Can You Hear the People Speak?

The people of Candor value their small town atmosphere. On a sunny day you can walk around the Village in less than an hour – including pauses to enjoy the views of the river, listen to birds, or stop by the farmer’s market to buy locally grown produce and locally crafted wares. It’s the sort of town where “children are cherished and raised to be good citizens, where businesses are responsible to their neighborhoods, where government is responsive to its citizenry and where neighbors strive to maintain the civility that a rural life requires.”

It is the sort of town that seeks to balance a “logical and efficient use” of natural resources with the desire to protect open space, historical sites, agricultural soils, and the aquifer which supplies everyone with fresh water.

At least it was until last week. On November 10 the town board voted to radically change wording of the proposed update to the Town Comprehensive Plan, the document that will guide development for the next decade or so. Prior to the board meeting, town supervisor Bob Riggs called the chairman of the planning board Art Cacciola into his office and insisted that language in the comprehensive plan be changed to specifically include development of oil and gas resources and, in particular, express support for the technology of fracking.

Cacciola explained that the plan needs to be generic and not that specific, as no one knows what technology will be available in the future. He also explained that the plan did not specifically name any natural resources, as advised by the Executive Director of the NY Planning Federation. Furthermore, Cacciola said, “the Executive Director said we should not include anything in the plan which is currently illegal, such as fracking.”

Apparently the town supervisor is as immune to common sense and sound advice as he is to comments from the public. That evening, after inserting his own language into the Comprehensive Plan, Riggs asked the town board to approve the newer, frackier version supporting gas extraction. [He also told Cacciola that he’d no longer be chairman of the planning board and asked for his resignation. Cacciola declined and intends to serve out his term.]

Later in the evening Riggs used the new, fracked-up version of the Comprehensive Plan to justify approval of a resolution supporting the industrialized drilling and LPG fracking of a well in the town of Barton.

Just as happened at the October town board meeting, a majority of the people who showed up to comment were against the gas-fracking resolution. “It was clear that the public comments were just for show,” said one person (who asked not to be identified). “They knew they were going to vote for the resolution.”

“My biggest concern,” said the Candor resident, “is the vast amount of scientific evidence that this activity (industrialized gas drilling and fracking) is dangerous to human health and the environment. Our town board is not seriously considering that evidence. I feel that we’re being railroaded by people who have made up their minds and are not willing to look at new research.”

And herein lies the problem. Many of those who spoke against the fracking resolution are the same age as the children of the town board members. They are the young people who are buying homes and farms in town, who are coming back to raise families of their own. They want a safe, healthy place for their children to grow up, like the town they knew. And no one is listening to them.

Abandoned Wells are NOT a sign of "Responsible Gas Drilling"

One of the arguments from the pro-drilling faction in my town and surrounding region is that "gas drillers are good neighbors". If you are on the receiving end of lease money, it may seem that way - even if you have to put up with the inconvenience of a wellpad on your best pasture or some contamination in your water supply. They're certainly good neighbors if you're a truck driver or run a gravel mining operation. And I know some hard-working people have earned good money working for them.

An abandoned, unplugged well in PA

But when the going gets tough, some of these drilling companies cut and run - leaving thousands of abandoned wells that need to be plugged. And who picks up the bill? We do. The taxpayers. We pay the cost of plugging wells long after the drillers have pocketed their profits.

So what's the problem with these wells? If they are not properly plugged, they provide pathways for methane to travel into the atmosphere, adding greenhouse gases to an already growing climate catastrophe. They also provide pathways for chemicals and methane to flow from a current well into groundwater or drinking water wells.

This is the problem:

graphic from NPR article

 

 

There are thousands of abandoned and unplugged wells, and drillers - and state regulators - don't know where they are. Back in 2012, the PA Department of Environmental Protection estimated there were about 200,000 abandoned wells - and that was before companies started drilling in the Marcellus.

This isn't just a Marcellus Shale problem; Alberta faces a growing number of abandoned wells. When the price of oil or gas declines, the companies just walk away - leaving the government to clean up after them. Alberta does have an "orphaned well" fund that helps cover the cost but - especially with deeper wells - remediating a site can cost up to $1 million and take 10 years. Responsible drillers don't do that to their neighbors.

Wyoming is facing the same problem, now that the gas boom is going bust. They've got more than 4,000 methane-bed gas wells to locate and plug - because the companies who drilled the wells up and left.  Granted, coalbed-methane wells are shallow, and only cost around $10,000 apiece to plug - but that adds up to $30 million - and, say regulators, the newer wells are deeper and cost tens of thousands more to plug. Once again, corporations pocket the profit and leave the public with the cleaning tab. Responsible drillers don't do that to their neighbors.

Despite evidence that drilling contributes to impacts to public health, including low birth weights,  premature births, and increased hospitalizations of people living near drilling sites; decreased  air quality (even if you live hundreds of miles away from the actual drilling site), potential human-induced seismic activity, and decreased water quality, the Candor town board is convinced that "everyone" in town wants to be fracked. They fully intend to pass a resolution supporting gas-fracking at their November 10 board meeting.

The proposed well isn't in our town, one board  member pointedly told someone during a previous meeting, so why are we all upset? (Maybe because air and water contamination don't respect town boundaries?) On the other hand, the proposed well isn't in our town, so why is our town board so headstrong adamant about passing this resolution? Could it have something to do with the old-boy network? Or the fact that our town supervisor traveled to Harrisburg, PA a couple days ago to meet with Pennsylvania lawmakers about how our town can secede from NY?

Gas Fracking Resolution Provides Opportunity for Civic Involvement

In a previous blog I mention that my little town, famous for being the "small town in mass society" is hopping on the bandwagon to support gas-fracking. In their August meeting they proposed adoption of a  resolution to support a private corporation in another town to drill a well and frack it with highly explosive propane. (You can read all about how they were spoon-fed that resolution by a representative of the party the resolution benefits - all on that earlier blog).

I am not the only one who thinks this move to adopt a pro-fracking resolution smacks of politicking. Others do, too - and on Tuesday October 13, they plan to submit a letter to the town board telling why they are not only fed up with this political nonsense, but also enumerating the ways that fracking with gas will NOT solve the issues of health, safety, contamination, etc that the "pro-gas-frac" contingent wants us to believe. (note: update 10/12 re: Van Etten does NOT pass this resolution. see below)

After years of scientific study, the DEC determined that high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing is not healthy to children and other living things. They back that up with a report released by the NY State Dept. of Health.

"LPG/ propane gel fracturing warrants the same extensive review before our community condones the use of technology," say the citizens. Propane/LPG fracking isn't the "safe and proven technology" that our town board would like it to be. The People would prefer that our town board remain neutral until DEC has a chance to study the matter, and then comment at the appropriate time, and within their given expertise.

Furthermore, our town already has a "pro-drilling" resolution on tap. And this particular resolution isn't so much about pro-drilling as it is about supporting a group in another town to do something that may or may not be allowed.

Politicking.

While the surface talk is all about how gas-fracking is "green" or "more environmentally friendly", remember that the decision to ban HVHF was not just based on the use of mass quantities of water, but also on:

•  impacts to public health, including low birth weights,  premature births, and increased hospitalizations of people living near drilling sites;
• decreased  air quality even if you live hundreds of miles away,
•  potential human-induced seismic activity,
• and decreased water quality.

IF you live in Candor, and you would like to sign on to the letter that asks the town board to NOT pass the resolution, you may contact beccarodomskybish[at]gmail[dot]com.

UPDATE: It sounds like one local community is passing on the resolution. Last Thursday the Van Etten town board voted to NOT approve this same resolution. A Van Etten resident who attended that meeting gives her town board credit, saying that they "asked to hear from residents before they voted," and that they decided to NOT pass the resolution "citing unwillingness to stir up the divisiveness of the 2012 election."

Could Gas-Fracking Fuel a NY Gas Boom?

Yesterday members of the Tioga County Landowners Coalition (NY) got an e-mail titled “We Have a Deal”. For the past 11 months, landowner group representatives have traveled to Houston, TX. By their count they’ve placed brochures of the group’s offering (135,000+ acres) in the hands of about 84 companies. They’ve had face-to-face meetings with the CEO’s of 11 companies.

But no one was interested. As they tell it, the combination of low gas prices and the movement of drilling rigs to “wet gas” areas along the OH/NY border led to a “complete lack of interest from every company we met”. However, the group managed to find one interested operator and, over the past eight weeks, has been "working creatively with a major operator to create opportunity” for the lease-hungry landowners.

That opportunity: an unconventional leasing arrangement with eCORP wherein landowners will receive a majority share of the profits earned by a “sharing company” made up of contiguous parcels with their neighbors. Details to come, but the deal will be a “very lucrative financial arrangement” with the upmost attention given to environmental responsibility.

The plan, outlined in their press release, is to fracture the shale using liquefied petroleum (LPG) developed by GASFRAC. This will be better than hydro-fracking, says the landowner group, because LPG fracking uses no water and has no waste. So that should translate into reduced truck traffic and a smaller pad footprint.  

More importantly, this kind of fracking just might get around the state’s moratorium on hydro-fracking. But while the landowner coalition points to Chevron’s reports of successfully gas-fracked wells, Chevron’s own reports indicate that they are still evaluating the process.

Using gas to fracture gas wells sounds like a nifty idea, but it’s not risk free. According to Cornell professor Tony Ingraffea, who heads the “fracture” group, gas-fracking still relies on chemicals added to the gelled LPG. The process also needs compressors to re-condense propane/butane that returns from the well for reuse.

As for reduction of truck traffic, he notes that LPG has to get to the wellsite somehow, and currently that mode of transport is truck – only instead of hauling water, they’re transporting a hazardous material. And there’s still the problem of what to do with the waste fluids that return to the surface.

Fracking with gelled LPG does not eliminate many of the problems associated with hydro-fracking:

• there is still opportunity for waste fluid to travel to the surface via faults and old open wells;
• methane migration can still happen due to casing failures and leaks;
• surface spills of frack waste and/or drilling waste is still an issue;
• and there’s the added danger of propane, a heavier-than-air gas leaking and pooling in low spots near the well pad in large amounts and causing an explosion hazard.

 Not to mention that the process itself can be explosive.  Last year there were two separate explosions – or “flash fires” caused by LPG fracking in Alberta, Canada (here and here)

And fracking with gas is more expensive, initially, though propane can be recovered and used again. Still, the process needs to be “proved”, and according to the local media, that’s what the landowners hope to do – help prove that the process works, and it’s viable for extracting shale gas from the numerous layers beneath Tioga County.

Right now the question is whether gas-fracking falls within the rules of the existing environmental impact study for oil and gas drilling. Ingraffea says the science isn’t there to evaluate either the environmental impact or the safety of LPG fracks.