In Search of the Elusive Middle Ground in Natural Gas Development

Natural gas development is a complex issue. It bigger than hydraulic fracturing or fracing, it is bigger than the issues related to water quality, roads, air quality, lifestyle changes, vistas and above all it is bigger than me in my small corner of the world here in the Foothills of the Catskills. While I cannot presume to understand all its related facets, I understand the part that fits into my expertise and that is the part that I choose to discuss . I do not have all the answers but I can supply the bare facts with little of no intepretation.  I also realize that long after this discussion is ended; some of us will remain living here in NYS while some of us will fly south to warmer lands. So, for those of us who live here fulltime, we will be judged by our successors on how we dealt with this perceived crisis. This is the reality and responsibility of expressing ones opinion openly in a public way and it is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.

Having said that; understanding our need for energy simple; it is as simple as flipping on a light switch, it is a luxury that millions of people live daily with the helping hand of fossil fuels. It is so simple that many people take it for granted; when you flip on your light switch you never wonder whether the lights will come on or not. When we raise our fists to the energy companies, we raise our fists to that which we take for granted and have become accustomed to.  Now ask yourself, are we ready to turn off the lights?

The way I see it, we need energy, and as long as we drive cars, power up our homes with electricity, continue to consume large amounts of fuel as a nation, and as long as there are people or communities willing to embrace natural gas development, a different type of vigilance is imperative. This type of vigilance is geared towards the best available protection measures, responsibility and accountability. I was raised to understand that you never put all your eggs in one basket. This is the other basket.  People need to think proactively, to anticipate potential impacts and find ways to minimize them locally, while at the same time maximizing benefits beyond the financial gain. That is, investing in sustainable ideas that can carry us beyond our reliance on fossil fuels.  We all know the "what ought-a-be" but this is the "what is", simply put, this is our reality.  

It is not about denying that there are problems associated with natural gas development, it is about looking at the problems and figuring out practical and realistic solutions that are within our control. It is also not about winners or losers nor is it about who draws the larger crowd or who gets the most comments in response to a newspaper article or blog post, it is about finding the simpler solutions by balancing our needs, and our available resources, with potential consequences. It is not hoping that our energy problems will miraculously go away if we ban them.

Uni Blake

Otsego Proactive Network

The Schenevus Shale Show - July 27, 2011

Starring: Chip Northrup, Julie Huntsman, Kelly Branigan

First of all I did not attend the Shale Show since; I had other commitments and family responsibilities.  So, this is an account from various attendees from both sides and the in between of the spectrum.

The Show was attended by about 150 folks – give or take. About 30 or so were from out of town, which leaves a little more than 100 Town of Marylanders. Of those in attendance about 2/3 are what is considered the base of the anti-ban movement and the rest were looking to learn more about the issue of Natural gas development. Maryland Residents Against Drilling (MRAD) have to be commended for drawing attention to this complex issue to many town residents.

No-one really seems to remember what Chip Northrup focused on but he did make a rather alarming statement about wanting to shoot someone who had a  the yard sign that read “Drill a Well Send a Soldier home.”  (Corrected as per Chip's Comment below)

Julie Huntsman focused on her scripted effort of how to band towns against their Town Board which would eventually lead to rallying towns to ban drilling (I am not sure if she discussed any of the pitfalls of the enacting the bans). She discussed the survey process and the offered folks an opportunity to step up to get involved in local politics as a way to further the anti-gas development agenda.

From my understanding Kelly Branigan discussed the health detriments that come along natural gas drilling.

All and all according to the seasoned forum attendees from both sides, they felt that there was no new information shared. The information presented was not intended to be balanced but was deliberately intended to be one sided.

However, I will give credit to the Schenevus Shale Show (complete with a band and cookies) it served as an effective tool for those reminiscing their “civil disobedience” days back in the 60s. This cause has been viewed as an excellent chance to revive those old feelings of being oppressed by the establishment and acting out. Unfortunately, while the effort served to invigorate the base in the area the Show also served to put off some of the people who had a genuine interest in wanting to learn more.
  
(Because of the inflammatory nature of the comment attributed to Mr. Northrup and the divisiveness of the issue- I have opted to strike the comment. Its validity or lack of validity can be debated in a different forum -  Uni)

Abating Air Pollution Impact by Using Standards.

The following is a press release from the EPA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 28. 2011

EPA Proposes Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Gas Production
Cost-effective, flexible standards rely on operators' ability to capture and sell natural gas that currently escapes, threatens air quality

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed standards to reduce harmful air pollution from oil and gas drilling operations. These proposed updated standards - which are being issued in response to a court order - would rely on cost-effective existing technologies to reduce emissions that contribute to smog pollution and can cause cancer while supporting the administration’s priority of continuing to expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production. The standards would leverage operators' ability to capture and sell natural gas that currently escapes into the air, resulting in more efficient operations while reducing harmful emissions that can impact air quality in surrounding areas and nearby states.

"This administration has been clear that natural gas is a key component of our clean energy future, and the steps announced today will help ensure responsible production of this domestic energy source," said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. "Reducing these emissions will help cut toxic pollution that can increase cancer risks and smog that can cause asthma attacks and premature death - all while giving these operators additional product to bring to market.”
Today’s proposal would cut smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from several types of processes and equipment used in the oil and gas industry, including a 95 percent reduction in VOCs emitted during the completion of new and modified hydraulically fractured wells. This dramatic reduction would largely be accomplished by capturing natural gas that currently escapes to the air and making that gas available for sale through technologies and processes already in use by several companies and required in some states.

Natural gas production in the U.S. is growing, with more than 25,000 new and existing wells fractured or re-fractured each year. The VOC reductions in the proposal are expected to help reduce ozone nonattainment problems in many areas where oil and gas production occurs. In addition, the VOC reductions would yield a significant environmental benefit by reducing methane emissions from new and modified wells. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas - more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Today’s proposed changes also would reduce cancer risks from emissions of several air toxics, including benzene.

EPA’s analysis of the proposed changes, which also include requirements for storage tanks and other equipment, show they are highly cost-effective, with a net savings to the industry of tens of millions of dollars annually from the value of natural gas that would no longer escape to the air. Today’s proposal includes reviews of four air regulations for the oil and natural gas industry as required by the Clean Air Act: a new source performance standard for VOCs from equipment leaks at gas processing plants; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide emissions from gas processing plants; an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.

EPA is under a consent decree requiring the agency to sign a proposal by July 28, 2011 and take final action by Feb. 28, 2012. As part of the public comment period, EPA will hold three public hearings, in the Dallas, Denver and Pittsburgh areas. Details on the hearings will be announced soon.

More information: http://epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/

R249

Local NBC Affiliate Takes another Look at the Natural Gas Development Issue -Chenango County

After airing several pieces on the detriments of natural gas development, WKTV Utica drove down to Chenango County to report on another view of the issue.

http://www.wktv.com/news/economy/Some-Chenango-County-residents-say-theyre-seeing-benefits-of-hydrofracking-126213573.html

Stop the Fear Mongering: Water Can be Remediated... The Dimock Case

I keep hearing about aquifers can be contaminated forever, leaving a widespread legacy of "bad" water for future generations. For years, Dimock PA has been the poster child for the anti-drillers this based on the water contamination that occurred. The idea that the water contamination in Dimock would be widespread if Natural Gas development was to occur in New York State has always been one of their strong arguments. The image of the contaminated water in jugs strewn across a street is one that has been used to visually stir fear and dread into unsuspecting folks. Experts have said and still maintain that Dimock water can be treated and will return back to background or baseline levels. The proof is here.

Over the past few months I have been reviewing the data from some of the data that Loren speaks about in the following video clip and he is right; water quality is improving as the groundwater system purges. Watching them take a swig of raw water from Dimock's groundwater is impressive and equally matches the visual of the activists clutching to their jugs of contaminated water. The opponents to natural gas development have clearly maintained that once and aquifer is ruined by meth-mud is WILL NEVER come back and cannot be treated.  This video is a sure contradiction to that fact.

Loren explains his water treatment system and shares his drinking water (from Dimock's Groundwater) Untreated.

This does not negate the fact that some people’s lives were turned upside down when their water was contaminated. This is not an issue that should be taken lightly; there were and continue to be important lessons to be learned from this incident for both the industry and the public.

Stop the Fear Mongering: Potential of a Triple Gas Play in Otsego County

I recently read an email message that was forwarded my way.  It stated that Norse’s plans for Chenango County that can be found here are a “blueprint” for what will come our way in Otsego County. 

I am no energy guru but a look at slide number 5 of the Norse Energy presentation shows a cross section of a triple play in the acreage that Norse Energy has leased in Chenango County. The triple play in this case is the Marcellus, the Herkimer and the Utica; so since Otsego County sits atop similar formations then the insinuation is that we can expect the same.  

Not so fast. There are many things that determine the "playability" of a formation. One of the drivers for our county’s Natural Gas development is the geology. The depth determines the pressure of the gas. Operators talk about “under pressured” and “over pressured” formations.  Under pressured formations are not very interesting and neither are overcooked formations. The other is the regulations. For any Marcellus wells under 2000 feet the permit application requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the site which is an added cost. So, companies would rather explore where they are no added conditions.

On Slide 21: Active Marcellus in PA is at 4000 to approximately 9000 feet. Marcellus in Otsego County is mostly below 2000 feet in depth. Marcellus will not be a major player for most of the Otsego County.

One Slide 22: The Utica formation is attractive at greater than 3000 feet. This may be interesting for a gas play in about half Otsego County.

FYI: The proof can be found in the NYSDEC map of the extent of the Marcellus, the portion of Otsego County that is blue has the highest probability of having a triple play, roughly less than a 1/5^th of the County. Definitely does not include the Town of Maryland nor does it include all the Towns that are rapidly passing bans in our County.

Town of Maryland’s Survey to Gauge Citizen’s Sentiment about Natural Gas Development

Most of surveys circulating in our Towns (Maryland and Worcester) have one goal and that is to ban natural gas drilling in the Town. The survey in the town of Maryland offered three options:

__Against drilling

__For Drilling

__Unsure

What it failed to include was to explain what the ramifications of each point checked.

·         If you checked that you were against drilling; someone would take your vote and say to the Town Board that :

o   You are against any kind of natural gas development in Maryland (conventional (low impact) and nonconventional (shale));

o   You are against any type of heavy industry ever coming to the town.

o   You want the Town of Maryland to remain exactly how it is; pristine rolling hills, abandoned buildings, horrible spring thaw heaved roads,  “for sale signs” and all.

o   You do not want any type of industrial driven change.

o   You believe that the town has the luxury to pick and choose what kind of potentially positive economic change they can have. That we must only pick those that have “zero risk.”

o   The town must sit back and wait for another opportunity to come around that the Town might consider saying yes to. Despite the fact that the Town has been waiting a long time for things to change for the better.

·         If you checked that you were for drilling; it would be represented to mean that

o   You support drilling in any shape of form, anywhere and anyhow; unsafe or safe.

o   You are all for ruining the environment and ruining people’s health and water

o   You are in it only for the money and nothing else matters

·         If you check that you were unsure; it would mean that

o   Your opinion whatever it is inconsequential.

Most people read into this and opted not to check any of the boxes and not to send back their surveys. The bottom line, if you have anything to say about Natural Gas development in our town, come down to the Town’s Citizens Advisory Committee and make your opinion known and noted. Wednesday 27^th at 6:30 pm at the Maryland Town Hall.