlled a large amount of the land surrounding the reservoirs and could deny permission to drill in those areas.
In addition to the forum on Wednesday, hearings on the state’s proposed regulations are scheduled Nov. 10 in New York City, Nov. 12 in Broome County and Nov. 18 in Steuben County.
Chesapeake said it had started to publicize the chemical components of the fluids it uses during drilling, down to the percentages for each chemical used since last year, acknowledging criticism that companies had not been transparent enough. “The industry is moving quickly to complete disclosure," Mr. McClendon said.
Mireya Navarro contributed reporting.
October 28, 2009
Gas Company Won’t Drill in New York Watershed
By JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Bowing to intense public pressure, the Chesapeake Energy Corporation says it will not drill for natural gas within the upstate New York watershed, an environmentally sensitive region that supplies unfiltered water to nine million people.
The reversal seems to signal a more conciliatory tone from the gas industry, which is facing mounting opposition in New York to its drilling practices. The decision also increases the pressure on state regulators to reverse their decision to allow drilling within the watershed.
“We are not going to develop those leases, and we are not taking any more leases, and I don’t think anybody else in the industry would dare to acquire leases in the New York City watershed,” Aubrey K. McClendon, the chief executive officer at Chesapeake Energy, said in an interview on Monday in Fort Worth. “Why go through the brain damage of that, when we have so many other opportunities?”
He spoke on the eve of the first scheduled hearing on proposed state rules governing the drilling, on Wednesday in Loch Sheldrake in Sullivan County.
Chesapeake, one of the nation’s biggest gas producers, is the largest leaseholder in the Marcellus Shale, a subterranean layer of shale rock that runs from New York to Tennessee. The shale is believed to hold substantial natural gas reserves.
But extracting gas from shale relies on a method called hydraulic fracturing that has stirred broad concerns. Water, laced with chemicals, is blasted down gas wells at high pressure to break the rock and allow gas to flow out more easily. The technology has vigorously expanded in recent years, allowing for enormous growth in the nation’s natural gas reserves.
But the concerns include the use of chemicals, the disposal of wastewater and the danger of leaks and spills into groundwater and deep aquifers. There also has been a string of explosions from Wyoming to Pennsylvania.
Under energy legislation passed in 2005, the industry won an exemption from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Chesapeake acquired 5,000 acres in the watershed when it bought Columbia Natural Resources a few years ago, and it is currently the only leaseholder in the area.
Over all, Mr. McClendon said, the company’s holdings in the watershed are “a drop in the bucket” compared with the Marcellus field’s potential. He suggested that Chesapeake had more to lose by drilling there than by forgoing it, even though he contended such drilling would do no harm.
“How could any one well be so profitable that it would be worth damaging the New York City water system?” he said.
But Chesapeake and other companies are still expected to drill for gas in areas of the state outside the watershed.
State officials have been eager to embrace the drilling because of its potential economic benefits, especially in the current downturn. This month, the state’s environmental agency said it would allow companies to drill throughout the state, imposing few specific limits on operations.
The proposed regulations, which were requested last year by Gov. David A. Paterson, do not ban drilling in the watershed, as many New York City officials and environmental advocates had urged, but would require buffer zones around reservoirs and aqueducts.
Gas industry representatives say the rules, if enacted, will be among the most restrictive in the country. Opponents say they would be inadequate to prevent contamination.
The New York watershed is an area of about one million acres, representing 4 percent of the state’s total surface. Thanks to gravity, water from the region’s rivers and streams flows to six reservoirs in the Catskills, and then, through a series of aqueducts and tunnels, to the taps of New Yorkers. This system provides unfiltered drinking water for half the state’s population, including 8.2 million people in New York City and about one million people in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties.
Some New York City politicians welcomed Chesapeake’s decision and said they hoped it would have a broader impact. “To proceed with drilling doesn’t make any business sense and doesn’t make environmental sense, and I think Chesapeake understands this, and I am happy they have come to that decision,” said James F. Gennaro, chairman of the City Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection. “If only we could get the state government to come to the same realization. It is strangely ironic.”
Chesapeake’s announcement was also praised by environmental advocates. They said the company’s position should encourage the state to reverse its decision and impose an outright drilling ban throughout the watershed.
“When the industry says it will not drill in the watershed, it sends a strong message to state regulators that drilling there is inappropriate,” said James L. Simpson, an attorney at Riverkeeper, an environmental group.
Hydraulic fracturing pumps huge volumes of water laced with chemicals like benzene into the shale to break it and release the natural gas. The process has been linked to contamination of water wells and the death of livestock exposed to potassium chloride, one of the chemicals used.
State environmental regulators have said they saw no “realistic threat” to water quality that would warrant a drilling ban in the two watersheds in the Catskills region. Their review noted that the city controlled a large amount of the land surrounding the reservoirs and could deny permission to drill in those areas.
In addition to the forum on Wednesday, hearings on the state’s proposed regulations are scheduled Nov. 10 in New York City, Nov. 12 in Broome County and Nov. 18 in Steuben County.
Chesapeake said it had started to publicize the chemical components of the fluids it uses during drilling, down to the percentages for each chemical used since last year, acknowledging criticism that companies had not been transparent enough. “The industry is moving quickly to complete disclosure," Mr. McClendon said.
Mireya Navarro contributed reporting.
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
>>Over all, Mr. McClendon....suggested that Chesapeake had more to lose by drilling there than by forgoing it, even though he contended such drilling would do no harm.
“How could any one well be so profitable that it would be worth damaging the New York City water system?” he said.<<
hhhmmm. I would like to have seen the original transcripts. Very contradictory statements that are presented as though they were made at the same time....
In any case,
there will be plenty of empty holes (and rich landowners to lease them) in PA in a few years!
Let's all do what we can to get some new nuclear plants built!
“How could any one well be so profitable that it would be worth damaging the New York City water system?” he said.<<
hhhmmm. I would like to have seen the original transcripts. Very contradictory statements that are presented as though they were made at the same time....
In any case,
there will be plenty of empty holes (and rich landowners to lease them) in PA in a few years!
Let's all do what we can to get some new nuclear plants built!
NEFF virgin. "house" gave me my first groan. Strangely enough there is no current user "house"...and the info page is restricted. "house" = admin ?
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Re: massive Nuclear waste disposal site found!
Sarcasm aside what do you believe will offer a safe, clean, lasting supply of energy for the future. Just curious as I doubt many folks that fight so hard to prevent natural gas or nuclear power from being expanded actually live their beliefs on a daily basis. Kind of like Al Gore flying around on his corporate jet telling everyone the world is going to end....I know I know..he buys carbon credits so its all good
Sarcasm aside what do you believe will offer a safe, clean, lasting supply of energy for the future. Just curious as I doubt many folks that fight so hard to prevent natural gas or nuclear power from being expanded actually live their beliefs on a daily basis. Kind of like Al Gore flying around on his corporate jet telling everyone the world is going to end....I know I know..he buys carbon credits so its all good
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Re: massive Nuclear waste disposal site found!
I've driven past the huge wind turbines out west (Alberta, Calgary, Montanna, Idaho) and suspect that this is probably the way to go. Unfortunately if you don't use this energy, you loose it (battery/electrical storage technology has been stalled for many, many years...).
I think digging up acres and acres of plains to install a power transmission grid, and pouring all the foundations, etc....is less harmful then gas and oil drilling, and certainly less harmful than hydroelectric (damn those damns).
Obviously there just isn't enough open land around the northeast for this to be used effectively...and I'm not sure that we would have the sustained winds necessary...
Removing entire mountains to access the coal buried under them (as is done in Canada) is such a nightmare. Currently there are parts of Glacier National Park's ecosystem that are being impacted by Canada's coal mining...and I admit I have not done the research, but I don't see coal as a "clean" technology. It has to cost money and energy to scrub the air after coal burning...and it's not working so well now. So many lakes and ponds in the Adirondaks were dead from acid rain that I gave up and sold my cabin there after 13 years.
Wave/tide energy? I'd love to see some research in this area. There was an experimental (but operational) tide power generating station in or around the Wiscasset (spelling?) ME area for a number of years. I don't know where/what has/is happening with this now. It was overshadowed by the nuclear power plant in the area.
I like nuclear energy as the lesser of all evils. I don't live near (downwind) of one. The biggest issue I see is that the tax benefits go only to the town it's built in. If you live next to a nuclear power plant, but in a different township the best you might hope for is a better rate on your electric. This will need to be changed before nuclear power gains widespread acceptance.
Is it safe? Hardly. Is it proven technology? It's probably been around and in use longer than horizontal fracing. Are there unresolved issues? Absolutley. The Maine Yankee plant in Wiscasset was taken offline and deemed 'too expensive to repair'. It is estimated (by tree-huggers, so it's high) that there are now 900tons of nuclear waste to be disposed of. (Lots of empty holes in PA. OH, WV...
)
I suspect we have not seen the last of drilling for gas in the NYC watershed/Delaware River Basin. Sooner or later (sooner) the demand and price for natural gas will be high enough, and the technology will hopefully have improved enough that the application of the technology (the actual drilling and transport) will make the risk reasonable enough to go get it, unless we find an acceptable substitute quickly.
I honestly got over my initial horror of destroying the area where I fished and vacationed when I was younger pretty quickly. I used to backpack, camp, and fish in the Livingston Manor/Willowemac area some 20+ years ago. I then moved vacations up into the Adirondak area, and now my vacation time is split between Maine and Montanna. I'm over the Catskills now.
My biggest issue w/ the drilling and it's associated activities is that gas and oil exploration companies are exempt from the rules that apply to all other businesses! Try to open a new gas station, home heating oil transfer station, dry cleaner, car wash, etc. and see the hoops you need to jump through! Gas exploration companies deal w/ little of this! They cannot be allowed to continue unregulated. They absolutely will turn these areas into wastelands without Federal oversight. These are multi-national corporations, and state laws will be relatively ineffective in dealing w/ them. Federal Standards would make it much easier for the companies to operate. They will be held to a specific set of rules that will change little from state to state. Federal law will also prevent them from abandoning an area and moving on to a state that has lowered it's regulations and requirements in an effort to court them. They also would not have it so easy if there were a catastrophy; closing up shop in PA and moving to NY would not relieve them of their environmental responsibilities in PA.
I would bet very few on this board remember the good old days of unregulated businesses polluting a river so badly that it caught on fire?
Google Cayuhoga, or check Wikipedia...
Love Canal?
The Federal Clean Air and Water Acts were put into place because of disasters like these. And these were just the ones that got heavy media coverage...
Why allow any new drilling or exploration at all until these laws are back in place?
Honestly I can't say I blame Future Fanatic and Kilgore Farms for anything, and I probably should thank them for bringing this to my (our?) attention. They certainly are entitled to do whatever the law permits with their land. As much as it horrifies me to think of anyone being anything less than a "steward" of the land, and acting to preserve it for their children there are those who have grown up with it, and think nothing of using it (land) to make a living. The law provides for this. I can accept that. The law should also protect me against any actions detrimental to my health or land too. I don't think it does, and I would much prefer a Federal solution in this area, as the impending energy shortage is a national problem.
I've driven past the huge wind turbines out west (Alberta, Calgary, Montanna, Idaho) and suspect that this is probably the way to go. Unfortunately if you don't use this energy, you loose it (battery/electrical storage technology has been stalled for many, many years...).
I think digging up acres and acres of plains to install a power transmission grid, and pouring all the foundations, etc....is less harmful then gas and oil drilling, and certainly less harmful than hydroelectric (damn those damns).
Obviously there just isn't enough open land around the northeast for this to be used effectively...and I'm not sure that we would have the sustained winds necessary...
Removing entire mountains to access the coal buried under them (as is done in Canada) is such a nightmare. Currently there are parts of Glacier National Park's ecosystem that are being impacted by Canada's coal mining...and I admit I have not done the research, but I don't see coal as a "clean" technology. It has to cost money and energy to scrub the air after coal burning...and it's not working so well now. So many lakes and ponds in the Adirondaks were dead from acid rain that I gave up and sold my cabin there after 13 years.
Wave/tide energy? I'd love to see some research in this area. There was an experimental (but operational) tide power generating station in or around the Wiscasset (spelling?) ME area for a number of years. I don't know where/what has/is happening with this now. It was overshadowed by the nuclear power plant in the area.
I like nuclear energy as the lesser of all evils. I don't live near (downwind) of one. The biggest issue I see is that the tax benefits go only to the town it's built in. If you live next to a nuclear power plant, but in a different township the best you might hope for is a better rate on your electric. This will need to be changed before nuclear power gains widespread acceptance.
Is it safe? Hardly. Is it proven technology? It's probably been around and in use longer than horizontal fracing. Are there unresolved issues? Absolutley. The Maine Yankee plant in Wiscasset was taken offline and deemed 'too expensive to repair'. It is estimated (by tree-huggers, so it's high) that there are now 900tons of nuclear waste to be disposed of. (Lots of empty holes in PA. OH, WV...
)I suspect we have not seen the last of drilling for gas in the NYC watershed/Delaware River Basin. Sooner or later (sooner) the demand and price for natural gas will be high enough, and the technology will hopefully have improved enough that the application of the technology (the actual drilling and transport) will make the risk reasonable enough to go get it, unless we find an acceptable substitute quickly.
I honestly got over my initial horror of destroying the area where I fished and vacationed when I was younger pretty quickly. I used to backpack, camp, and fish in the Livingston Manor/Willowemac area some 20+ years ago. I then moved vacations up into the Adirondak area, and now my vacation time is split between Maine and Montanna. I'm over the Catskills now.
My biggest issue w/ the drilling and it's associated activities is that gas and oil exploration companies are exempt from the rules that apply to all other businesses! Try to open a new gas station, home heating oil transfer station, dry cleaner, car wash, etc. and see the hoops you need to jump through! Gas exploration companies deal w/ little of this! They cannot be allowed to continue unregulated. They absolutely will turn these areas into wastelands without Federal oversight. These are multi-national corporations, and state laws will be relatively ineffective in dealing w/ them. Federal Standards would make it much easier for the companies to operate. They will be held to a specific set of rules that will change little from state to state. Federal law will also prevent them from abandoning an area and moving on to a state that has lowered it's regulations and requirements in an effort to court them. They also would not have it so easy if there were a catastrophy; closing up shop in PA and moving to NY would not relieve them of their environmental responsibilities in PA.
I would bet very few on this board remember the good old days of unregulated businesses polluting a river so badly that it caught on fire?
Google Cayuhoga, or check Wikipedia...
Love Canal?
The Federal Clean Air and Water Acts were put into place because of disasters like these. And these were just the ones that got heavy media coverage...
Why allow any new drilling or exploration at all until these laws are back in place?
Honestly I can't say I blame Future Fanatic and Kilgore Farms for anything, and I probably should thank them for bringing this to my (our?) attention. They certainly are entitled to do whatever the law permits with their land. As much as it horrifies me to think of anyone being anything less than a "steward" of the land, and acting to preserve it for their children there are those who have grown up with it, and think nothing of using it (land) to make a living. The law provides for this. I can accept that. The law should also protect me against any actions detrimental to my health or land too. I don't think it does, and I would much prefer a Federal solution in this area, as the impending energy shortage is a national problem.
Last edited:
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
Re: massive Nuclear waste disposal site found!
remains to be seen
ummmm...here too.
no such thing as "clean coal". remember what happened in TN (or was it KY? ) last year? the dacks are coming back, though the bush/cheney admin did try to prevent that
interesting, but im sure full of unforseen issues at this point; i'd like to see where this goes
but i still think theres room for responsible nat. gas development
remains to be seen
ummmm...here too.
no such thing as "clean coal". remember what happened in TN (or was it KY? ) last year? the dacks are coming back, though the bush/cheney admin did try to prevent that
interesting, but im sure full of unforseen issues at this point; i'd like to see where this goes
me too.
but i still think theres room for responsible nat. gas development
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Re: massive Nuclear waste disposal site found!
Well you just listed a bunch of energy options and other than nuclear they are either in the very early stages to determine or something that has little to no commercial implementation. You say Nuclear but I get the sense that its nuclear only above burning dead humans for energy. You know why nuclear power plants are so expensive to build and operate...Well after 3 mile island they made it impossible to build new facilities Let alone operate them. My point being that its not acceptable to be against everything. You need to be for something..some kind of real solution that will deliver the energy we all use everyday. Now that some of these new technologies are coming online you get a whole new batch of folks that don't want it. Meanwhile the earth keeps turning and folks need power to live and prosper. Gas drilling is here and provides clean energy and its abundant. Gas companies should clearly work with the gov to perfect the best method for drilling with the lowest impact but we will clearly have some impact. We impact the earth every day. No way around it. The issue is we have swung from one extreme (drill baby drill). To the other extreme (lets all go live in caves but dont light a fire) There is a medium where some impact will occur and we need to have the foresight to contain and remediate these impacts as best as humanely possible. Its not possible to suggest we can generate energy without any impact. You also need energy diversification so that reliance on one type of power doesnt cause us significant harm if it ever becomes unusable or in depleted. These are all complex issues with no easy answers. But in reality our reliance on fossil fuels will not go away any time soon if ever.
I've driven past the huge wind turbines out west (Alberta, Calgary, Montanna, Idaho) and suspect that this is probably the way to go. Unfortunately if you don't use this enery, you loose it (battery/electrical storage technology has been stalled for many, many years...).
I think digging up acres and acres of plains to install a power transmission grid, and pouring all the foundations, etc....is less harmful then gas and oil drilling, and certainly less harmful than hydroelectric (damn those damns).
Obviously there just isn't enough open land around the northeast for this to be used effectively...and I'm not sure that we would have the sustained winds necessary...
Removing entire mountains to access the coal buried under them (as is done in Canada) is such a nightmare. Currently there are parts of Glacier National Park's ecosystem that are being impacted by Canada's coal mining...and I admit I have not done the research, but I don't see coal as a "clean" technology. It has to cost money and energy to scrub the air after coal burning...and it's not working so well now. So many lakes and ponds in the Adirondaks were dead from acid rain that I gave up and sold my cabin there after 13 years.
Wave/tide energy? I'd love to see some research in this area. There was an experimental (but operational) tide power generating station in or around the Wiscasset (spelling?) ME area for a number of years. I don't know where/what has/is happening with this now. It was overshadowed by the nuclear power plant in the area.
I like nuclear energy as the lesser of all evils. I don't live near (downwind) of one. The biggest issue I see is that the tax benefits go only to the town it's built in. If you live next to a nuclear power plant, but in a different township the best you might hope for is a better rate on your electric. This will need to be changed before nuclear power gains widespread acceptance.
Is it safe? Hardly. Is it proven technology? It's probably been around and in use longer than horizontal fracing. Are there unresolved issues? Absolutley. The Maine Yankee plant in Wiscasset was taken offline and deemed 'too expensive to repair'. It is estimated (by tree-huggers, so it's high) that there are now 900tons of nuclear waste to be disposed of. (Lots of empty holes in PA. OH, WV...
I suspect we have not seen the last of drilling for gas in the NYC watershed/Delaware River Basin. Sooner or later (sooner) the demand and price for available natural gas will be high enough, and the technology will hopefully have improved enough that the application of the technology (the actual drilling and transport) will make the risk reasonable enough to go get it, unless we find an acceptable substitute quickly.
I honestly got over my initial horror of destroying the area where I fished and vacationed when I was younger pretty quickly. I used to backpack, camp, and fish in the Livingston Manor/Willowemac area some 20+ years ago. I then moved vacations up into the Adirondak area, and now my vacation time is split between Maine and Montanna. I'm over the Catskills now.
My biggest issue w/ the drilling and it's associated activities is that gas and oil exploration companies are exempt from the rules that apply to all other businesses! Try to open a new gas station, home heating oil transfer station, dry cleaner, car wash, etc. and see the hoops you need to jump through! Gas exploration companies deal w/ little of this! They cannot be allowed to continue unregulated. They absolutely will turn these areas into wastelands without Federal oversight. These are multi-national corporations, and state laws will be relatively ineffective in dealing w/ them. Federal Standards would make it much easier for the companies to operate. They will be held to a specific set of rules that will change little from state to state. Federal law will also prevent them from abandoning an area and moving on to a state that has lowered it's regulations and requirements in an effort to court them. They also would not have it so easy if there were a catastrophy; closing up shop in PA and moving to NY would not relieve them of their environmental responsibilities in PA.
I would bet very few on this board remember the good old days of unregulated businesses polluting a river so badly that it caught on fire?
Google Cayuhoga, or check Wikipedia...
Love Canal?
The Federal Clean Air and Water Acts were put into place because of disasters like these. And these were just the ones that got heavy media coverage...
Why allow any new drilling or exploration at all until these laws are back in place?
Honestly I can't say I blame Future Fanatic and Kilgore Farms for anything, and I probably should thank them for bringing this to my (our?) attention. They certainly entitled to do whatever the law permits with their land. As much as it horrifies me to think of anyone being anything less than a "steward" of the land, and acting to preserve it for their children there are those who have grown up with it, and think nothing of using it (land) to make a living. The law provides for this. I can accept that. The law should also protect me against any actions detrimental to my health or land too. I don't think it does, and I would much prefer a Federal solution in this area, as the impending energy shortage is a national problem.
Well you just listed a bunch of energy options and other than nuclear they are either in the very early stages to determine or something that has little to no commercial implementation. You say Nuclear but I get the sense that its nuclear only above burning dead humans for energy. You know why nuclear power plants are so expensive to build and operate...Well after 3 mile island they made it impossible to build new facilities Let alone operate them. My point being that its not acceptable to be against everything. You need to be for something..some kind of real solution that will deliver the energy we all use everyday. Now that some of these new technologies are coming online you get a whole new batch of folks that don't want it. Meanwhile the earth keeps turning and folks need power to live and prosper. Gas drilling is here and provides clean energy and its abundant. Gas companies should clearly work with the gov to perfect the best method for drilling with the lowest impact but we will clearly have some impact. We impact the earth every day. No way around it. The issue is we have swung from one extreme (drill baby drill). To the other extreme (lets all go live in caves but dont light a fire) There is a medium where some impact will occur and we need to have the foresight to contain and remediate these impacts as best as humanely possible. Its not possible to suggest we can generate energy without any impact. You also need energy diversification so that reliance on one type of power doesnt cause us significant harm if it ever becomes unusable or in depleted. These are all complex issues with no easy answers. But in reality our reliance on fossil fuels will not go away any time soon if ever.
Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
Wind is only practical when you have a backup, the wind doesn't always blow. Sullivan county, NY is actually a very good location for these but like everything else to much harm to the environment, birds bats etc... I'm not making this up.
Solar requires large areas for panels. Again, you need a backup energy source. Environmentalists, to invasive and destroys habitats.
Power would have to be brought from low distances erecting new transmission lines. A lot of ED would have to happen to make solar and wind practical, remember NYRI.
Nuclear preferred but environmentalists still see the seventies and Three Mile Island.
Clean coal, no such thing.
Natural gas could be used as back up to both wind and solar for those times the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Natural gas can and is used by many municipalities for taxis, busses, cars. Trucking/hauling would be an ideal use for NG.
They have just opened up a truck route complete with stations from Utah to California. Utah has the most NG filling stations then any other state, They are ahead of the curve.
NG is 50% cleaner and is used in almost all everyday products, plastics, medicines, beauty products, almost anything you can think of that drives the engines of this country depend on petroleum products and byproducts mostly from NG.
Why would we keep sending our hard earned dollars to foreign contries when we have everything right here.
NG isn't a fix all solution but it can be a valuable bridge to future energy indepenence until technology catches up to the imagination of man..
All most all of the accidents by NG companies are caused by people not processes, therefore it is preventable with proper oversight.
Most people are hippocrates, they want their cake and eat it to. They don't want drilling in their backyard but its OK someplace else. They want cheaper energy yet they restrict the means to have cheaper energy and last but not least they drive cars, trucks and SUV's 2-3 hours to spend a few hours in the Catskills.
The fears of drilling for natural gas are overstated. NYDEC regulation proposals are the most stringent in the country. Gas companies are willingly disclosing their chemicals to the public.
Gas drilling and leasing is a complicated process and is not perfect but then again what is. It can be done if done responsibly.
Prediction: NYC within the next ten years will be leasing their lands in the Catskills to gas companies because they will be forced to by the EPA. Not because of drilling but because the natural degradation of their water system over time and they know it. Drilling will provide the means to pay for it along with water sales. Why do you think Bloomberg doesn't want a drilling ban in the NYC water shed? Cut his nose off to spite his face?
NYC barely got their filtration avoidance in 2007 and are having all kinds of problems with turbility. They have used so much aluminum sulfite, makes water clear, eg Croton, that the aluminum sufite can't be used anymore, its at the saturation point hence, the filtration plant in Croton.
NYC knows this but reading their propaganda you wouldn't. According to NYC everything is hunky dory despite the lost of 34 million gals of water a day and the problems it causes to towns along the aquaducts path which NYC could care less about as long as they get their water. They want to hoard it but don't care if they lose 34 mil gal because its their water. When they release the water from the reservoirs it's no longer theirs, they can't control it.
Solar requires large areas for panels. Again, you need a backup energy source. Environmentalists, to invasive and destroys habitats.
Power would have to be brought from low distances erecting new transmission lines. A lot of ED would have to happen to make solar and wind practical, remember NYRI.
Nuclear preferred but environmentalists still see the seventies and Three Mile Island.
Clean coal, no such thing.
Natural gas could be used as back up to both wind and solar for those times the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Natural gas can and is used by many municipalities for taxis, busses, cars. Trucking/hauling would be an ideal use for NG.
They have just opened up a truck route complete with stations from Utah to California. Utah has the most NG filling stations then any other state, They are ahead of the curve.
NG is 50% cleaner and is used in almost all everyday products, plastics, medicines, beauty products, almost anything you can think of that drives the engines of this country depend on petroleum products and byproducts mostly from NG.
Why would we keep sending our hard earned dollars to foreign contries when we have everything right here.
NG isn't a fix all solution but it can be a valuable bridge to future energy indepenence until technology catches up to the imagination of man..
All most all of the accidents by NG companies are caused by people not processes, therefore it is preventable with proper oversight.
Most people are hippocrates, they want their cake and eat it to. They don't want drilling in their backyard but its OK someplace else. They want cheaper energy yet they restrict the means to have cheaper energy and last but not least they drive cars, trucks and SUV's 2-3 hours to spend a few hours in the Catskills.
The fears of drilling for natural gas are overstated. NYDEC regulation proposals are the most stringent in the country. Gas companies are willingly disclosing their chemicals to the public.
Gas drilling and leasing is a complicated process and is not perfect but then again what is. It can be done if done responsibly.
Prediction: NYC within the next ten years will be leasing their lands in the Catskills to gas companies because they will be forced to by the EPA. Not because of drilling but because the natural degradation of their water system over time and they know it. Drilling will provide the means to pay for it along with water sales. Why do you think Bloomberg doesn't want a drilling ban in the NYC water shed? Cut his nose off to spite his face?
NYC barely got their filtration avoidance in 2007 and are having all kinds of problems with turbility. They have used so much aluminum sulfite, makes water clear, eg Croton, that the aluminum sufite can't be used anymore, its at the saturation point hence, the filtration plant in Croton.
NYC knows this but reading their propaganda you wouldn't. According to NYC everything is hunky dory despite the lost of 34 million gals of water a day and the problems it causes to towns along the aquaducts path which NYC could care less about as long as they get their water. They want to hoard it but don't care if they lose 34 mil gal because its their water. When they release the water from the reservoirs it's no longer theirs, they can't control it.
Last edited:
Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
Posed this on another thread but thought it would fit here as well.
This is why Bloomberg doesn't want a ban. Remember he is first and foremost a businessman.
These figure are not some super optimistic prediction. These figures are based on current production in the Marcellus and $$ for gas are based on near future projections.
NYC has 500 square miles of property in the Catskills.
(100 billion cubic feet per square mile) x (30% recovery) x (500 square miles) x (long term price of $8 per 1000) x (20% royalty) = $24 billion.
So NYC stand to make upwards of $24 billion dollars - $8 billion for filtration plant = $16 billion to NYC.
$100mil for annual up keep and it keeps NYC water sytem running for 160 years.
And people wonder why Bloomberg has been silent on drilling issues concerning the NYC water shed.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
This is why Bloomberg doesn't want a ban. Remember he is first and foremost a businessman.
These figure are not some super optimistic prediction. These figures are based on current production in the Marcellus and $$ for gas are based on near future projections.
NYC has 500 square miles of property in the Catskills.
(100 billion cubic feet per square mile) x (30% recovery) x (500 square miles) x (long term price of $8 per 1000) x (20% royalty) = $24 billion.
So NYC stand to make upwards of $24 billion dollars - $8 billion for filtration plant = $16 billion to NYC.
$100mil for annual up keep and it keeps NYC water sytem running for 160 years.
And people wonder why Bloomberg has been silent on drilling issues concerning the NYC water shed.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Power would have to be brought from low distances erecting new transmission lines. A lot of ED would have to happen to make solar and wind practical, remember NYRI.
?? help here?? ED? NYRI? (horse's ass, remember?)
Nuclear preferred but environmentalists still see the seventies and Three Mile Island.
"Let them go live in caves w/ no fire". I like it.
Natural gas could be used as back up to both wind and solar for those times the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
I'm good w/ wind and a backup too. Solar panel manufacturing needs a breakthrough. They take too much energy to manufacture.
Why would we keep sending our hard earned dollars to foreign contries when we have everything right here.
I'm sure it's because it's cheaper to get it elswhere, w/out the EPA looking over shoulders.
NG isn't a fix all solution but it can be a valuable bridge to future energy indepenence until technology catches up to the imagination of man..
It is definately a limited resource.
All most all of the accidents by NG companies are caused by people not processes, therefore it is preventable with proper oversight.
"All most all" that can be proven, anyway...
How do we eliminate the people? I don't think it's preventable; people make mistakes and create disasters.
The people risk can be minimized with the threat of Federal prosecution and fines...causing employers to be more selective of employees, and spend money on proper training.
Most people are hippocrates, they want their cake and eat it to....and last but not least they drive cars, trucks and SUV's 2-3 hours to spend a few hours in the Catskills.
Actually I was doing that in the 70's in a Jeep! I'm driving 6+ hours to Maine (in a reaonably fuel-efficient 4dr Acura instead of a Toyota pickup), or flying to Montanna. If I convert to NG can I swing by your place on my way north for a quick fill-up on the house?
The fears of drilling for natural gas are overstated. NYDEC regulation proposals are the most stringent in the country.
I'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong...the existing LAWS were last changed in 1992. There is an 800+page PROPOSED DRAFT of an Environmental Impact Statement currently under review, and the review is being held open for comment yet again (slow readers downstate, I guess?
Normally I'm all for giving individual states the power. I choose to ride motorcycles with a $700 helmet. I get pissed that the state of NJ makes me wear it, even though I would wear it anyway. I wear a similar (motocross) helmet when I ski, but will vigorously defend my right (and even your right) to choose whether or not to wear one. I appreciate that the Feds have set standards for seat belts and auto safety, but do not like the fact that I am required to wear one, and always do.
Conversly, I find that child safety seat laws are a positive thing. A childs' stupidity may not be hereditary. They need to be protected from their parents long enough for Darwin to decide their future.
Perhaps PA and OH need to be protected from themselves?
Gas drilling and leasing is a complicated process and is not perfect but then again what is. It can be done if done responsibly.
I think the draft EIS tries to enforce responsibility. But what provision does it make to prevent a sub-corporation of say..Chesapeake..that's doing business in NY from declaring bankruptcy and disappearing after they screw up and create a disaster? Would not national involvement and the threat of Federal penalties pretty much ensure it?
Prediction: NYC within the next ten years will be leasing their lands in the Catskills to gas companies because they will be forced to by the EPA. Not because of drilling but because the natural degradation of their water system over time and they know it. Drilling will provide the means to pay for it along with water sales. Why do you think Bloomberg doesn't want a drilling ban in the NYC water shed? Cut his nose off to spite his face?
I think the finite supply of Natural Gas will drive drilling in the area, and probably sooner than 10 years.
NYC knows this but reading their propaganda you wouldn't. According to NYC everything is hunky dory despite the lost of 34 million gals of water a day and the problems it causes to towns along the aquaducts path which NYC could care less about as long as they get their water. They want to hoard it but don't care if they lose 34 mil gal because its their water.
I have seen media releases of a few of the claimed problems w/ the leaky aquaducts. I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to comment.
Similar threads
