NEWS FLASH Don't Count Those Gas Royalties Yet...

[Uncrowded]

Major news development here... Looks like an early Christmas gift to the catskills, but more work to be done...


UPDATE 1-NYC urges ban on shale gas drilling in watershed
8:30am EST
* Largest U.S. city joins environmentalists in opposition

* Drilling called 'unacceptable threat' to drinking water

By Edith Honan

NEW YORK, Dec 23 (Reuters) - New York City urged New York state on Wednesday to ban natural gas drilling in its watershed, adding unprecedented support to critics who consider the chemicals used to mine for shale gas as poisonous to drinking water.

The biggest city in the United States joined environmentalists and small-town neighbors of drilling operations in trying to hinder the exploitation of one of the most promising sources of U.S. energy -- the Marcellus Shale formation.

"The risks are simply not worth it," the city's acting Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Steven Lawitts, said in a statement.

"Based on the latest science and available technology, as well as the data and limited analysis presented by the state, high-volume hydrofracking and horizontal drilling pose unacceptable threats to the unfiltered fresh water supply of nine million New Yorkers," Lawitts said.

New York City's opposition marks the first time someone from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration has formally asked for a pre-emptive ban on gas drilling.

Major natural gas producers and oilfield service companies have a stake in shale gas production, and Exxon Mobil <XOM.N> cited the potential for unconventional gas production in its $30 billion bid to take over XTO Energy <XTO.N> this month.

Shale drilling companies say the industry maintains strict safeguards to prevent any danger to water supplies, though neighbors of drilling in several states report fouled water and increased illness since drilling began.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported in August it had found chemical contaminants in drinking water wells near natural gas drilling operations in Wyoming and is conducting further study.

WATER AND GAS IN SAME AREA

Earlier this year, New York state proposed new environmental rules that would allow drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation, which is likely the nation's largest shale reservoir and extends below the surface in much of Pennsylvania and parts of New York, Ohio and West Virginia.

New York City is asking the state to exclude the watershed from the areas that can be drilled.

The 2,000-square-mile (5,200-square-km) watershed is the largest unfiltered water supply in the United States, providing 1.4 billion gallons (5.3 billion litres) of drinking water a day to 10 million people in and around New York City.

It is also within the Marcellus Shale formation, which geologists say could satisfy U.S. natural gas demand for a decade, and local business groups say would provide much-needed revenue to the cash-strapped state.

(For a FACTBOX on the potential for Marcellus and other shale formations, double-click on [nN22120744])

The process used to extract the gas from the shale rock is known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. As part of the process, a mixture of water, sand and chemicals are pumped into the shale formation to split the rock and free the trapped gas.

(For a Q&A on the environmental issues surrounding fracking, double-click on [nN22120711])

"These activities cannot be permitted in the watershed. The risks are simply not worth it, considering that the unprotected areas of the watershed represent only 6 percent of the extent of the Marcellus formation in New York," Lawitts said.

If drilling were permitted, New York City might need a $10 billion water filtration system that would cost an additional $100 million a year to maintain and translate into a 30 percent increase in residential water and sewer costs. (Additional reporting by Jon Hurdle; writing by Daniel Trotta; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

 

[MACFLY]

Major news development here... Looks like an early Christmas gift to the catskills, but more work to be done...


UPDATE 1-NYC urges ban on shale gas drilling in watershed
8:30am EST
* Largest U.S. city joins environmentalists in opposition

* Drilling called 'unacceptable threat' to drinking water

By Edith Honan

NEW YORK, Dec 23 (Reuters) - New York City urged New York state on Wednesday to ban natural gas drilling in its watershed, adding unprecedented support to critics who consider the chemicals used to mine for shale gas as poisonous to drinking water.

The biggest city in the United States joined environmentalists and small-town neighbors of drilling operations in trying to hinder the exploitation of one of the most promising sources of U.S. energy -- the Marcellus Shale formation.

"The risks are simply not worth it," the city's acting Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Steven Lawitts, said in a statement.

"Based on the latest science and available technology, as well as the data and limited analysis presented by the state, high-volume hydrofracking and horizontal drilling pose unacceptable threats to the unfiltered fresh water supply of nine million New Yorkers," Lawitts said.

New York City's opposition marks the first time someone from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration has formally asked for a pre-emptive ban on gas drilling.

Major natural gas producers and oilfield service companies have a stake in shale gas production, and Exxon Mobil <XOM.N> cited the potential for unconventional gas production in its $30 billion bid to take over XTO Energy <XTO.N> this month.

Shale drilling companies say the industry maintains strict safeguards to prevent any danger to water supplies, though neighbors of drilling in several states report fouled water and increased illness since drilling began.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported in August it had found chemical contaminants in drinking water wells near natural gas drilling operations in Wyoming and is conducting further study.

WATER AND GAS IN SAME AREA

Earlier this year, New York state proposed new environmental rules that would allow drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation, which is likely the nation's largest shale reservoir and extends below the surface in much of Pennsylvania and parts of New York, Ohio and West Virginia.

New York City is asking the state to exclude the watershed from the areas that can be drilled.

The 2,000-square-mile (5,200-square-km) watershed is the largest unfiltered water supply in the United States, providing 1.4 billion gallons (5.3 billion litres) of drinking water a day to 10 million people in and around New York City.

It is also within the Marcellus Shale formation, which geologists say could satisfy U.S. natural gas demand for a decade, and local business groups say would provide much-needed revenue to the cash-strapped state.

(For a FACTBOX on the potential for Marcellus and other shale formations, double-click on [nN22120744])

The process used to extract the gas from the shale rock is known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. As part of the process, a mixture of water, sand and chemicals are pumped into the shale formation to split the rock and free the trapped gas.

(For a Q&A on the environmental issues surrounding fracking, double-click on [nN22120711])

"These activities cannot be permitted in the watershed. The risks are simply not worth it, considering that the unprotected areas of the watershed represent only 6 percent of the extent of the Marcellus formation in New York," Lawitts said.

If drilling were permitted, New York City might need a $10 billion water filtration system that would cost an additional $100 million a year to maintain and translate into a 30 percent increase in residential water and sewer costs. (Additional reporting by Jon Hurdle; writing by Daniel Trotta; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

Translated we dont want to have to ever build a water filtration plant for NYC. Yes we should have been planning and saving for this project for decades but we have managed to get away with it and even though risk to our supply is minimal we just dont ever want to consider having to build it....FULL STOP!!! So lets keep using oil and increasing our greenhouse gases which will make the oceans rise and flood NYC completely!!! Wonderful

 

[Future Fanatic]

Translated we dont want to have to ever build a water filtration plant for NYC. Yes we should have been planning and saving for this project for decades but we have managed to get away with it and even though risk to our supply is minimal we just dont ever want to consider having to build it....FULL STOP!!! So lets keep using oil and increasing our greenhouse gases which will make the oceans rise and flood NYC completely!!! Wonderful

OR

"We want clean water bought and paid for on the backs of upstate residents"

Although it would be a blow for private property rights(seems a theme with the "changed" political scene) if they get their way, given supply and demand, my payments (all things being equal) would go up. Keep up the good work uncrowded.

 

[catskill dick]

Fanatic,

It seems to me that NYC is a landowner in the Catskills (one of those neighbors that you would not steal wind from by building your own wind mill) that is doing nothing more than protecting its property rights (in this case to the clean water on its land). Why should NYC as a property owner be expected to accept any risk to its water supply without compensation. Perhaps it is you and the other gas farmers that are looking to make a profit on the backs of the good people of NYC?

It looks like your strong position on property rights (trespass, mineral rights, etc.) only applies when it suits you, or where you approve of the manner in which title is obtained.

DICK

 

[WBDluver]

The translation could also be that in light of what is happening in northern Wayne county and what has happend in western Pa and Wyoming. They dont want it to happen to them on THEIR property.

 

[MACFLY]

The translation could also be that in light of what is happening in northern Wayne county and what has happend in western Pa and Wyoming. They dont want it to happen to them on THEIR property.

Great but you dont really answer the question. What are you going to use to power your homes, our economy, and essentially our way of life. This is the issue with the not in my backyard and there answer is no mentality of ultra environmentalist. Right now we are being told that new york will be under water in a couple of decades if we keep using oil and coal. Now we cant drill for gas. So whats the answer

 

[Future Fanatic]

Fanatic,

It seems to me that NYC is a landowner in the Catskills (one of those neighbors that you would not steal wind from by building your own wind mill) that is doing nothing more than protecting its property rights (in this case to the clean water on its land). Why should NYC as a property owner be expected to accept any risk to its water supply without compensation. Perhaps it is you and the other gas farmers that are looking to make a profit on the backs of the good people of NYC?

It looks like your strong position on property rights (trespass, mineral rights, etc.) only applies when it suits you, or where you approve of the manner in which title is obtained.

DICK

CD,
It seems maybe that your zeal to respond with counters to my posts forces you into making statements that are not based in common sense.

NYC residents have been the ones who have pofitted with CHEAP CLEAN water for decades. They drain the watershed areas of a BILLION of gallons of water each day. What's THAT worth? I think we should find out. HOW much money is kept in the pockets of NYC residents because of the upstate landowner keeping their PRIVATE land clean and water friendly?

Let's not forget the history of the NYC reservoir system, that is, the "stealing" of land, the removal of bodies from cemeteries, the submerging of complete villages, etc. to show how NYC feels about property rights... And you want to say that I some how shifted my beliefs on property rights?

LET NYC DO WHATEVER IT WANTS ON THE LAND IT OWNS.

Since the EPA granted them a waiver on filtration, they directed NYC to acquire sensitve lands to protect the water that they hoped to drink. They can buy it outright (and pay taxes on it like everyone else OR enter into conservation easements where they PAY private landowners to help protect the water that NYC hopes to drink. The precedent has been set. NYC needs to PAY private landowners if NYC wants to avoid building a filtration plant. Just ask the EPA.

You see it's NOT the other way around.

In fact, NYC has many programs in place where they provide technical expertise to woodlot owners who will be logging their lands and also technical expertise and project money to farmers who build and excavate areas on their farms to minimize animal waste and field runoff from entering waterways. NYC pays these costs to ENSURE that the water they hope to drink stays as clean as possible so the EPA will not make them build a filtration plant like most other big cities.

Now, since NYC only owns like 15% of the watershed lands, that means that roughly 85% of the water they drink falls on to state lands or lands owned by private citizens(about 2/3 of the watershed). 85% of the water NYC drinks, sells, wastes and pollutes is falling on land whose taxes are paid by the upstate private owners. Since the precedent is that NYC should be PAYING landowners for keeping the water that NYC hopes to drink, clean, and NYC wants these land owners to NOT DRILL on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, (because NYC thinks that there is a POSSIBILITY that SOMEHOW their water will be sullied) then NYC should PAY UP.

BACK when NYC needed to avoid building a filtration plant, they waved around a bunch of money in front of the local town reps. These reps signed on to the "Memorandum of Agreement". Mistake. NYC has since shown that it does not mean to work WITH the locals but in many cases against them and any development of the local economies. NOW, the gas companies are waving money, and NYC does not like the idea of it. Their own tactics turned on them by BIG GAS. The last thing NYC needs is a bunch of rich upstate landowners gettin' all uppity and telling them to "shove it".

How times change.

It seems like only yesterday when NYC was talked about by fly fishermen and environmentalists with the same derision that these folks now use against the gas industry. NYC, who wouldn't give a gallon of cold water to save the trout are now supported...

I guess it's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I'm sure NYC will repay the loyalty.

Hey wbdluver,

Could you post what three events that NYC does not want to happen NEAR their lands? You mention "in northern Wayne county and what has happend in western Pa and Wyoming" but could you please be more specific?


Macfly, don't you see how uncrowded answers my questions... I mean you can't really expect truthful answers to THOSE types of questions...

They can't do it. It would reveal that in large measure, it all comes down to NIMBYism. It's hard to get support if you are just a NIMBY. Well, unless you have a bunch of other Nimbys around... You have to hide the Nimby stuff and scare them with end of the world scenarios (and make the effort seem heroic by comparing it to the great battles in history)( What other masters of propaganda did that?)

Yeah, I know, God love me.

 

[MACFLY]

Great but you dont really answer the question. What are you going to use to power your homes, our economy, and essentially our way of life. This is the issue with the not in my backyard and there answer is no mentality of ultra environmentalist. Right now we are being told that new york will be under water in a couple of decades if we keep using oil and coal. Now we cant drill for gas. So whats the answer

I love it when I post late at night Probably should have just kept it to the last sentence.

Future: I dont really expect an answer as its a question that is not easy to answer but needs to be addressed and desparately. The environmental movement has done a lot of good things for our natural resources but like any endeavor no matter how well intentioned it tends to dip into extremes at times. Here we are with a fundamental question that needs to be answered (clean, affordable energy) and a resource that can solve a number of problems (natural gas). One would think instead of bickering about it that folks on all sides would come together and look for a useful solution but instead all we seem to be able to do is demonize and hold tight to our own selfish positions...Ridiculous!!!

Furthermore the issue of global warming should lend even more urgency to a solution. If Global Warming is man made and just about all environmentalists believe it is arent we at a point of making choices that are the lesser of 2 evils. I mean what good is clean unfiltered water if NYC will be underwater. So I think environmentalists are in desparate need of some introspection. Figure out what you really stand for folks cause energy makes the world go around and we couldnt be chatting about it on this forum without it.

 

[catskill dick]

CD,
It seems maybe that your zeal to respond with counters to my posts forces you into making statements that are not based in common sense.

NYC residents have been the ones who have pofitted with CHEAP CLEAN water for decades. They drain the watershed areas of a BILLION of gallons of water each day. What's THAT worth? I think we should find out. HOW much money is kept in the pockets of NYC residents because of the upstate landowner keeping their PRIVATE land clean and water friendly?

Let's not forget the history of the NYC reservoir system, that is, the "stealing" of land, the removal of bodies from cemeteries, the submerging of complete villages, etc. to show how NYC feels about property rights... And you want to say that I some how shifted my beliefs on property rights?

LET NYC DO WHATEVER IT WANTS ON THE LAND IT OWNS.

Since the EPA granted them a waiver on filtration, they directed NYC to acquire sensitve lands to protect the water that they hoped to drink. They can buy it outright (and pay taxes on it like everyone else OR enter into conservation easements where they PAY private landowners to help protect the water that NYC hopes to drink. The precedent has been set. NYC needs to PAY private landowners if NYC wants to avoid building a filtration plant. Just ask the EPA.

You see it's NOT the other way around.

In fact, NYC has many programs in place where they provide technical expertise to woodlot owners who will be logging their lands and also technical expertise and project money to farmers who build and excavate areas on their farms to minimize animal waste and field runoff from entering waterways. NYC pays these costs to ENSURE that the water they hope to drink stays as clean as possible so the EPA will not make them build a filtration plant like most other big cities.

Now, since NYC only owns like 15% of the watershed lands, that means that roughly 85% of the water they drink falls on to state lands or lands owned by private citizens(about 2/3 of the watershed). 85% of the water NYC drinks, sells, wastes and pollutes is falling on land whose taxes are paid by the upstate private owners. Since the precedent is that NYC should be PAYING landowners for keeping the water that NYC hopes to drink, clean, and NYC wants these land owners to NOT DRILL on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, (because NYC thinks that there is a POSSIBILITY that SOMEHOW their water will be sullied) then NYC should PAY UP.

BACK when NYC needed to avoid building a filtration plant, they waved around a bunch of money in front of the local town reps. These reps signed on to the "Memorandum of Agreement". Mistake. NYC has since shown that it does not mean to work WITH the locals but in many cases against them and any development of the local economies. NOW, the gas companies are waving money, and NYC does not like the idea of it. Their own tactics turned on them by BIG GAS. The last thing NYC needs is a bunch of rich upstate landowners gettin' all uppity and telling them to "shove it".

How times change.

It seems like only yesterday when NYC was talked about by fly fishermen and environmentalists with the same derision that these folks now use against the gas industry. NYC, who wouldn't give a gallon of cold water to save the trout are now supported...

I guess it's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I'm sure NYC will repay the loyalty.

Hey wbdluver,

Could you post what three events that NYC does not want to happen NEAR their lands? You mention "in northern Wayne county and what has happend in western Pa and Wyoming" but could you please be more specific?


Macfly, don't you see how uncrowded answers my questions... I mean you can't really expect truthful answers to THOSE types of questions...

They can't do it. It would reveal that in large measure, it all comes down to NIMBYism. It's hard to get support if you are just a NIMBY. Well, unless you have a bunch of other Nimbys around... You have to hide the Nimby stuff and scare them with end of the world scenarios (and make the effort seem heroic by comparing it to the great battles in history)( What other masters of propaganda did that?)

Yeah, I know, God love me.

Imminent domain is the law of our land.

New York City is a landowner. Again, this does not change just because you don't like the manner in which they acquired title.

As a landowner NYC has the right to use water on and in its land.

As a landowner NYC has the right to protect its land and the quality of water on and under its land just like any other landowner.

You are a staunch advocate of laws protecting the rights of landowners so long as those laws serve you.

 

[MACFLY]

Imminent domain is the law of our land.

New York City is a landowner. Again, this does not change just because you don't like the manner in which they acquired title.

As a landowner NYC has the right to use water on and in its land.

As a landowner NYC has the right to protect its land and the quality of water on and under its land just like any other landowner.

You are a staunch advocate of laws protecting the rights of landowners so long as those laws serve you.

CD I dont think you want to use Eminent domain as the basis for barring drilling. If that were the case the state/federal government would be shelling out a bunch of money to compensate land owners for the inability to develop their private property. Of course the real question continues to go unanswered. If not natural gas than what..what do you plan to use for energy????

 

[Kilgour Farms]

If NYC wants to restrict drilling on their property then thats their right as owners but to try an extend their ownership beyond their property is just unamerican.

They have always relied on putting pressure on landowner in the water shed to get what they want without worring about the consequences to the upstate economy.

NYC wants a ban in their water shed because they know they can't afford to buy the land now that the mineral resources have dramadically increased the land value so its easier to have the state look like the 800lb Gorilla taking the land away from the rightful owners..

A common NYC tactic that locals are all to fimilar with.

 

[brachycentrus]

This seems to be looking at revisiting the exemptions to the Clean Water Act that the gas companies were given.


New gas wells leave more chemicals in ground - - POLITICO.com

 

[Uncrowded]

New York City’s decision is very telling. They are the largest single landowner in the watershed and would have a lot to potentially gain or lose from gas drilling. Just a few weeks ago there was a lot of chatter that Bloomberg is a businessman, and will see gas drilling as an economic opportunity, etc. That may have been the case – which is why he commissioned an INDEPENDENT review by SCIENTISTS to look at the environmental impact statement. It’s a safe assumption that the experts they hired know far more than any of us do about this stuff.

And guess what, the independent and scientific review showed that the risks were too high.

Let’s look at what the review said (again, quoting from the NY Times story):

• EXTRACTING GAS FROM THE SHALE INVOLVES BLASTING WATER MIXED WITH CHEMICALS INTO THE ROCK AT A HIGH PRESSURE, WHICH CAUSES THE NATURAL GAS TO FLOW OUT. BUT THE PROCESS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF WASTEWATER, WHICH CAN CONTAMINATE WATER SUPPLIES AND DAMAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE REPORT FOUND.

• TWENTY PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT OF THE CHEMICALS USED IN EXTRACTION ENDS UP IN THE WASTEWATER, FOR WHICH THE STATE HAS NO DISPOSAL METHOD, SAID PAUL RUSH, THE DEPARTMENT’S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WHO PRESENTED THE REPORT AT THE BRIEFING.

• THE SCIENTISTS ESTIMATED THAT DRILLING IN THE NEW YORK WATERSHED COULD RESULT IN HUNDREDS OF TONS OF CHEMICALS PER DAY SEEPING THROUGH THE WATERSHED OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD.

• SUBSTANTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DIG AND MAINTAIN THE 3,000 TO 6,000 WELLS IN THE WATERSHED, THE REPORT SAID. MAINTENANCE ALONE COULD RESULT IN UP TO 600,000 TRIPS BY TRUCK PER YEAR WITHIN THE WATERSHED’S BOUNDARIES, IT SAID.

If this isn’t a rebuke of horizontal drilling in the Catskills, then what the F is?? But the pro-drillers STILL won’t accept this. Instead, we have conspiracy theories popping up, courtesy of Kilgour, and I’m sure FF will follow suit with a myopic rant about individual property rights – screw the public’s right to clean air and water. I guess people need to rationalize however they can. Frankly, it’s a little disheartening what greed can make people do…

Write the Gov. A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT STRENGTHENS OUR CAUSE TO PREVENT GAS DRILLING | Catskill Mountainkeeper

 

[MACFLY]

New York City’s decision is very telling. They are the largest single landowner in the watershed and would have a lot to potentially gain or lose from gas drilling. Just a few weeks ago there was a lot of chatter that Bloomberg is a businessman, and will see gas drilling as an economic opportunity, etc. That may have been the case – which is why he commissioned an INDEPENDENT review by SCIENTISTS to look at the environmental impact statement. It’s a safe assumption that the experts they hired know far more than any of us do about this stuff.

And guess what, the independent and scientific review showed that the risks were too high.

Let’s look at what the review said (again, quoting from the NY Times story):

• EXTRACTING GAS FROM THE SHALE INVOLVES BLASTING WATER MIXED WITH CHEMICALS INTO THE ROCK AT A HIGH PRESSURE, WHICH CAUSES THE NATURAL GAS TO FLOW OUT. BUT THE PROCESS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF WASTEWATER, WHICH CAN CONTAMINATE WATER SUPPLIES AND DAMAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE REPORT FOUND.

• TWENTY PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT OF THE CHEMICALS USED IN EXTRACTION ENDS UP IN THE WASTEWATER, FOR WHICH THE STATE HAS NO DISPOSAL METHOD, SAID PAUL RUSH, THE DEPARTMENT’S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WHO PRESENTED THE REPORT AT THE BRIEFING.

• THE SCIENTISTS ESTIMATED THAT DRILLING IN THE NEW YORK WATERSHED COULD RESULT IN HUNDREDS OF TONS OF CHEMICALS PER DAY SEEPING THROUGH THE WATERSHED OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD.

• SUBSTANTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DIG AND MAINTAIN THE 3,000 TO 6,000 WELLS IN THE WATERSHED, THE REPORT SAID. MAINTENANCE ALONE COULD RESULT IN UP TO 600,000 TRIPS BY TRUCK PER YEAR WITHIN THE WATERSHED’S BOUNDARIES, IT SAID.

If this isn’t a rebuke of horizontal drilling in the Catskills, then what the F is?? But the pro-drillers STILL won’t accept this. Instead, we have conspiracy theories popping up, courtesy of Kilgour, and I’m sure FF will follow suit with a myopic rant about individual property rights – screw the public’s right to clean air and water. I guess people need to rationalize however they can. Frankly, it’s a little disheartening what greed can make people do…

Write the Gov. A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT STRENGTHENS OUR CAUSE TO PREVENT GAS DRILLING | Catskill Mountainkeeper

WOW what a disingenuous thing to say especially in light of the full testimony give. It boils down to the city not wanting to ever build a filtration plant...full stop. The language used in the testimony is of such a general nature its breathtaking to think this alone would stop drilling. I have never heard or seen in anything Kilgour or FF have posted that they dont want drilling to be properly regulated. They have simply asked for some concrete data points on the specific issues are. Of course there will be consequences to drilling. How about you stop and think about the consequences of not drilling? How are 10 million people in New York going to get clean energy in the future? The Icebergs are melting or havent you heard that our continued use of Oil guarantees NYC will be underwater eventually. Unbelievable to think we cant come up with a solution that would allow drilling and yet..gasp protect the resource to fullest extend possible.

 

[catskill dick]

CD I dont think you want to use Eminent domain as the basis for barring drilling. If that were the case the state/federal government would be shelling out a bunch of money to compensate land owners for the inability to develop their private property. Of course the real question continues to go unanswered. If not natural gas than what..what do you plan to use for energy????

Macfly,

If NYC's actions constituted a taking (I would be suprised if they did), there would be some poetic justice in requiring them to compensate local landowners.

 

[Uncrowded]

WOW what a disingenuous thing to say especially in light of the full testimony give. It boils down to the city not wanting to ever build a filtration plant...full stop. The language used in the testimony is of such a general nature its breathtaking to think this alone would stop drilling. I have never heard or seen in anything Kilgour or FF have posted that they dont want drilling to be properly regulated. They have simply asked for some concrete data points on the specific issues are. Of course there will be consequences to drilling. How about you stop and think about the consequences of not drilling? How are 10 million people in New York going to get clean energy in the future? The Icebergs are melting or havent you heard that our continued use of Oil guarantees NYC will be underwater eventually. Unbelievable to think we cant come up with a solution that would allow drilling and yet..gasp protect the resource to fullest extend possible.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Not sure what you think is disingenuous, though. New York’s City’s position seems pretty straight forward…

Mr. Kilgour has stated in previous posts that he thinks it would be OK to drill in areas designated by NYS as Forever Wild. Do you think that is “properly regulating” drilling? I don’t. I think areas that are Forever Wild should be just that – despite what legal loophole some lawyer or gas company may find. FF seems to want to dismiss any fact ever presented that goes against his own personal viewpoint – even from a retired gas energy executive that went on record stating that the EIS needs to be redone! FF relegated him to a “NIMBY” or a “Greenie” or some sort of polarizing catch-phrase better suited for the schoolyard than a grown-up discussion – even though it’s a safe bet that the energy executive knows more about this game than anyone on this board.

I also think everyone on this board is for clean energy. It’s just that many of us don’t think that the current proposal to drill for natural gas in New York bodes well for our trout streams and surrounding watersheds. If you do think it does bode well, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on that...

Write the Gov. A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT STRENGTHENS OUR CAUSE TO PREVENT GAS DRILLING | Catskill Mountainkeeper

 

[Kilgour Farms]

uncrowded,

Please site the passage where I said this??

"Mr. Kilgour has stated in previous posts that he thinks it would be OK to drill in areas designated by NYS as Forever Wild."

You can't because I didn't.

I see that the national chapter of the Sierra Club is endorsing natural gas.

 

[mbwmn]

<snippetty> It boils down to the city not wanting to ever build a filtration plant...full stop. <snipped>.

-If you wish to start shitting in your yard and live uphill from me should I be forced to invest in building a dike (filtration plant)?

-You are also assuming that any spills, leaks, seeps, catastrophic events could be filtered.

Doesn't it really boil down to whether or not some landowners should be permitted to accept the risk of turning their neighbor's properties (including NYC) into a wasteland to become millionaires?

 

[Future Fanatic]

Imminent domain is the law of our land.

New York City is a landowner. Again, this does not change just because you don't like the manner in which they acquired title.

As a landowner NYC has the right to use water on and in its land.

As a landowner NYC has the right to protect its land and the quality of water on and under its land just like any other landowner.

You are a staunch advocate of laws protecting the rights of landowners so long as those laws serve you.

Sure, NYC can try to protect it's water however they want. BUT:

Although they OWN land, of course, they do not reside there and therefore can't vote for the representatives there. There are people from out of state who own land there, should they have a say in how residents there utilize their own property?

You say NYC has the right to use water on its land BECAUSE it is a landowner? Really?
So if all the private owners (2/3 of the watershed) put plastic sheeting over their own properties and caught ALL of the rain that fell onto THEIR property (because as landowners, they have "the right to use the water in and on" their land and all...) this would be OK with you? I mean, all in the name of "the rights of landowners", right?...

So ALL of these Upstaters, for ALL these years have INSTEAD just let this water that THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO, go to NYC, free of charge? Wow!

You can say that I'm all for property rights only when it suits ME, as many times as you'd like, but it does not make it true. NO ONE, including NYC, should be able to force people to give up their rights because they think some use MIGHT be risky.

NYC decided way back to take Delaware river water to drink. They accepted that silt from fields, animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. were going to be in that water. As I posted earlier, the EPA told them that if they do not want to build a filtration plant, they must BUY land in the watershed at market price or enter into conservation easements. They have also paid businesses to do work to limit the amount of chemical and biological burdens to their system. The Federal government has told NYC that it must PAY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS to protect the water IT hopes to drink. If NYC thinks drilling is a risk to the water they hope to drink(as any other pollutant) they need to PAY the private landowners to NOT drill(just as they do, to have landowners NOT cut timber or NOT let barn wastes trickle into the creeks).

OR show the government the evidence that contamination of the system WILL happen and have them regulate against it. If ground water WILL be contaminated because of the practice of Fracking(not just an isolated accident)then it should not happen ANYWHERE in the state, NOT just the Catskills. There are people in NY state that happen to not live in NYC.

 

[Future Fanatic]

This seems to be looking at revisiting the exemptions to the Clean Water Act that the gas companies were given.

Again, I'm all for it. Treat the gas companies like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.

(NIMBYs, be careful what you wish for)

 

[Future Fanatic]

I've responded/commented in dark red.

New York City’s decision is very telling. They are the largest single landowner in the watershed( I thought it was NYS?) and would have a lot to potentially gain or lose from gas drilling. Just a few weeks ago there was a lot of chatter that Bloomberg is a businessman, and will see gas drilling as an economic opportunity, etc. That may have been the case – which is why he commissioned an INDEPENDENT review (who paid for it?)by SCIENTISTS to look at the environmental impact statement. It’s a safe assumption that the experts they hired know far more than any of us do about this stuff. (How about the NYS DEC Commisioner? You remember, the environmental activist Pete Grannis? What does he know?)

And guess what, the independent (yeah let's be careful with the word "independent", huh?)and scientific(from your bullets below, the jury is still out on "scientific", too) review showed that the risks were too high. HOW HIGH?

Let’s look at what the review said (again, quoting from the NY Times story):

• EXTRACTING GAS FROM THE SHALE INVOLVES BLASTING WATER MIXED WITH CHEMICALS INTO THE ROCK AT A HIGH PRESSURE, WHICH CAUSES THE NATURAL GAS TO FLOW OUT. BUT THE PROCESS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF WASTEWATER, WHICH CAN CONTAMINATE WATER SUPPLIES AND DAMAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE REPORT FOUND.

This is WRONG. Blasting water and chemicals into the rock at high pressure DOES NOT CAUSE the gas to "flow out". You said "scientific"? Notice the words "can" and "could"? Don't scientists try to be a little more concrete?

• TWENTY PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT OF THE CHEMICALS USED IN EXTRACTION ENDS UP IN THE WASTEWATER, FOR WHICH THE STATE HAS NO DISPOSAL METHOD, SAID PAUL RUSH, THE DEPARTMENT’S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WHO PRESENTED THE REPORT AT THE BRIEFING.

If you build it, they will come. It's called capitalism, and it works in such matters.

• THE SCIENTISTS ESTIMATED THAT DRILLING IN THE NEW YORK WATERSHED COULD RESULT IN HUNDREDS OF TONS OF CHEMICALS PER DAY SEEPING THROUGH THE WATERSHED OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD.

Estimated? HUNDREDS OF TONS of chemicals seeping through the watershed? How would THAT happen? They must be ASSUMING some cataclysmic shit, yes? OHHHH, I see, "COULD RESULT"... Just like, say, if everyone in the world had a gun and shot them up in the air at the same time, it "COULD RESULT" in the extermination of the human species. Got it.

• SUBSTANTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DIG AND MAINTAIN THE 3,000 TO 6,000 WELLS IN THE WATERSHED, THE REPORT SAID. MAINTENANCE ALONE COULD RESULT IN UP TO 600,000 TRIPS BY TRUCK PER YEAR WITHIN THE WATERSHED’S BOUNDARIES, IT SAID.

WHAT? ONE well needs three Trucks to visit it EVERYDAY for MAINTENANCE?

It's just a PIPE sticking out of the ground! It just SITS there. OH, I see... it said "COULD RESULT". MAYBE each well might need one visit a month for maintenance from a guy visiting in a company Astro van...

If this isn’t a rebuke of horizontal drilling in the Catskills, then what the F is??

It seems it is exactly what NYC paid for.
But the pro-drillers STILL won’t accept this. Accept WHAT? Do you have any EVIDENCE? Instead, we have conspiracy theories popping up, courtesy of Kilgour, and I’m sure FF will follow suit with a myopic rant about individual property rights – screw the public’s right to clean air and water.

AGAIN, do you have any scientific EVIDENCE to point us to? YOU MUST since you are so dead set against this. SHOW us all, the evidence that the safeguards that NYS has propsed are NOT adequate to protect the environment in regards to fracking the Marcellus shale!

I guess people need to rationalize however they can. Frankly, it’s a little disheartening what greed can make people do…

Both Kilgour and I ARE NOT in the the NYC reservoirs watershed! This debate about stopping drilling in the watershed has nothing to do with what ever WE MIGHT get paid. I wish you wouldn't mislead the people.

 

[Future Fanatic]

How are 10 million people in New York going to get clean energy in the future?

It seems they are content to get THEIR energy from others who damage the environment. They seem OK with Canada f'ing up THIER environment or with coal companies flattening entire mountains south of them or coal plants belching pollutants that have killed off many of the Brookies in the Adirondacks... but "not near MY house"... Right, Uncrowded?

 

[Future Fanatic]

I’m sorry you feel that way. Not sure what you think is disingenuous, though. New York’s City’s position seems pretty straight forward…

Mr. Kilgour has stated in previous posts that he thinks it would be OK to drill in areas designated by NYS as Forever Wild.

LIAR!

Do you think that is “properly regulating” drilling? I don’t. I think areas that are Forever Wild should be just that – despite what legal loophole some lawyer or gas company may find.

For a guy who is trying to protect "the Catskills", you don't seem to know much about them...

The lands that are owned by the state are "kept as wild forest lands". This DOES NOT APPLY to private property located within the BLUE LINE.

So are you talking about not drilling within:

the Blue Line?
the watershed only(large portions of which are NOT within the Blue Line)?
Both?
More than that?

In any event "forever wild" (your term, not mine) ONLY applies to state forest land within the blue lines of the Catskill Park and the Adirondack Park.

FF seems to want to dismiss any fact ever presented that goes against his own personal viewpoint – even from a retired gas energy executive that went on record stating that the EIS needs to be redone!

What FACTS do you have about fracking the Marcellus shale in NYS?

FF relegated him to a “NIMBY” or a “Greenie” or some sort of polarizing catch-phrase better suited for the schoolyard than a grown-up discussion – even though it’s a safe bet that the energy executive knows more about this game than anyone on this board.

Are you talking about the guy who made millions in the gas and oil industry, (screwing up the environment, right uncrowded?) and then came out with words against the industry once he retired to Cooperstown, a hop, skip and a jump from gas drilling? What a hypocrite, yes?! Yeah, that was a fun post...

Should I have called him an "obstructionist"?

But, you are going to try to lecture ME about "grown-up discussions" when you respond to questions you don't want to answer, with "GOD LOVE YOU"?

I also think everyone on this board is for clean energy. It’s just that many of us don’t think that the current proposal to drill for natural gas in New York bodes well for our trout streams and surrounding watersheds. If you do think it does bode well, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on that...

AND I'LL ASK again, EVERYBODY TAKE NOTICE, Uncrowded, what needs to change about the current proposal to drill in NYS that would make you comfortable with drilling in the Catskills?

And which states have STRICTER regulations than NYS?

 

[MACFLY]

I’m sorry you feel that way. Not sure what you think is disingenuous, though. New York’s City’s position seems pretty straight forward…

Mr. Kilgour has stated in previous posts that he thinks it would be OK to drill in areas designated by NYS as Forever Wild. Do you think that is “properly regulating” drilling? I don’t. I think areas that are Forever Wild should be just that – despite what legal loophole some lawyer or gas company may find. FF seems to want to dismiss any fact ever presented that goes against his own personal viewpoint – even from a retired gas energy executive that went on record stating that the EIS needs to be redone! FF relegated him to a “NIMBY” or a “Greenie” or some sort of polarizing catch-phrase better suited for the schoolyard than a grown-up discussion – even though it’s a safe bet that the energy executive knows more about this game than anyone on this board.

I also think everyone on this board is for clean energy. It’s just that many of us don’t think that the current proposal to drill for natural gas in New York bodes well for our trout streams and surrounding watersheds. If you do think it does bode well, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on that...

Write the Gov. A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT STRENGTHENS OUR CAUSE TO PREVENT GAS DRILLING | Catskill Mountainkeeper

What is disingenuous is to suggest somehow that NYC has some objective view on this matter while Kilgor and FF are just in it for the money. You know darn well that NYC has its own agenda and at least in part its to not have to worry about building a filtration plant. Great we are all for clean energy. I love statements like this. All energy production..regardless of how its done is going to have an impact on the environment. I wish people would stop thinking otherwise. You dont want anything to screw up the streams...got it.Thats at least an honest opinion that i could respect but the rest of this is a political dance. The question still stands...what the hell are we going to power our future with.

 

[Future Fanatic]

-
Doesn't it really boil down to whether or not some landowners should be permitted to accept the risk of turning their neighbor's properties (including NYC) into a wasteland to become millionaires?

When NYC took the land in the Catskills to use the water without filtration, wasn't it actually THEM taking the risk that the development of the area would be stifled to the point of NOT impacting their water supply in a negative way? The EPA makes MOST large cities filter their water. NYC is exempt because the people upstate continue to pay taxes on land whose best use is filtering rainwater for them. AND NYC pays SOME people a small amount to do this.

Maybe NYC should have said "thanks" more often...

 

[MACFLY]

-If you wish to start shitting in your yard and live uphill from me should I be forced to invest in building a dike (filtration plant)?

-You are also assuming that any spills, leaks, seeps, catastrophic events could be filtered.

Doesn't it really boil down to whether or not some landowners should be permitted to accept the risk of turning their neighbor's properties (including NYC) into a wasteland to become millionaires?

I wish for folks to stop with the political dance and spend some money and brain power on a real and practical solution to this issue. We have energy we can use in our own backyard. We are being told and congress is likely to pass legislation that will forever change our way of life because according to some scientists we are headed for an environmental nightmare where the earth heats up (sorry the climate changes) and as a result we are told that places like NYC will be in big trouble. So when a solution such as gas drilling comes along and I see folks saying no drilling under any circumstances I am perplexed. When other complain about wind farms causing problems for birds and noise pollution I am vexed, and when folks start bitching about solar farm byproducts causing harm I am stressed. WTH do we expect to use for energy??? So yeah I think NYC has their own agenda. I think some not all environmental groups have lost their ability to be rational and I think America better get a clue real soon.

BTW thats not my statement on the filtration plant. That is in their testimony so its fairly obvious what their concern is.

Just as an aside if the byproducts of these chemicals pose such harm I suggest you lobby congress to use some of the money they collect in taxes on gas and oil to fund research on how to fix it, remediate or in some other way limit the impact it can have. That would in my opinion constitute a wise expenditure of the money they take as a result of our energy consumption. The amount collected in taxes is double..DOUBLE what is made in profits by the energy companies themselves.

 

[Future Fanatic]

TWENTY PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT OF THE CHEMICALS USED IN EXTRACTION ENDS UP IN THE WASTEWATER, FOR WHICH THE STATE HAS NO DISPOSAL METHOD, SAID PAUL RUSH, THE DEPARTMENT’S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WHO PRESENTED THE REPORT AT THE BRIEFING.

LOVE Capitalism!
From today's Press & Sun Bulletin:


Tioga County planners await new Marcellus treatment plan
By Tom Wilber •twilber@gannett.com • December 28, 2009, 6:15 pm

OWEGO -- A proposal submitted last fall to treat Marcellus wastewater in the Town of Owego still has to pass muster with state, county and local officials.

Josh Brown, associate planner for Tioga County, said officials are awaiting revisions to a plan submitted by Andrew Blocksom, president of Patriot Water LLC.

The original plan -- recommended for approval by the county -- called for installing holding and processing tanks at a former car dealership on 936 Taylor Road to treat round-the-clock shipments of drilling waste water from the Marcellus Shale.

In October, Town of Owego planning board members tabled the request for site approval pending more information, including details about oversight from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the technical specifications of the tanks.

Some residents, fearing disruption from truck traffic, opposed the plan at the October meeting.

On Monday, Brown said the county is awaiting revisions to the plan, which will have to be re-approved before it goes back to town planners with a recommendation. Additionally, the operations will need a permit from the DEC.

"At this point, we haven't seen any finalized plan," Brown said.

Blocksom could not be reached Monday.

The planning board meets the third Wednesday of each month, so the county would have to receive a plan by Jan. 8 if it was to be considered by the Jan. 20 meeting.

Questions about the handling and disposal of waste from Marcellus development were among issues that led the state to stop issuing drilling permits last year, as regulators reviewed and updated regulations.

A draft of the new permitting rules, called the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, is the focus of a heated state-wide debate over the future of Marcellus drilling.

 

[Uncrowded]

uncrowded,

Please site the passage where I said this??

"Mr. Kilgour has stated in previous posts that he thinks it would be OK to drill in areas designated by NYS as Forever Wild."

You can't because I didn't.

I see that the national chapter of the Sierra Club is endorsing natural gas.

Mr. Kilgour,

This what you wrote on the PA Gas lease forum when someone asked about gas drilling within the “blue line” (the Catskill Park designation)

Here’s your direct quote:

“The word forever wild pertains to surface rights. I see no where in Article XIV that mineral extractions are prohibited.

In NY even if someone has a conservation easement, depending on the wording of the deed, may extract gas and oil without violating the easements.”

Here’s the link

you wouldn't believe it..........................but here it is.................

 

[Kilgour Farms]

That is not my opinion but a fact from the DEC. It doesn't indicate my personall opinion about whether drilling should occur of not in these areas..

Please keep the infomation in context when you sound off on your obstructionists views.

 

[Uncrowded]

I agree -- context is everything. You posted this -- plus your interpretation of the law: ("The word forever wild pertains to surface rights. I see no where in Article XIV that mineral extractions are prohibited.") on an extremely pro-gas drilling website...