OUTDOOR Forum at canaaninstitute.org

[Mike_L]

CNY Landowners Forum
http://forums.cnylandcoalition.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3

==

If anyone wants to be able to post things here directly at canaaninstitute outdoor forum, just email me a suggested username and password -OR- email me and I'll turn on the self registration program long enough for you to register yourself.

All these forums have a problem with spammers - this is how how cut the spam to zero.

BUT -- I prefer folks use their real names or sign their posts with their real names: it make your arguments more credible.

-Mike michael@canaaninstitute.org

==
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

NY Times Aug 25 2008 -- The quote below is at the very END of the article which looks like it was written in a bit of a hurry ...

SOURCE http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/business/25gas.html

[Mike_L]

From Lisa ... Re: the NY Times Article:

[Mike_L]

To: news@cortlandstandard.net

Dear News Editor of The Cortland Standard,

I read an article in the July 24rd, 2008 Cooperstown Crier issue which reports Cortland City will be selling water to a Covalent Energy contractor for use in Cooperstown's gas drilling operations. Cortland is over an hour's drive from Cooperstown so this arrangement seems to be quite inconvenient for the parties involved. It will take many trucks for transport, and it seems strange that not only did Cooperstown veto Covalent's use of the water, but that no city closer to Cooperstown could have been persuaded to sell their water.

The story in full is here:
http://www.coopercrier.com/local/local_story_206092622.html

It is unclear to me from the Cortland Standard archives as to whether this agreement has been reported on in Cortland Standard. I couldn't find any news in any press anywhere detailing how much money Cortland will receive, how much water is involved, nor specifically where the water will come from. Also, it would be good to know if the used water will be returned to Cortland.

I would appreciate any information you may have, and I apologize if I missed an article you have already printed. In that case, please let me know where to find it in your archives. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Lisa Wright
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

PA DEP Amends, Streamlines Marcellus Shale Drilling Permit Applications to Protect Water Resources, Expedite Review

22 Aug 2008 | 06:02 PM ET

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26353566/for/cnbc

HARRISBURG, Pa., Aug 22, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Gas Developers to Identify Water Sources, Treatment Locations as Part of Permit Process The Department of Environmental Protection unveiled a streamlined process today that will make it easier for the agency to review permit applications by companies seeking to develop the 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas believed to be stored in the Marcellus Shale geologic formation.

Deputy Secretary for Water Management Cathleen Curran Myers said the revised permit application guidelines could allow natural gas developers to begin operations sooner if the department can ensure Pennsylvania's water resources are not threatened by drilling.

MORE / SOURCE http://www.cnbc.com/id/26353566/for/cnbc
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

Another website and forum, this one feels PRO "sign up now" ...
http://www.cnylandcoalition.org/
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

Tier official gets close look at Fort Worth disruptions
By Tom Wilber • Press & Sun-Bulletin • August 24, 2008

Residents and planners trying to anticipate the impact of the natural gas rush on the Southern Tier should consider this:
Advertisement

Energy companies have drilled 1,176 wells inside the city limits of Fort Worth, Texas, where they are pursuing a similar gas resource called the Barnett Shale Formation.

While residents inside the 300-square-mile city expected disruption from drilling that ramped up in 2001, they were generally unprepared for what followed: A flurry of pipeline construction running under city walkways and backyards, tying together the vast and growing well network.

In some cases, gas companies have sued homeowners for the right to run the pipeline under their property, and the Fort Worth City Council is considering a proposal to allow the companies to run the lines under city streets, a compromise that would lessen the need for them to condemn private land for pipelines, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reported.

"Everybody is used to the drilling, although they might not like it," said Tom Edwards, the city's senior gas well inspector. "But they didn't know about the pipelines. The public is just not comfortable with that yet."

MORE and SOURCE http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080824/NEWS01/808240336&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

I've been reading and thinking about fracking for a while, and it
keeps seeming more and more complicated.

On the one hand, our national prosperity pretty much depends on
energy, and we probably can't keep on importing it as much as we have
been. As energy production peaks and declines, things could easily
get rather hairy. There are geopolitics involved, e.g. Russia's
return to power thanks to their energy exports, and resulting invasion
of Georgia.

Natural gas is a bit cleaner than oil (at least when it leaks it
doesn't kill birds) and there's more of it in the US. Because of
that, I there's something to be said for the Pickens effort to switch
the transportation system away from petroleum. And upstate NY has
been economically depressed for decades, and it would sure be nice to
have some cash flowing into this region.

On the other hand, it sucks to damage the environment long-term, for
short-term gain. I've seen a lot of areas in CA, TX, WV etc that have
been totally raped, and I'd hate to have that happen around here.
Natural beauty and clean water are very valuable assets.

I think there are two things that would help minimize the impact of
gas production around here without losing the economic gain:

1. Push for large spacing units. Allowing 40 acre drilling units
means 16 well heads (and pipelines) per square mile, instead of the
current one. That gives an incentive to use more horizontal drilling,
with much less surface impact. [ we are trying to verify this -m ]

2. Push for non-toxic fracking fluids. The main ingredients of the
process are to have something to pump in to force open fractures
(water) and then hold open the cracks (sand). It's not public
knowledge what else needs to be there to make it work, but those
chemicals deserve some public debate, since some of them will
inevitably be spilled, and/or added to ground water.

Thanks,

Dennis Kolva
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

There were some questions about the smaller spacing size in my
recent posting. I quoted that 40 acres based on a very fuzzy memory
of something I read, so I decided to track down some more specific
info.

DEC has a database of all gas/oil wells at this link:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/1603.html

But unfortunately, it only extends up to the end of 2007, and there
are no Marcellus Shale wells in it yet.

There's a press release about the new law here:

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_0723084.html

But it quotes no acreage figures. I think what the new law does is
take the system that is currently used for Trenton-Black River, and
extend it to all wells. TBR wells are usually 600 to 650 acres
(about 1 square mile), but that's because it's a 'loose' formation
and the gas flows a long ways. Marcellus is 'tight', so presumably
the unit size will be smaller. But it depends on whether it's a
vertical vs horizontal well, and how far the fracking extends, and
on what the geologists say.

I haven't been able to find ANY figures so far on actual Marcellus
Shale spacing. However, in the Barnett Shale of Texas, 1 well per
40 acres is typical (= 16 wells per square mile).

For lobbying efforts, I think having a minimum unit size would be
beneficial. It would reduce surface impact, and the number of
places where accidental spills can occur. Presumably it would mean
more horizontal wells and fewer vertical ones.

Dennis Kolva
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

I called Yancey Roy - one of the public info officers (PIO) at DEC - to check on this. The writer [ Ithaca Times ] has it incorrect & I am really really really surprised that no one at that publication has had the courage to write a correction. I even brought the mistake to the attention of one of the reporters.

Anyway, I have read & re-read the bill. The smallest unit spacing allowed (for vertical wells) was 40. The bill allows larger units for horizontal drilling.

According to Yancy there were a number of other mistakes in the article; he didn't elaborate as the DEC lawyer war reading over the piece. They may send out a press release... but that was a couple weeks ago when I spoke with him. They may just let it go, and hope people realize the writer wasn't very informed.

Bill # A10526 - http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A+10526

Sue

[Mike_L]

"Broome landowners holding the keys to lucrative natural gas fields
could lose out if they don't know their rights."

That message is being brought home once again Sept. 17, when landowners
will be schooled on natural gas issues by the state attorney general's
office during a seminar at Broome Community College.

The seminar on wheeling, dealing and ethical conduct comes as more
stakeholders seek a claim in the prospective multi-billion dollar
natural gas rush taking shape in the back yards of local residents.

Mike Danaher, assistant attorney general in the Binghamton office, will
offer advice that generally carries this theme: Don't get pressured
into making a deal you are unhappy with. It's your property.

If landowners have regrets after signing a lease, they have three days
to cancel a contract.

And above all, landowners should draw a lease that suits them, rather
than accepting a lease that favors the energy company, he said.

"Landowners may be told 'this is a standard industry lease,' but each
lease is unique," he said.

Many advocates are urging property owners to build environmental
safeguards into the terms of the lease, such as conditions for water
testing and waste disposal, rather than counting on state regulators to
deal with problems as they come up.

The rush to lease property, called a "land play," is vastly different
than drilling in parts of the Southern Tier in years past, when
landowners were typically offered between $5 and $200 an acre for
mineral rights with 12.5 percent royalties. Back then, the target was
the Trenton Black River Formation.

New technology, high energy prices and growing demand is driving the
development of the Marcellus Shale, which is vastly larger than the
Trenton. The stakes have grown. Area property owners are now receiving
offers between $1,000 and $5,000 an acre with 15 to 20 percent
royalties. Unlike the Trenton, which holds isolated pools of gas, gas
in the Marcellus reaches under most of the Greater Binghamton area, so
many more property owners have a stake in its development.

Danaher's advice: "Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate ... Don't be blinded
by the dollar signs."

The seminar, sponsored by Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, D-Endwell, also
includes a presentation from Lindsay Wickham, an advocate who works for
the New York State Farm Bureau. It is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in
Baldwin Gymnasium.
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

Dealing with the dirty water
BY LAURA LEGERE
TIMES-SHAMROCK WRITER
Published: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:53 AM EDT
This is the first of a two-day series.

Tim Budney scoffed at the flyers spread across the table in front of him.

The pieces of paper, arrayed for an audience of natural gas drillers at a recent Harrisburg meeting, boasted of one wastewater treatment facility’s daily capacity to treat hundreds of thousands of gallons of the dirty water produced during gas exploration in the Marcellus Shale.

Mr. Budney was unimpressed.

He had recently pumped and recovered more than 4 million gallons of water to develop just two Western Pennsylvania gas wells for Pittsburgh-based CNX Gas Corp.

The problem of how to handle millions of gallons of wastewater is one of the biggest challenges emerging in the rush to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale.

MORE / SOURCE -- http://www.thedailyreview.com/articles/2008/08/25/news/tw_review.20080825.a.pg1.tw25gas_s1.1901810_loc.txt
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

An article from the [far right?] side of view

http://catskillcommentator.com/2008/07/12/environmental-impact-of-gas-wells-minimal/
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

>>For lobbying efforts, I think having a minimum unit size would be
>>beneficial. It would reduce surface impact, and the number of
>>places where accidental spills can occur. Presumably it would mean
>>more horizontal wells and fewer vertical ones.

>You mean maximum, don't you? Perhaps you meant unit density?

I guess "larger minimum unit size" would be clearer. Right now a
vertical well can be on 40 acres, meaning 16 wells per square mile--
plus pipelines and access roads. That's a lot of impact-- each well
pad is 3 or 4 acres, and it's a 50 foot clearing for pipelines.
Increasing the minimum acreage per well means fewer well heads, and
less surface disturbance.

I did a scale drawing of a square mile of forest, with clearings for
16 well pads and pipelines. Available at this link:

http://www.turtlesoft.com/Images/Gas-wells-40-acres.pdf


>I have been wondering how the unit is determined for horizontally-
>drilled wells. Will the unit area correspond to the extraction area
below?

Pretty much, yes. Sue Heavenrich sent me a link to the actual bill
text, which may possibly have been posted here already. You can
check it out yourself:

Bill # A10526 - http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A+10526

The ending of the bill is quite clear about the State's objectives:

"By accommodating smaller oil field spacing and the length of
horizontal wellbores but requiring protective setbacks, and when
appropriate, the drilling of infill wells, this bill furthers the
policy objectives of preventing waste of the State`s oil and gas
resources and development of oil and gas properties in a manner that
results in a greater ultimate recovery, while protecting the rights
of mineral rights owners and the general public."

Not much there about the environment, rural character, water
quality, visual impact, etc etc. People who called it a gift to the
gas industry were probably right.

Dennis Kolva
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===

[Mike_L]

Land Out of Time - Documentary Film on Gas Drilling

We have reserved the large room at The Women's Community Bldg. for Thursday Sept 18 from 7 to 9:30 to show Land Out of Time.

Time is running out for vast swaths of the Rocky Mountain West as the Bush/Cheney Administration turns over millions of acres of public land for oil & gas drilling. Westerners on the land for generations expose the dramatic changes to the landscape and their heritage and spark a backlash. Just who is in charge of our public lands, the oil & gas industry or the American people?

Produced & Directed by Mark Harvey (winner, National Outdoor Book Award and Aspen ShortsFest). Written by Laurel Garrett and Mark Harvey, based on a treatment by Timothy Egan (Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times). Three-time national Emmy winner Greg Poschman is Director of Photography and Scott Davis edited.



More about the Film:

The gas drilling boom here in the Rocky Mountain West caught me totally off guard as it has many Westerners. Unless you were an energy analyst, it just didn’t occur to you that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would suddenly be leasing millions of acres to the gas and oil industry and then issuing tens of thousands of permits to drill all over the heart of the West.

But when the gas boom really got going, it was obvious that, left unchecked, it would transform the Rocky Mountains forever. We’re seeing thousands of miles of roads being built on unspoiled ground to develop gas wells, billions of gallons of water pumped from the aquifers of Montana and Wyoming to develop coal-bed methane wells, and the ruin of the wild places we depend on to hunt, fish, and hike. We’re watching great swaths of America’s Western geography being rendered into an industrial landscape.

And for what? A few days or weeks supply of natural gas, spread over the next couple of decades. It's woefully short of the kind of supplies that would lower prices or make us energy independent. This land grab is short-sighted in the extreme, the modern equivalent of breaking up the furniture for firewood.

http://www.alandoutoftime.com/


==
_________________
Michael Ludgate - forum administrator
The Canaan Institute http://www.canaaninstitute.org/

===