Attn:
Draft HVHF Regulations Comments
New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625
Broadway
Albany,
NY 12233-6510
To: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Re:
Comments on Proposed Regulations for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
(6 NYCRR Parts 52, 190, 550-556, 560, and 750) with regard to methane
emissions.
From:
Adrian Kuzminski, Moderator, Sustainable Otsego, 279 Donlon Road, Fly
Creek, NY
--------------------------
Introduction:
These
comments on the proposed regulations are submitted by Adrian
Kuzminski, Moderator, Sustainable Otsego. Sustainable Otsego is a
social network of several hundred subscribers dedicated to promoting
sustainability issues in the Otsego County, NY, region.
The
proposed Revised Regulatory Impact Statement (RRIS) for High Volume
Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) must be measured against the legal and
ethical obligations of the DEC.
Among
the most important of these is the Mission Statement of the DEC: "To
conserve, improve and protect New York's natural resources and
environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air
pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the
people of the state and their overall economic and social
well-being."
Other
obligations stated by the DEC include the following:
- “guaranteeing beneficial use of the environment without risk to health and safety”
- “management of water, land, fish, wildlife and air resources to assure their protection”
- “assuring the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty and man-made scenic qualities”
- to “prevent the pollution of fresh water supplies by oil, gas, salt water or other contaminants”
- to “conserve and control water resources for the benefit of all inhabitants of the state”
- to "ensure that potential environmental impacts resulting from HVHF are mitigated to the maximum extent practicable”
- to promote “the management of water, land, fish, wildlife and air resources to assure their protection, enhancement, and balanced utilization taking into account the cumulative impact upon all such resources in promulgating any rule or regulation”
- to “ensure that an owner or operator does not drill wells that may injure the common source of supply or the environment”
- to meet a “mandate to protect the environment”
- “ensuring that wells are properly plugged and abandoned to prevent such wells from becoming a pathway for contamination”
- to “impose reasonable and necessary conditions to minimize any adverse impact”
- to impose a “rigorous and robust regulatory program protecting the environment and human health “
With
these in mind, we offer the following comments on the proposed
regulations with regard to emissions of greenhouse bases (GHGs),
including methane.
---------------------------
The
"Climate Change" section of the DEC website cites governing
NYS policy on GHGs:
"To
help minimize risks from climate change, New York State has set two
goals: Reduce emissions of
heat-trapping greenhouse gases
by 80 percent from 1990 levels, by the year 2050 ("80 by 50"),
and Improve
resilience to climate change
in all the state's communities." (emphasis in original)
One
of the most powerful and largely overlooked greenhouse gases is
methane. Although it's half-life in the atmosphere is less than CO2,
it is 25 to 100 times more potent. Massive methane emissions from
large-scale HVHF conducted over just a few decades could be
catastrophic. So-called fugitive methane emissions result from all
phases of natural gas production, from the HVHF process itself, to
the wellhead, to compressors, to the pipeline system, with its leaky
seams, values, etc.
Peer-reviewed
research on this subject has been carried out by Prof. Robert Howarth
and associates at Cornell University; it shows that these fugitive
emissions are very serious contributors to global warming, even if
they constitute but a very small percentage of the total of the gas
moving through the system. In a perfect world methane seepage might
be eliminated, but in a real world subject to entropy and human
error, continued significant methane emissions must be anticipated,
given the imperfect state of the art of current HVHF technology.
Howarth's latest paper, "Methane Emissions from Natural Gas
Systems," is appended to these comments.
Howarth
and associates are not alone. Included here as well is the Summary
section from a draft of a Leak Detection Study carried out for the US
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, by Dr. David Shaw, et. al, and released on 28
September 2012. Shaw and associates document significant leakage from
gas pipelines, and note an almost total lack of industry guidelines
for monitoring leaks. HVHF should not be allowed to go forward in NYS
in the face of likely methane emissions and in the absence of
significant controls over or even monitoring of emissions.
This
problem is increasingly recognized. NYS Attorney General Eric T.
Schneiderman has recently filed an intent to sue the EPA for
violating the Clear Air Act by failing to address methane emissions
from the oil and gas industry. Schneiderman points out that
"regulators have failed to require the industry to use available
and cost-effective measures to control these emissions." The NYS
Attorney General's complaint applies equally to the DEC. Nowhere do
the proposed DEC regulations explicitly take into account the actual
impacts of methane released from natural gas production as a
greenhouse gas. A press release from the Attorney General's office is
appended to these comments.
The
DEC, in comments submitted to FERC on the Constitution Pipeline (PF
12-9) recently proposed in NYS, called for an evaluation of
cumulative impacts:
"Since
the location of the proposed Project route has a high potential for
development of natural gas extraction from Marcellus and Utica Shale
formations, as indicated in the revised NYSDEC draft Supplemental
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution
Mining Regulatory Program, September 7, 2011, the draft EIS must
evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts associated with these
potential activities."
The
DEC in this comment to FERC is calling for an evaluation of
cumulative impacts of HVHF. This DEC policy should be made explicit
in the DEC's own proposed regulations for HVHF. Such impacts
necessarily include emissions, including methane emissions.
The
following proposed amendments to the regulations -- Sections 555 (a)
(1) - (5)), Plugging and Abandonment, including well casings; Section
556 (Operating Practices); Section 560 (Operations associated with
HVHF, including definitions (560.2 (14)); and Abandoned Wells (560.3
(8)), Emissions (560.3 (13)); Gathering Lines (560.3 (14)); and
Blowout Preventers (560.3 (15) -- all bear on possible methane
emissions and all fail to address the issue.
One
of these Sections (560.2 (14) raises the definition of HVHF from
wells requiring 80,000 gallons/fracturing to wells requiring 300,000
gallons/fracturing. This is actually a step backward, exempting wells
under 300,000 gallons/fracture from more stringent regulations,
making increased methane emissions even more likely.
The
following Sections -- 560.5 (e)
on Testing, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; and 560.6, on
Well Construction and Operation -- are also relevant to potential
methane emissions but fail to discuss the issue. Section 560.7 on
Waste Management and Reclamation also fails to discuss the urgent
need to reclaim methane emissions.
The
proposed regulations as written will allow large-scale HVHF in NYS
with almost entirely unregulated methane emissions. No method is
indicated by which methane emissions throughout the production cycle
can be monitored or mitigated. There is no discussion of what kind of
standards, if any, might be required for an emission-free production
system. These omissions place these regulations in stark contrast to
established NYS policies calling for urgent reductions in GHGs.
If
HVHF is allowed to go forward under these circumstances, 30 counties
in NYS will not have "improved resilience to climate change"
-- a goal to which NYS and the DEC are committed -- but will in fact
become a vast region contributing significantly to climate change.
The
climate change risk posed by methane emissions should not be
understated. The worst case scenario is that methane emissions from
HVHF not only in NYS but elsewhere could push the planet beyond the
point of no return into runaway global warming. This is not a
certainty, but neither can this outcome be dismissed. It is a real
risk, and not the kind of risk we should be running.
The
gas industry likes to claim that it is a "cleaner" fossil
fuel than oil or coal. Much of the rationale for proceeding with HVHF
is based on this claim. Given the real risks outlined here entailed
by methane emissions, the industry cannot simply claim to be a
"cleaner" fossil fuel. At the very least, significant
further study of this issue is necessary. In the meantime, natural
gas should be treated just like its sister fossil fuels, not as an
exception.
Even
if natural gas turns out to contribute somewhat less to total GHGs
than oil and coal, the numbers remain significant and in the long run
destructive. Natural gas is often touted as a "bridge fuel,"
but it is not clear what that means. If that means that natural gas
should be used in place of oil and gas to get to renewables, then it
would make more sense to move directly to renewables and save the
very high costs associated with the distraction of developing a
massive natural gas system based on HVHF. Those savings could instead
be directed at renewables.
The
assumption often made that the only alternative to natural gas is oil
or coal is mistaken and dangerously misleading. NYS should be
avoiding dependence on natural gas and other fossil fuels, and
prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources as quickly
and fully as possible. Banning this unsafe technology and imposing an
indefinite moratorium of unconventional natural gas development in
NYS would send a power message that NYS is serious about phasing-out
fossil fuels. The model here is Germany, with its impressive
commitment to doing just that. The costs and limitations of
renewables are well known, but the sooner these issues are addressed
with maximum funding the better off we will be. Money invested in gas
and other renewables only puts us further in the hole.
In
conclusion, the proposed regulations are entirely inadequate, if not
scandalous, with regard to the issue of methane emissions. Legally
and ethically, the only course for the DEC is fully to take into
account the issue of methane and other GHG emissions, as well as the
lack of sufficient mitigating measures to deal with the challenge.
Insofar as the goal of NYS is to reduce GHG emissions, then the
introduction of HVHF into NYS is inconsistent with that goal, and
should not be permitted.
Attn:
Draft HVHF Regulations Comments
New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625
Broadway
Albany,
NY 12233-6510
To: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Re:
Comments on Proposed Regulations for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
(6 NYCRR Parts 52, 190, 550-556, 560, and 750) with regard to the
role of the Division of Mineral Resources and the Director (Section
550.2 (a) -- (e)). Comments are also related to existing regulation,
Section 550.1, Policy.
From:
Adrian Kuzminski, Moderator, Sustainable Otsego, 279 Donlon Road, Fly
Creek, NY
Introduction:
These
comments on the proposed regulations are submitted by Adrian
Kuzminski, Moderator, Sustainable Otsego. Sustainable Otsego is a
social network of several hundred subscribers dedicated to promoting
sustainability issues in the Otsego County, NY, region.
Background:
The
Mission Statement of the DEC is as follows: "To conserve,
improve and protect New York's natural resources and environment and
to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order
to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state
and their overall economic and social well-being."
The
"Climate Change" section of the DEC website cites governing
NYS policy on greenhouse gases (GHGs):
"To
help minimize risks from climate change, New York State has set two
goals: Reduce emissions of
heat-trapping greenhouse gases
by 80 percent from 1990 levels, by the year 2050 ("80 by 50"),
and Improve
resilience to climate change
in all the state's communities." (emphasis in original)
Comment:
The
current Director of Mineral Resources, Bradley J. Field,
is
reportedly a signatory to a global warming petition which for calls
the United States Government to reject any proposed limits on
greenhouse gases. See appended article, "Field of Distortions,"
by Robert H. Boyle and Bruce Ferguson, 28 June 2012, Metroland,
Albany, NY; also available online here:
Mr.
Field's position, as reported, stands in direct contradiction to the
stated policy of NYS regarding emissions reduction. The Director of
Mineral Resources would be directly responsible for oversight of the
DEC's regulation of HVHD in NYS. No one holding the views on climate
change attributed to Mr. Field should be in charge of implementing
NYS policies on GHG emissions. He should immediately resign his
position; if he does not resign, he should be fired by the Governor.
With
regard to Section 550.1 regarding Policy, the DEC Regulations state
the following:
"
The rules have as their objectives: (a)
the fostering, encouragement and promotion
of
the development, production and utilization of the natural resources
of oil and gas in such a manner as will prevent waste; (b) the
operation and development of oil and gas properties in such a manner
that a greater ultimate recovery of oil and gas may be had; (c) full
protection of the correlative rights of all owners and the rights of
all persons, including landowners and the general public; (d) similar
provisions for the underground storage of gas.
This language closely follows the
controlling statute, ENV 23-0301, as follows:
"23-0301.
Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared to be in the public
interest to regulate the development, production and utilization of
natural resources of oil and gas in this state in such a manner as
will prevent waste; to authorize and to provide for the operation and
development of oil and gas properties in such a manner that a greater
ultimate recovery of oil and gas may be had, and that the correlative
rights of all owners and the rights of all persons including
landowners and the general public may be fully protected, and to
provide in similar fashion for the underground storage of gas, the
solution mining of salt and geothermal, stratigraphic and brine
disposal wells."
Please
note that whereas the statute only empowers the DEC to "regulate"
the development, production and utilization of natural resources of
oil and gas," the DEC regulation on Policy substitute the phrase
"the fostering, encouragement and promotion" for the word
"regulation" in the statute. This is gross and unauthorized
expansion of the authority of the DEC.
Section
550.1 of the Regulations should be modified to confirm with existing
statue. Failure to modify 550.1 in this light leaves the DEC open to
legal challenge on this point.
Further,
the Division of Mineral Resources should not be charged at all with
environmental protection. It has construed the DEC mandate to
"improve" natural resource to promote their economic
development. As a result, conflicts often arise -- as in the case of
HVHF -- between conservation, environmental protection, and
sustainability of resources on the one hand, and short-term economic
interests on the other. These two functions should not be in the same
state agency, let alone in the same Division of the DEC.
No comments:
Post a Comment