Data mining List of the Harmed

Gas drilling in PA has not been uniform. (Look at the maps at the end).
Drillers targeted specific counties, due to their geological guesswork
about where the "sweet-spots" were in PA.

Leland Snyder and I were discussing the theory:
"The harms of Gas Drilling proportionally follow the activity"
(which may sound a bit like stating the obvious!)

But what we are trying to get to is more like a  scientific prediction:
"Where there is Gas Drilling => there will be harms."

This would contradict the often repeated industry statement
that gas drilling can be done in a "safe and responsible" manner.

I've been doing some crude analysis on the List of the Harmed.
These are people who have suffered various health impacts
due to local gas drilling activities.
http://pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.wordpress.com/the-list/

I made a tally of only those incidents in Pennsylvania,
where I could identify a county. There are 100 exactly.

So the idea is to plot where the harms are and correlate this to
where the drilling has been.

This is not very scientific, due to the harms coming in as anecdotes,
the difficulty seeing past Act 13 gag orders, non-disclosure agreements,
and sealed court records. A lot of careful interpretation should
be done here. But certain patterns may be revealed.

Here is where I obtained the number of Marcellus permits per PA county,
here: http://www.pittsburghtoday.org/view_DrillingPermits.html

A couple of anomalies. An incident of harms in Monroe and Union County
in the List of the Harmed but had no Marcellus Permits 2010-2011

Here is the table:

permits issued 2010-2011, by PA County	permits issued overall PA 2005-2013*	% of total permits issued	#'s List of the Harmed	Factor Over or Under 1:1 line
1 Huntingdon 1 Lackawanna 1 Venango 2 Bedford 3 Forest 7 Blair 7 Lawrence 11 Allegheny 12 Beaver 14 Luzerne 16 Cambria 16 Columbia 16 Wayne 21 Cameron 27 Somerset 42 Indiana 59 Clarion 65 Jefferson 84 McKean 107 Clinton 126 Centre 127 Elk 132 Armstrong 145 Fayette 146 Sullivan 157 Potter 200 Clearfield 201 Westmoreland 210 Wyoming 229 Butler 395 Greene 510 Washington 583 Susquehanna 660 Lycoming 1,035 Tioga 1,588 Bradford	254 339 400 435 250 400 835 1,248 1,171 1,160 1,601 2,544	0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.04% 0.10% 0.10% 0.16% 0.17% 0.20% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.30% 0.39% 0.60% 0.85% 0.93% 1.21% 1.54% 1.81% 1.83% 1.90% 2.08% 2.10% 2.26% 2.88% 2.89% 3.02% 3.29% 5.68% 7.33% 8.38% 9.49% 14.88% 22.83%	--- --- --- 6 --- --- --- 1 --- --- 2 --- 1 --- --- --- --- 2 3 --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 2 2 --- 8 2 18 16 2 5 25	--- --- ---  200 --- --- ---   6.25 --- ---   8.7 ---    4.3 --- --- --- ---   2   2.5 --- --- --- --- 1.5 ---   0.7   0.7   ---   2.4   0.35   2.5   1.9   0.21   0.33     1.1
6,956	12,460		100

(* this data supplied via Bill Ferullo, by Bradford County Planning and Grants Commission)

First, let us note that the total number of permits issued (6,956)
does not match a recent number quoted by John Holko (Lenape Resources)
who said the total number of Marcellus wells drilled in PA is 3,700,
which is about 1/2 the number of permits issued just over 2010-2011.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TQ50Aqoko#t=27m0s

So first we want to look for a 1:1 correspondence between
the % of the total # of drilling permits,
with the % of the total # of harmed. 

Bradford County, with the highest number of permits approved
has a nearly 1:1 correspondence. 23% of the permits, and 25% of the harmed.

Washington, Susquehanna, and Bradford county are all well represented
on the List, and have been areas of intense drilling operations.
Next we can look for places which are higher than 1:1 (where there
are more problems then predicted), and places which are lower than 1:1
(where there *may* be the elusive "safe fracking" going on.
But don't jump to any conclusions here until we get more,
and higher quality data.

Susquehanna County has 8% of the permits and 16% of the harmed.
Bedford county only has 0.3% of the permits, but 6% of the harmed.
This could be the place with the worst record in PA,
but again... more data is needed of a higher quality than this.

This is where the Marcellus Permits have been issued in PA (red dots)

This is well performance. Red=overperforming, blue=underperforming
(From http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2012/09/02/where-the-marcellus-comes-to-die/)

BH asks Bob Perciasepe (interim EPA admin) about Dimock's water, April 2012

I haven't got the interview I was looking for yet, from someone who can
give the narrative on the Dimock water test results, but I wanted to release
at least this now.    

You've all heard by now EPA Director Lisa Jackson has resigned,
reported as being over fights with the Obama administration
over dirty energy projects like the Keystone XL:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/science/earth/lisa-p-jackson-of-epa-to-step-down.html?emc=na&_r=2

EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe was at Cornell 4-10-12.
The NYTimes is saying he will take over EPA now that Lisa Jackson
has resigned, at least in the interim.

Remember that EPA was in Dimock from ~Jan 2012 to May 2012,
so this was right at the end of that interval.

BH asks Bob Perciasepe, EPA Deputy Admin,
about Dimock's water, April 2012
youtube.com/watch?v=vUhcp0VZW4U

As you can see, he refused to acknowledge that any problems
exist in Dimock, or elsewhere in PA, he thought that "setting
tough standards" was EPA's primary function. When I asked
him about enforcement actions, he got that "deer-in-the-headlights"
look.

So the timeline is:

1) EPA does testing in Dimock.

2) Before all the results are in, EPA release a press release
 that "Dimock's Water is Fine", which is repeated in most
every newspaper in the region.

3) EPA releases water test results to the affected families,
which is summary-only, not the raw test results. Even this
summary data reveals elevated levels of at least some
contaminants in most homes tested.

So with these elevated levels, how can they say the water is fine?

As the EPA went down Carter Road, from house to house, telling people
"Your water is fine", I have heard the very same scene was played out....
You can imagine how it goes.

Here is one such scene, recorded at the Sautner's house:
youtube.com/watch?v=DUw4Q5dWQXY
The Sautner's house at 1101 Carter Road now stands empty.
Some people don't like the word abandoned, because there
was a title transfer. Someone paid the Sautner's money for the
house. It was an anonymous LLC. Everyone in Dimock will tell
you Cabot bought the house. Here's what was in the paper.

Susquehanna County Court Notes 9/7/2012

PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

- Craig and Julia Sautner to Susquehanna Real Estate 1 Corp.n,
a property in Dimock Twp. for $167,500.

The new buyer has not listed the home for sale.
They have removed the vent from the water well.
This might indicate they have no plans on marketing the house.

Clearly this was no normal deed transfer, since the Sautner's
were forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so we don't
know all the facts.

Steph Hallowich's house in Hickory, Washington County,
also stands empty. It was bought by Range Resources under
similar circumstances. There was a deed transfer. Money was
paid. And an NDA was signed.

Ron Gulla's house is empty also.
Maybe they're not abandoned. Maybe you can find them for sale
in the MLS from Hell.

BH

EPA Fracking Regulation To Fall On Lisa Jackson's Successor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/epa-fracking_n_2373391.html

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Sissonville, asking PHMSA to explain their report, CC:NTSB

I just sent this off--- I'll let you all know what I find out. -- BH

To: Honorable Jeffrey D. Wiese, PHMSA,
      Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety

CC: Ravi Chhatre, PE, NTSB,
CC: Member Sumwalt, NTSB.

From: William Huston, NYPA Concerned Citizens for Pipeline Safety

RE: Corrective Action Order, Docket CPF No. 1-2012-1025H, Dec 20, 2012

Dear Administrator Wiese,

I have just reviewed the above captioned order. I have a few questions.
I have numbered each question.

Thickness of Failed Section

1) You write: "Preliminary data from the pipe at the Failure location shows
a general wall thickness of 0.281 inches...."

This is a different number than that reported by NTSB Member Sumwalt, who said
the thickness at the point of rupture was 0.075", which is less than a 1/10th of an inch.

• http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=1696
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB620zw9tBo
  (statement occurs within the first 2:30 of the video)
  

In the video, NTSB Member Sumwalt says that 0.075" is 30% of the design thickness.

0.075 = .3 * T
0.075 / .3 = T
T = .25

So according the Member Sumwalt, the design thickess was .25".
Is PHMSA saying that at the point of rupture the thickness was 0.28?
This is GREATER than the NTSB stated design thickness, not 30% of it.

I would appreciate some clarity here.

How was MAOP calculated?

Member Sumwalt reported at the time of rupture, SM-80, SM-86, and SM-86 Loop
were all operating at 929 PSI.

Statement is between 10:00 and 10:15:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpAt1amNCp8#t=10m

My questions are:

3) What is the MAOP of these three segments? Where is this recorded?

4) Are any of these segments using the Alternative MAOP?

5) How were these MAOP calculated?

6) For each of the three segments, SM-80 (20"), SM-86 (26"), and SM-86 Loop (30"),
what is the a) pipe thickness, b) material strength, and c) safety factor of these pipes?

Lastly,

In the Required Corrective Action, I(f)(1) Temporary Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure, the order directs the operator to use "Use the lower of 741
or 80% of the validated Lanham compressor station pressure in Item I.e. above".

7) How was the value 741 determined?

I appreciate your work in making pipelines safer,
and appreciate your time in responding to these questions.

Best Regards,
William Huston
NYPA Concerned Citizens for Pipeline Safety
PO Box 2873
Binghamton NY 13902
607-321-7846

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

REPARATIONS!?

Friends, do you know about this?

short story:

On 2-22-2012, the Delaware County Board of Supervisors,
evidently of their own volition

made the following demand
to 7,000,000 people living downstream:
WE frack, or YOU PAY.

Essentially, here's what they said:

(Warning: the following contains hyperbole.)

<hyperbole=ON>

"WHEREAS--

You-all NYC whiny liberals
are a gonna watch us
FRACK OURSELVES SILLY
within YOUR WATERSHED

and WHEREAS,

You will hereby take, accept, and allow
whatever stinky kersplortch
comes downstream at ya
in your WATER... AND LIKE IT!

OR-- BE IT RESOLVED--

We-all are a gonna come downtown there
and demand some REP-AR-AYE-SHUNS...."

<hyperbole=OFF>

http://dcecodev.com/watershed/documents/Resolutionno.40.pdf

Excuse me, but, SAY WHAT?

(Bill shakes his head from side to side)
People, am I making this up?

Full text:

 RESOLUTION NO. 40

 TITLE: PROPERTY RIGHTS REPARATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/WATERSHED AFFAIRS

WHEREAS, Delaware County is a strong proponent of property rights; and

WHEREAS, 53% Delaware County's land base is in the New York City (City) Watershed; and

WHEREAS, the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play underlies all of Delaware County;

and

WHEREAS, Delaware County, in Resolution 217-2009 supported the drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale on the condition that state and federal regulations thoroughly address environmental concerns with sound science along with regulatory safeguards to minimize the risk for pollution as local concerns regarding the protection of infrastructure and water supplies; and

WHEREAS, in the initial draft of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) that was released in September 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) acknowledged that high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations as part of natural gas development did not have a unique impact on surface water supplies. DEC asserted that through proper controls the impacts to surface water supplies could be mitigated and those resources protected. DEC did not propose to prohibit natural gas drilling in any surface water watershed including NYC's watershed; and

WHEREAS, in its Revised Draft SGEIS, the DEC has changed directions. DEC now proposes to adopt regulations based upon its Revised Draft SGEIS that prohibit natural gas mining with high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations in the New York City watershed and in a protective 4,000 foot buffer area around that watershed in addition the 1,000 foot setback from NYC subsurface infrastructure ("Natural Gas Mining Prohibition"); and

WHEREAS, the DEC Commissioner clarified that the real reason that natural gas drilling was being prohibited in NYC Watershed was the potential economic impact of filtration. He stated as follows: "But it's the fact that they both get a Filtration Avoidance Determination ("FAD ") from the Federal EPA and those determinations are delicate ones, they review everything that happens in those watersheds — if they don't get that FAD they would have to filter and in the case of New York City that's a $9 billion proposition. So, it's not the spills or the prospect ofspills or contamination that we 're most concerned about it's the fact that just the mere activity related to hydraulic fracturing and that industrial activity could swing the FAD the other way toward disapproval"; and

WHEREAS, the Natural Gas Mining Prohibition would prohibit gas drilling in the City watershed in Delaware County taking landowner property rights on 503,000 acres; and

WHEREAS, the State Revised Draft SGEIS proposes a prohibition drilling outside the City watershed boundary, which the City supports, of up to 4,000 feet stripping property rights on another 33,000 acres; and

WHEREAS, the City's comments on the Revised Draft SGEIS, if adopted, would strip property rights from landowners in the Towns of Colchester, Hancock and Deposit within two miles of City infrastructure including tunnels outside the watershed and in addition would require the State to allow the City to approve any application between two to seven miles of infrastructure stripping in total another estimated quarter million acres of landowner property rights in these zones; and

WHEREAS, the affect of the State Revised Draft SGEIS and the City's proposed changes to it would eliminate access to natural gas on at least 80 percent of the County's land base; and

WHEREAS, although New York City opposes drilling in the watershed, the City has identified energy from natural gas as a critical component of its Greenhouse Gas Initiative and Long Term Energy Plan. The City will benefit from natural gas drilled in someone else's watershed to convert buildings currently using #4 and #6 fuel oil to natural gas, as well as, converting their fleet of trucks and other vehicles to natural gas. In the meantime, Delaware County residents will not receive the benefits of low cost natural gas and must continue to rely on home heating oil at $4.00/gallon; and

WHEREAS, in December, 2010, DEC issued an updated Water Supply Permit to NYC which confirmed that the Watershed MOA "established a framework for a 'partnership to cooperate in the development and implementation of a Watershed protection program that maintains and enhances the quality of the New York City drinking water supply system and the economic vitality and social character of the Watershed communities.' The Partnership created by the Watershed MOA requires that the DEC and NYC meet with and agree to compensate watershed communities prior to confiscating billions of dollars of mineral rights in order to avoid the cost of filtration.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Delaware County Board of Supervisors declares the Natural Gas Prohibition and in particular, the proposed described setbacks as discriminatory acts that have no rational basis other than to protect the City's filtration waiver at the expense of the Delaware County residents; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors demand reparations from the City and State for the mineral rights taken from affected landowners and communities equal to the projected gross value of lost revenues provided by natural gas in Delaware County (based on the City's Study projection for concentration of well drilling sites and well yield according to the DEC Revised Draft SGEIS for the value of natural gas) of $81.3 billion over 60 years plus millions in real property tax revenues and lost employment opportunities: and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to NYS Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, U.S. Senator Kristin Gillibrand, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, U.S. Congressman Christopher Gibson, NYS DEC Commissioner Joe Martens, NYSDOH Commissioner Nirav R. Shah, NYC Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, NYC DEP Commissioner Carter Strickland, NYS Senator Majority Leader Senator Dean Skelos, NYS Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, EPA Region 2 Director Judith A. Enck, NYS Senator John Bonacic, NYS Senator James L. Seward, NYS Assemblyman Clifford Crouch, NYS Assemblyman Peter Lopez, NYC Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn.

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Ithaca Forum on the NY Fracking Regs Premieres Tonight in Binghamton TV 6pm

New TV show premieres tonight on
Time Warner Cable, Public Access channel 4, 6pm Saturday.

This show is jam-packed with info about commenting
on the new NY Fracking Regulations.

Urgent that you make comments by Jan 12th!

Essential Links:

• Easiest way to comment:
  30daysoffrackingregs.com
   
• DEC website:
  http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html
  
  
• Get all the proposed regs and supporting documents (11 PDF files) as a single .ZIP file http://tinyurl.com/NY2012NewFrackingRegs

Watch the complete show online:
http://shaleshockmedia.org/2012/12/21/responding-to-new-fracking-regs/

The show will be followed with the excellent mini-documentary by Scott Cannon, about life near a gas processing facility in nearby Wyoming County, PA:

Was the Sissonville Fire Station destroyed because of a gas leak?

 

I've been researching pipelines after the Sissonville WV explosion.

I've dug up a ton of interesting data, including the fact
that the Sissonville Fire Station, which was located over
a 26" transmission line, was torched to ashes in a hot
accelerated fire while they were doing road construction.
The cause: "an electrical source".  

Five days after the fire, Columbia Gas
(the same operator of the Sissonville explosion)
gave the fire department a check for $25,000,
out of the kindness of their hearts (or maybe a guilty conscience?)
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201010061299?page=2

It required $1.2M to rebuild the station.
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Sissonville_Community_to_Get_Update_on_Devastating_Fire.html

Here's when a 26" had a complete failure Dec 2012:

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

NTSB report on San Bruno pipeline explosion/fire

Anyone wanting to understand pipeline safety should
have a look at the NTSB site. They only investigate major
disasters, and only a couple per year.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports_pipeline.html

Here is the final report about the San Bruno explosion
which destroyed 38 homes, damaged 70, and killed 8 people, injured many more.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/PAR1101.pdf
(153 pages, extremely detailed)

An easy entry point is to just read the summaries,
which are just a few pages.

Just looking at the first of MANY recommendations by NTSB to many parties
(PHMSA, US DoT, Calif. Gov. and PUC, AGA, INGAA, and the the operator PG&E)
in the San Bruno fire seems to indict the safety of the entire pipeline industry,
and the federal government's ability to provide oversight.

To Secretary of Transportation: Conduct an audit to assess the
effectiveness of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration's oversight of performance-based safety programs.
This audit should address the (1) need to expand the program's use of
meaningful metrics; (2) adequacy of its inspection protocols for ensuring
the completeness and accuracy of pipeline operators' integrity management
program data; (3) adequacy of its inspection protocols for ensuring the
incorporation of an operator's leak, failure, and incident data in evaluations
of the operator's risk model; and (4) benefits of establishing performance
goals for pipeline operators. (P-11-4)

Will be interesting to see if there is followup on these recommendations....


--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

How Williams Companies works with property owners during pipeline construction

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brian Brock 
Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Williams owns 80% of Constitution transmission pipeline project and likewise owns 51% of Laural Mountain Midstream gathering pipelines and processing plants. 

 

Here are two tales of how effected landowners were treated by Williams this year in Fayette County PA during construction of a LMM gathering pipeline.

 

Last May in Springfield Twp. five people (the couple who owned the property, a couple who were friends, and their grand-daughter) were ordered at gun point to stand in the road in front of their property by troopers who arrived in five cars.  Apparently the land owner's crime was the day before ordering off their property a company security guard who was parked in their driveway.

 

 http://marcellusprotest.org/node/2036

 

This month in Nicholson Twp. a 73 year old cattle rancher and educator was thrown in jail when he attempted to tell pipeline workers on his land that there was a PA DEP injunction against further work until pollution problems were resolved and that they were illegally dumping sulfurous water on this land.  In fairness to Williams, it should be noted that the property owner was under an injunction not to talk to workers as a result of a long-running dispute over cut fences, stray cattle, and dead calves and also a bentonite blowout in a stream.

http://www.timesonline.com/news/state/fayette-county-farmer-spends-weekend-in-jail/article_a2b29206-48b8-11e2-8dc9-0019bb30f31a.html

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

EPA and Williams Co. disagrees w/Holko about Glycol Dehydrators emitting "just water vapor"

Lenape Resources Holko got the facts wrong here
when he said Glycol Dehydrators emit only water vapor:

http://www.splicd.com/S1TQ50Aqoko/882/897
(15 sec. clip)
Here's what EPA says:

Glycol dehydrators vent methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous airpollutants (HAPs) to the atmosphere from the glycol regenerator and also bleed natural gas from pneumaticcontrol devices. This process wastes gas, costs money, and contributes to local air quality problems as well as globalclimate change.  www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_desde.pdf

Here is a link for a file review for Williams Central Station (check the link for Review2, page 18)

http://www.cleanair.org/program/outdoor_air_pollution/marcellus_shale/council_performs_file_review_williams_central_compress

Each glycol dehydrator emits (estimated) 167 tons of VOC/yr,
1 ton of Benzene.
Total HAP=9.8 tons per year.

This is 3 orders of magnitude over what a typical lawnmower emits.
One glycol dehydrators = 3,000 lawnmowers in GHG emissions.

Maybe someone wants to send this along to John Holko?
I'm sure he strives for accuracy and would appreciate being informed
of his error :)



--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Ithaca Workshop on the New Fracking Regs

Link to this: TinyURL.com/2012IthacaFrackingRegsWorkshop

Archived Live Stream:  
How to Comment on the NY Regs
(Martha Robertson, Tony Ingraffea, Sandra Steingraber, Helen Slottje)
12-17-2012

Live stream by Llewellyn Lafford / Cris McConkey
Second Camera: BH
Editing and Production: Cris McConkey

===========================
 

Listen to HIGH-QUALITY AUDIO:

BIGGEST NEWS OF THE EVENING:

Helen Slottje dropped a couple of the bombshells last night.

The rdSGEIS is "rulemaking" subject to SAPA.
This means the DEC missed the Nov 29 deadline (as with the regs) so the process MUST BE RESTARTED!

This means (as I understand it), there will be no permits for HVHF in 2013.
If the DEC issues permits, then there is a basis for a lawsuit.


PLEASE GIVE TO CEDC:

Helen and David Slottje provide their services FREE to towns, and rely upon our donations. Their Community Environmental Defense Council public law firm, CEDC, has a $25,0000 matching fund if you give before the end of the year.

http://www.cedclaw.org/news/2012/12/another-chance-to-learn-more-about-responding-to-dec-fracking-regulations/

Please share on all lists.
TinyURL.com/2012IthacaFrackingRegsWorkshop
Below are notes by Peter Hudiburg:

Tony Ingraffea looked at how they treated comments on the last version of the regulations last year, not substantively. They tended to be too often dismissive. He noted that the DEC tends to use absolute terms such as prevent as in the DEC’s regulations will “prevent” future water contaminations when we all know that they have not successfully prevented contaminations in the past and these regulations certainly wouldn’t prevent contaminations in other states.
 

The number of well casings was a case in point. In Dimock they were using 5. The DEC claims that their regs requiring 3 should make us safe.

He suggests that we use terms such as minimize probability rather than prevent. We should also give the rationale for our criticisms and site published literature. He suggested that we use websites such as www.psehealthyenergy.org I don’t see a page devoted to commenting on the NYS regs there yet.

Martha Robertson said comment on the socio economic impact on local communities and local governments. Martha recommends that people refer to the NYElectedOfficials.org website. Again I don’t see a page devoted to commenting on the proposed regulations yet but it is dealt with to some extent at http://www.nyelectedofficials.org/our-concerns-about-fracking/
 

Sandra Steingraber said that we need a comprehensive health impact assessment and the only thing the DEC has done so far is to submit a secret document to 3 outside experts, all of whom have signed contracts with nondisclosure agreements. She said that this is not in keeping with scientific research that should be open to peer review.
 

She said that the last version of the regs elicited about 680 comments. This time they have already generated 20,000. If we keep this up we could reach over 100,000 comments before Jan 11th. http://www.thirtydaysoffrackingregs.com/dec12reg.php
 

Helen Slottje is approaching the problem from a radically new direction. She suggests that we should be able to rein in corporate power with the law.
 

She says that the DEC is not following the State Administrative Procedure Act. SAPA defines agency policy as rules. DEC must not violate SAPA. DEC’s authority over gas law is subject to a public process. DEC cannot have any other authority. They must also follow SEQR concerning the issuance of generic environmental impact statements. But those statements are also rules and must also comply with SAPA.
 

In 1992 SEQR was used to circumvent SAPA.
 

Governor Paterson in his 2008 directive said that an SGEIS must be issued on horizontal high volume hydrofracking with full public participation.
 

What they have constructed by failing to follow advised procedures as defined by SAPA and by coming out with proposed regulations supposedly based on a so far unreleased and unfinalized SGEIS is arbitrary, irrational and capricious.
 

We must be able to look at what the DEC is proposing to do as a complete package open to public comment.
 

CEDC Law not only intends to challenge these fractured procedures but is also contemplating challenging every permit issued by the DEC. What the DEC is doing is illegal.
 

DSGEIS rule making is subject to deadlines as defined by SAPA. They blew those deadlines.

Helen says that their Community Environmental Defense Council public law firm, CEDC, has a $25,0000 matching fund that they hope to use if they can raise adequate funding from us. http://www.cedclaw.org/news/2012/12/another-chance-to-learn-more-about-responding-to-dec-fracking-regulations/
 

So in answer to the first question of the evening (before we lost live streaming) can we sue the DEC, Helen says YES!
 

Martha Robertson reminded people that NY elected officials are subject to Open Meetings Law and can be FOILED and said that the DEC should be subject to the same law.

Maybe we’ll learn more from the Binghamton event tomorrow night.

(Binghamton, UU Church, 183 Riverside Drive, Binghamton 7pm)

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

20 Questions which need to be answered about Fracking

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20121213/VIEWPOINTS02/312130046/Guest-Viewpoint-Too-many-questions-remain-about-fracking

Written by Ed Nizalowski

In spite of all the millions of words in defense of hydraulic fracturing, there are a variety of questions that still need definitive answers.

• If fracking is supposed to be so safe, why are the New York City and Syracuse watersheds granted special protection?

• If this is an issue that needs to be decided on the basis of science rather than politics, why has the science of health been marginalized?

• How can we keep the toxic water left over from fracking from working its way back to the surface?

• If a person should have the right to do as they please with their property, isn’t forced integration a violation of that principle?

• If the risks involving fracking are minimal, why doesn’t the industry voluntarily abide by the stipulations of the Federal Clean Air and Water Act?

• If everyone is so happy with fracking in Pennsylvania, why is Democratic state Sen. Jim Ferlo calling for a moratorium?

• Shouldn’t we be more concerned that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has been accused of negligence regarding its water testing procedures?

• Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the radioactive radon present in the gas that is produced from the Marcellus shale?

• How can renewable/alternative energy sources compete when the subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry are 2½ times greater?

• Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the ecosystem that exists in the Marcellus shale?

• Shouldn’t we be concerned about the jump in accidents and fatalities among gas and oil workers?

• Shouldn’t we be concerned for the long-term health of the gas and oil workers whose exposure to the chemical hazards of this process is so much more direct?

• Shouldn’t it be better known that three of the wells on Shelly Depue’s property featured in the movie “Truthland” are under investigation?

• Shouldn’t the gas companies rather than individual homeowners be the ones that spend all the money necessary for water testing?

• Since it is relatively easy to find maps of where gas wells have been drilled, shouldn’t it be just as easy to find out where the water buffaloes have been placed?

• How can nondisclosure agreements be justified in matters pertaining to public health?

• Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the dangers of the silica sand used in the process of fracking?

• Are first responders and other emergency personnel being prepared for the inevitable increase in 911 calls once fracking is underway?

• Is New York prepared for the people that have taken the pledge of resistance to commit civil disobedience if fracking should take place?

• Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the sociological changes that take place in communities when fracking becomes a dominant part of the local economy?

Nizalowski is a Newark Valley resident and member of Residents Against Fracking Tioga (RAFT).

Is PIPA led by PHMSA, or the other way around?

Executive Summary:

It seems like PIPA, under PHMSA, which is under US DOT
might be being led around by the oil+gas industry which are
trying to push their industry-friendly and rights-denying 
"model ordinances" (a la ALEC) on to unsuspecting local communities.
 
Details:

I've been researching oil and gas pipelines.
(I live in NY which the gas industry is trying to industrialize w/fracking)

I found something interesting which reminds me of ALEC,
the Koch Bros-connected American Legislative Exchange Council
which gets federal and state legislators to adopt industry-friendly
"model ordinances".

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

There are a few Federal Gov't regulatory bodies over pipelines:
1) DOE 2) FERC 3) EPA 4) DOT 5) NTSB.

Part of DOT is an org called PHMSA:

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety AdministrationOn the PHMSA web page, there's a bunch of materials from PIPA.

Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance.

PIPA is pushing model ordinances on to local communities
on how to "mitigate risk" from pipelines through land planning.

I smell a rat:

Turns out PIPA's "stakeholder-members" are mostly oil and gas companies!It seems like PIPA is basically a trade organization, yet the industry is claiming
that PHMSA is the "leader".

I first learned about PIPA via this video of Meghan Thoreau Jacquet with the Southern Tier Central Regional Planning & Development Board
(helps towns with land planning)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDRcn2Ay1ms

She talked about "Model Ordinances" which PIPA supplies to towns
regarding pipelines which use "best practices"...  http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/publications/PIPA/AppB%20-%20ModelOrdinance.pdf

This is all language sounds like that used by the KOCH BROS funded ALEC.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

First, I found this curious: The gist of Meghan Thoreau Jacquet's message is that
if there are accidents with pipelines in neighborhoods,
it's not the pipeline's fault, no-- it's due to bad land planning. 

 

 The she starts suggesting people check out PIPA.

Some homeowners in Sissonville WV on 12/11/12
relaxing at home & enjoying their "amenity"

She even suggests that property values INCREASE near pipelines, and the homes nearest a pipeline right-of-way sell faster due to the "amenity".
 
(I'm not kidding-- check the video)

PIPA is promoted by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) which is part of the federal government (Department of Transportation)
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/pipa/pipa_audience_local_government.htm

The gas industry says "PIPA ... is led by the US Department of Transportation
 (PHMSA)" http://www.aopl.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=868

Another industry source says: "PIPA is led and supported by PHMSA."
http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=14124

PIPA is a "stakeholder initiative" which is "led by PHMSA" (part of US DOT).
Only thing is, most of the stakeholders seem to be oil, gas and pipeline companies.

One "member" of PIPA is AOPL. Look who is a member of AOPL:
http://www.aopl.org/forms/MemberDirectory/viewMemberDirectoryAll

PIPA never says a community can use zoning to ZONE OUT pipelines and
gas infrastructure, only that they are inevitable and suggest land planners
build "consultation zones" around the pipelines.

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/pipa/pipa_consultation_planning.htm

They even have a non-profit "stakeholder":
http://www.pstrust.org/about-the-trust/background.htm

It seems like PIPA, under PHMSA, under US DOT
might be another ALEC type organization,
being led around by the oil+gas industry which are
trying to push their rights-denying "model ordinances" on
to unsuspecting local communities.

BH
--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Resources/Instructions on Fracking Regs inc. TEXT LIST Comment Categories

Link to this document:
TinyURL.com/NY2012RegsResourceGuide

 Please pass this along to other lists
You need to download 11 PDF documents to get all of the Regs and supporting documents.
You get get all 11 here in a single ZIP archive here:

• http://tinyurl.com/NY2012NewFrackingRegs

(most computers have tools built in to read .zip files, buf if not, google search for "Free ZIP decoder")
To make an actual comment:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.html


BE SURE TO SAVE A COPY OF YOUR COMMENTS IN A TEXT FILE, or a WORD DOCUMENT.
Publish your comments to your email lists, to Facebook, or your blog.

ALSO submit your comments to NYAgainstFracking.org online form for tracking.
DEC does not make this easy and you have to REGISTER each time you want to make a new comment!
Here are the ONLY comment categories--

•  550.3 Definitions (related to all ECL Article 23 wells)
•  553.1 Statewide Spacing (related to all ECL Article 23 wells)
•  554.1 Prevention of Pollution and Migration (related to all ECL Article 23 wells)
•  554.7 Completion reports, Well Logs and Samples (related to all ECL Article 23 wells)
•  556.2(g) Sundry Notice and Report on Wells (related to all ECL Article 23 wells)
•  560.2 Definitions (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.3 Application Requirements, Procedures and Fees (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.3(b) Plat Requirements (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.3(d)(1) Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Disclosure (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.4(a)(2) Setback from Inhabited Dwelling or Place of Assembly (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.4(c) Setback Variance Procedure (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.5(b) Emergency Management Office Notification (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.5(d) Water Well and Spring Testing (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.5(f) Drilling and Production Waste Tracking Form (related to high-volume hydrualic fracturing)
•  560.5(h) Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Following Well Completion (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.6(c)(3) Blow-out Preventer Use and Test Plan (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.6(c)(11) Surface Casing (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  560.7(j) Production Brine Storage (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  750-3 Reorganization of Regulations (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  750-3.3(a)(6) Prohibition within 500 feet of Private Water Wells, Domestic Use Springs and Wells and Springs Used for Crops/Livestock (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  750-3.3(a)(6) Prohibition within 500 feet of Private Water Wells, Domestic Use Springs and Wells and Springs Used for Crops/Livestock (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  750-3.7(o) Groundwater Monitoring Program (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)
•  750-3.11(d)  Operations Ineligible for HVHF GP Coverage which Require an Individual SPDES (related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing)

So you may want to consider making a comment for each category.
Please take part in the 30 Days of Fracking Regs

• http://thirtydaysoffrackingregs.com/
• https://www.facebook.com/pages/30-Days-of-Fracking-Regs/570728062944063

Sandra's appeal (video):

https://vimeo.com/55336946

Check for info here:

• Chip Northrup's analysis:
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking_Regulations
• Also check the ShaleshockMedia Blog
  http://blog.shaleshockmedia.orgfor stuff by Chip and Bill Huston and perhaps others on the Regs.

Great info here also:

• http://NYAgainstFracking.org/

If you have other suggestions for what should be here, please email WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
 with subject: "2012 Fracking Regs Resource Guide"

CLERGY of TRUTH vs. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and REASON

Academics, Experts, Scientific Polls, & Professional Journalists
The New Clergy of Truth?

Here's something that's been bugging me about
Academics, Experts, "Scientific Polls", People with Letters, Phd., Esq., et. al., etc.,
and even "official reports" in "newspapers of record" by Professional Journalists,
who love to celebrate the above categories as "official sources".

Experts are fine. Experts are necessary and important.
Peer reviewed science is important and necessary.

Believe it or not, there are areas where I am a subject matter expert.
(I know this may shock  many people)

But we should never take the words of experts
as Divine Immutable Word of God,which should never be challenged.

There is a big problem when we ASSUME that a blogger is not to be trusted
over the words of a Professional Journalist or an Academic.

There is a big problem when we ASSUME that a POLL is a better barometer
of public opinion THAN OUR OWN EXPERIENCE.

Science diverged from the Priests/Clergy in the middle ages based on the premise
that TRUTH is NOT that which is passed down from on-high on clay tablets.

Science is NOT premised on the fact that published papers-- the modern equiv. of clay tablets-- contain the Divine Immutable Truth.

The basis of science-- going back to Galileo and the Age of Reason, is that
the final arbiter of TRUTH is ultimately
the perceptions and reason of
the individual, conscious observer.

That's YOU!  (and me). 

Yes, I agree, science is very useful. I have made a fine living in the scientific field of Engineering.  I have studied the philosophy of science for many years. Here is what I will tell you.

There are some UGLY TRUTHs about SCIENCE which many academics will deny or discount:

• Science is Uncertain (cf. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
• Science is always Incomplete
• Science can can produce meaningless jibberish (cf. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)
• Science involves judgment and interpretation of the facts
• Science is based on unproveable axioms which must be taken on faith!
• What Science considers as Truth must be Falsifiable!
• Science is BLIND to things it cannot measure.
• Science requires repeatability and thus IGNORES one-time events.

I could go on, but that's enough for now.

BOTTOM LINE: Any academics, scientists, journalists, or even lay people who appeal to experts, and published papers as being the final arbiters of truth are in fact creating a kind of NEO-CLERGY.

This is in opposition to the basic scientific principles of OBSERVATION and REASON.

A wise man named Siddhartha Gotama who lived 5,000 years ago once said this:

"Do not take my word as truth, because you see me as some kind of guru.
Put what I am claiming as truth to the test of reason.
Trust yourself. Trust your reason. Trust your own observations."

Siddhartha Gotama is also known as The Buddha, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.

PSB: AG inquires about conflicts on fracking votes in Southern Tier

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20121211/NEWS11/312110060/

AG inquires about conflicts on fracking votes in Southern Tier
7:55 PM, Dec 11, 2012

 
Written by
Steve Reilly

 Read the letters between town officials and the state Attorney General's Office
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105131411/08-29-12-Supervisorletter

The New York State Attorney General’s Office has launched an ethics inquiry concerning votes by Southern Tier town board members related to natural gas drilling, according to documents obtained by the Press & Sun-Bulletin.

In single-page letters sent in October, Assistant Attorney General Judith Malkin indicated that drilling-related action by town boards earlier in the year raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

“We have been alerted to concerns about Windsor Town Board members with signed gas leases voting on issues related to hydrofracking,” one of the letters states. “This concern raises possible conflict of interest issues.”

“In that regard,” the letter adds, “would you please send us a copy of the town’s ethics code.”

Michelle Hook, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General’s Office, declined to disclose the number or a full list of the municipalities that are involved in the inquiry, or discuss the status of the inquiries.

Following requests under the state Freedom of Information Law to a sample of municipalities, the Press & Sun-Bulletin received correspondence between the AG’s Office and the towns of Colesville, Sanford and Windsor.

The boards of those three towns are among more than 40 across the state that passed a similarly-worded resolution stating that it would be an “irresponsible and premature misallocation of town resources” to pass a ban or moratorium on natural gas drilling until the state Department of Environmental Conservation completes its review of hydraulic fracturing.

At least one member of the each of the Colesville, Sanford and Windsor town boards has an active natural gas lease a review of records in the Broome County Clerk’s Office shows.

“Our office takes every complaint we receive seriously,” Hook said of the letters, “and felt it was our responsibility to follow up with these respective towns.”

“We also wanted to relate the concerns we received to the boards, because they should be aware of any concerns being expressed about their practices,” Hook added. “Our efforts were not accusatory, and we believe that town boards should enforce their own ethics rules.”

The letters provide no indication that the towns or any town officials are being formally investigated.

Towns respond

 

Officials in the three towns, in formal written responses to the Attorney General’s Office, each took a different approach to addressing the inquiry — but generally took a defensive tone.
“Quite frankly, I find your letter very strange,” Town of Colesville attorney Alan Pope wrote in an Oct. 31 response to the Attorney General’s Office. “I have never had the State of New York insert itself into local municipal issues.”


The Town of Colesville does not have a formal ethics code. All five town board members voted May 3 on the resolution opposing a local drilling ban, including Steve Flagg and Glenn Winsor, who county records show have interests in active mineral rights leases.

“Would you please provide me with the specificity of the ‘concerns’ that you say the Attorney General was ‘alerted to,’” Pope added. “You also state that there has been ‘voting on issues related to hydrofracking.’ What exactly are you referring to?”

Flagg, in an interview, said his small lease was inherited and he doesn’t stand to make significant profit from drilling. He said he feels the May 3 resolution was not pro- or anti-gas drilling.
“They’re basically making an accusation here, and they’re not substantiating the issue,” Flagg said. “I don’t think there’s a conflict of interest here.”

The other two towns approached the matter differently:

• Town of Sanford Supervisor Dewey Decker said in an interview he feels he “did the right thing” by recusing himself and sitting in the audience during a May 8 vote on the same resolution.

“I’m kind of in a unique situation because I do have quite a bit of land,” Decker said. “I am a farmer, I did sign a lease, and I am the town supervisor, and I’m the head of a coalition.”

Sanford’s detailed response to the Attorney General’s office outlines how ethical questions surrounding seven different resolutions have been handled since 2009. Decker did participate in a November 2009 vote regarding a water withdrawal license for XTO Energy, the letter states.

In January of this year the town passed a new ethics code and Decker has sat out of most natural gas-related matters since. Sanford’s letter to the Attorney General’s Office, written by town attorney Herbert Kline, doesn’t indicate Decker recused himself from the vote on a Sept. 11 resolution where the town board decided it would no longer allow verbal comments from residents regarding gas drilling at town meetings.

Neither does Kline’s letter address a lease held by Sanford Town Board member David K. Sexton, who in 2008 signed an five-year agreement with XTO Energy for a 3.86-acre tract of land, according to county records. Sexton did not respond to a request for comment.

• The Town of Windsor’s response, in the form of a letter from Supervisor Randy Williams, defends his participation in a May 2 vote on the gas drilling resolution.

“It does not appear to me that a conflict of interest can be created by passing a resolution that supports New York State (and) that voices our trust/support that the state will take appropriate action and is neutral,” Williams’ letter states.

Williams, whose tenure ends on Dec. 31, signed a five-year lease in 2008 on a 30.3-acre property, according to county records.

The town’s code of ethics forbids any official from participating in decisions when “the action could confer a direct or indirect financial or material benefit on himself or herself, a relative, or any private organization in which he or she is deemed to have an interest.”

“I think it was a chain letter,” Williams said in an interview this week, “and I think it was a fishing expedition on the part of the Attorney General’s Office.”

Officials in all three towns said they had not received a response from the Attorney General’s Office.

'Who doesn't have an interest?'

 

The inquiry by the Attorney General’s Office follows a series of mixed signals from Albany this year that has turned upstate New York into a battleground over local control of natural gas drilling.
After state officials hinted in the spring hinted that local stances on hydraulic fracturing would play a role in where the DEC would issue the first permits, more than 40 town boards passed resolutions similar or identical to the ones approved by the Windsor, Sanford and Colesville boards. At the same time, more than 100 other New York municipalities have passed temporary or permanent bans on natural gas drilling.

The text of the resolutions supporting the DEC — mainly approved by towns in Broome, Chenango, Steuben and Tioga counties — was distributed to municipal officials this spring by the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York.

JLCNY attorney Scott Kurkoski said while the resolutions “simply show support for the state” and are not pro- or anti-drilling, each municipality was advised to consult its own town attorney before taking action in the resolution.

Kurkoski noted that almost all town board members in New York are land owners, and questioned those who argue that any land interest should preclude an official from dealing with drilling-related matters.

“I do get concerned at times when someone says ‘Well, you’re a landowner so you shouldn’t make decisions on these issues,’” he said. “What town board member in this state is not a landowner?...Who doesn’t have an interest?”

My response to State Impact (PA NPR) puff-piece about a local restaurant in Montrose

In case it gets deleted, here is my response to the State Impact story:

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/12/06/shale-country-restaurant-provides-haven-from-polarized-gas-debate/

I thought advertisements were prohibited from NPR?
Because that's what this seems like to me.

Susan Phillps piece here is a pro-business feel-good piece,
and being shy on a lot of facts, not really up to the standard
of investigative journalism. Is that what it's supposed to be?

It seems more like PR for the gas industry,
and an advertisement for some local businesses.

"Look! The gas industry is good for the local restaurant business!
Where both sides meet and have civil discussions over good food..."
Civil discourse? While people's water wells are being destroyed?

I am sensitive to the needs of the business owners mentioned,
Kimberly Glemboski has a restaurant to run. Pete Comly,
John Winans and Morgan Kelly are just trying to make a living.

I understand that. Yet, I think it is possible to be sensitive to these people,
and still report the facts.

So first question is this: Since we are talking about a local
farmer supplying meat to restaurants, and a local brewery
supplying beer, why was there no question about whether
Mr. Comly's farm or the brewery in Franklin Forks have had
their water tested? Are they not considered public water supplies,
since they are supplying food? And what are the results?

I have seen water tests which show that several private water
wells, including that of Heavenly Angels restaurant in Franklin Forks
are contaminated with Methane, Barium, Arsenic, and other heavy metals.

Is it safe to make beer from contaminated water?
What about chickens who drink contaminated water, does that end
up in the meat? Or is their proof the water is safe to drink?
And if so, was most of the test results withheld under
"Suite Code 942"?

(This is the scandal which was uncovered by Rep. Jesse White,
who deposed PA DEP employes who revealed that while
water tests were made for 24 metals, only 8 were being reported
to affected people, while claiming "your water is fine". Has
State Impact reported on this?)

This should have had some discussion IF this
is supposed to be journalism and not public relations.

Next, you mention that "both sides are present" at the restaurant.
So why is it only the guy from Dimock Proud/Enough is Enough,
Bill Aileo, gets any mic time? What about the other side?

The larger issue here is a broad indictment of PBS / NPR,
which will many conservatives label as being "too liberal"
yet in reality, it is nearly completely pro-business. Anyone
advocating for labor, the environment, or peace (as opposed to war)
either never gets on the air, or their time is cut by half to
present "the other side".

Meanwhile, independent local, community producers are
banned from the airwaves. This makes the term "public broadcasting"
fraudulent.

And when puff pieces like this displace the reporting of real
facts of water contamination, which represents a public health
emergency in Susquehanna County PA and other places where
drilling is occurring, I would almost consider this to be a criminal
theft of which should be a public resource, the broadcast airwaves.

Bill Huston,
Binghamton NY
independent producer for Shaleshock Media
607-321-7846
WilliamAHuston@gmail.com

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

PA now allows dumping Fracking Fluids onto Roads and Fields. NY wants to follow

Executive Summary:
SHOCKING PHOTOS apparently of PA drilling fluids spread on roads @ Warren Center, PA.

BAD NEWS for Warren Center, also for NY residents @ Nichols/Waverly who live downstream.

BIGGER SHOCK! New NY regs allows this as a “beneficial use”!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS from Governor Andrew Cuomo!
Get those comments in to the DEC by Jan 11!!

The details:

Pennsylvania just changed their rules to allow the spreading of fracking flowback and production fluids on roads as a "benefical use".
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/pennfuture-accuses-dep-of-permit-dishonesty-656236/

This is apparently already happening:

These photos were taken by Pat Klotz in Warren Center, PA in mid November 2012:
(Just over the border from Apalachin NY)

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.493914857295803.108363.114596215227671



This area drains North into New York. This is part of the Upper Susquehanna, Wappasening Creek Watershed which drains downstream into Nichols, Waverly.http://gis.srbc.net/WRP_FV25/





SURPRISE!
This biggest shocker is that while dumping fracking flowback on the
ground is prohibited under the new NY regs, it is allowed if there is a BUD:
Beneficial Use Determination.

750-3.12 Disposal of HVHF wastewater

(a) All HVHF wastewater must be treated, recycled, or otherwise properly disposed through the life of the well in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws.
(b) The discharge of flowback to the ground is prohibited. The discharge of drilling fluids, formation fluids and production brine to the ground is prohibited, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A B.U.D. (Beneficial Use Determination). 

There's a little glade behind Patty's house which a small creek which flows down from the well pad 500' behind here house. When the drilling was happening a year ago, this foamy goo came down the creek.
 

Foamy goo which came down the creek behind Patty's house, from the well pad

Patty's dog drank this, had convulsions, and finally died.

Looking out Pat Klotz' front window, at a drill rig ~500' away.

UPDATE Mar 22, 2012

While it is "legal" now in NY, so far, spreading *Marcellus waste* (flowback, brines, produced fluids, residual waste, etc) on NY roads does not appear to have been a permitted use by the NYS DEC, at least until Dec 2008, when Walter Hang FOIL'd these records.

Presently, brines from vertical, possibly fracked gas wells in non-Marcellus formations is already being spread on NY roads. See: http://toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/foil-hl-110718.pdf   However, the source seem to be from NY wells sites (--therefore not HVHF, and not Marcellus--).

I have seen no evidence that PA Marcellus HVHF waste is being spread on NY roads, and so far NYS DEC have denied they are permitting this.

See: http://toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/foil-hl-110718.pdf

As the blog post indicates, it IS LEGAL in PA right now to spread "produced wastes" (--I refuse to say "produced water", but it sure as shit ain't water!!--) from Marcellus HVHF wells on roads, and I have posted photographs from Warren Center PA, which appear to be just that.

Also, as I indicate in the blog post above, it appears that the NYS DEC is planning this sort of thing, because it's in the new, proposed regulations, as well as land-sprading, as a possible "beneficial use". WTF.

Lastly, it is important to note that there are several landfills in NY which are accepting "drill cuttings" at NY landfills right now.

• http://www.fractracker.org/2012/03/where-does-the-waste-from-pas-marcellus-wells-go/
• http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-definitive-guide-to-myth-of-frack.html

I have also heard many reports that PA shyster operators and taking produced brines, residual wastes, flowback fluids, and emulsifying them with sawdust. (Have you wondered about all those trees they are pulping for access roads, pipeline easements, well pads, etc?--). This turns these fluids into a semi-solid. I believe these wastes are coming into NY RIGHT NOW. These materials produce a very toxic leachate, which leaks into local streams and rivers. They are already land-spreading this leachate on fields near Elmira.

This is an extremely serious matter, especially for people living in the Chemung River basin, basically from Corning/Painted Post to Waverly. These people are getting leachate from the landfills in their river, but also have upstream fracking operations coming up the Tioga River-- a double dose.

This is an extremely serious problem for people living in NY NOW!!, despite our moratorium. This issue is NOT being covered properly in the commercial press. Basically there is still a functional MEDIA BLACKOUT.

When I first broke this story to the Binghamton press, they portrayed me as being some hysterical whacko, saying there was "no proof" of any harms done.

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2012/09/anatomy-of-news-story.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5UIoDc3Hmc&list=PLo1TDxDrIRYow6vidwM_5-kQXUMuEtd0-&index=1

Jesus, do we have to wait for ACTUAL PROVED HARMS? e.g., if it was proved that PA frack water is entering Binghamton's water supply, and if it was proved that someone got sick from drinking it, THEN it would be a news story.

This is analogous to a guy with a gun at the shopping mall, taking random shots at people. However, to Gannett, it will only be newsworthy if he actually hits someone.

PS: the burden of proof here is extremely high, the Commercial Media News (Gannett, broadcast TV and radio, Time Warner, yes, even WSKG) are NOT looking for this story, they are doing spin to try to downplay the POSSIBLE RISKS of harm.

I hope this is helpful -- BH


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



We will have ONLY 30 days to comment December 12, 2012 through 5:00 PM on January 11, 2013. For more details, SEE:

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2012/11/ny-new-fracking-regs-all-links-are-here.html


--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)