New report shows natural gas economic impact will be minimal

Paper counters other assessments on subject
By Tom Wilber
pressconnects.com
April 1, 2010

And now for another educated guess about what the Marcellus Shale will do to the economy: Not much.

That's from Jannette M. Barth, president of J.M. Barth & Associates, Inc., an economic research and consulting firm in Croton-on-Hudson.

In a paper released last week, Barth looked at employment and demographic information in areas where drilling has flourished in New York, Pennsylvania and western states. Unlike a study commissioned by Broome County and another at Penn State sponsored by the gas drilling industry, Barth's assessment suggested economic benefits from drilling will be underwhelming, at best. Using Pennsylvania as an example, she cited employment data that show the oil and gas extraction industry has historically produced less than 3,000 jobs a year, although it's been well established for decades. The number of Walmart employees in the state, by comparison, was 48,777.

In New York, her analysis showed income and employment data ... vastly different from two other studies. One,commissioned by Broome County and released last year, projected a $14 billion impact if 4,000 wells were drilled within the county's borders. Another 2009 Penn State study, sponsored by the industry, forecast nearly 175,000 jobs annually and more than $13 billion in added value. That study ... also warned that taxes and regulations threaten to "stunt" the industry and hurt the overall tax base.

"The studies used to support the claim that drilling will bring economic benefits to New York are either biased, dated, seriously flawed, or simply not applicable to the region that would be affected," said Barth, who holds master's and doctoral degrees in economics from the University of Maryland.
...
CLICK HERE for complete article.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Chesapeake Energy Dismisses Earthquakes and Dead Cows -- Says Company Still "Clean and Green"

While its clean and green message is falling flat...
"At every turn, whether its allegations of earthquakes or polluted wells, the company’s refutation remains unflinchingly consistent:

In every state where we operate, the company is cognizant of the need to conserve water and protect groundwater resources. We always use safety measures such as surface casing and conductor pipe to ensure the integrity of freshwater formations. We isolate and safely dispose of any saltwater produced during the drilling process."

CLICK HERE to read the complete report.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

EUREKA!

Here's how the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York Figures it Can WHAT??? Placate? Assuage? Appease? ...oh, what's the word for it??? Reassure Us or Mitigate Our Outrage After TWO Toxic Spills in Dimock PA... EUREEEEKA!

This ought to do it!

Come On People!
Talk Back to this Fantasy!!!

(Editorializing in red by Splashdown)

IOGA of NY Press Statement on Spill at Gas-Drilling Site in Dimock, PA

LAKE VIEW, NY (09/18/2009)(readMedia)-- The following press statement was issued by Brad Gill, Executive Director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York (IOGA-NY) on September 18, 2009.

"On behalf of members the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, we are deeply concerned with the incident that occurred, in Dimock, Pennsylvania yesterday (September 17, 2009). It is our understanding that the spill resulted from a decoupling of a water line, which contained "slick water". Slick water is comprised of 99.5 percent water and sand and is not considered a toxic substance.

ahem... This is from an Aug. 7th update on the death of 17 cows in a Louisiana pasture:

"No final toxicology report has been made public about what killed 17 cows in south Caddo after they ingested liquid spilled from a nearby Chesapeake Energy Corp. drilling site April 28.

...

During a routine fracturing operation by Schlumberger, some fluids composed of 99 percent freshwater leaked onto the well pad then onto the pasture after a rain, Chesapeake Energy, which owns the well site, says in a letter sent in June to DEQ. About 4 p.m. April 28, site workers noticed the dead cattle."

We've already seen how lethal 99% water can be...

EUREKA!

Care for a glass of that water Mr. Gill?

The Pennsylvania DEP has been on hand and is satisfied with the remediation being completed.

The incident in Dimock is indeed regrettable and unfortunate. It is important to note that this circumstance should not be viewed as representative of members' work and experience day-to-day. Such incidents as the spill in Dimock are quiet rare, ...we interrupt this sentence!

(rare: adj. 1. coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon)

EUREKA!, Cabot Oil accused of being responsible for contaminating Dimock wells.

EUREKA! Methane contamination in Colorado water wells linked to drilling.

EUREKA! House explodes in Ohio.

EUREKA! Cows die in Louisiana pasture near Chesapeake spill.

EUREKA! ...drilling has already poisoned wells in western Pennsylvania, Colorado, Alabama, Arkansas, New Mexico, Kansas, Montana, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

EUREKA! Water leak from Washington County gas well kills fish.

EUREKA! Not long ago the first earthquake near gas drilling sites in Texas was thought, by some, to be an anomaly. Now, 17 earthquakes later, in the space of only a few months, we cannot claim pure coincidence, nor can we ignore the dangers these earthquakes present to gas pipelines and so, to safety.

EUREKA! Contaminated water in Bradford, PA ... Water problems from drilling more frequent than PA officials said.

EUREKA! Natural gas well leak in Lycoming Co. contaminates tributaries, spring and water wells in private homes.

EUREKA! Another natural gas well leak near Roaring Branch, PA and a string of more than 50 similar cases related to gas drilling in the state.

EUREKA! Pavillion, Wyoming: EPA Confirms Drinking Water Contamination by Toxics Used in Hydraulic Fracturing.

EUREKA! Birds die after exposure to hydrocarbons in open natural gas well pits and wastewater storage facilities at ExxonMobil sites in five states.

EUREKA! 2-BE and other chemical contaminants, used in drilling, linked to series of illnesses. Pollluted water near gas-drilling sites endangering the health of people who live close to drilling rigs.

EUREKA! ...and that's just a six month Splashdown sampling...
(See more on TXsharon's Bluedaze!)

and natural gas exploration has been conducted safely and in an environmentally sound manner for decades in New York.

(Has New York had horizontal hydrofractured wells for decades? Heh. What's stopping the industry from drilling another one tomorrow?)

Our companies have worked very, very hard to work in conscientious concern for the environment – due in large measure to very rigorous oversight by NYSDEC - and we will continue to do so. We live and work in New York too.

We stand steadfast in our conviction that natural gas exploration can be facilitated in a safe and environmentally friendly manner. In days to come, IOGA of NY is looking forward to the Department of Environmental Conservation's issuance of a generic environmental impact statement that will guide Marcellus development. And as we have done in the past, our companies will comply with all regulations and permit requirements."

Well, this just flies in the face of reality. We'll take a closer look at that next.

***

IOGA of NY is a trade association founded in 1980 to protect, foster and advance the common interests of oil and gas producers, professionals and related industries in the State of New York. For additional information on natural gas exploration, as well as an up-to-date listing of the association's public meeting schedule, please visit IOGA of NY's informational blog: https://www.marcellusfacts.com.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Barnett Shale... Marcellus Shale...

Here's a post that'll give your mouse some exercise, starting with the MUST READ post by TXsharon over on Bluedaze, Barnett Shale Money Creates a Public Deaf, Dumb and Blind to Risks which links to the MUST READ article in the Fort Worth Weekly, by Don Young, Learning to Love Big Gas.

When you read these stories, and you contrast the bait with the hook, line and sinker, you have to sit up straight and pour yourself a V-8!
It occured to me, and I hope it'll to occur to more and more folks everywhere:

This is an important post, and it links to an important article because it reveals exactly how the gas industry is eroding democracy in the guise of benevolence, while really they're buying guarantees to their own corrupt brand of outlaw freedom!

What makes this information so vital is that this is not just happening in Fort Worth or in Texas. It's being repeated here in Bradford County, PA on the Marcellus shale (and no doubt in lots of other places as well). The 'benefactors' seem quite pleased (while apparently, like TXsharon says, "Deaf, Dumb and Blind to Risks"), but what they're giving away is everyone's America... or what's left of it once the drillers buy it out from under us.

For an actual example of what's being exposed here, don't miss TXsharon's next post, in which she shows us pictures of the Chesapeake display in the library. Notice especially the picture of the "Frack Pond" ... See how blue (clean) they've portrayed the water as being?
Now who doesn't know that's a lie???

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

"How in god’s name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?"

UPDATE:
EPA: Chemicals Found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - August 25, 2009 12:36 pm EDT

Louis Meeks’ well water contains methane gas, hydrocarbons, lead and copper, according to the EPA’s test results. When he drilled a new water well, it also showed contaminants. The drilling company Encana is supplying Meeks with drinking water. (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)

Federal environment officials investigating drinking water contamination near the ranching town of Pavillion, Wyo., have found that at least three water wells contain a chemical used in the natural gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing. Scientists also found traces of other contaminants, including oil, gas or metals, in 11 of 39 wells tested there since March.

The study, which is being conducted under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, is the first time the EPA has undertaken its own water analysis in response to complaints of contamination in drilling areas, and it could be pivotal in the national debate over the role of natural gas in America’s energy policy.

Abundant gas reserves are being aggressively developed in 31 states, including New York and Pennsylvania. Congress is mulling a bill that aims to protect those water resources from hydraulic fracturing, the process in which fluids and sand are injected under high pressure to break up rock and release gas. But the industry says environmental regulation is unnecessary because it is impossible for fracturing fluids to reach underground water supplies and no such case has ever been proven.

Scientists in Wyoming will continue testing this fall to determine the level of chemicals in the water and exactly where they came from. If they find that the contamination did result from drilling, the placid plains arching up to the Wind River Range would become the first site where fracturing fluids have been scientifically linked to groundwater contamination.

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.

In Pavillion, a town of about 160 people in the heart of the Wind River Indian Reservation, the gas wells are crowded close together in an ecologically vivid area packed with large wetlands and home to 10 threatened or endangered species. Beneath the ground, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the earth is a complex system of folded crusts containing at least 30 water-bearing aquifer layers.

EPA officials told residents that some of the substances found in their water may have been poured down a sink drain. But 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. That means the contaminants found in Pavillion would have had to work their way from a sink not only into the well but deep into the aquifer at significant concentrations in order to be detected. An independent drinking water expert with decades of experience in central Wyoming, Doyle Ward, dismissed such an explanations as "less than a one in a million" chance.

Some of the EPA’s most cautious scientists are beginning to agree.

"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."

The Superfund investigation follows a series of complaints by residents in the Pavillion area, some stemming back 15 years, that their water wells turned sour and reeked of fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby. Several of those residents shared their stories with ProPublica, while other information was found through court and local records. Several years ago a one resident’s animals went blind and died after drinking from a well. In two current cases, a resident’s well water shows small pooling oil slicks on the surface, and a woman is coping with a mysterious nervous system disorder: Her family blames arsenic and metals found in her water. In two of those cases the Canadian drilling company Encana, which bought most of the area’s wells after they were drilled and assumed liability for them, is either supplying fresh drinking water to the residents or has purchased the land. In the third case a drilling company bought by Encana, Tom Brown Inc, had previously reached an out-of-court settlement to provide water filtering.

Though the drilling companies have repeatedly compensated residents with the worst cases of contamination, they have not acknowledged any fault in causing the pollution. An Encana spokesman, Doug Hock, told ProPublica the company wants "to better understand the science and the source of the compounds" found in the water near Pavillion before he would speculate on whether the company was responsible.

Precise details about the nature and cause of the contamination, as well as the extent of the plume running in the aquifer beneath this region 150 miles east of Jackson Hole, have been difficult for scientists to collect. That’s in part because the identity of the chemicals used by the gas industry for drilling and fracturing are protected as trade secrets, and because the EPA, based on an exemption passed under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, does not have authority to investigate the fracturing process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Using the Superfund program gave the agency extra authority to investigate the Pavillion reports, including the right to subpoena the secret information if it needs to. It also unlocked funding to pay for the research.

EPA officials have repeatedly said that disclosure of the fluids used in fracking – something that would be required if the bill being debated in Congress were passed – would enable them to investigate contamination incidents faster, more conclusively and for less money. The current study, which is expected to end next spring, has already cost $130,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urge your senators and representatives to vote FOR the FRAC Act, removing exemptions for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. For info and help, see sidebar left. WRITE NOW!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 65 people, many in jeans, boots and 10-gallon hats, filled Pavillion’s community hall on Aug. 11 to hear the EPA’s findings. They were told that a range of contaminants, including arsenic, copper, vanadium and methane gas were found in the water. Many of these substances are found in various fluids used at drilling sites.

Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its origin, and 2-BE, listed as a common fracturing fluid in the EPA’s 2004 research report on hydraulic fracturing. That compound, which EPA scientists in Wyoming said they identified with 97 percent certainty, was suspected by some environmental groups in a 2004 drilling-related contamination case in Colorado, also involving Encana.

EPA investigators explained that because they had no idea what to test for, they were relegated to an exhaustive process of scanning water samples for spikes in unidentified compounds and then running those compounds like fingerprints through a criminal database for matches against a vast library of unregulated and understudied substances. That is how they found the adamantanes and 2-BE.

An Encana representative told the crowd the company was as concerned as they were about the contamination and pledged to help the EPA in its investigation.

Some people seemed confounded by what they were hearing.

"How in god’s name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?" shouted Alan Hofer, who lives near the center of the sites being investigated by the EPA.

"If they’d tell us what they were using then you could go out and test for things and it would make it a lot easier right?" asked Jim Van Dorn, who represents Wyoming Rural Water, a non-profit that advises utilities and private well owners on water management.

"Exactly," said Luke Chavez, the EPA’s chief Superfund investigator on the project. "That’s our idea too."

Now that the EPA has found a chemical used in fracturing fluids in Pavillion’s drinking water, Chavez said the next step in the research is to ask Encana for a list of the chemicals it uses and then do more sampling using that list. (An Encana spokesman told ProPublica the company will supply any information that the EPA requires.) The EPA is also working with area health departments, a toxicologist and a representative from the Centers for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to assess health risks, he said.

Depending on what they find, the investigation in Wyoming could have broad implications. Before hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, the EPA assessed the process and concluded it did not pose a threat to drinking water. That study, however, did not involve field research or water testing and has been criticized as incomplete. This spring, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson called some of the contamination reports "startling" and told members of Congress that it is time to take another look. The Pavillion investigation, according to Chavez, is just that.

"If there is a problem, maybe we don’t have the tools, or the laws, to deal with it," Chavez said. "That’s one of the things that could come out of this process."

For the complete ProPublica report, CLICK HERE.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

EPA CONFIRMS Drinking Water CONTAMINATION BY Toxics Used in HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Joint Press Release: EARTHWORKS * Powder River Basin Resource Council

EPA will investigate nearby oil and gas development to determine contamination source

Pavillion, WY citizens call for fracking moratorium

Pavillion, WY, August 14, 2009 - This week U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told a group of over 70 that initial investigations found 11 of 39 tested drinking water wells were contaminated. Among the contaminants are toxics used in oil and gas production.

As part of a Superfund investigation, EPA began sampling in March 2009 in the Pavillion, WY area in response to multiple landowners concerns about changes in water quality and quantity following EnCana's increased gas development in the area. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and EnCana had continually assured Pavillion residents that there was no evidence of hydrocarbons or toxic chemicals in their drinking water wells.

(Look you in the eye and lie.)

"Our families and neighbors are experiencing everything from miscarriages and rare cancers to central nervous system disorders, seizures, and liver disease" said John Fenton of Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, a citizens group formed to address oil and gas contamination.

EPA confirmed the presence of 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), a known constituent in hydraulic fracturing fluids, in three wells. This is the same chemical that was documented in the water well of Laura Amos, a Colorado landowner, after nearby wells were hydraulically fractured by EnCana. EPA reported that other water contamination, in the Pavillion wells, included methane, as well as adamantanes (a form of hydrocarbon) and six other chemical compounds of concern.

In 2001 EnCana's fracturing operations in Silt, Colorado were linked to methane and other contamination of Ms. Amos' nearby water well. Amos was unable to test immediately for chemical constituents related to hydraulic fracturing as she was unable to identify what chemicals were in EnCana's drilling products. In 2003 Ms. Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal cancer and she later discovered that 2-BE had been used in EnCana's fracking products. According to Dr. Theo Colborn at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, known health effects of 2-BE include elevated numbers of combined malignant and non-malignant tumors of the adrenal gland, kidney damage, kidney failure, toxicity to the spleen, the bones in the spinal column and bone marrow, liver cancer, anemia, female fertility reduction, and embryo mortality.

As a result of the EPA's findings, residents in the Pavillion area are now calling for a halt to EnCana's fracturing operation. "It's very concerning that we are finding known fracturing products and hydrocarbons in our citizens' water wells," says John Fenton. "We'll await EPA's determination as to what is the cause of this contamination. However, in the mean time, we are asking EnCana to ensure no more fracturing occurs in the area."

...

"Full cooperation in this instance requires that EnCana fully disclose what products and chemicals have been used in the Pavillion/Muddy Ridge fields," says Deb Thomas, organizer for the Power River Basin Resource Council and the Pavillion Area of Concerned Citizens. "This shows why federal regulation of fracturing and drilling operations is so important. We have been seeking answers from EnCana and the State of Wyoming for years. We are very pleased that EPA is now getting results. All citizens deserve clean water."

In June, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (S. 1215/HR 2766) was introduced to require disclosure of fracturing chemicals to public agencies and to lift the exemption for hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation, known as the FRAC Act ensures that a federal minimum standard would prohibit endangerment of underground sources of drinking water while allowing states flexibility in implementing that standard.

***Urge Congress to vote for the FRAC Act, removing exemptions for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. You can get contact information for your senators and representatives from the side bar on the left. WRITE NOW!***

"Citizens throughout the country have been reporting changes in their water well's quality and quantity after nearby hydraulic fracturing operations for years and voicing concerns about both short and long-term health effects," said Jennifer Goldman of Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project. "The FRAC Act is critical to ensuring that we know what toxics are being injected into and near our aquifers and to holding the oil and gas industry accountable for the environmental and health impacts."

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

All the News that's Fit to Print in a Nutshell!

How Neutral Is The Potential Gas Committee?
by Adam Federman, Contributing Writer, Earth Island Journal

The NYT Tells Only Half The Story

An article published last week in the New York Times (“Estimate Places Natural Gas Reserves 35% Higher”) extols the potential virtues of a natural gas boom and, in particular, new technologies that have made it possible to profitably extract that gas from shale formations in the United States. The article reads like an industry power point presentation (which is why you didn't read it here) and, though it mentions environmental concerns (“Some environmental groups fear that hydraulic fracturing will pollute drinking water”), does not quote a single critic of the industry, glosses over the details of hydraulic fracturing, and trumpets the line that natural gas is a clean alternative to fossil fuels. While natural gas is relatively clean burning compared to coal and oil, the process of removing it from the earth is far from what most would consider clean or environmentally sound. Moreover, the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment remains highly controversial.

According to Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, a small environmental organization in New York State, “Gas extraction, particularly shale gas extraction, is a dirty and destructive business that degrades our environment. It's a daunting task, but somehow we have to make both the public and the politicians aware that the environmental damage wreaked by gas extraction is an important part of the equation that has to be considered as we chart our energy course for the future.”

The New York Times, rather than present the arguments of those who are opposed to opening up certain areas to natural gas drilling, relies almost entirely on industry insiders and those connected with the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), a group of “academics and industry experts” supported by the Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines. Created in the 1960s, the Potential Gas Committee issues a review of the nation’s gas reserves every two years. This year they’ve made headlines with the estimate that the United States has 35 percent more natural gas reserves than previously thought. The Times article ran the day before the Committee’s report was released and fails to explore its connections to the gas industry, identifying it simply as “the authority on gas supplies.”

According to their website, the Committee currently has 105 members who contribute their time pro bono (“typically after work and on weekends”). They are primarily geologists and engineers “engaged in exploration for and development of natural gas.”

Though sales from the Committee’s reports cover some internal costs, the rest of the group’s funding comes in the form of “strings-free” contributions from a “diverse array of companies, organizations, and individuals that for whatever reason are interested in the Nation’s future supply of natural gas.” Given the actual makeup of the Committee’s sponsors, the phrase “for whatever reason” is rather telling.

Here are a few of the organizations that provide “strings-free” funding: Chesapeake Energy Corporation (one of the big players drilling in the Marcellus Shale), The Houston Exploration Company, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (also involved in Marcellus Shale drilling), Wolverine Gas and Oil Corporation, The American Gas Association, Duke Energy Field Services, GASCO Energy, Black Diamond Energy, White Eagle Exploration Inc., among others. Committee volunteers are affiliated (or have been affiliated) with many of the big industry players such as Halliburton, Schlumberger, Chevron, Shell, and Cabot Oil & Gas. Other organizations represented include the American Gas Association, The American Association of Professional Landmen, the World Petroleum Congress, and the World Energy Council.

Not surprisingly, on the day the report was released, the American Petroleum Institute issued its own statement arguing that the Committee’s work, “underscores the vital role of hydraulic fracturing, a production technology needed to develop shale gas,” even though the report has little to say on the issue of hydraulic fracturing. “Without hydraulic fracturing,” the API continues, “these crucial American-owned natural gas resources would likely remain in the ground.

Although the API is listed as a member affiliated with the Committee on the Committee’s website (http://geology.mines.edu/pgc/members.html), API Media Relations Manager Karen Matusic said in an email that they are “not a member of the Potential Gas Committee.” According to the PGC the API has been affiliated in the past but is not currently a member. In their statement, the API goes on to note that access to closed federal lands and offshore federal waters could help address global warming.

Times reporter Jad Mouawad echoes that argument, writing that, “The finding raises the possibility that natural gas could emerge as a critical transition fuel that could help to battle global warming.” He then briefly mentions the role hydraulic fracturing has played in opening up shale formations and describes the process as one in which “water is injected at high pressure into wells to shatter rocks deep underground, helping to release trapped gas [italics added].” Of course, that is only part of the story.*
*Time and again, it's the only part industry and vested interests like to tell.

Hydraulic fracturing involves not only injecting millions of gallons of water into wells but sand and hundreds of chemicals, many of which have not been made public. The industry’s insistence that the chemicals used remain a trade secret has only contributed to skepticism among critics and environmentalists. If the process is clean and does not pose a threat to drinking water supplies, then what does the industry have to hide? If, as the industry claims, contamination of ground water and wells has not occurred why not release the list of chemicals it uses in fracking for public review?

Beyond the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing there are many other environmental issues that often go unmentioned. The massive wells required for hydraulic fracturing can stretch for over a half-mile in every direction. In the Catskills (where part of the Marcellus Shale is located) this is of particular concern because forests and farmland stand in the way of gas extraction. The region, much of which is designated forever wild, is mountainous and prone to flooding. Wetlands, the New York City Watershed (the largest unfiltered drinking water supply in the country), and the Upper Delaware Scenic area and Recreational River are also at risk.

Each time a well is fracked, between two and nine million gallons of water are needed. Each well may be fracked up to 6 or more times. The question of where the water will come from and where the wastewater (or produced water) will be stored is also an issue that must be addressed. There have been several cases of water contamination from poorly stored wastewater, which contains not only the chemicals injected into the well but also radioactive materials and heavy metals.
__________________________________________________________
A U.S. Geological Survey document, Water Resources and Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale, by Daniel J. Soeder and William M. Kappel concludes:
"Because of questions related to water supply and wastewater disposal, however, many state agencies have been cautious about granting permits, and some states have placed moratoriums on drilling until these issues are resolved. At the same time, gas companie$, driller$, and landowner$ are eager to move forward and develop the re$ource.
While the technology of drilling directional boreholes, and the use of sophisticated hydraulic fracturing processes to extract gas resources from tight rock have improved over the past few decades, the knowledge of how this extraction might affect water resources has not kept pace. Agencies that manage and protect water resources could benefit from a better understanding of the impacts that drilling and stimulating Marcellus Shale wells might have on water supplies, and a clearer idea of the options for wastewater disposal."
__________________________________________________________
The New York Times article also leaves out what may be the most important development surrounding natural gas exploration in recent weeks: the possibility that the EPA will review its policy on hydraulic fracturing.
__________________________________________________________
Click HERE to Read: Safe Drinking Water Act Should Cover Hydraulic Fracturing
Prepared by Earthworks/OGAP and Environmental Working Group
__________________________________________________________
EPA head Lisa Jackson recently told NY Rep. Maurice Hinchey that she thinks it would be a good idea for the agency to review environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. Colorado Representatives Diana DeGette and Jared Polis, along with Hinchey, have recently introduced a bill (the FRAC Act) that would close a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 2005 (the Halliburton Loophole) that exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulatory oversight. A matching Senate version has been supported by Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer.
__________________________________________________________
Urge your Senators and Representatives to vote in favor of the FRAC Act, removing exemptions for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act! WRITE TODAY! For contact info, see sidebar on the left.
__________________________________________________________

“When it comes to protecting the public’s health, it’s not unreasonable to require these companies to disclose the chemicals they are using in our communities – especially near our water sources,” said DeGette in a June 9 statement. “Our bill simply closes an unconscionable Bush-Cheney loophole by requiring the oil and gas industry to follow the same rules as everyone else.”
__________________________________________________________
Urge your Senators and Representatives to vote in favor of the FRAC Act, removing exemptions for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act! WRITE TODAY! For contact info, see sidebar on the left.
__________________________________________________________
In just a year the industry’s hopes have taken a sharp turn. As congress moves to increase oversight, the price of natural gas has plummeted from record high levels last summer when the rush was at its peak. Today the price of gas per thousand cubic feet is just above $4. For extraction to be profitable the price needs to be somewhere between $4 and $6. A year ago it was hovering around $13.

“The best thing in our favor is the economic downturn because this is not a cheap process,” Bruce Ferguson, a member of Catskill Citizens, told me a couple of months ago. “Hydraulic fracturing is a very expensive way to extract gas. You're not putting a straw into the ground and sucking out the gas. If the price of gas remains low enough, if alternative technologies come online quickly, the incentive to go ahead with this could diminish. In the meantime public awareness is growing by the day.”

Even as public awareness grows, however, the gas industry is pushing hard to convince Americans that natural gas is the solution to our energy problems and that closing the Halliburton Loophole will have potentially devastating consequences. It’s clean, they say, and it’s ours. We reduce our dependence on foreign oil and at the same time “battle global warming,” as the NYT puts it in rather grandiose fashion.

In the light of day however, extracting does contribute to global warming and is already having devastating consequences.

This hydraulic fracturing stimulation on a Marcellus Shale gas well shows
the amount of diesel powered and storage equipment involved.

Rather than explain to its readers why the Potential Gas Committee (or its member volunteers) might have a vested interested in encouraging hydraulic fracturing as a new energy policy is hashed out in congress, the paper of record simply states that for “advocates of the gas industry, the report vindicates the potential of natural gas in the economy.” Then they close by quoting the managing director for policy analysis at the American Gas Association, Chris McGill, failing to mention that it is one of the institutions listed among the Committee’s volunteer members. Not only that but McGill himself, according to Committee program assistant Linda D’Epagnier is an observer with the PGC and, in his role (he’s been involved for several years), handles all press releases and acts more or less as a PR official for the organization. He’s also a Director on the board of the Potential Gas Agency. That’s a fact the Times should have pointed out.
(Red italic editorializing by Splashdown.)

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Ghostbusting Hydraulic Fracturing... State vs. Federal Regulation (Who You Gonna Call???)

A report, by John Laurent-Tronche, in today's Fort Worth Business Press, "States or Feds: Who gets to regulate hydraulic fracturing?" states:
A recent push by federal legislators to repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005 could mean companies that employ hydraulic fracturing, a means of stimulating and opening up a well, would have to answer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Act about the chemicals they use in the injection process.
...
Legislators and other concerned parties, including environmental groups, are worried the chemicals used – many of which are harmful to humans and other species – could seep into underground water tables and contaminate water supply. The industry argues there haven’t been any instances of contamination to date and federal oversight would impede natural gas and oil development by adding increased permitting requirements and economic burdens.

“We have a 60-year track record on our side,” said Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a Washington, D.C.-based industry lobbying group comprised of dozens of organizations, including the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “Why in 60 years that fracing has been used, why now? Why is everyone pissed off now?”

In today's Atomic Insights Blog post: "See No Evil, Hear No Evil Approach to Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing Shale Gas Extraction", Ron Adams counters:
...I also found out that claims of "never a problem with hydraulic fracturing" were carefully stated to ensure that the claim was applicable only to a portion of the full process and did not include the potential for human or mechanical errors during drilling through aquifers, or the potential for surface water contamination. The witnesses that claimed that there was no evidence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing admitted that some parts of the complete process of extracting gas from shale formation had historically caused some issues of contamination or property damage, but the "fracking" process itself had not yet been proven to be the cause of any incidents. (One witness dismissed the reports of previous problems by stating that they were "legacy" issues that have already been corrected through state legislation and/or regulatory changes.)

Though the natural gas industry is adamant that additional regulations will cause it undue financial burdens and limit its ability to supply the abundant, cheap fuel that it claims is a "game changer", it appears evident that the practice of drilling for unconventional gas requires consistently applied regulations set at the federal level, perhaps with some assistance from state agencies that have proven capabilities as the local enforcement arm. As described by the witness from the US Geological Survey, the formations being developed are spread over large areas that do not respect state lines. The potentially affected air and water resources also do not recognize the politically determined boundaries of existing states.

With that 60 year problem free track record in Texas, why is there suddenly such outcry?

The Fort Worth Business Press continues:
The answer, [industry spokesman Chris Tucker] said, is the Marcellus Shale. As soon as natural gas production went from an isolated area in North Texas to nationwide – in Louisiana, Wyoming, New York, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and elsewhere – people began to worry about how to address it.

“[Environmental activists] knew they couldn’t go into Texas and say that the Barnett Shale was a loser or that fracing was dangerous. They couldn’t do that in Oklahoma,” Tucker said. “But once the Marcellus Shale came out and it was clear this was huge, it all came to the forefront.”

Indeed, 34 states now have oil and gas production, said Amy Mall, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It definitely is a national issue,” Mall said. “It’s no longer a local issue. We think federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act makes sense, because it is a national issue.”

From Atomic Insights:
In many cases, notably the newly developing Marcellus shale formation, the continuous gas reservoirs are deep under the surface of states that have little existing regulatory infrastructure and little experience in deep underground drilling. It is disingenuous for the oil/gas industry and the states that have experience to dig in their heels on a states' rights basis when it is clear that the implications of developing this large and important resource in a responsible manner will require multi-state cooperation with legal enforcement of required practices and should not be dependent on voluntary compliance with vaguely defined ''best practices".

FW Business Press:
Many of the chemicals used in Texas frac jobs can cause irreparable harm to the eyes, skin, sensory organs, respiratory system, brain and nervous system, according to an April 2009 study by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a Colorado-based organization that studies chemicals’ effects on human health and the environment. A little more than a month ago, 19 cattle died after ingesting a fluid that originated at a Chesapeake Energy Corp. drill site in Louisiana, according to an April 29 article in the Shreveport Times. Schlumberger Ltd. reportedly was conducting a frac job at the time. The matter is under investigation by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
...
There have been at least 375 cases of groundwater contamination due to oil and gas operations reported to the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division, according to a list on the government agency’s Web site. Some of the companies responsible are big players in the Barnett Shale.

From TXSharon's blog, Bluedaze today, David Burnett, Director of the Global Petroleum Research Institute, is quoted, saying:
What is the fuss about drilling a Barnett Shale well? A Barnett well site with a drilling rig operating for three months has the same impact as a city of 4,000 people - Water use, solid waste generation, air emissions and traffic. The O&G industry has been slow to realize this—that it has too big an impact on the environment. ...

Bluedaze presents us with this revealing bird's eye view of "Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale..."

Thank you TXSharon, for all you do.

The Fort Worth Business Press concludes:
Earlier this year, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a report saying it found no significant impacts from hydraulic fracturing operations, according to news reports. Only later did the department admit it had not conducted a single test to back up that claim.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

DeGette targets controversial form of natural-gas drilling

By David O. Williams
realvail.com

May 15, 2009 — U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette is leading the charge to increase federal oversight of the nation’s natural gas industry, reintroducing a bill that specifically targets a process called hydraulic fracturing. ...

DeGette, a Denver Democrat who unsuccessfully championed the cause on Capitol Hill last year, is poised to reintroduce legislation that would remove an exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act that was granted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

“As this is an important issue for Congresswoman DeGette, she is expecting to introduce the bill soon,” DeGette spokesman Kristofer Eisenla said. “We are currently just finalizing language and talking to the chairman about the direction of the legislation,” he said, referring to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who control’s the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee’s gavel. “While we are planning to introduce it, no decisions have been made yet on how it will move,” Eisenla said.

The bill could be folded into Waxman’s American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is currently being bandied about in committee and includes such lofty goals as a national renewable energy standard and a carbon cap. DeGette also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The exemption was granted in 2005 because of a controversy stemming from an Alabama case in which it was alleged that fracking was directly responsible for groundwater contamination. The Environmental Protection Agency studied the case and did not conclude there was a direct correlation between the process and methane found in drinking water.

So to prevent further attempts to enforce a layer of federal oversight, the exemption was granted.

“Right now it’s a technology that has allowed us to increase natural gas supplies in the country to an incredible extent, and it’s a technology that’s been in use over 60 years with no documented cases of groundwater contamination from fracking,” said Kathleen Sgamma, director of government affairs for the Denver-based Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States. (see Wells comment below, among many other sources)

Sgamma says all the fluids used in fracking, which are 99.5 percent water and sand but include small percentages of chlorine, food additives and thickeners, are regulated by state and federal agencies and contained in steel and concrete casing.

(That small percentage of chlorine, food additives and thickeners, according to the Pennsylvania DEP, includes 2-butoxyethanol, Monoethanolamine, Ethylhexanol, Dazomet, Formaldehyde, Acetic Anhydride, Glutaraldehyde, Isopropanol, Boric Acid, Propargyl Alcohol (Prop-2-yn-1-01), Ethane-1,2-diol (ethylene glycol), 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazotin-3-one, Ethylene Glycol, Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3), Methanol and Diesel. There are 54 chemicals identified by the DEP in fracking fluids. The ones listed here are those known to have negative impacts on health including skin, eye and sensory organ irritation and toxicity, followed by respiratory effects, gastrointestinal and liver effects. One category includes such effects as death, teeth effects, etc. The most often cited effect in this category is the ability of the chemical to cause death. -Splashdown)

“There have been cases where an operators have made mistakes and the casing that is done for a well has not been done correctly, and when that happens the state is the regulatory agency, and they ensure that the operators take corrective measures, so that’s already being regulated,” Sgamma said.

But a study conducted for Garfield County and released in December showed elevated levels of methane in groundwater supplies in the gas-rich mountain area: “There is a temporal trend of increasing methane in groundwater samples over the last seven years coincident with the increased number of gas well installed in the study area,” the report concluded.

Methane can occur naturally and is not considered toxic, but it can be flammable and noxious to breath once it evaporates out of the water supply. In some cases it can cause accidental explosions.

DeGette’s latest efforts to regulate the industry at the federal level have triggered a massive lobbying effort designed to raise the alarm about the potential for lost tax revenues and jobs.

According to a recent New York Times article, the industry campaign is predicting DeGette’s bill could shut down a third of the nation’s gas wells and half the oil wells, costing state treasuries $785 million. Environmentalists called such predications baseless scare tactics.

At home in Colorado, economic fallout was the same tactic the industry took in trying to stall or derail hard-fought and more environmentally stringent oil and gas drilling regulation recently implemented by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Some opponents of those regulations are still blaming them for a downturn in natural gas drilling on the Western Slope — ignoring the larger effects of the global economic crisis that caused oil and gas commodity prices to drop substantially.

(In a comment posted May 15, 2009 to this article, Carolyn Wells of Dimock, PA wrote: Thank you so much for writing about this; there are poisoned wells three miles down the road due to fracking so that line stating there is no water contamination is a bold faced lie. Twenty wells in my area have been poisoned and the family who leased their land to Cabot Oil now uses their food stamps to buy water. So my tax dollars pay for exploitation of pristine areas by the gas industry.)

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Gas drillers battle Pennsylvania pollution concerns

This Week's Contradictions

Though scientists have yet to find definitive evidence that drilling chemicals have seeped into ground water, there are dozens of anecdotal reports from around the state that water supplies in gas-production areas have been tainted.

The public outcry threatens to impede exploitation of the 44-million-acre (18-million-hectare) Marcellus Shale, which geologists say might contain enough natural gas to meet U.S. demand for a decade.

People in gas-drilling areas say their well water has become discolored or foul-smelling; their pets and farm animals have died from drinking it; and their children have suffered from diarrhea and vomiting.

Bathing in well water can cause rashes and inflammation, and ponds bubble with methane that has escaped during drilling, they say. ...

Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Texas-based Range Resources Corp. said, "There are zero reports of chemical contamination of groundwater."

Ron Gulla, who said his land has been polluted by Range's gas drilling, was incredulous. "I have never seen such a bunch of liars in my life," he shouted at Pitzarella, to scattered applause. "You have put me through hell."

U.S. energy companies rushing to exploit Pennsylvania's massive natural gas reserves have launched a public relations campaign to calm fears the bonanza is contaminating water with toxic chemicals. Read all about it HERE.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Bradford County Residents Are Speaking Out!

Responses to the Daily Review's Sunday editorial "Give gas firms a chance to do right thing" show the majority of opinions to be highly skeptical of the drillers and of the Review. Feeling betrayed, readers question the paper's credibility as they face the onslaught of an industry that has demonstrated no regard for anything but profits.

The Other Opinion wrote on Apr 12, 2009 11:51 AM:

" Would you feel the same way if YOU weren't getting money form Chesapeake? People want to give them a fair shake but you must realize that people don't want to be taken in the long run. People look at other gas drilling projects in other states and they wonder where the reporting is. Did those same folks hear the same speech? Give them a fair shake!

In my humble opinion are you giving those who purchase The Daily Review a fair shake? After reading this commentary it looks as though you're shaking hands with the gas company. "

James Barth wrote on Apr 12, 2009 2:01 PM:

" No one should take your editorial opinion seriously, after reading: "Firms do not get respected national reputations without sound, ethical business practices". In my fifty-nine years on this planet, I have never read such an absurd, and false, statement. Did you actually write that? "

Doug Saunders wrote on Apr 12, 2009 8:20 PM:

" Editor:
On chance it has escaped your notice, the Review's credibility, vis a vis your positions on drilling, stands today off scale low.

You are taking money from Chesapeake. Do you believe your readers are fools?? "

Alice Cornish wrote on Apr 12, 2009 8:27 PM:

" James Barth
To answer your question straight up, there is a possibility the Review did NOT write that. They are taking money now from Chesapeake. So that line you questioned might have come from a drilling company press handout. There is simply no way we can know, not any longer. "

Mark Standish wrote on Apr 12, 2009 9:23 PM:

" The Review wrote:
"We have some of the top companies in the field at work as major players in the Marcellus Shale exploitation . . . . ".

It is my view, Mr. Editor, that it's not just the Marcellus shale that is being exploited. But I give you this much: Exploitation is what the drillers, all of them, do best. "

Carol Manuel wrote on Apr 12, 2009 11:30 PM:

" Chesapeake does not have a good reputation in Fort Worth, Texas. Far from it. Forget about trying to establish a mutually beneficial relationship. This is a business relationship. Get everything in writing, and insist on accountability. Watch Chesapeake like a hawk. Even if everything goes well, this is still a win-lose situation for the environment, for the health of our citizens, for clean air, for tourism, for fishing and hunting. We're all losers except for the few who will make money. And the history of the gas industry in Colorado, Texas, Utah, and now even in Pennsylvania already, is anything but ethical. Don't even go there. "

Edith Masterman wrote on Apr 13, 2009 1:54 AM:

" To the Daily and Sunday Review
Now that you have come out foursquare in favor of the drillers, I no longer take you or your opinions seriously. Previously, I thought The Review was without bias when it came to drilling, seeing, comprehending, and illuminating both good and bad. Clearly, this was my error. No longer can I, or do I, count on you to report fairly and fully news reflecting negatively on the drilling companies. Your so-called "newspaper" has become little more than a shill for the gas companies. You are their new propaganda arm.

So much for your service to Bradford County. So much for your obligation to write the whole truth.

You will maintain that you have arrived at your position regarding drilling completely without regard to the money you now take from Chesapeake. But ask yourself this: If you actually WERE being influenced by the money they now are paying you, how would things be different?

I could kick myself for having respected and believed in your personal and journalistic integrity. I must have been crazy. "

Tom Posey wrote on Apr 13, 2009 2:24 AM:

" Mr Editor
This is a true story, as God is my witness. Last week a representative from one of the "respected" companies you mention in this editorial visited my home. The company wanted to lease my land for the purpose of drilling down into the Marcellus shale for gas. I treated the person who visited with me with courtesy, but I was hesitant about leasing and made my feeling known. At that point the representative told me, if I did not lease, they could drill horizontally right up to and around my property boundaries and take my gas that way, without paying me a cent. Reference was made to the "Rule of Capture".

This is only just my opinion. You are free to disagree and you most likely do disagree given you like the gas companies. But I felt threatened when the representative talked about taking my gas without paying. And I do not believe a respectable and responsible company would use such a tactic to compel a land owner to lease his land. The experience left a sour taste in my mouth. I was left much more willing to believe some of the negative things one hears about these drilling companies. So defend them all you like. I now have personal experience with one of them, and I have learned how they behave when you do not bend to their will. I do not like someone, or some company, coming onto my property and threatening me. Respectable companies do not do business that way. And certainly that is not the traditional way of doing business here in Bradford County. "

Lets talk about trust wrote on Apr 13, 2009 4:32 AM:

" Finally, this editorial has opened up a topic of interest to me. Trust. I do not trust Chesapeake Energy. Its less than stellar corporate reputation is reported on regularly by local and national news media, and CHK has done several things to reinforce this reputation since they’ve been in Bradford County. CHK, as a company, is a warrior which uses its well-honed public relations as a shield, and lawyers as its legal gun-wielding army. Every contract presented has legal wording which are the equivalent of burdocks and oil. The burdocks are there so that the contract sticks to you if they want it to, but the oil is there so that CHK can slip out at their discretion. How many people last year thought they had a lease with CHK, just to find that they didn’t? In how many cases did independent landmen (not CHK, of course) lie, evade, or misrepresent facts in order to get a signed lease for CHK’s benefit?

I went to the March 5th CHK presentation in Athens and was impressed by the people I met.
One of the reasons that I was impressed by the CHK people was that from my corporate training of many years, I recognize consummate professionals upon sight, and the group fit the bill perfectly.

When I came home I did a little research, and found out why the image had been so impressive. Two of the individuals were media professionals, having worked until just a few years ago for the prestigious Charles Ryan Associates in Charleston. One of these individuals plus another who will be coming to Towanda as the Central Bradford Progress Authority dinner speaker on April 16th are registered lobbyists in the state of West Virginia representing Chesapeake. These are people who are both media and law savvy. Nothing wrong with this, but the average resident in Bradford County needs to know the level of skill and experience of the persons he is working with.

I found the third individual truly humorous and likeable. He explained that he had previously worked for Columbia Natural Resources and was absorbed into Chesapeake along with the office furniture. After my research, I learned that he, along with Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon, spoke at the glitzy, WV governor-attended 8/23/07 Chesapeake announcement of its planned Charleston WV Eastern Regional HQ building which was an investment of 40 million dollars in Charleston WV. But something bad happened. On May 22nd, 2008, the full verdict including financial damages were announced for Chesapeake’s loss of a WV Supreme Court Case over cheating landowners out of royalties (which it took liability for when it bought out CNR). On May 29th, only seven days later, the true nature of CHK was apparent when its CEO Aubrey McClendon announced that CHK axed the plans for the eastern regional headquarters as a result of the outcome of the state Supreme Court case. Vindictive behavior, no apologies, true reason revealed. CHK knows that the money it has can buy justice, and if it doesn’t, it will retaliate. No big surprise, then, that on 3/2/09, just a few days before the Athens CHK public meeting, CHK announced cutting out 215 jobs in Charleston and demoting the Charleston regional corporate headquarters to a regional field office. Further retaliation against a state government that was clearly not influenced by money.

On 3/5/09 in Athens, the professional faces of the CHK trio showed no hint of emotion at the CHK Charleston job cuts which must have been troubling them. Even the humorous fellow, a Charleston native who had been inherited by CHK along with the CNR landowner royalty-cheating liability and the office furniture, who had been involved in proudly announcing the Eastern Regional HQ building in his hometown, who had lived through the axing of the building and now was surviving the axing of the jobs, kept his mask on securely. Only 3 days after the public announcement, any pain he or the others must have felt masked by professionalism, the CHK media show at Athens went on flawlessly. Good corporate soldiers doing battle on the front line for a flawed Napoleonic leader.

Just axing the building plans and jobs isn’t enough for a vindictive CHK CEO. In 2007, a CHK cheap shot against WV had been made in the early days of the lawsuit, this one against hopeful royalty owners. Here’s a quote I picked up from the net.

“We’re just finishing up the first large three-dimension seismic survey ever shot in West Virginia which, ironically is in Roane County (the county where the lawsuit was filed originally),” McClendon said. “So we’re kind of scratching our heads about what to do with it. “We own most of this acreage already — it’s called ‘held by production by shallower wells,’” he said. “So in terms of timing, if we want to sit on this for the next 20 or 30 years, we can certainly do that. “I’m not willing at this point to commit to a big new exploration program in the state of West Virginia when I don’t know how the leases that I’ve inherited are going to be interpreted by judges across the state.”

A comment on a fourth fellow at the 3/5/09 meeting, who presented himself as the new CHK local Tunkhannock recruit. A former Chief of Staff to Lisa Baker, he has a long resume of PA state government experiences. CHK has a desire to manage its relationship with state governments productively. I am sure his contacts will be useful to CHK. The only PA lobbyist I could find listed for Chesapeake in PA is a Robert J. Wilson of the Sandstone Group out of Kansas. I have to wonder whether Chesapeake has some new local lobbyists in mind? Now that same local fellow is recommending that we don’t post and bond. I am left wondering why. What is in it for CHK? I only know, I cannot recognize the burdocks and oil in a legal document. The army of CHK lawyers, armed with their legal guns, will insure that you don’t win. I’ve come to the conclusion that it almost doesn't matter what the document you sign with CHK says. Their army of lawyers can twist and spin words and meanings, and CHK will win in any case brought against them. And if they don’t, they’ll be hell to pay.

The plans for the prestigious Charleston Eastern Regional Headquarters are probably still available on their award winning architect’s shelf. If Bradford County cozies up to CHK enough, and the state of PA does likewise, maybe someone can convince CHK to plunk the building down in Towanda on Main Street in the borough owned lot next to C&N. What a feather in our cap that would be! Maybe that’s what the Central Bradford Progress Authority has in mind as it cozies up to CHK at Thursday night’s annual dinner. Only time will tell.

Chesapeake’s ethical position is self-expressed in great detail on its website. CHK gives money to good community causes and uses lots of media savvy and more money to shore up its reputation. It’s true reputation, however, leaves much to be desired. And I will not be so trusting as to lower my guard. "

Dew Wright wrote on Apr 13, 2009 9:45 AM:

" So is Chesapeake suggesting that North Towanda Township disregard the law and open themselves up to having no legal ground by not going with a bond?
To me it's kind of like insuring your home, it's there in case you ever need it. To me, it is the right thing to do, the wrong thing to do is to expect gas companies to do the right thing without a legal paper to hold them to do the right thing. I ask myself WHY don't they want a bond? "

Local Resident wrote on Apr 13, 2009 10:59 AM:

" Dear Editor,

You have lost all credibility. "

John Parke wrote on Apr 13, 2009 11:05 AM:

" Lets Talk
Thank you for your remarkable comment. I have not read one better . . . ever!

As you have pointed out, the media savvy of Chesapeake outdistances anything here in Bradford County by an order of magnitude. Nobody here is anywhere near to being in their league, and nobody here has their kind of money. I am very wary of them, just based on instinct.

But most of all I wish they had not been successful in cozying up to our best newspaper, our only county newspaper really, the Daily and Sunday Review. This was a great loss for the people of Bradford County, We desperately need the Review to be an independent voice. We need our newspaper now, more than ever before in the history of this county. Courage might be too much to ask when so much money is being waved around by Chesapeake. Courage cannot educate one's kids, buy groceries, or pay a mortgage. But still, courage, the courage to say "no" and remain above suspicion journalistically, was what the Review needed when Chesapeake came offering. And that courage was not in evidence. What are we to do now for information we can trust? We are left facing the behemoth you have described blindfolded, with one hand tied behind our back. This is Bradford County's saddest day. "

S. Hoskins wrote on Apr 13, 2009 11:22 AM:

" You people criticizing The Review for taking money from Chesapeake and then writing an editorial like this need to think. The Review is a newspaper. In our country newspapers are independent businesses. The Review receives no money from, for example, the government. They must make a profit or else they go out of business. And many newspapers ARE going out of business in this country today. The competition for ad revenue is intense, and the internet is killing them. The world is changing and newspapers, paper ones anyway, are on the wrong side of that change.

So now along comes Chesapeake offering money to The Review to buy newspapers for school children. The Review desperately needs the money and the newspapers will be good for the kids' education.

I am confident Chesapeake asked nothing in return. They are just doing a public service, a good deed if you will. If this arrangement gets them some positive PR that's just the way of the world today. The ones with the money get to call the shots. And Chesapeake certainly has the money.

I would rather see The Review take the money if it means they will remain in business longer. I do not want our newspaper to fail. Ideally, I grant you, the Review would not take money from so controversial an entity as Chesapeake. But this is NOT an ideal world. And that's a fact the complainers must confront. "

Constance Smith wrote on Apr 13, 2009 11:49 AM:

" John Parke
While I am respectful of what you wrote, I think your focus is insufficiently broad. You focused on what Chesapeake money has done to our best newspaper. At least the Review, on Saturday, told its readers about its arrangement with Chesapeake.

My focus is on that same kind of money working out of our sight, and without our knowledge. How about our public officials! McLinko has been under suspicion almost forever. How about Sullivan! And how about our absolutely silent Representatives!! Could there be campaign contributions involved?? Could there be other money changing hands with a wink and a nod!? You can bet on it.

Excoriate the Review if you wish. And I do admit it would have been far better for them to remain neutral. But don't ignore the many other threats "big gas" money poses to Bradford County. This problem goes FAR beyond the Review. These gas companies are placing Bradford County beneath a full court press. We have the gas they need to continue to make the big money for which they are known. And they will use ALL of their resources to take our gas for as little money as possible. Welcome to the real world, Mr. Parke. "

BCTaxpayer wrote on Apr 13, 2009 1:18 PM:

" I don't know why you're all surprised. This paper has always been pro-drilling, just like the editor's buddy Mclinko. They have briefly raised some of the main issues at hand, then bragged about their "fair" coverage... but they haven't been truely critical when it comes to the serious problems we all knew would impact our area. What this county needs is real investigative journalism, not this wishy-washy ambiguous garbage that leaves the reader a twitch dumber at the end of the article.
Give the gas companies a chance? Yeah, that's working out so well already. The restaurants and motels are doing great, a few "poor" people are getting rich, a whopping 59 locals have been hired by the gas companies (but many laid off already), and our local newspaper is on the gas companies payroll. Brilliant. So now we're down to only 62,800 people in this county that are still suffering through the bad economy while the gas companies are getting rich, then sending their money back home. I'm jumping with joy. "

Shaker wrote on Apr 13, 2009 6:21 PM:

" You'll probably find out that the editor himself has a lease with Chesapeake! Most people gave up on the current administration of this newspaper being fair and unbiased long ago, but its a good thing that the few that thought differently are realizing just how wrong they were. I wonder if they'll remember it though!

EDITOR'S NOTE: The editor has no personal business ties with any natural gas driller or any business associated with gas prospecting. To do so would constitute a conflict of interest in violation of our Code of Ethics. "

Bro wrote on Apr 13, 2009 6:31 PM:

" What's astonishing is that anyone though they could rely on this paper to be straight and fair. "

JRB wrote on Apr 15, 2009 7:26 PM:

" Money makes the world go round.
Money talks.
Money is the root of all evil.
We've heard them all before.

Individual landowners approached to sell leases on their land had better give it serious consideration because they CAN and DO drill horizontally and somebody around you WILL sign up and then "poof," there goes your hope of ever getting anything.

My grandmother owned a home where a developer wanted to put a parking lot for his high rise. Grama felt the offer was too low, and she really didn't want to move. They offered to buy a comparable sized home in a comparable neighborhood, but ultimately she declined to sell. Her former home sits today in the shadows of the behemoth high-rise, in no sun for hours every day, with their emergency exit not more than 10-12' off the rear corner of her house.

In retrospect, she wished she'd sold or allowed them to buy her a comp; they made the last years of her life a living hell.

Don't be my Grama...take their money--as much of it as you can get--and run like crazy! "

No right answer wrote on Apr 16, 2009 7:40 AM:

" Saw an example just like JRB's, only this one was a shopping mall. The house which the owner declined to sell was tiny in the shadow of a major mall.

In the case of gas, there are no right answers if all you want is a peaceful life. If you sell out and run, where is there to go? And if you decline their money and stay, you just don't know what'll be near you and what the quality of life will be. If everyone or even most people had refused to sign, we'd be ok, but looking at the maps most people have sold out. The holdouts are few. But, each person must act out of their own conscience. I cannot make myself sign one of their leases, so I plan to stay here, clean and green, and hope the area where I live stays decent enough for me to enjoy the rest of my life. But I rue the day Bradford County was noticed for its gas, and quite frankly I hope the price of gas stays down, and that it becomes uneconomical to drill here. Maybe the leases will run out and people won't sign a second time. "

Martha Barends wrote on Apr 16, 2009 8:24 AM:

" JRB
Reality is a little different than what you wrote. Marcellus gas is locked pretty securely into shale which has very low permeability. Not until the shale if "fraced", or hydraulically fractured, is the gas released in a significant manner. So even if they drill horizontally near to your land, your gas likely will remain intact.

However

Two additional considerations enter in. One is strictly against the law, the other should be:

First, if they drill horizontally into your land without a lease then, of course, they can steal your gas. This is strictly contrary to law. Proving the infraction, though, is nearly impossible. The trespass is happening a mile down and completely out of sight. You have to rely on the integrity of the gas companies, and I can hear the cascades of laughter on that one. I concede they have scant little integrity.

The second item is far more murky. It is not covered by existing law, but should be. This is an area where our Representatives are failing us BIG TIME... It is the issue of fracing another person's land, land which is unleased. There is no trespass per se, no drill bit penetrates unleased land. But the horizontal bore gets close, very close, to the leased land's boundary. Then, during the fracing process, the frac fluid and pressure wave impact fractures shale on unleased land, releasing gas from it which flows to a well head on leased land. This is straight out theft. The practice it is not against the law, but it obviously should be. No PA lawmaker, though, has addressed this practice in new legislation regardless the obvious need. "

Keep up the good work! Speak out! Share your knowledge and understanding with others! Our collective well-being is at stake! The lessons are all out there to be learned, from people in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming... right here in Dimock. We need to demand that our government regulate in favor of Life, not industry. There's plenty of money to be made, and jobs to be had, developing green energy... AND! there are even a number of ways to drill for gas that pollute less and are less damaging... just maybe not as cheap. Integrity is clearly not at the top of any of these complicit parties' agendas.