Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Town of Dryden's Safe Energy Coalition Responds to Enacted Gas and Energy Development Ban
This written notice by the Dryden's Safe Energy Coalition to the Town Board of Dryden should serve as resounding response to the Ban Natural Gas movement. It raises many interesting points but my personal favorite is this:
"The Town should take notice that a ban is inconsistent with environmental advocates’ position favoring the development of natural gas under the Kyoto protocols. It is also inconsistent for the Town and individuals to use energy from elsewhere while refusing to allow its regulated development locally."
To see what oil and gas development looks like else where, take a look at some of the pictures that show exactly what bad regulations look like. We need to take ownership for our consumption.
"The Town should take notice that a ban is inconsistent with environmental advocates’ position favoring the development of natural gas under the Kyoto protocols. It is also inconsistent for the Town and individuals to use energy from elsewhere while refusing to allow its regulated development locally."
To see what oil and gas development looks like else where, take a look at some of the pictures that show exactly what bad regulations look like. We need to take ownership for our consumption.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Can contaminated groundwater be remediated?
I am constantly hearing about how natural gas development destroys drinking water aquifers. Destroying is always put in the tragic sense that the water will never be used again... ever. So, I will address this issue again.
Common misconception:
If something goes wrong at my neighbor's natural gas well pad, my well water and drinking water aquifer will be destroyed forever! I have seen those homes with big water tanks in PA and I do not want a water buffalo in my yard.
Having your drinking water well contaminated to by all means not a good thing; especially if you did not buy into the whole “natural gas development” saga. The water tanks or water buffalos as they are commonly referred to, offer a temporary water supply while solutions to restoring the drinking water supply are sought. Water buffalos are viewed as unwelcome eyesore and are not good for property values but they are also temporary. It turns out that people do not know that there is technology and processes by which groundwater can be cleaned.
Other ways that drinking water can be returned to portability include the installation of water filtration systems at the well head to can clean up a family’s water supply. Or a home can be tied into a municipal water supply (if feasible).
But who wants to drink filtered water, our water was pristine to start with. Really? Drinking water quality of water wells in our region show such variability, with at least ¼ of the drinking water wells tested in the County containing detectable levels of natural occurring Methane. Some wells contain detectable levels of natural occurring arsenic! Most people do not really know what is in the water they are drinking.
Where do all the contaminants that were in the water go?
Contaminants are removed in a process referred to as “natural attenuation” Natural attenuation can be biological (natural bacteria, plants and animals in the soil break the chemicals down to simpler forms), could be a physical action (dispersion, dissolution, advection, volatilization etc.) or a chemical process that occurs that eventually leads to a decline in the contaminants concentration.
While understanding what may happen in a potential situation, it is also good to know what is being done to protect water from being contaminated in the first place. After all, prevention is always better than cure. (Chapter 7 of the NYSDEC sGEIS)
I am attaching an excerpt from a press release from the EPA that talks about cleaning up contaminated ground water in Broome County.
EPA Proposes Plan to Remove Contaminated Soil from
Tri-Cities Barrel Superfund Site in Broome County, N.Y.
Tri-Cities Barrel Superfund Site in Broome County, N.Y.
EPA to Hold Public Meeting on August 16 to Discuss Plan
Contacts: John Senn, (212) 637-3667, senn.john@epa.gov or Kasia Broussalian, (212) 637-3581, broussalian.kasia@epa.gov
(New York, N.Y. – Aug. 4, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed an amended plan to clean up ground water at the Tri-Cities Barrel Superfund Site in Fenton, N.Y. using a variety of natural processes known as “monitored natural attenuation.” The ground water is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds, pesticides and metals, which can cause serious damage to people’s health and the environment. The original cleanup plan, selected by EPA in 2000, called for the extraction and treatment of the contaminated ground water. Data collected since the original cleanup approach was selected indicate that natural processes are working to clean up the site. EPA will oversee the periodic collection and analysis of ground water samples to verify that the level and extent of contaminants are declining and that people’s health and the environment are protected.
The public is encouraged to comment on EPA’s proposed plan until August 30, 2011. On August 16, EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss the plan at 7:00 p.m. at the Town of Fenton Town Hall at 44 Park Street in Port Cane, N.Y. The proposed plan is available on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/tricities/index.html, Fenton Town Hall and EPA’s New York City office at 290 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, N.Y.
The Tri-Cities Barrel Superfund site is a 14.9-acre former barrel and drum reclamation facility. During the reconditioning process, the interior and exterior of the drums and barrels were cleaned and reconditioned using a variety of chemicals. Between 1960 and 1980, liquid waste from the process was discharged into a series of unlined lagoons on the site. EPA removed over 350 drums, as well as all containers, tanks, process equipment and buildings from the site. All of the equipment that was used while the drum reconditioning business was still in operation was decontaminated, all structures located on-site were demolished, and the debris was disposed of off-site.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
NYT Series- Drilling Down on the Truth behind Contaminated Wells
Today Ian Urbina in his drilling series released an article titled: One Tainted Well and Concern there may be more.
The article can be found here.
EID responds to the story here with an article titled: EID Statement on (Latest) Joint Effort by NYT/Environmental Working Group Aimed at Attacking Natural Gas.
John Hanger’s initial response can be found here titled: Initial Statement on EWG Report and Today's NYT Article
I wonder what is going on in the rest of the world. Sometimes is helps to see that everyone else in country is worrying about other equally important stuff besides the NYT and Ian Urbina saga.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
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
Friday, July 29, 2011
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)
(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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)