Category Archives: pennsylvania unemployment

Bethel, NY’s Hydraulic Fracturing Ban; Public Comments


(Breathing Is Political left the Bethel Town Board’s March 15, 2012 Hearing on Town Law No. 1 of 2012 about twenty minutes before its finish. At that point, thirty members of the public had spoken in favor of the proposed law which would ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing as a high-impact activity in the Town and four members had spoken against the law and in favor of permitting H-VHF activities. According to Larysa Dyrszka, supporters of the legislative ban collected more than 500 petition signatures and at least 100 letters.  

Unfortunately,  the Town of Bethel’s website appears to be “down,”  but  the proposed legislation is scheduled for a vote at one of the April  Town Board meetings which regularly occur on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of each month at 7:30 pm.  If interested,  the Town’s phone number is:   845-583-4350.)

**********************

On March 15, 2012, the Bethel, NY Town Board heard from the public concerning the Town’s proposed Local Law No. 1 of 2012. (For more information, “findings of fact,” and an explanation of the proposed legislation, please see Appendix A and the Town of Bethel’s Land Use Analysis: Hazardous or Natural Gas and/or Petroleum Acivities and Industrial Uses.)

In introductory remarks, Bethel Town Attorney Robert McEwan described the proposed legislative changes as “explicitly prohibiting certain uses Town-wide” and as “amending Zoning Board procedures.”

According to a February 28, 2012 River Reporter article, Mr. McEwan said, “…that the amendment would not only ban gas drilling, but also a number of processes related to gas drilling, as well as high impact uses.” In the same article, Attorney McEwan clarified that, “High-impact uses are the kinds of industries that put out large amounts of pollution….” (BIP Note: The North American Industry Classification System mentioned in the article categorizes industries and assigns them “classification numbers” which can be researched here. The NAICS “is frequently used for various administrative, regulatory, contracting, taxation, and other-non statistical purposes.”

The provisions of Bethel’s Local Law No. 1 of 2012 most-addressed by speakers at the Hearing are these:

  • (6) Land Use Control. This Local Law is intended to act as and is hereby declared to exercise the permissive “incidental control” by the Town of its police power applied to the area of land use planning and the physical use of land and property within the Town, including the physical externalities associated with certain land uses, such as negative impacts on air and water quality, roadways and traffic congestion and other deleterious impacts on a community. This Law is not intended to regulate the operational processes of any business. This Local Law is a law of general applicability and is intended to promote the interests of the community as a whole; and
  • Sections 345-38 which explicitly prohibit injection wells, natural gas and/or petroleum exploration activities; natural gas and/or petroleum extraction activities, natural gas and/or petroleum extraction, exploration or production waste disposal/storage facilities, natural gas processing facilities, underground injection, high-impact uses and other specified activities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING BETHEL TOWN LAW NO. 1 OF 2012:

Although approximately forty people spoke at the the Hearing, Breathing Is Political offers these excerpted remarks as representative of the statements made:

Margarita Gleyzer referred to the fact that some who support H-VHF have called opponents of the process “fear-mongers.” In response, Ms. Gleyzerr  said, “Fear is an innate quality that keeps us from harm. We are not guaranteed jobs from fracking but we are guaranteed damage to our resources. Fracking is not a small town issue; it’s an international concern.”

Jeffrey Allison referred to many claims made by natural gas extraction companies as “myths:”

  • “We’re told there’s 100 years of shale gas in the Marcellus. At best there’s eleven.” (BIP Note: According to the US Geologic Survey, “The Marcellus Shale contains 84 trillion cubic feet of… technically recoverable natural gas and 3.4 billion barrels of…technically recoverable natural gas liquids…” Using US Energy Information Administration data, the U.S. consumed 24.37 trillion cubic feet in 2011. Accordingly, even if all the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale was actually recovered and not shipped to Norway, Japan, etc., we would gain only an additional 3-5 year supply.)


  • “We’re told that H-VHF will bring thousands of jobs but 77% of jobs are filled by out-of-state workers.” (BIP Note: The Center for Economic and Policy Research begs to differ with industry claims of job creation in Pennsylvania drilling areas: “What the data tell us is that fracking has created very few jobs. In fact, employment in five northeast Pennsylvania counties…with high drilling activity declined by 2.7 percent.” (Even accounting for the recession, CEPR calculates a total of “around 1,350 jobs — [which] includes both direct jobs in the gas industry, indirect jobs in the supply chain and induced jobs from spending by workers and landowners.


  • “We’re told that natural gas is cleaner than coal but scientists disagree.” (BIP note: A study issued out of Cornell University reports that gas extraction’s carbon footprint is likely larger than that of coal production.)

Richard Gebel and many other speakers spoke to the natural beauty of Bethel that might be laid waste by high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

Physicians such as Larysa Dyrszka, James Lomax and Hal Teitelbaum spoke to the human health impacts of H-VHF.  One of their shared concerns is that New York State’s draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement largely ignores those human health impacts. They talked about the dangers of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) and their impacts on water, soil, our foodshed – our human ecology. (BIP Note: Gas Drilling Tech Notes — with which BIP is affiliated — has an extensive library of scientific articles concerning H-VHF, the waste and radioactive materials produced by the industry’s processes and their impacts on natural and human environments.)

Eric London, a physician and researcher remarked that to begin fracking without a health impacts study would be unethical and he commended the Town Board for its efforts to protect the residents of Bethel.

Jennifer Young, a Bethel farmer, thanked the Town Board for taking a proactive stance. “The National Farmer’s Union has called for a moratorium. I raise free-range eggs and I depend on the quality of our land and water resources. We must support our farmers. We’ve seen an 18 percent decline in farms where gas extraction occurs.” (BIP Note: Apparently, Ms. Young was referring to a 2007-10 study conducted by Dr. Timothy Kelsey at Pennsylvania State University’s College of Agricultural Science. In his conclusions, Dr. Kelsey states, “Changes in dairy cow numbers also seem to be associated with the level of Marcellus shale drilling activity. Counties with 150 or more Marcellus shale wells on average experienced an 18.7 percent decrease in dairy cows, compared to only a 1.2 percent average decrease in counties with no Marcellus wells.”)

Kate Kennedy, a local business owner and resident in the Town of Delaware said, “We need our creamery. We need our slaughterhouse. We are poised to be the New York City foodshed. Fracking will endanger that.”

Laura Berger responded to frequent industry claims that New York State’s regulatory structure and oversight are the “toughest” by citing to The Environmental Working Group’s assertions that New York State is ill-equipped to oversee H-VHF and quoted, “New York has just 14 inspectors to oversee 13,000 existing natural gas and oil wells.”

Ronald Turner said, “This is a big moment for the Catskills. It might be the biggest since our towns were flooded to create the reservoirs. Fracking is not conducive to the qualities that draw people here.” He asked what would happen as the underground infrastructure that’s necessary for H-VHF begins to decay. “Who will monitor that decaying infrastructure,” he asked.

Of the speakers who asked the Bethel Town Board to delay passage of legislation that would ban H-VHF within the Town’s borders, Bill desRosiers of Energy In Depth‘s Marcellus affiliate — the public relations arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) — was the first to speak and urged the Town Board and Hearing attendees to visit the website, “Frac Focus.” “You can track every well drilled,” he said. “You can find GPS locations and view the chemicals used.” (BIP Note: As Jill Weiner remarked  in her subsequent rebuttal of Mr. desRosiers’ statements, release of chemical-usage information is voluntary, not mandatory.  Further, the Frac Focus site states, “Because the make-up of each fracturing fluid varies to meet the specific needs of each area…” there is still no way of knowing which chemicals were used at a specific site. Additionally, only non-proprietary chemicals are listed at Frac Focus.)

Mr. desRosiers also referred to the March 15, 2012 press release from the Environmental Protection Agency detailing its findings to date on water samples from Dimock, PA. “EPA’s testing in Dimock failed to show elevated levels of contamination,” he claimed. (BIP Note: A reading of the actual press release shows that contamination was discovered, that the testing is incomplete and that “EPA will continue to provide water” to three of the homes which are currently receiving such deliveries. Relatedly, Water Defense has asked several serious questions concerning EPA Region 3’s handling of the Dimock situation which has diverged significantly from investigations conducted by other EPA regional offices. Following EPA’s March 15th announcement, Dimock-resident Scott Ely drew water from his well and collected it in a plastic jug on March 16, 2012.  Thanks to Michael Lebron for this timely photo.)

In conclusion, Mr. desRosiers asked the Town Board to delay its approval of its proposed Town Law 1-2012, “Appeals will be filed in the Dryden and Middlefield cases. I urge you to await the results of the appeals process.” (BIP Note: Mr. desRosiers reference is to two recent New York State Court decisions which upheld the right of local jurisdictions to restrict certain activities within their boundaries.)

Sondra Bauernfeind, the former Chair of the Sullivan County Conservative Party, opined that “Zoning reduces property rights” and reiterated Mr. desRosiers’ request that the Town Board delay approval of the proposed law until “higher courts weigh-in” on the Dryden and Middlefield decisions. Further, Ms. Bauernfeind suggested that laws which prohibit a landowner’s exploitation of his/her property’s resources amount to a taking. “Delaware County wants $81 billion from NYC for property takings.(BIP note: Several courts have dealt with this issue of “takings” (or “Inverse Condemnation” as it’s known in the law) and many legal scholars have concluded that such claims will be struck down in the courts. An introduction to the topic can be found in BIP’s article, “Gas Drilling: Inverse Condemnation: Private vs. Public Interests.”

Harold Russell, a former Bethel Town Board member and opponent of the proposed Town Law pointed to foreclosures in Sullivan County and the dearth of employment for young people in our communities. “Use your heads not your politics!” he finished. (BIP Note: For more on property values, mortgages and natural gas extraction, please see “Rush to Drill for Natural Gas Creates Conflicts With Mortgages.”)

******************

In addition to the many Town of Bethel residents who spoke, residents from the Towns of Delaware, Lumberland, Cochecton and Callicoon were also in attendance, due, presumably, to the potential for natural gas exploration, extraction and processing activities being conducted in their Towns.

If you live in a Town where high-volume hydraulic fracturing is being considered, be aware that the process in Bethel has taken, to date, approximately fifteen months.  One resident close to Bethel’s process suggested,  “It makes sense for Towns just looking into zoning protections to consider a moratorium first.  With that in place, they can begin to address potential zoning changes.”

For more information on moratorium efforts, The Community Environmental Defense Council —  David and Helen Slottje —  is the  non-profit public interest law firm based in Ithaca, New York that worked — for free —  with  Bethel and many other Towns in New York. 

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), based in Pennslvania,   “is a non-profit, public interest law firm providing free and affordable legal services to communities facing threats to their local environment, local agriculture, the local economy, and quality of life.  Our mission is to build sustainable communities by assisting people to assert their right to local self-government and the rights of nature.”

 

Drilling, Hydro-Fracking, Journalism & Bias


(This column was sparked by  “elb’s”  comments below and invites either “elb” or  the commentator of his/her choice to respond as a guest columnist. Although  I disagree that the available science urges us to give  drilling and hydraulic fracturing  a chance,  the point of Breathing is to offer a forum for intellectually-honest discussion.  “elb’s”  full comments can be reached by clicking the comment link to the right of this column under  “recent comments.”)

Dear “elb,”

I wish you’d cited to examples when you wrote, “Those thousands in upstate NY who rallied for gas drilling see more benefits than negatives, yet you have not even made the first attempt to understand their point of view or why they reached it.  Instead, you’ve inferred that they’re insane idiots who care nothing for the land, just their wallets.”

I’d be interested to know how my  statement, “People are moved by  threats they perceive  as  intimate and immediate.  Unfortunately  for pro-water advocates,  residents of New York and Pennsylvania face many threats — many of which seem more ‘immediate’  than the potential loss of their drinking water.   How will they pay their mortgages?  How will they pay their student loans?  Where’s their next paycheck coming from?”  infers that drilling proponents are “insane idiots who care nothing  for the land, just their wallets.”

In fact, I’ve written angrily as a  former farm laborer and construction worker that many  landholders have been forced by  economic circumstances to even consider leasing their  gas rights and I’ve  exhorted  Basin communities to take specific steps in defense of our Basin’s economy and local producers.)

When you say, “Yet I hear very little insulting, denigrating comments directed at the ‘other side’  from them, despite a passion equal to yours…,”  does that include your statement,  “Instead, you’ve taken the blindly narcissistic stance that ‘it’s not possible’  that you and your fellow supporters might be guilty — or even capable — of exaggerating risks?”

Does it account for  Mr. Noel  Van Swol calling pro-water advocates “dilettantes”  at the July 15th DRBC Hearing?

Your statement provides no substantiation that I’ve exaggerated my claims  so  there’s little I can say in response.

However, it seems to me that certain facts must be accepted before we proceed:

  • hydraulic fracturing fluid contains toxic chemicals capable of rendering a water supply worthless;
  • the only scientific investigative  study currently in existence is the one recently released by the Environmental Protection Agency;
  • polluted water  wells must be reported within six months of  the suspect gas well being drilled and fracked;
  • when screwing anything on the horizontal,  the object will remain stable… until it doesn’t;
  • The Texas Supreme Court recently stated, “The [drilling] design projects the length of the fractures from the well measured three ways…. Estimates of these distances are…at best imprecise. Clues about the direction in which fractures are likely to run horizontally from the well may be derived from seismic and other data, but virtually nothing can be done to control that direction; the fractures will follow Mother Nature’s fault lines in the formation.”
  • no governmental or ad hoc agency has the budget or staff   to oversee any aspect of drilling and fracking:  not the drilling and water withdrawals nor the actual  fracking and disposal of the resultant toxic waste water — a crucial gap that has been  recognized by the Delaware River Basin Commission;

Despite your assessment of my position  (“I see one thing over and over again on this blog — a true lack of an open mind. You’ve made up your mind about gas drilling, despite much evidence ((especially in western NYS and other areas inside and certainly outside the West) that it can live in harmony with the environment and local communities.”))  I am not opposed to drilling and hydraulic fracturing;  I am opposed to slipshod processes.

And most assuredly,  I am opposed to approving an  activity or technology just  because there are locations where it’s operated safely even though  a wealth of circumstantial evidence points to very specific harms elsewhere.   (Not all smokers die of  smoking-related diseases.  Does that mean smoking is harmless?)

To further  explain my objection to shoddy process,  I  opposed  invading Iraq without well-articulated reasons, proof and adherence to Constitutional law.  I was especially opposed to our  policy makers relying  on  Ahmad Chalabi’s vested-interest “clarifications”  since he was angling to  be  Saddam’s  replacement.

A reasonable person would have questioned the value of  Chalabi’s  “evidence” as I  now question the value of  drilling company vested-interest   “evidence” and “assurances.”

More personally,   having been a teenager myself,   when my kids  told me  the party they were attending was safe, I automatically checked with the chaperones.  Loving our children or liking corporations doesn’t absolve us of using  common sense.   If people behaved rationally and  with the “common weal”  firmly in mind,  we’d have no need of laws or oversight  or even newspapers and discussion fora.

Which leads rather nicely to the issue of the  report released by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning  water contamination in  Wyoming about which you say, “Instead, you’ve decried the gas drilling industry’s propaganda (of which there is plenty) in favor of Earthworks’ propaganda: a press release that only hints at the fact that the EPA (1) has not yet determined the cause and source of the contaminated wells, and (2) only THREE of the 11 contaminated wells — out of 39 tested — had a toxin specific to fracking. How does that qualify for sounding a nationwide alarm, let alone the environmental catastrophe you’re constantly trying to whip your readers into a frenzy about?”)

What follows here are

“In interviews with ProPublica and at a public meeting this month in Pavillion’s community hall, officials spoke cautiously about their preliminary findings. They were careful to say they’re investigating a broad array of sources for the contamination, including agricultural activity. They said the contaminant causing the most concern – a compound called 2-butoxyethanol, known as 2-BE  – can be found in some common household cleaners, not just in fracturing fluids.

“But those same EPA officials also said they had found no pesticides – a signature of agricultural contamination – and no indication that any industry or activity besides drilling could be to blame. Other than farming, there is no industry in the immediate area.

“…according to EPA investigation documents, most of the water wells were flushed three times before they were tested in order to rid them of anything that wasn’t flowing through the aquifer itself.

“‘It starts to finger-point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself,” said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation “could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination.'”

(Conclusive, “elb?”  No,  but certainly worthy of  a moratorium until full explanations are available.)

  • a link to an earlier introductory article  and
  • a link to the EPA’s actual report (which I was unable to locate despite searching for over an hour)

We don’t have to argue the content; readers can decide whether or not I am attempting to  “whip [them] into a frenzy”  or whether I’m reasonably  concerned by the consequences  we see in Wyoming, Fort Worth,  Dimock (PA) and elsewhere of  “rushing to judgment”  as we did in Iraq.

Isn’t it rational to wonder why  those with the least are risking the most and  well-heeled energy corporations are poised to make out like bandits yet again?

Is it whipping readers “into a frenzy”  to remind them that corporations aren’t always honest and government  overseers are not always  concerned for the well-being of the “People.” (We have ample evidence of this given the recent economic meltdown and the collusive actions  of the Securities & Exchange Commission, ratings agencies and other financial pirates who  secured obscene profits for a few  while huge numbers of us lost our life savings and homes.)

Is it particularly onerous that I would raise those issues when our very water supply depends on drilling companies caring more for the water and our welfare  than they do their profits?  Is that me falling prey to “Earthworks’ propaganda” or is it a reasonable caution given  the times  in which we live and the fundamental nature of corporations which is to increase profits for their shareholders?

“Unlike the people you reached out to farther down the Delaware Valley, where gas drilling is likely never to come,”  you write, “most landowners in this area have done their homework and — untainted by the desire to hear only the facts that support a pre-set point of view — have come to a different, far less extreme conclusion.”

I’m left to assume  that their “far less extreme conclusion” is to  lease their gas rights…?     How is jumping in with both feet, no matter their reasons,  “far less extreme”  than  my position which I reiterate here for the umpteenth time:

“I want  the DRBC to table all drilling and fracking applications until after an  Environmental Impact Statement has been issued and independent, scientific studies have evaluated  the cumulative impacts of drilling, fracking and waste water disposal on the Delaware River Basin.”

Rather than being  part of a frenzied rush to drill,  I’m trying to  set the brake on  a run-away train.  (Imagine how much better we’d be sitting if   caution and science had informed  President Bush’s Iraq War strategy before he launched  “Shock and Awe.”)

You also state, “We are all actively working to avoid the kind of environmental holocaust you relish describing, even though the fact remains that no catastrophe on the scale you fear here has ever been seen in the U.S.”

I’m sure that your  reasoning will provide  comfort  to the residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island which were, I’m sure you’ll agree,   ground breaking events in their own right.

(I would appreciate you forwarding to me copies of   gas leases  which “avoid the kind of environmental holocaust”  you believe I “relish describing….”  Or perhaps you could include them in your rebuttal as evidence of  lessors’ efforts to protect our Basin.)

As to your insistence that information printed by ProPublica is propaganda, please consider Mr. Lustgarten’s  credentials  (“Abrahm Lustgarten is a former staff writer and contributor for Fortune, and has written for Salon, Esquire, the Washington Post and the New York Times since receiving his master’s in journalism from Columbia University in 2003. He is the author of the book China’s Great Train: Beijing’s Drive West and the Campaign to Remake Tibet, a project that was funded in part by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.”) and the fact that he has chosen to work for ProPublica as a respected news source.

Then, please,  provide evidence of your assertion that ProPublica spews propaganda as well as  examples of  gas industry propaganda.

So you see, I completely agree, whether or not it’s my ” blog to do with as [I]  please,”  readers should demand  that we  provide  well-researched and balanced information for them to chew over in a civil venue.

In return, I ask the same of you and whomever you choose to write your rebuttal which I will be pleased to publish here.

Rally Asks NY State to Rescind Gas Drilling Moratorium


According to  The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY, “A rally Sunday sponsored by supporters of natural-gas drilling in the area attracted hundreds of people to General Clinton Park in Bainbridge, according to organizers.”    An official attendance figure  was not available  “but…organizers parked about 400 cars.”

According to The Star Gazette,    “Dan Fitzsimmons, an organizer, said 871 vehicles parked for the event, many with two or more occupants.”

Uh oh.   Fifth grade angst is stopping my heart.

The  future health of the Delaware River Basin will  probably be  decided in a few short weeks.  The financial futures of our local producers hang in the balance.  The clean drinking water source for 15 million+  people is on the chopping block.  Our  neighbors in Dimock, PA and Pavilion, Wyoming are pleading  with us to wake up — to join hands with them.

But, as an organizer of   “The Light Up The Delaware River Party,”  my fifth grade refrain is,  “Will as many people come to my 9-6-09  party as showed up  at the Landowners’ shindig.”

I’m so pathetic I almost didn’t  publish The Star Gazette’s more flattering crowd assessment of the pro-drilling rally.

So what’s a grassroots  organizer to do?   What variety of factors motivated 1000-2000 people to rally for drilling and hydro fracking in  New York State when the EPA just reported, “… that initial investigations found 11 of 39 tested drinking water wells [Pavilion, Wyoming] were contaminated. Among the contaminants are toxics used in oil and gas production.”?

I’m flummoxed beyond words.  As Leni Santoro and I hand-delivered  Light Up The Delaware River Party invitations throughout the Delaware River Basin, we encountered two scenarios  over and over again:   (1)  most people in the Basin had not heard of gas drilling or hydraulic fracturing; and (2)  every single person  who heard about it from us for the first time was outraged and dumbstruck that drilling and hydro fracking are being seriously considered in The Basin.

People are moved by  threats they perceive  as  intimate and immediate.  Unfortunately  for pro-water advocates,  residents of New York and Pennsylvania face many threats — many of which seem more “immediate”  than the potential loss of their drinking water.   How will they pay their mortgages?  How will they pay their student loans?  Where’s their next paycheck coming from?

A while back, I wrote,  “Faced with famine, dwindling resources and invaders who carried contagious diseases, the inhabitants of  “Easter Island”  (Rapa Nui)  turned on one another and plundered the lands of those who were killed.   Their cultural totems were destroyed by civil wars and the people were reduced and enslaved….  In times of threat, we all reach for familiar comforts, tending to  turn our backs to the storm and cast worried glances at strangers.  So I ask myself, have our fears so crippled us that we can’t learn  the lessons of history?”

If gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing come to The Delaware River Basin as they have to Fort Worth, Texas,  Pavilion, Wyoming and  Dimock, Pennsylvania,  what power will we have   to stop them in New York State?  New York City has registered its  opposition to any threat against its water supply, but what  about those of us who live in the Upper Basin?   The same economic forces at work in Pennsylvania (the loss of 220,000 + industrial  jobs in five years and the destruction of small local  farms)  will  carry the  “Drill, baby, drill” anthem across  the Delaware River and into New York State.

Where will we plant our feet to stop them?

“The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has scheduled a public hearing on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 to take testimony on its proposed revisions to the draft docket for the application by Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC.  The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at PPL’s Wallenpaupack Environmental Learning Center in Hawley, Pa. The revised draft docket will be available for public review about 10 business days prior to the September 23 hearing. As before, there will also be an opportunity to submit comments in writing.  The earliest occasion on which the commission may act on the docket is at its next public meeting, scheduled for October 22, 2009.”

The 9-6-09  “Light Up The Delaware River Party”  is  one of  the  last chances you’ll have to be heard before the DRBC  decides an issue that will impact your lives for as long as you live in The Basin.  For those of us who remain, the future looks bleak.

Don’t pretend it isn’t happening.  It is.

Don’t  think sanity will prevail without your  voice.  It won’t.

Don’t think  pro-water advocates are exaggerating  the threat from drilling and hydro fracking.  It isn’t possible.

Don’t miss this chance to celebrate the works of the river and its people.  There won’t be many others.

Don’t leave  gas drilling policies  in the hands of drilling companies as the residents of  Wyoming and Texas and Dimock  did or you’ll be  left with the same  contaminated waters and worthless land as is their portion.

Stand up now.  Demand  that the DRBC  require an Environmental Impact  Statement and scientific studies of the cumulative impact of drilling and hydraulic fracturing on The Delaware River Basin.  Require a detailed explanation of which agencies will oversee contaminated waste water disposal.

Light up your portion of the  Delaware River.  Find out how to plan an event in your area.  Tell us what you’re planning and  invite others.  (Post your events at the “party location”  page even if it’s a “closed” family event.   The DRBC needs to know we’re alive and active.)  Don’t forget to email  photos of your event to  ljbucar@earthlink.net or  leni5s@yahoo.com.  They’ll be posted  on a map of The Basin and presented as a collage to the DRBC.

Come to the table before it’s barren.

Chesapeake Energy & Penn State’s Robert Watson: Who Are Those Guys?


Pursued  by a well-financed posse,   Butch Cassidy  and The Sundance Kid wondered again and again,  “Who are those guys?”   Their  wild west world —  a place they understood and  felt safe in —  had become more memory than fact.    Even at the very end, when Butch and The Kid  faced certain death at the hands of  hundreds of  Federales Mexicanos,  they and the audience believed  the old ways would survive side-by-side with the  industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand industry’s insatiable  hungers  in 1908, we still ask in 2009,  “Who are those guys?”

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY:  Its own words and omissions.

Most readers of this column know that Chesapeake Appalachia is a natural gas drilling company that wants to hydraulically fracture and drill the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus encompasses nearly 44 million acres and  underlies a third of Ohio, bits of Maryland and Virginia, all but a thin wedge of West Virginia,  most of Pennsylvania and stretches under and beyond the Delaware River  into New York State.

Pro-water advocates point to reports that hydraulic fracturing and waste water disposal have resulted in contaminated ground water, ruined private wells, sick residents, explosions and poisoned livestock.  “The Delaware River [Watershed] supplies water to 15 million people, including New York City and Philadelphia,” so Damascus Citizens for Sustainability and other conservation groups are pressing the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to produce  Environmental Impact Statements and a comprehensive review of drilling’s cumulative impacts before any gas drilling applications are considered or approved.

But behind the scenes,  what does Chesapeake tell its investors (or omit from the telling)?

First,  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey McClendon,  began his 2008 Annual Report to Shareholders with one of  Charles Dickens’ most famous quotes,  “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”  One wonders that any CEO would willingly adopt a Dickensian mantle given the author’s depictions of hatchet-faced money-grubbers, but that’s Mr. McClendon’s look-out.

Chesapeake’s CEO tells his investors that, “As  of December 31, 2008, [Chesapeake] owned interests in approximately 41,200 producing natural gas and oil wells; and had 12.051 trillion cubic feet equivalent of proved reserves…[In 2008], Revenues rose 49% from $7.8 billion to $11.6 billion….”

(I’m  befuddled that he omitted mentioning his own annual compensation of $116.89 million which ranks him third amongst American CEOs even though his performance earned him a less stellar  rating of 66 out 175. Also omitted was the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan’s “six-party lawsuit” demanding that Chesapeake rescind the $75-million bonus it awarded McClendon.  I’m sure the omission was an oversight and so I’ve included it here.)

Also absent from his letter is the Class Action suit lodged against Chesapeake by investors for making “materially false and misleading statements” during a recent public stock offering.

And he skips any  reference to the Court’s judgment that found Chesapeake had defrauded royalty owners in Texas out of $134 million in payments by under-reporting the amount of  gas Chesapeake extracted from its lessor’s wells.

The  20 cows that dropped dead in Caddo Parish, Louisiana near a Chesapeake well also escaped Mr. McClendon’s notice.

Nor did I find any allusion to  the recent Texas Supreme Court case which saved the drilling industry’s collective butt by saying company wells could drain  gas from adjacent properties without fault because “subsurface trespass by frac”  can’t be proved and therefore is not a ’cause of action’ in Texas courts.  “Frac treatments may commence at the surface, but the real work occurs unseen in the depths of the well and rock formations, and only theory and hypothesis can be advanced in support of an alleged underground trespass.”   (How, then, does the industry prove  that frac treatments are safe when they’re carried out “unseen in the depths…?”)

In 2008, Chesapeake forecasted that their Marcellus Shale leasing campaign would be finished by 2010 with “approximately two million acres of leasehold in the play.”

Consistently, Chesapeake and other gas companies have said  that moving forward at all possible speed with natural gas exploitation (without levying “deterrent” taxes or conducting  scientific studies) is required by our national interest.  On the other hand, in his letter to investors,  Mr. McClendon states, “Because of lower natural gas prices in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, we have substantially reduced our drilling activities in the Barnett [Shale] from 43 rigs in August 2008 to around 20 today. We intend to maintain this lower pace of drilling until natural gas prices recover to more attractive levels.”

Apparently, the national interest is only provocative if it dovetails with Chesapeake’s ability to rake in maximum profits.

As long as we’re  singing paeans to the National Interest,  let’s see what Mr.  McClendon has to say about sharing our national wealth with other multi-national corporations:  “A key to Chesapeake’s Fayetteville success,” he attests,  “was entering into a joint venture with [British Petroleum] in September 2008. In this joint venture, we sold 25% of our assets in the Fayetteville to BP for $1.9 billion in cash and future drilling carries.…Earlier in 2008, we had also sold to BP all of our Woodford assets in the Arkoma Basin for $1.7 billion.”

As to the amount of our  National Interest and Wealth that Chesapeake’s sharing  with Norway’s StatoilHydro,** Mr. McClendon announced proudly,  “After acquiring 1.8 million net acres, Chesapeake began looking for its third shale joint venture partner. This search culminated in a $3.375 billion transaction with StatoilHydro, one of the most innovative, well-respected and largest of the European international energy companies. This transaction, in which we sold a 32.5% interest in our Marcellus assets, was completed in November 2008. StatoilHydro had been seeking an entry point into a big U.S. shale play and had independently arrived at the conclusion that the Marcellus was the best shale play in which to invest….Today, Chesapeake is drilling with 10 rigs in the Marcellus. We plan to end 2009 with at least 20 rigs drilling and project 30 rigs drilling by year-end 2010 and 40 rigs drilling by year-end 2011… In addition, we also are engaged with StatoilHydro in searching for additional shale gas plays around the world in a 50/50 partnership.”

In a more innocuous statement, Mr. McClendon offers this prognostication, “I also see our company continuing as an industry leader in innovation and technology, underpinned by a work force and asset base second to none.”  In part, he is alluding to Chesapeake’s “Energy in Training” intern program [which] maximizes [Chesapeake’s] college recruiting efforts and encourages students to enter the [drilling] industry while still learning.”

Which leads me to wonder about the validity of  Pennsylvania State University’s  (PSU)  July 2009 study, “An Emerging Giant: Prospects and Economic Impacts of Developing the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play,” co-authored, among others, by Timothy Considine (University of Wyoming, whose state is home to  the Mowry Shale in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin) and Robert Watson (Pennsylvania State University,  whose state is home to the Marcellus Shale.)

Those coincidences alone are enough to ask  “Who are those guys?” but what really piqued my interest was that the study cites no funding sources and  sings hosannas for a projected economic boom in Pennsylvania without addressing the costs of environmental degradation.  (Costs that are already emerging in Fort Worth, TX,  Dimock, PA,  Hickory, PA and the state of Wyoming.)

The copy of the study I’ve linked  to is located at PA Marcellus — a consortium of drilling companies.  The Study’s authors  (1)  oppose legislation that will force drilling companies to reveal the toxins used in drilling and frakking; and  (2)  suggest that levying a production tax on the industry will burden Pennsylvania with lost revenues because,  the authors predict,  such State actions will deter companies from drilling in Pennsylvania and lead to slowed exploitation of the Marcellus Shale.

At last count, more than sixty organizations have  already opposed the Study’s assertion that a tax would impede exploitation of the Marcellus Shale.  In fact, opponents say, drilling companies are salivating at the prospect of drilling into the Marcellus’ rich heart.

Anyone — including drilling company employees — who tracks down the entities who funded this propaganda in a prestigious American university will win a gift from  CottageWorks.

In the meantime, who is Robert Watson, one of the study’s two lead authors?  He is the Director of Penn State University’s Consortium for Petroleum and Natural Gas.  Penn State’s website describes The Consortium thusly,  “The Consortium is industry driven and focused on identifying, expanding, and creating new value-added markets for petroleum and natural gas-based products. Research is also being done to identify and develop new technologies to increase the efficiency and/or productivity of petroleum and natural gas exploration, production, and refining.”

Perhaps he knows who funded his study. The PSU website lists his email address as:  bob@pnge.psu.edu and his phone number as  814-865-0531.

So who are these guys?  They’re the people who pay Congress to enact drilling-friendly legislation with provisions like the Halliburton Loophole.  They’re the people who help establish drilling-friendly curricula in publicly-funded universities.  They’re the people who benefit to the tune of billions of dollars when publicly-funded universities write studies supportive of their private industry.

More important,  who are the People of Pennsylvania whose lives are, according to PSU, improved by Penn State’s cosy relationship with the natural gas drilling industry?

They’re the people whose children will pay at least $12,538  to attend and live on PSU’s  University Park Campus this next academic year. (It’s not clear that the University’s tuition calculator incorporates a proposed 3.7% tuition hike.)

They’re the people whose unemployment rate climbed to 8.3% in June 2009.  (The average income of the bottom 90% of Pennsylvania taxpayers actually declined by 4% from 2001 to 2005.)

They’re the people who “..lost nearly 202,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, according to the Alliance for American Manufacturing…”

They’re the people who are being conned into a poker game where drilling companies hold all the chips (jobs) and make all the rules.

Disclaimer:  As a New York State resident who’s  lived three decades in or near  the Delaware River Basin, these observations about PSU have been spurred by this particular study.  I have no doubt that  similar instances of Corporate Cronyism exist at the State University of New York.

Coming soon: Discussion of gas drilling leases recently signed in Wayne County, Pennsylvania.

********************

*There is great debate about when and where the “real” Butch and Sundance died.

** Of their lucrative deal with Chesapeake,  Statoil Hydro says at their website, “The holding covers 1.8 million acres in the Appalachian region of the north-eastern USA. The acquisition is part of a strategic agreement between the two companies to jointly explore unconventional gas opportunities worldwide.  The agreement covers more than 32,000 leases in the states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York and Ohio. Chesapeake plans to continue acquiring leases in the Marcellus shale play. StatoilHydro has the right to a 32.5% participation in any such additional leasehold. With this transaction StatoilHydro has acquired future, recoverable equity resources in the order of 2.5-3.0 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe). StatoilHydro’s equity production from the Marcellus shale gas play is expected to increase to at least 50,000 boe per day in 2012 and at least 200,000 boe per day after 2020. Both companies believe that the development programme could support the drilling of 13,500 to 17,000 horizontal wells over the next 20 years.”

Powered by ScribeFire.