A Conversation With Fred Sinclair - #3-Social Issues

Last week’s column was the second part of an extended interview with Fred Sinclair, Allegany County legislator and Manager of the Soil and Water conservation district for Allegany county for 35 years. This week’s column concludes the interview. To read our previous conversations just scroll down to the previous posts. At the bottom of this weeks column are links to primary source materials that Fred Sinclair provided.

Previously, Fred talked at length about the geology of aquifers and the threat that hydrofracking poses to our water resources. Last week he commented on the dangers inherent from the radioactivity contained within the Marcellus Shale itself.

GM: Fred, what about the quality of life issues in communities that have allowed hydrofracking?

FS: Everyone is focused on the important issues of water and health, but what people aren’t talking so much about is the impact on the social structure of a boom. Local governments need to be prepared for and take pro-active action against the effects of this level of activity hitting you all at once. Your jails are going to get filled up, policeman will be overtaxed, emergency responders are going to be burnt out, hospitals are going to be hit with everything from chemical spill emergencies to workers with severe infections and sexually transmitted diseases that they have brought with them from other areas. This is what they’re seeing at the Guthrie Clinic.

GM: I’ve read about many of the things you are mentioning in the report from Guthrie, like how emergency vehicles are slowed because of the high volume of truck traffic. [Click here to read the Guthrie Report]

FS: This is a killer on your community. The whole tempo is changed. There are subtle impacts and not so subtle. Out of state workers with a lot of money, workers with children and how that impacts the schools, many workers the first few months working for these companies don’t have health insurance so there can be a big impact on Medicaid roles. DWI’s go up. And there are housing issues. There aren’t enough places to rent in an area being developed in this way – the gas workers take everything and they pay twice as much as it is worth, and students can’t find accommodations. Hotels and motels fill up. We are required by State law to house the homeless, the indigent, and people coming out of jail, and what will happen – if we cannot put them up in a motel because they are all full – we have to shift them to shelter in a county up north at twice the cost. We have been looking at these issues because cumulatively there is a huge social impact.

GM: I think what you are saying is important. I often hear, “oh, my grandfather had a gas well and everything was fine.” Many people don’t understand that fracking will mean the transformation of the countryside into an industrial zone and all the ramifications that come along with extreme energy extraction in the 21^st century.

FS: And it will stay this way for awhile and then collapse and you are left with pipes in the ground which have changed hands, the wells are sold to some secondary producer who doesn’t care or have the resources to do a proper cleanup and closure. This is a bubble that the industry is creating. It’s just like the tech bubble and there will be a huge impact when it pops. These are artificial bubbles created by people who want to make a lot of money – and a lot of this is foreign money – the wells are often owned by foreign investors.

GM: Given the dangers to our communal resources the economics are complex. What would you say to someone who sees leasing as their economic salvation?

FS: There is an old saying, “ Water will get you through times without money, better than money gets you through times without water.” That’s kind of flip but the bottom line is that a few people will get very rich and the environment will suffer, our way of life will suffer. We are putting in road protection on a countywide level and towns should do the same.  Our tourism industry will be hit; the wildlife will be driven away from the wellheads and the huge industrial activity. All of the things that bring people here and that people enjoy immensely, birding, fishing or hunting – all of that will be impacted and we will end up losing money. Tourism is a big thing for us and we are learning how to nurture it – it’s a pleasant economic adventure – people coming to enjoy your area and spending their money locally. People will not come here to sit in a traffic jam, to sit behind trucks hauling poisonous chemicals or lines of water tankers. That will be the perception and there is a danger in that.

The socio-economic planning by the DEC in the SGEIS is very weak. They studied communities across the Southern Tier where drilling will have an impact and Steuben and Allegany Counties are conspicuously absent. They left us out of the discussion completely and I don’t know why. That is a travesty worth noting.

I am impressed by the large spectrum of people, economists, scientists, doctors, and just regular citizens that are stepping up to speak with their town boards. How many bans and moratoriums are there now?

GM: If you include all the bans, moratoriums, pending legislation and DEC protected communities in the NYC and Syracuse watersheds there are 209.

Fred, thank you for sitting down with me and sharing your expertise. Any parting thoughts about hydrofracking?

FS: It should not be allowed in my opinion. It is just not worth it. The first oil minister for Saudi Arabia upon his retirement said, “I wish we had discovered water.” When you look at the structure there, there are a small number of people who are extremely wealthy and everyone else is poor. I don’t believe that people here will benefit and we will lose why we are here- that’s sad. I am very proud of Alfred’s moratorium. Many people with the “drill baby, drill” mentality will be the first ones to say, “Oh, I didn’t know that was going to happen."

________________________________________________

This column concludes my extended conversation with Fred Sinclair. Many of the points that Fred has discussed in this series are contained in the Guthrie Report referenced above and the DEC Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). The entire SGEIS is a very large file but worth spending time with. Please note: if you download the whole file, Chapter 11 is the index and will help you navigate the document.

Another source to go to: James “Chip” Northrup, who was a planning manager at Atlantic Richfield and an independent oil and gas producer for onshore and offshore drilling rigs. He has 30 years of experience in the industry. Go to his blog: www.scribd.com/northrup49  Because of his insider knowledge of the industry his writings are particularly interesting. Many of the concerns that Fred Sinclair has talked about can also be found in the writings and public lectures of James Northrup.

Fred Sinclair has provided me with many of his primary sources for the issues discussed in our three part interview.  Below are the links to those documents:


Water:


USGS: Response to DEC SGEIS. This document covers many of the points Fred Sinclair made on water issues

This document is a less technical summary of the USGS: Response to the DEC SGEIS 

Chemical and Biological Risk Assessment for Natural Gas Extraction in New York - a paper by Ronald E. Bishop, PH.D. , CHO, Chemistry and Biochemistry Department, State University of New York, College at Oneonta

Wastewater Becomes Issue in Debate on Gas Drilling - New York Times 5/4/12

Radioactivity:

A collection of resources on radium, low-level radioactivity, and the Marcellus shale

Radioactivity : A paper by Peter J. Davies, Professor of Biology, Cornell University

Radon and the Marcellus Shale by Martin Resnikoff, Radioactive Waste Management Associates

Radon in Natural Gas from Marcellus Shale by Martin Resnikoff, Radioactive Waste Management Associates

USGS Fact Sheet: Naturally Occurring Radionuclides in the Ground Water of Southeastern Pennsylvania

USGS: Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Produced Water and Oil-Field Equipment-An Issue For The Energy Industry


Social/Economic Issues:


The Economic Consequences of Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction: Key Issues -A research project sponsored by the Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning

A Conversation With Fred Sinclair #2 - Radioactivity

Last week’s column was the first part of an extended interview with Fred Sinclair, Allegany County legislator and Manager of the Soil and Water conservation district for the county for 35 years. 

Previously, Fred talked at length about the geology of aquifers and the threat that hydrofracking poses to our water resources. This week he comments on the dangers inherent from the Marcellus Shale itself.

FS: The Marcellus Shale is radioactive – it carries radium 226, and other “daughter” radionuclides that are degraded remnants from the uranium that was in the earth. They are present at levels 25 times natural background, so if officials say, “this is no different than the brick in your house or the stone in your garden” that is not true.

GM: So how is this a problem?

FS: Radon, which is the gas that comes off from Radium is water soluble. So as this methane gas, with radon in it, is released from the shale and is coming up through water resources and aquifers, the radon can actually go into solution and that is a serious thing because if radon gets into your water and then you drink it, it goes into the cellular level of your body. It’s not the same as breathing it and it’s not the same as alpha particles hitting your clothes and bouncing off, which is the argument they like to use about radon, “ oh, they just bounce off your blue jeans and that’s it.” If Radon is in your water it is the worst, because it then bio-accumulates and sits there emitting alpha particles inside of you that directly affect your cells.

GM: So are you saying that something that was contained deep within the earth can start to migrate because drilling, fracking and pressure disturbs it and creates pathways for it to migrate?

FS: Yes. The natural pressures down a mile deep are huge – like in the ocean – so anything in a gaseous state is going to want to get to an area of lower pressure. That’s just the way it works. It is going to find those pathways and as I have said, to think we have everything all sealed off is naïve.

GM: So if radium is present in the Marcellus Shale is radium present in the gas from the Marcellus shale?

FS:  Potentially, yes. This is an exposure danger that needs to be assessed, researched, and taken very seriously.

GM: I understand that the Hyland Landfill in Angelica is accepting drill tailings from the fracking in Pennsylvania.

FS: It is true. Thousands of tons. This is an extension of the same issue because the tailings and cuttings come from the Marcellus Shale drilling. Some are just ground up bedrock, but it is the tailings and cuttings from what we call the “black shale,” the Marcellus layer, this is a nasty deposit from roughly 350 million years ago that is of concern. Another issue is that the tailings –they are kind of like a soup, dry out, so there is dust associated with it, and when it is transported this is also a problem.

GM: Are the tailings being monitored?

FS: Allegedly. But there is a lot of conjecture about the ability of these monitors to pick up the daughter radionuclides. They think everything is fine, but I believe if you took a radon test up there you might find there is a lot of radon coming off the site.

GM: You described radon’s water soluability – what about the danger from the landfill that takes these tailings? What about the leachate from the landfill itself?

FS: That is exactly the point. I made this point emphatically in the Energy Committee, that we needed to warn the Wellsville treatment plant because all of the leachate from Hyland goes to Wellsville, where it then gets treated and discharged into the Genesee River. What is the quality of the water that they are putting in the river? That’s the bottom line that we should know. It’s not routinely required to test their emissions. We don’t know what the long term, cumulative effects are of the radioactivity associated with the landfill, the leachate, the air, sewage treatment plants and the accumulation in the equipment. Studies of this kind of low-level radioactivity haven’t been done. No one has tested radioactivity and leachate long term, or done cumulative projections. We pretend to know what we are doing. Something that we do know about are the heavy metals in the leachate from the landfill.

GM: Where do the heavy metals come from?

FS:  The Marcellus was an ancient sea bed, extremely salty. There is a lot of salt and bromides that come up with the tailings and cuttings and when they are introduced to the landfill they alter the chemistry and it changes the rate of composting.

GM: Just like my garden compost when I put some salty material in it.

FS: Correct. And this caustic liquid from the tailings and cuttings migrates down through the landfill and causes the materials already in the landfill to release heavy metals. This moisture is a different animal than rainwater. It changes the chemistry of the landfill. I alerted the Board of Health and Wellsville stopped taking the leachate for a short time, but the leachate backs up and it’s a lot of revenue for Wellsville.

GM: Wellsville can handle this material?

FS: They think they can. They are treating it for bacteria and running it through their settling beds. The environment of these beds can absorb a lot of the heavy metals.

GM: Are there other ways in which radioactivity from the Marcellus can impact us?

FS: Another significant issue is that when you run radioactive material through your pipes it accumulates on the little joints and seams and as it accumulates these things become more and more radioactive. The corners of the sludge pits that don’t get cleaned out all the way – over time, and the pipes that bring the gas up out of the ground. They become radioactive. So the question is, what are you going to do with these pipes and transmission lines? Is radon gas being delivered to people who don’t have their stoves vented? Is radon actually going to be increased in the homes of people who are using Marcellus gas? So here we are 20 years later with the threat of radioactivity again in Allegany County and a major threat to the environment. Thousands of tons of this material have been put into Angelica. It’s scary. Themes in history do indeed repeat themselves, and it is here, now, already.

Continued Next week: Part #3: Quality of life.

A Conversation With Fred Sinclair #1 Introduction / Water issues

I had the pleasure to sit down with Fred Sinclair for a few hours on a recent Saturday and asked him questions about hydrofracking and its potential impacts. I first met Fred during the fight against the siting of the radioactive waste dump in Allegany Co. and quickly came to respect his broad knowledge and expertise. In our conversation, Fred spoke on topics that will be the focus of my next three columns:  Water, Radioactivity, and Social Impacts.

Fred is currently an Allegany County legislator and is the chairman of the Planning and Economic Development Committee. For 35 years he was manager of the Soil and Water conservation district for Allegany County prior to becoming a legislator. He has a deep understanding of resource protection, water flow and hydraulics, interactions of water and earth, and subsurface geology. This knowledge combined with the larger social and economic perspectives of a legislator has given him the ability to see how the various issues related to hydrofracking – whether they be scientific, geologic, economic, or social, are all interrelated.

GM: The Village of Alfred, the Colleges, Tinkertown, parts of the Town of Alfred, the Alfred-Almond School, and the village of Almond all draw their water from one aquifer. If hydrofracking is allowed in our area should we be concerned?

FS: This type of aquifer is called an unconfined aquifer, meaning that it is related to the gravels and the recharge areas of the valley; considerable wetlands areas serve to recharge it and are hydraulically connected to it.

This is a fundamentally different situation than a confined aquifer that exists down below a big layer of clay that would tend to confine it from surface influences. Alfred’s unconfined aquifer has a lot of hydraulic connections, just like in your body, like the way veins are connected and go to many different areas. These water veins feed this aquifer and there is the potential for things that happen on the surface to penetrate down through and affect the aquifer readily. And it sits on top of bedrock that has its own characteristic patterns of significant fractures; that also collects water and feeds the aquifer. These are all possible pathways for pollution if drilling goes into one of these veins that feed a gradient that heads towards an aquifer. Alfred’s aquifer and well is very good and needs to be protected and having this huge population dependent on it ups the ante for the need to protect it.

GM: So given the geology you just described do you feel that hydrofracking in the area around the aquifer is a threat?

FS: Absolutely! And there is an additional issue here and that is airborne sources of pollution. You have to look at all of the trucking, hydrofracking engines at the well sites, and all of the developmental activities that come with drilling. Additionally, over a 12 month period 1 well is allowed to discharge 1 ton of benzene to the atmosphere. That’s only one well – remember a spacing unit between well pads is 640 acres – so every 640 acres there could be a well pad.

The DEC -- proposed solution to these emissions is to put 30-foot stacks up at the well pads. That is their solution! What happens when it rains and you get this atmospheric deposition of pollutants? It lands on watersheds, recharge areas, wetlands and foliage. It is part of the water that penetrates the earth and is recharging aquifers. Not to mention that it’s going to affect organic certification of fields. These emissions will also affect the more susceptible – people with breathing problems and those less able to cope with pollutants. Think about the BTEX complex [Benzene, Toulene, Ethybenzene and Xylene] coming off the condensate tanks. This wide blanketing of atmospheric deposition is not something the DEC has addressed.

GM: You describe a kind of aerial migration pathway to the aquifer, what about the drilling itself as a source of pollution?

FS: At the wellheads there will be large areas of extremely poisonous chemicals on site. There will be accidents. There will be illegal activity. There are examples in Pennsylvania of fracking fluids being spread on roads. That’s the human factor. There are many ways pollution can travel underground. First, when they begin drilling, before a pipe is inserted and grouted, they are using a caustic drilling “mud” and they are drilling down through aquifers. Second, when they drill into the Marcellus layer they then fracture the shale with an explosive force that exerts huge amounts of pressure, creating fractures that can connect to natural geologic pathways. It is absurd to think that gas and chemicals will only follow the designated channels. Four, it is proven that gas will follow along the outside of the pipe. Five, you have seals and grout in the underground pipeline. As long as they work you have a seal that will contain most of the gas, but they have a life and you have ground movement and the potential for seals to be interrupted, so who’s to say for how long they will function properly? There are actual field studies that show how long these seals work – they might last 10 years but inevitably there will be seepage and methane can accumulate in your water system and can be explosive. For us to think that we have everything all sealed off is naïve. The latest research of the USGS [United States Geologic Survey] has been damning in terms of what is happening out west. The DEC says our regulations will be better -- but with the forces at play we will find over time that these things will leak and there will be the introduction of pollutants into the aquifers.

GM: Up to 50% of the water that’s mixed with chemicals that goes down the hole of a well during the fracking process, doesn’t come back to the surface. The industry says it’s not a concern because it’s geologically sound down there and this material will be contained forever. Does the process of migration you’ve just described pertain also to this chemical-laced water?

FS: Yes. It could easily be carried up by man-made and geologic fractures. The earth and geology in western New York is very fractured already.

GM: What about the large number of abandoned gas wells in Allegany Co.?

FS: There are areas in the county where hundreds and hundreds of wells were drilled in a very small area and they just walked away from them when they didn’t hit anything – or they hit water. Not all of these wells are still seen at the surface, sometimes the pipe is rusted off and grass has grown over it. In the Allentown area there are zones where the homes do not have potable water, there are some spots where it is questionable if you should bathe in the water. Because of old drilling there are hydrocarbons in the aquifers – there are entire areas in the mostly southern part of the county where you cannot drill a water well. A lot of people don’t know that.

GM: It’s like you are describing swiss cheese. Are these old wells a threat to us in relation to hydrofracking?

FS: Absolutely. In many cases they are the connections between lower levels of geology and water. Those pipes are old enough that they are cracked and have lost their integrity, so if hydrofracking or a crevice of some kind was to reach them, they are a direct conduit to an upper aquifer.

An abandoned gas well in Elm Valley that now spouts water. What was intended to keep water out has now become a conduit for it.

GM: Are there other ways in which our water is threatened?

FS: Yes –what’s even more vulnerable than the unconfined aquifer that Alfred draws from is the Genesee River. The villages of Wellsville and Scio rely on water that comes right out of it. It is classified A Class, meaning it is potable water. We have contacted Potter County and their emergency managers and we have attempted to set up a direct line of communication between Pennsylvania and our water plant in Wellsville, so that if they have any inkling that a truck has turned over, or a bad actor has put stuff in a stream that is in the Genesee River watershed – there are several thousands of acres in Pennsylvania that feed directly into the Genesee River – we want to know immediately if something happens. It’s no small feat to get everyone understanding the importance of this. Immediate notification would enable us to close our water intake until it has passed by us.

GM: Does this arrangement leave you feeling confident?

FS: The human factor is one that does not create confidence.

GM: And what about further downstream from Wellsville?

FS: The other community that could be affected is the Village of Belmont. It has an unconfined aquifer just off the side of the Genesee and its water is associated with the river. If they were to know, action could be taken.

GM: And what happens further downstream from there?

FS: The DEC will tell you that dilution is the solution to pollution.

Continued Next week: Part #2: How radioactivity is a threat from hydrofracking.

Hydrofracking Chemicals and Water - Part 2

I was talking with a friend of mine about fracking and water issues and he put it just right, “You know there are many alternative forms of energy, but no alternative forms of water.” I thought that certainly puts things in perspective – how in this beautiful geography, where water is so abundant, it can easily become something we take for granted. But, once it is threatened, scarce, or unusable, we realize what an important substance it is.

In my column last week I summarized the findings of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce which revealed the many known and possible carcinogens that are mixed with water and injected under great pressure to fracture deep deposits of shale to release trapped gas. This week I want to discuss what this practice has meant for a town in Wyoming, and what it could mean for us locally.

The town of Pavillion is an area that hasbeen extensively fracked. For years, many residents have complained that their water had turned black and smelled like gasoline. Last year, the EPA warned residents not to drink or cook with their water, to ventilate their homes when they showered, and to avoid ignition sources in closed rooms where water is running. The EPA drilled monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the contamination and eventually collected samples from 41 locations and had the samples analyzed by four different laboratories. The EPA’s analysis indicated high levels of petroleum compounds such as benzene, xylene, methylcyclo-hexane, naphthalene, and phenol.As reported in Scientific American, what EPA also found was, “a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol, widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The agency said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame…. The wells also contained benzene at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people, as well as phenols- another dangerous carcinogen – acetone, toluene, naphthalene, and traces of diesel fuel….The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.Gas production is the only industrial activity in Pavillion A community based health survey found that,Since the development of the oil and gas resources in the area, Pavillion residents have reported contamination and health impacts that they suspect are coming from Encana's Pavillion/Muddy Ridge gas-field….residents' symptoms have ranged from rashes and headaches to neurological disorders and cancers. The survey found 94% of participants reported health impacts that are known effects of chemicals identified last year [the EPA study] in drinking water wells. The residents of Pavillion received water from eight groundwater wells until fracking started. Now many residents  drink bottled water supplied to them by Encana.

The Village of Alfred, Alfred University, Alfred State College, Tinkertown, parts of the Town of Alfred along Rte. 244, the Alfred-Almond Central School and the Village of Almond all get their water from two wells on Shaw Road that draw from one unfiltered aquifer. In the Alfred area, during the school calendar it is estimated that on any given weekday between 8-9,000 people depend on the water this aquifer provides. When the colleges are in session 650,000 gallons are pumped per day and when the students are gone about 250,000 gallons. This aquifer is fed by the nearby Kanakadea Creek and other underground sources, leaving it vulnerable to spills, leaks and other unanticipated effects of the fracturing process both below ground and on the surface. Because fracking extends thousands of feet horizontally underground, activities that are only visible far from the actual wells on Shaw Road have the potential to pollute them. This would be an unprecedented calamity for our community and certainly for the enrollment of the Colleges. I recently reread the comprehensive plan for the Town and Village from 2004 and found the section on water quality planning and management fascinating. This was a study prepared in 1993 by the Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board. The document was created well before hydrofracking was a potential threat, but the issues it articulates makes this study even more relevant today. Here are some fragments from that report…

“A high-quality, plentiful water supply is an economic advantage in the recruitment of industry, business and residents.”
“We urge local officials to look at long-term environmental and groundwater protection, and not just short-term economic gain.”
“Use an aquifer-wide groundwater protection approach”
“Improperly closed, abandoned gas and oil wells are known to be common in Allegany Co. and pose threats to groundwater."
"Groundwater protection efforts are most effective when done on a more regional level as aquifers and their recharge areas do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries.”
“A quick survey of remediation costs for contaminated groundwater supplies will show that prevention is well worth the effort. Corrective measures can rapidly escalate into the millions of dollars, not to mention yielding substantial inconveniences to those dependent on the contaminated water supply. There is really no such thing as being overly protective when it comes to groundwater protection, especially when it is a community’s only source of drinking water. While many of the suggestions… may seem politically unpopular in the short-term, having contaminated groundwater would be even more unpopular. It is far easier to address threats and prevent contamination than to deal with the costs and other problems associated with crisis type situations.”

The water report clarified for me just how delicate the water system is and how on this level, the town and village are intimately connected.

Certain phrases in the water report stayed with me, “There is still much that is not known [my emphasis] about the recharge areas of the aquifer beneath the Town and Village of Alfred. Despite a lack of definitive knowledge [my emphasis] about recharge areas…” I think what these phrases imply is significant, that there are processes at work, that are larger than us, that we don’t fully understand, and can’t be controlled, and because of that, need to be respected. These phrases from the water report reminded me of one of my favorite authors, the farmer/writer Wendell Berry. In an essay entitled, Letter to Wes Jackson, Berry discusses unseen patterns in agriculture – but one could read his comments also in relationship to fracking and water supplies and how we just do not know everything.

“To call the unknown by it’s right name, “mystery,” is to suggest that we had better respect the possibility of a larger, unseen pattern that can be damaged or destroyed and, with it, the smaller patterns…” This was, “understood as evil or hubris. Both the Greeks and the Hebrews told us to watch out for humans who assume that they make all the patterns.”

Last week, at the end of a walk through the woods, my wife and I were coming back through the fields near our house on our usual path. We came upon something that amazed us; a bubbling spring had spontaneously sprouted out of the earth where we had never seen one before. A six-inch high vertical column of crystal clear water was being pushing up from the depths, pulsing continuously into the air. What we saw was only the visible portion of a much larger system at work. I came back into the house and poured myself a glass of water from our spring and thought that the tragedy of hydrofracking is how something as wonderfully simple as a clear glass of water has been transformed in many communities into something full of anxiety, fear, and anger.

Hydrofracking Chemicals and Water - Part #1

Hydrofracking is a relatively new method of retrieving natural gas that involves drilling thousands of feet vertically, passing through the water table, and then horizontally thousands of feet through shale where gas is trapped in tiny pockets. Millions of gallons of water are mixed with chemicals and are pumped underground at high pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas. The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted gas companies from the oversight of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act and despite their claims that the chemicals used in the fracking process are safe, companies have consistently refused to make public comprehensive lists of the chemicals used.

In 2011 the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce asked 14 Oil and Gas companies to provide information on the names and volumes of products used over a five year period (2005-2009). For each fracturing product reported, the companies were also asked to provide the MSDS (material safety and data sheet) that OSHA  (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requires. Under OSHA rules, chemical manufacturers can withhold the identity of chemical components that they deem to be “trade secrets”. This proprietary information belongs to the manufacturers, not the users of the chemicals, thus gas companies have only limited information about the products they purchase from vendors, mix with other products, and pump underground.

A report entitled, “Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing”

is a result of this federal study. It is the first comprehensive national inventory of the chemical products used by gas companies during the fracking process in over thirteen states. Here is the link to read the original committee report.

It is an eye opener!

Below is a summary of the findings of the Committee:

“In the five year period studied, the 14 leading oil and gas service companies used more than 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products, not including water (my emphasis) added at the well site. Overall, the companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 different chemicals and other components. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants”

“The components used in the hydraulic fracturing products ranged from generally harmless to extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead.”

“29 of the chemicals are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”

“The BTEX compounds – Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene,  – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. Chronic exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes can damage the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys. BTEX compounds appeared in 60 hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009 and were used

in 11.4 million gallons of products of fracturing fluids.”

“Fracturing Companies injected more than 30 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states. In a 2004 report, EPA stated that the  ‘use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat to underground sources of drinking water’.

“Methanol, [ read for yourself the health effects of this poison] which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, was the most widely used chemical. The substance is hazardous and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under SDWA. Isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol [commonly used in anti-freeze, de-icing solutions, and brake fluid] were the other most widely used chemicals.”

Many of the hydraulic fracturing fluids purchased by the gas companies contain chemical components that are listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. In these cases, it appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment. (My emphasis)

Upon release of the report, Chairman of the Committee, Henry Waxman said, “This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens. “ 

Diana Degette a member of the committee from Colorado stated, “It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of the communities whose health could be affected.”

Ian Urbina reporting in The New York Times on the release of the report stated…. “The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators and environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way out of a well bore — because of above-ground spills, underground failures of well casing or migration through layers of rock — and into nearby sources of drinking water.”

End of Part 1 … to be continued next week.

Bans and Moratoria update: The number of towns that have invoked home rule by passing moratoriums, bans, or have legislation pending stands at 134. When the towns within the New York City and Syracuse watersheds that are protected by the DEC watershed protection provisions are added the total to date is 206!  This last week Niagara Falls passed a citywide ban on fracking and accepting fracking wastewater in their water treatment facility, thus protecting a huge amount of the planets fresh water by stopping residual fracking wastewater from being discharged into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario! They also passed a resolution to Governor Cuomo stating fracking should be banned in all of New York State.

Interview with Daryl Jones, Town of Jerusalem

As of 3/3/12 there are 81 towns in New York State that are asserting home-rule authority by enacting a moratorium or a ban on high volume, slickwater, horizontal hydrofracking from within their jurisdictions. There are 45 more municipalities with legislation that is pending and awaits a final vote.

The town of Alfred has so far enacted a moratorium only. I thought it would be interesting to find out more about a town that started with a moratorium but went on to enact a ban. I was curious about their process, so having read that the town of Jerusalem, in Yates country, at the north end of Keuka lake, had recently moved from a moratorium to a ban, I called up Daryl Jones, Town Supervisor and asked if I could interview him.

On Monday Feb. 17, I met with Supervisor Jones in the town offices. Daryl, a soft-spoken man in his early sixties, was eager to share his experience. He was quick to point out that the whole effort was the collective hard work of many people. As he spoke he struck me as thoughtful, logical, and unemotional, that is, until the subject of water came up, then his face reddened and he spoke with passion and concern.

GM: Please tell me something about your background.

DJ: I have lived in Yates County all my life and Jerusalem almost 40 years. I was away for four years in the Air Force and was happy to return. I retired from the County Sheriff’s office and have been on the town board since 1998 and Supervisor since 2004.

GM: How would you describe your town?

DJ: We have a population of about four thousand. We’re the largest town in the county running from Penn Yan to a half mile south of Branchport. We have twenty miles of lake frontage, Keuka College, lots of grapes, dairy farms, not a lot of industry – just a tight knit community.

GM: When did you first become aware of hydrofracking?

DJ: A concerned group in the community attended a town board meeting about a year and half ago, and asked us to look into it.

GM: What happened next?

DJ: We formed a committee. The committee was made up of town volunteers, representatives from the zoning, planning, and town boards, and myself. We did a lot of research… weighed the options, pro and con. We contacted anybody and everybody who knew something about this issue. I was getting daily e-mails. Some of our committee members took it upon themselves to go to Dimock, Pa. [where, because of hydrofracking, many homeowners now have polluted water wells and receive water deliveries from the EPA] and other towns. A few officials from Torrey [Yates Co.] took a guided tour in Pa. from Chesapeake Gas [a major gas corporation currently drilling in Pa.] but they only show you what they want you to see on those tours and don’t give you the whole story. My doctor’s family lives near Williamsport, Pa. and they are just in turmoil. The roads are clogged with heavy truck traffic, truck after truck after truck and the roads are all tore up and it will be this way for years.

GM: How did you move from a moratorium to a ban?

DJ: The committee met two to three times a month and had informational meetings with the public. One at Keuka College was packed beyond capacity. We had three speakers…Tony Ingraffea [a Cornell geologist and one of the developers of the modern hydrofracking process who, nevertheless speaks out against it.] Steve Coffman [author and founder of The Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes] and Scott Cline [spokesman for the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York.] [Go to You Tube and type in any of their names to watch various lectures.] After the presentations we handed out a short written survey our committee had created. Then it was clear how people felt. Over 95 % were against fracking. Helen and David Slottje [lawyers who worked with the Alfred planning board to draft the moratorium] were then brought on, pro-bono, to help us revise our zoning ordinances. We also got comments from several attorneys who live in the community. We met with the Mennonite community, they are large landowners, and addressed their concerns. We also sent some questions and a copy of the zoning draft to the Association of Towns. At that point I decided it was time to bring it to the town board for a vote.

GM: At this point I would like to tell my readers that before the actual vote you made the following statement: “Most important to me was the research… that presented facts that fracking as it is currently done is not safe. It’s not safe for the waters we drink. It is not safe for the crops we grow and the produce we eat. It is not safe for the livestock we raise. And it is not safe for the waters of Keuka Lake in which our children and grandchildren swim, fish, and play. Research proved without a doubt that property values, agriculture and tourism would suffer if fracking came to our town… This research and the strong preference of our residents, our taxpayers, the people who elected me to office bring me to a clear conclusion: Hydrofracking drilling…is not worth the risk in the town of Jerusalem.” And then what happened?

DJ: We had a vote and it was 4 to 1 to adopt the new zoning law.

GM: You could have taken a wait and see attitude and left it up to the DEC to protect you. But I gather the town board didn’t trust them to do that.

DJ: [Daryl paused, hesitated, sighed. It seemed he didn’t care to comment] The town has the ability to home rule. As far as I am concerned home rule is the deciding factor.

GM: I understand the complexities of this issue; many of us struggle to pay our taxes and leasing can be an attractive proposition to some in both our towns. What do you say to the people who see fracking as their economic salvation?

DJ: You are going to maintain your property at the expense of the town? If we allow it and it pollutes your neighbor’s water, or our lake, your property will not be worth anything along with everybody else’s…it won’t be worth a darn thing.

GM: Once you had educated yourself about hydrofracking was there one thing that you found the most threatening?

DJ: It’s the danger to the water. The noise is going to last till the drillers leave, the roads can be rebuilt and repaved… it all comes down to the water! Where would we be without the water? We wouldn’t exist without it! They are using millions of gallons per well and what are they mixing with it that they don’t have to divulge! What guarantee is there that the water will be safe when it goes back to our water source? Right now it’s a big experiment! I can’t imagine what would happen to this town and this county if our lake is polluted.[He groaned.] We would basically be a ghost town!

At this point we concluded the interview. Daryl gave me copies of their survey and amended zoning law to bring back to the Alfred Town Board.

Driving home to Alfred, through Pulteney, I took a route that took me high in the hills overlooking beautiful Keuka Lake. I passed a flat farm field with a truck parked by the side of the road and some men standing together in the field. On the side of the truck the sign said Chesapeake Gas.

                                Daryl Jones, Town Supervisor, Town of Jerusalem, New York

Moratoria and Ban update:

This week: St. Johnsville (Montgomery Co), Manheim (Herkimer Co.), Springwater (Livingston Co.), Starkey (Yates Co.); all have enacted one-year moratoriums.

Minden (Montgomery Co), Palatine (Montgomery Co.), Dolgeville (Herkimer Co.) Italy (Yates Co.); all have formal action pending towards a moratorium or a ban.

Bans Upheld !

This last week brought important developments for the towns in New York State that seek to protect themselves from high volume, slickwater, horizontal hydrofracking through the use of their local zoning laws. Both the towns of Dryden (Tompkins Co.) and Middlefield (Otsego Co.) used zoning to ban gas drilling and heavy industry within their jurisdictions and both towns were sued, each by different plaintiffs. This week in two separate decisions, two State Supreme Court judges ruled in favor of the towns, strongly affirming home rule. Both decisions acknowledge that state law regulates gas drilling, but that it is the right of municipalities to determine land use and permissible activities via zoning.

On August 2, 2011 the town of Dryden amended its zoning ordinance to ban all activities related to the exploration for, and production or storage of natural gas or petroleum. The town was sued by the Anschutz Exploration Corporation. Anschutz claimed that the New York State Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law overrides all local ordinances related to natural gas drilling. Tompkins County Supreme Court Judge Phillip Rumsey disagreed and ruled that although the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Law does indeed regulate those industries, they are still subject to local regulations and zoning.

Mahlon Perkins, Dryden town attorney stated, “That was the crux of the town’s argument all along… it is important to remember that this case is not about fracking….this case is about land-use authority. It comes down to whether a municipality that has land-use authority-- such as a village, city, or town can determine where heavy industrial uses are allowed or if they are allowed, and it is not about regulating the industry.”

State Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, whose district includes the town of Dryden, said she was not surprised by the ruling. “I cannot say that I am shocked because I think the arguments for home rule are very compelling… I am thrilled the judge gave us a fair hearing and upheld our State’s tradition of home rule. It was a very logical decision and one that I strongly agree with.”

On June 28, 2011 the town of Middlefield enacted a zoning law that prohibited heavy industry and all new oil, gas, and solution mining. On October 28, 2011 the town of Middlefield was sued by a landowner who had signed a lease with a gas company claiming that the lease superseded the zoning law and that the zoning law should be declared void. In the second ruling last week, State Supreme Court Justice Donald Cerio affirmed that the town of Middlefield was within its rights under state law to ban oil and gas drilling. Judge Cerio, like Judge Rumsey, affirmed New York State’s right to regulate how  the gas industry operates, and the towns right to determine where that industry may or may not operate.

Both decisions are expected to be appealed.

I think it is important to remember that on Thursday, Dec. 8 the Alfred Town Board adopted a resolution to become a “friend of the court” in the Dryden and Middlefield proceedings. The Board passed unanimously a statement in “support of its sister towns in order to reassert the right of municipalities throughout New York State to determine what land uses are appropriate through the municipal home rule powers granted by the New York State Constitution and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law.”

In response to these two rulings Helen and David Slottje, lawyers who helped draft Alfred’s one year moratorium on hydrofracking said, “…Local elected officials across the state have stood strong and stood together, with the unflinching backing of so many of their residents….This strength and resilience was tested by these lawsuits….[B]ecause the members of the town boards in Dryden and Middlefield were willing to exercise their right to protect their citizens and stood firm in their convictions, we now have definitive answers from two separate courts that clearly support community rights.”

As reported in Rochester’s Democrat and Chronicle, when Governor Cuomo was asked about municipalities’ rights to enact bans against gas drilling he said, “… I believe that it’s up to the courts. And if the courts say they have that right, they have that right.”

The right of towns to determine their own fate and protect their very nature and character is something that we have taken for granted. Fracking has changed all of that. We have now received legal affirmation of this right and I find this tremendously heartening.

________________________________________________

The actual court documents are interesting to read. The Dryden document can be found at :

http://schoharievalleywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Dryden-Ruling.pdf

The Middlefield document can be read at:

http://schoharievalleywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Middlefield-decison.pdf

Informed Consent and Compulsory Integration

We have all had the experience of going to a new doctor’s office for the first time and before we are seen we fill out forms in which we give the physician permission to examine us, prescribe treatments, suggest tests or share our medical records with appropriate other professionals. Prior to an outpatient procedure or a surgery in the hospital, a doctor explains the risks and benefits and answers our questions about alternatives, side-effects etc. Based on this communication we either give our consent or refuse the treatment. This process, which is a basic concept in medical practice, is known as informed consent.

Informed consent is prevalent in many parts of our lives. In the grocery store, all ingredients are on the labels, allowing us to make an informed decision. Although we might get sick of the drug ads on TV, they also inform us of possible side effects. The notion of informed consent is so fundamental to how we are able to make decisions that it is shocking when basic transparency is withheld from us.

The gas companies operate behind a veil of secrecy. They are not required to reveal what chemicals they mix with water, even though they are, first, pumping millions of gallons of this toxic mixture into the ground to “frack” the shale and then storing what is recovered in large pools on the surface where toxic compounds are mechanically evaporated. As you can see in the aerial photograph taken in Pennsylvania these pools are often in disturbing proximity to houses.

This practice runs counter to the open communication and accountability that is at the heart of the concept of informed consent. I want to emphasize that even though this week’s column is basically about ethics, even if the gas companies are eventually forced by the DEC to reveal all the chemicals they are using, just knowing what they are is not a solution. Many of the carcinogens used (next week’s column) make fracking a practice that is dangerous to our health and the environment.

Another practice that conflicts with an individual’s right to give his or her consent is called Compulsory Integration. The moment it was explained to me my immediate thought was, “in America? No! you have to be talking about Russia or China!”.

Although it sounds like a concept from the struggles of the civil rights era, perhaps something concerned with enforcing basic freedoms, actually, it is quite the opposite.

Compulsory Integration means that when gas companies create well spacing units, all they have to control by lease is 60% of the land. The other 40% is “integrated,” meaning whether the landowners consent or not, their land will be fracked. Non-participation is not an option. Let me repeat: non-participation is not an option. Simply put – if my neighbors have signed leases and the gas company wants to frack horizontally under my land, but I want to protect my family, animals, land and water from drilling and the effects of chemicals injected into the ground, evaporated into the air, dumped on fields, roads, and in streams, I cannot.

The gas companies are allowed to do this under the Compulsory Integration provisions of the New York Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law of 2005, according to Christopher Denton, an Elmira attorney who has represented dozens of landowners in compulsory integration cases. As Mr. Denton explained, the original intent of the law had an element of equality to it. In the old days of conventional gas or oil extraction you had a pool or a reservoir underground. That pool didn’t recognize property boundaries. Because these formations were under pressure, all it could take was one neighbor drilling into them to empty them, essentially depriving the other landowners, whose property was also on top of the formation, from obtaining their share of the profits. The intent of this statute was to make sure that adjacent landowners could not be deprived of the value under their land and to make sure profits were shared proportionately. Mr. Denton said that there was no mention of high volume slickwater horizontal hydrofracking in the statute.

A law whose intent was originally about fairness is now used by an industry to rob us of our rights and freedoms, our right to clean air, clean water, health, and our sovereignty as landowners to give our consent, or not, freely. This is eminent domain practiced by private industry on a mass scale and in my opinion, a violation of some of our most basic constitutional rights. 

___________________________________________________

For more on this issue, Cornell Cooperative Extension has an impressive online resource of educational materials. For an overview of the available resources go to:  http://ccetompkins.org/environment/shalegas/gas-drilling-library

On this page scroll down and you will see an entry for Compulsory Integration that will take you to some very informative video presentations. 

________________________________________________________________

Moratorium and Ban update: In New York State there are currently 76 communities with either a ban or moratorium in place. 37 more are in the process of study, discussion, and/or drafting legislation. The newest towns are: Nunda and Mount Morris (Livingston Co), Wayne (Steuben Co.), Moravia (Cayuga Co.), and Mendon (Monroe Co.) ; all have enacted one-year moratoriums. The Town Board of Caroline (Tompkins Co.) passed a resolution to prepare a draft local law that prohibits unconventional gas drilling and associated high impact activities.

Bans and Moratoria in New York State

In 2009 the DEC released a draft report known as the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) This document looked at possible impacts of hydrofracking in New York State and proposed regulations for the industry. Due to significant criticism, the DEC released a revised SGEIS, but in this document too there were many inadequacies and issues not even addressed. The public comment period on the latest SGEIS recently came to a close and in response the DEC received 61,000 comments.

As many readers probably have heard, the SGEIS exempts  hydrofracking from the watersheds of New York City and Syracuse. This is a curious double standard applied to the states’ drinking water. As Jack Ossont, spokesman for the Coalition to Protect New York has said, “ If Fracking is so safe, why ban it in certain areas? And if it’s dangerous, why allow it in others?

I live in East Valley and my family depends on about 100 acres of watershed to feed the spring that is piped to our house. We also use a private well. Many of my neighbors have similar water resources. Based on the experience of people who live in hydrofracking zones across the country I feel these water supplies are vulnerable if this form of gas extraction is permitted in the Town of Alfred.  Why are urban areas protected and rural areas sacrificed?

Given that this inequity comes from Albany, towns and villages  are left on their own to attempt to protect themselves.  And as citizens, we are legally helpless unless our town governments act to protect us.

The moratorium that the Town of Alfred has put into place is a start. I recently received a document from an organization called Keuka Citizens Against Hydrofracking that compiles weekly the moratoria and bans that are in place or are being considered in the parts of New York State that could be affected if hydrofracking comes to New York. Things are happening quickly and the list grows by the week.

How does Alfred fit into the larger context of New York State?

As of 2/8/12 here are the communities that have protected themselves through moratoria (m), or bans (b). There are many additional communities that are in the process of study and discussion, and/or drafting pending legislation (p). I have grouped cities and towns by region because I think it is interesting to see how the Southern Tier compares with other regions in New York State:

In the Finger Lakes Region – Ithaca(b), Canandaigua(m), Skaneateles(m), Syracuse(b), Naples(m), Conesus(m), Livonia(m), Avon(p), Geneseo(p), Brighton(m), Lima(p), Mendon(m), Nunda(p), Springwater(p), West Sparta(p), Sparta(p),  Mount Morris(m), North Dansville(p), Rush(p), Dansville(p), South Dansville(p), Wayne(p), Pulteney(p), Canadice(p), Hector(p), Bristol(m), South Bristol(m), Ulysses(b), Dryden(b), Danby(b), Camillus(b), Geneva(b),  Benton (m), Jerusalem (m), Barrington(m), Milo(m), Middlesex(m), Dewitt(m), Tully(m), Marcellus(m), Spafford(m), Jordan(m), Elbridge(m), Otisgo(m),  Onondaga(m), Niles(m), Cortlandville(m), Richmond(m), Gorham(m), Caledonia(m), Enfield(p), Groton(p), Lansing(p), Hector(p), Starkey(p), Torrey(p), Summerhill(b), and Virgil(b). Yates County passed a resolution calling for the same protections for their watershed as New York City and Syracuse. Penn Yan will not accept any hydrofracking wastewater for processing at the village wastewater treatment plant.

In the Central Leatherstocking Region :  Utica(m), Rome(b), Otsego(b), Cobbleskill(p),  Cooperstown(b), Oneonta(b), Annsville(m), Augusta(m), Ava(m), Boonville(m), Camden(m), Clinton(m), Deerfield(m), Florence(m), Floyd(m), Forestport(m), Kirkland(m), Marshall(m), New Hartford(m), Paris(m), Remsen(m), Sangerfield(m), Steuben(m), Trenton(m), Vernon(m), Westmoreland(m), Whitestown(m), Manheim(m), Blenheim(p), Carlisle(p), Seward(p), Sharon(p), Middleburgh(p), Columbus(p), Plymouth(p), Smithville(p), Little Falls(p), Maryland(p), Milford(p), Morris(p), Westford(p), New Lisbon(p), Sangerfield(p), Vienna(p), Middlefield(b), Springfield(b), Cherry Valley(b), Plainfield(b), Richmondville(b), Butternuts(p), and New Lisbon(p).  The Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce has issued a statement supporting a total ban on fracking due to the impact on their watershed, farming, and tourism.

In the Catskill region -  Bethel(p), Highland(m), Sidney(p), Andes(m), Lumberland(b), and Tusten(b)   

In the Southern Tier:  Alfred (m), Canaseraga(p), Vestal(p), and Binghamton(m) 

In the Niagara frontier : Buffalo(b), and Wales(b)

Additionally, Dutchess, Ontario, Onondaga, Sullivan, Tompkins and Ulster Counties have enacted bans on county owned land.

Clearly the Finger Lakes and Central Leatherstocking regions are working hard to protect themselves, in spite of what the eventual DEC regulations might become. It gives me pause to see then how vulnerable the Southern Tier and Western New York will be.

As I looked over the methods that these towns have used to enact bans, the most common strategy that has been used is first, to rewrite or amend their Comprehensive Management Plan because many of them were created prior to fracking being an issue. Who would have imagined the wholesale transformation of the roads and countryside into an industrial zone?  Then second, to alter the zoning and land use laws to reflect the vision of the comprehensive plan, to then, in effect, “zone out” horizontal high volume slickwater hydrofracking.

I urge all citizens of the Town of Alfred to keep talking to the members of our Town Board and Town Planning Board. Let them know your feelings. This is the only way a moratorium will turn into a ban.

The Town Board meets the second Thursday of the month. The Town Planning Board meets the first Wed. of the month. Both meet at 7pm  at the Town of Alfred Offices on Shaw Road.