Sunday, August 9, 2015

Chief Oil and Gas: Their Numbers Don't Add Up - So I Did The Math

My Comment Regarding Project #2014-081 submitted to the SRBC August 6, 2015

Chief Oil and Gas Forksville 2M/gpd Water Withdrawal Application

According to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), their decision will be based on 1) the impact to the Loyalsock Creek, and 2) the needs of the applicant.

I am not an aquatic specialist, so I will not comment directly on water quality or aquatic life issues; however I will address the alleged “needs” of Chief Oil and Gas for the taking of this water – our water.

In Pennsylvania, Chief Oil and Gas has acquired 468 drilling permits and has to date, drilled 281 unconventional gas wells, 81 of which have been found in violation, and have accumulated 292 statewide violations, according to the PA/DEP.

*Sources: PA/DEP, Marcellusgas.org, the Sullivan, Bradford, Lycoming County Prothonatary Offices, and FracFocus)

Of these 281 drilled wells, water consumption has ranged from 2 million to 9 million gallons of fresh water, averaging out to be approximately 5.5 million gallons of fresh water ‘consumed’ by each well.

Chief Oil and Gas, like many other unconventional shale drilling operators, boasts about their “recycling of produced water” (as much as 80%) now used to drill new wells.

Over the years, Chief’s operations have been diminishing for various reasons: supply v. demand, low natural gas prices, and the lack of pipeline infrastructure needed to move Marcellus gas to markets – many of which are overseas markets.

Many of Chief’s earlier lease acquisitions have either expired, or been sold-off to other operators, most notably EXCO Resources.

Currently, in Sullivan, Bradford, and Lycoming Counties – the counties where Chief claims they need this water to develop their outstanding units, Chief presently has 105 outstanding permits for new wells.

Therefore, when you multiply the number of outstanding well permits by 5.5 million gallons (Chief’s average water consumption p/well) that indicates a “need” for 577,500,000 gallons of water.

However, when you multiply the proposed 2 million/gpd, that Chief is looking to extract from this watershed over a five year period, that totals 3,650,000,000 gallons of water.

That’s a difference of 3,072,500,000 gallons of water in excess of their current “needs”, and if the SRBC takes into account Chief’s intent on recycling, the discrepancy between their application request and their actual “need” is staggering and does not justify 2 million/gpd requested on this application.

That is, unless Chief is planning on “commodifying” this excess water – our water, which they would not be paying for, and selling it to other operators. (EXCO Resources, Anadarko Petroleum, and Southwestern Energy are three operators that immediately come to mind.)
*Chief claims that they have not discussed the possibility of selling water from the Loyalsock, however they have stopped short from ruling it out, or denying the possibility.  

Chief Oil and Gas needs to be transparent and forthright with their intentions for the “taking” of our water, and if their actual and verifiable “need” does not require this extreme volume of water, then it is the SRBC’s responsibility and duty to deny this application and not issue this permit.

I would also like to suggest that for all future water withdrawal applications, the SRBC require all applicants to agree not to sell and/or "commodify" this life-sustaining resource or allow it to be included as part of the sale, or selling off, of corporations assets.

I hereby would like to remind the SRBC that this resource is owned by the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and must be protected and preserved, as clearly stated in the Pennsylvania Constitution – which the SRBC as a “trustee” of these resources is bound to uphold.  

Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:

"The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all of the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."


John A. Trallo, Sr.
Sonestown, PA 17758


Chief Oil and Gas Forksville 2M/gpd Water Withdrawal Application
Project #2014-081
                                      Permits      Wells Drilled      Wells to be Determined        Sites
Sullivan County (All)        87                   50                                 20                                39
Bradford County             160                   92                                68                                 59
Lycoming County             23                    6                                   17                                  7
Totals:                               270                 148                               105                             105        

Sullivan County Townships
Cherry                                24                 20                                                                          7
Colley                                   0                   0                                                                          0
Davidson                              0                   0                                                                          0
Elkland                                40                 21                                                                       15
Forks                                    6                   3                                                                          5
Forksville                              7                   2                                                                          6
Fox                                      21                 24                                                                         6
Hillsgrove                             0                   0                                                                          0
Laporte                                 0                   0                                                                          0
Shrewsbury                          0                   0                                                                          0

·         Average water consumed for each well =  5,500,000 gallons
·         Estimated water needed to drill 105 proposed wells = 557,500,000 gallons      
·         Potential 5 year withdrawal @2M/gpd = 3,650,000,000 gallons
·         That’s 3,072,500,000 excess gallons than is needed for all of Chief's operations in Sullivan, Bradford, and Lycoming Counties.

Chief O&G PA statistics to date:
·         468 well permits issued
·         281 wells drilled
·         81 wells with violations

·         2010 inspections revealed 292 statewide violations.         

Sunday, July 12, 2015

The Oil and Gas Industry Want it All...

The Oil and Gas Industry Want it All and they'll get it, only if we let them.


Years ago I mentioned that there were as many as sixteen 'known shale layers' beneath the Marcellus that were potentially 'rich with oil' and that is what the industry was really going after. 

Among the known deep shale plays not mentioned in this article are: the Tennessee, the Matata, the Heron, the Horizon, the South Beach, and the Devonian. 

One industry operator candidly told me that eventually they are planning on drilling down into shale layers as deep as 43,000 feet! 

Now the oil and gas industry is aiming at going after twelve of them, and the PA/SEP is already issuing permits for about 900 new wells.   

This industry, with the co-operation of our corrupt legislature - [*now ranked the fifth most corrupt state legislature in the US,] will turn all of Pennsylvania into a third-world fossil fuel extraction colony.   

If the citizens of Pennsylvania do not find the courage and conviction to rise up en mass to stop this industrial insanity now, we will be left with only two options: 1) Adapt to living in a toxic, polluted, industrial extraction colony, or 2) move away. 

Once again, I'd like to pose the question to those who think this can be effectively managed/regulated - "Where is the regulatory model to support that thinking?"  

The time for half-measure, negotiations, and political solutions is past. 

*This article that first appeared in the Times-Tribune Scranton, PA was in the latest Shale Play Media online publication. 

Other shales than Marcellus drawing industry attention


The Marcellus Shale put Pennsylvania on the map as a gas-producing state, but other rock layers have the potential to keep it there far into the future.
Drillers have sought unconventional well permits for 12 geological formations other than the Marcellus, according to state records compiled and organized by MarcellusGas.org. The state Department of Environmental Protection has issued permits for about 900 wells, site developer Carl Hagstrom said. Most of those are in the western part of the state; about 520 of those have been drilled.
Other than the Marcellus, which has more than 15,000 well permits, the most popular target formations in Pennsylvania are the Utica Shale with 258 permits, the Burket/Geneseo Shale with 246 permits and the Point Pleasant Shale with 159 permits. Although sometimes listed separately, the Point Pleasant is technically considered part of the Utica, according to a presentation by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey.
“They are all classic formations that have new life due to horizontals with classic hydraulic fracturing,” Lackawanna College School of Petroleum and Natural Gas dean Richard Marquardt said in an email. “They are all basically silty shales.”
These black shales with high organic content were formed over hundreds of millions of years ago when organisms, most likely algae, died then settled to the bottom of the ocean, said Allegheny County petroleum geologist Gregory Wrightstone, who has more than 35 years’ experience with unconventional formations in the Appalachian Basin.
Over millenia, heat and pressure broke down this organic material and formed natural gas.
The amount of oil and gas in a rock layer is dependent in part on how much heat or pressure affected it, a trait known as “thermal maturity.” Gas companies have to drill exploratory wells to learn how thermally mature a formation is in certain sections.
Though the Utica/Point Pleasant and Burket/Geneseo formations lie under most of the state, including all of Northeast Pennsylvania, most of the recent exploration has focused on the west and southwest.
Still, companies such as Seneca Resources Corp. and Shell have drilled into them as far east as Tioga and Lycoming counties.
“The question is how far east can you push the Utica in terms of thermal maturity,” Mr. Wrightstone said. “That’s a multibillion-dollar question.”
Although persistently low gas prices have driven down profits and forced many gas companies to cut back on drilling new Marcellus wells, they may try exploring some of these other formations, Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association president Louis D’Amico said in an email.
“They would like to see what potential for the future lies with these formations,” he said. “It’s one way to justify not further reducing their staffs during these tough times.”
With massive amounts of gas locked up in the Marcellus, Utica/Point Pleasant and Burket/Geneseo, Pennsylvania has many decades of production to come, Mr. Wrightstone said.
The industry considers the threshold for a “supergiant” gas field to be 30 trillion cubic feet, he said. The Marcellus holds more like 800 trillion cubic feet, he said.
“We should really coin a new term for the Marcellus,” he said. “We should probably call it something like a megagiant.”
The Utica/Point Pleasant is also a world-class reservoir and, while the Burket/Geneseo is like the Marcellus’s “little brother,” it still likely holds more than 30 trillion cubic feet , he said.
“In any other time it would have been this absolutely incredible field, and it’s a yawner,” he said.
One secret to the productivity of East Coast shales relative to others lies in their brittleness, said independent completions consultant Larry Fulmer, who has worked on naturally fractured oil and gas reservoirs for 40 years.
“The East Coast is blessed with ancient, ancient rock,” he said.
While hydraulic fracturing does create new cracks in the target rock, unconventional well production is tied to existing fractures, he said. An old, brittle shale holds more existing fractures than the pliable shales seen in many other parts of the world.
“Shales are barriers in a lot of the rest of the world,” he said. “On the East Coast, shales are formations.”
Searching for wells by formation is now available on MarcellusGas.org. Mr. Hagstrom plans to add new information that will help users compare production from various layers.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Energy Independence or Profitable Export?

Energy Independence
or Profitable Export?
by John Trallo, aka: Citizen Sane
 
You've seen the TV commercials and heard the sound bite ad nauseam:  "Natural gas offers American energy independence." It stands to reason, therefore, that a resource developed to offer energy independence to the United States ought to stay within U.S. borders. So why is the industry pushing so hard to liquefy America's natural gas and ship it overseas? Increased profits, of course. Right now, consumers in China, Japan and elsewhere are paying 400% - 500% more for natural gas than Americans. The industry wants to keep investors happy by making the most of the higher global prices, and par for the course, the industry is talking out of both sides of its money-hungry mouth.
 
On one hand, the oil and gas industry states that domestic natural gas prices in parts of New England have risen because of "stranded resources" due to the lack of pipeline infrastructure. Kim Watson, Kinder-Morgan's eastern pipeline group president, went as far as to say: "New England has paid more than $7 billion in the last 2 years than what it would have with access to supplies in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio." Yet opponents have been saying that pipelines shouldn't be built because consumers would be paying too much. The industry also claims, "America's newfound abundance of natural gas is powering a remarkable manufacturing renaissance, which to date has generated more than $110 billion of announced investment in over 120 different manufacturing projects, and is already responsible for an impressive 68,000 manufacturing jobs this year."
 
On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is pushing for more LNG exports to Free Trade Agreement countries (FTA) and non-FTA countries as well. The push is enough to raise concerns among U.S. consumers and manufacturers.
 
 
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the agency that oversees and permits interstate pipelines. (NOTE: FERC receives zero dollars in congressional funding and 100% of its funding from the fossil fuel industry.) With FERC approval comes the power of eminent domain, defined as authorization "for the government or the condemning authority, called the condemner, to conduct a compulsory sale of property for the common welfare, such as health or safety. Just compensation is required, in order to ease the financial burden incurred by the property owner for the benefit of the public." This definition begs the question: How is exporting a natural resource to foreign countries a "benefit of the public"?  In reality, it isn't.
 
 
Corporations accomplish this is by minimizing operating costs via deregulation and a host of cost and corner-cutting measures, and by selling the product/service in the highest paying market. Currently, the overseas price for natural gas is four to five times that of the current U.S. domestic price.
 
The law of supply and demand
 
Economics 101 tells us that as supplies decrease, consumer prices rise. Since overseas exports increase demand, which puts more pressure on supply, exports will cause the price of gas in the U.S. to rise. As long as domestic prices are below overseas prices, oil and gas corporations are feverishly trying to sell as much product overseas as possible, thereby forcing domestic prices to rise toward overseas prices.
 
So, on one hand you have the industry claiming that domestic prices are "too high due to lack of infrastructure," and on the other hand, you have the same industry calling for more export facilities because the domestic price is too low and investors are not getting the highest return on their investment.
 
In commenting on the New York state fracking ban vs. gas drilling in PA, Governor Tom Wolf said he wanted to "have his cake and eat it too". The oil and gas industry is doing the same thing, but neither Wolf nor the industry can have it both ways. What'll it be, U.S. energy independence or exports for profit?  

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

O&G Investors Predict Cancellation of Most Proposed U.S. LNG Export Terminal Projects Due to Low LNG Prices

There are two extremely important - and very revealing points this article brings out.

1) "Greenfield projects on undeveloped property are much more expensive, involve more construction risk, and take longer to build than brownfield projects, which re-purpose existing LNG re-gasification sites. Greenfield projects are also frequently challenged by local opposition and occasionally by untested laws and regulations." 

*Meaning: local grassroots resistance is having an impact

 2) "China will be the biggest variable and most important driver of global LNG in that time frame. India will see rapid growth, but not be as big of a player as China. Other more mature LNG markets in Japan, South Korea and Europe, which represent the bulk of demand, will have flat growth". 

*Meaning: "US energy independence and lower consumer energy costs" where never the real end goals. - JT

Moody's Predicts Cancellation of Most Proposed U.S. LNG Export Terminal Projects Due to Low LNG Prices

Posted by Sutherland LNG on Apr 7, 2015 in Liquefaction, LNG Exports, Markets and Competition | 0 comments

Moody's Investor Service has released a new report "Lower Oil Prices Cause Suppliers of Liquefied Natural Gas to Nix Projects," which predicts that low LNG prices will result in the cancellation of most of the gas liquefaction and export terminal projects currently proposed in the United States and Canada.  The report also predicts that such projects "already under construction [worldwide] will continue as planned, which will lead to excess liquefaction capacity over the rest of this decade."  Read more in the press release.


 
 
 
 Announcement: 

Moody's: Liquefied natural gas projects nixed amid lower oil prices

  The document has been translated in other languages
 
 
 
Global Credit Research - 07 Apr 2015
 

New York, April 07, 2015 -- Liquefied natural gas (LNG) suppliers are curtailing their capital budgets, amid low oil prices and a coming glut of new LNG supply from Australia and the US, Moody's Investors Service says in a new report, "Lower Oil Prices Cause Suppliers of Liquefied Natural Gas to Nix Projects."
Moody's says low LNG prices will result in the cancellation of the vast majority of the nearly 30 liquefaction projects currently proposed in the US, 18 in western Canada, and four in eastern Canada.
"The drop in international oil prices relative to US natural gas prices has wiped out the price advantage US LNG projects, reversing the wide differentials of the past four years that led Asian buyers to demand more Henry Hub-linked contracts for their LNG portfolios," says Moody's Senior Vice President Mihoko Manabe.
However, projects already under construction will continue as planned, which will lead to excess liquefaction capacity over the rest of this decade. Notably, through 2017, Australia will see new capacity come online from roughly $180 billion in investments, which will result in a 25% increase in global liquefaction capacity. Likewise, the US is poised to become a net LNG exporter after the Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC (Ba3 stable) project goes into service in the fourth quarter of 2015.
Moody's expects Cheniere Energy's Corpus Christi project will be the likeliest project to move forward this year, since it is among the very few projects in advanced development that have secured sufficient commercial or financial backing to begin construction.
Lower oil prices will result in the deferral or cancellation of most other projects, especially this year. While some companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. (Aaa stable) can afford to be patient and wait several years until markets are more favorable, most other LNG sponsors have far less financial wherewithal, and some may be more eager to capitalize on the billions of dollars of upfront investments they have made already, sooner rather than later.
 Greenfield projects on undeveloped property are much more expensive, involve more construction risk, and take longer to build than brownfield projects, which re-purpose existing LNG regasification sites. Greenfield projects are also frequently challenged by local opposition and occasionally by untested laws and regulations. Based on the public estimates of companies building new LNG liquefaction capacity, the median cost to build a US brownfield project is roughly $800 per ton of capacity, compared with the more advanced Australian greenfield projects, now estimated at around $3,400 per ton.
Through the end of the decade, Moody's expects LNG demand will grow more slowly versus supply. China will be the biggest variable and most important driver of global LNG in that timeframe. India will see rapid growth, but not be as big of a player as China. Other more mature LNG markets in Japan, South Korea and Europe, which represent the bulk of demand, will have flat growth. 
The report is available to Moody's subscribers at URL:

Friday, March 27, 2015

Is the Marcellus Shale Boom Over? - We can only hope!



George Stark, of Cabot Oil and Gas, LLC, like most of the other company officials in charge of Marcellus operations in PA, like to talk about the "vast quantities of natural gas in the Marcellus". What they seem to consistently fail to mention is that only 10% is economically recoverable. 

Shale formations are notoriously short-lived with a life span of 7 to 10 years, in comparison to 'conventional' oil and gas wells which can have a life-span of up to 100 years. Unfortunately, we depleted the conventional oil and gas reserves in a little more than 100 years, and the shale oil and gas... or as it's sometimes referred to "tight oil" or "tight gas" is all that;'s left, and what some call, "the last days of the petroleum age".

The Barnett Shale play is a perfect example being nearly depleted after only 8 years. 

To make the point, I refer to the industry's own information published in the Oil and Gas Journal in 2012 
 
What part of a “boom/bust” cycle don’t people understand? This industry has always been a classic “boom/bust” operation. This state was foolish to ever think this would last “for decades”. The sad reality is, that so many people were willing to believe the industry’s ‘talking points’ of “energy independence, lower energy costs, and job creation”, that they failed to see the “big picture”, and now it’s getting too real to deny. They also didn’t take into consideration the massive jobs that have been lost in the once permanent industries that economic engines that have been the mainstay of PA for over a hundred years in: tourism, agriculture, forestry, recreation, new home construction, and the hardwood industry.
Anytime a region relies too heavily on a single industry for their economic security, when that industry finally moves on, their economy suffers greatly, and sometimes irreparably. Hence the term “boom/bust”.
The industry and the state have known this all along, but refused to publicly discuss it, and many of the people were too blinded by the “promise of wealth” to see the truth. 
The proof is in the Penn State “Marcellus Shale Workforce Needs Assessment” study that was conducted in 2011, and commissioned by the Corbett administration and the Marcellus Shale Commission. Below is an exact excerpt copied from that study that appears on page 22 of the report. You can see this for yourself by using this link: http://www.shaletec.org/docs/PennsylvaniaStatewideWorkforceAssessmentv1_Final.pdf
New York did the prudent thing by 1) waiting to see how things worked out in PA, 2) Conducting an independent public health study, and finally 3) banning this unsustainable unconventional drilling process. - JT
Drilling
 Phase 
Jobs 
vs.
Production 
Phase 
Jobs
:
The
 natural 
gas 
development 
process 
is 
such 
that 
a
 large 
proportion 
of 
the 
total 
industry
 workforce 
will

be 
required 
during
 the 
well
 drilling
 phase, 
while 
a
 small 
minority
of
 the
 workforce 
will 
be
 required
 for

the
 long‐term
 production 
phase.
 Pre‐drilling 
and 
drilling
 phase 
jobs 
are 
grouped 
together
 for 
purposes

of 
this 
section 
of 
the 
assessment.
Pre­-drilling 
and 
Drilling 
Phase 
Jobs:
The
 phase
 of 
natural 
gas 
development
 during 
which 
the 
natural 
gas 
wells 
are 
drilled 
and
 the 
associated

pipeline
 infrastructure 
is 
put 
into 
place
 is 
an 
extremely 
labor‐intensive
 process.
 
In 
actuality
 over 
98% 
of

natural 
gas 
exploration 
and 
development 
jobs
 are 
found 
in
 the 
pre‐drilling
 and
 drilling
 phase 
of 
bringing

a
 well 
into 
production,
 and 
this 
segment 
of 
the 
workforce 
will 
no 
longer 
be 
needed
 once
 the
 process
 of

drilling
 gas
 wells
 and
 affiliated
 infrastructure
 in
 an
 area
 is
 completed.
 In
 the
 oil
 and
 natural
 gas

industries,
 this
 drilling
 phase
 period
 is
 often
 referred
 to
 as
 “the
 boom”
 as
 vast
 work forces
 are
 often

suddenly
 required
 to
 perform
 tasks
 associated
 with
 natural
 gas
 development.
 Conversely,
 the
 drilling

phase
 can
 suddenly
 decline,
 which
 is
 often
referred
 to
 as
 the
 “the
 bust”.
 Given
 the
 level
 of
 mobility

required,
 many 
employees 
in 
the 
drilling 
phase 
of 
gas 
development 
maintain 
temporary 
residency 
in 
a

given 
area
–
such 
as 
in 
motels/hotels, 
RVs,
“man
camps”,
monthly 
apartment/house
leases,
etc.

No
 one
 can
 accurately
 estimate
 how
 long
 the
 drilling
 phase
 will
 last
 within
 Marcellus
 Shale
 or
 within

specific
 areas 
of 
the 
shale 
formation.

Friday, December 19, 2014

New York Bans Fracking. What About Pennsylvania?

Two points here that need to be understood and taken seriously in PA:

1) "Wolf’s spokesman Jeff Sheridan says the incoming governor continues to oppose a ban on fracking." 
Meaning he is committed to allow fracking to continue in PA.
2) “Governor-elect Wolf will work to strengthen the rules governing drilling, increase enforcement of the rules, hire more inspectors, and create a health registry to monitor health issues,” he wrote in an email."
*In other words, Wolf will allow PA residents to be used as 'lab rats and guinea pigs' as Wolf 'monitors' the already well documented health impacts in PA and other states. That is like saying, there is an acceptable number of people who will become seriously, chronically ill, and may even die, that is fair exchange for the tax revenue fracking may generate for the state. I submit that Wolf can not possibly "strengthen the rules governing drilling" when there is no regulatory model that exists anywhere that demonstrates that it can be regulated safely, and as history has taught us that whenever a state becomes dependent on an activity for tax revenue, enforcement becomes more lax in order to encourage more of that activity to generate more tax revenue. PA residents and activists need to wake-up and realize that their "seat at Wolf's negotiating table" is meaningless. At best it will result in more empty, feel-good, and toothless regulatory language intended to quell the growing resistance to unconventional oil and gas extraction and allowing it to continue as Wolf "monitors health issues" as more people, including our children, become seriously ill, and die.
*It's important to remember that Tom Wolf accepted $273,000 in direct "campaign contributions" from the oil and gas industry, and currently sits on the board of, and is a major shareholder in the IREX Corporation, a construction company that stands to profit by building the Keystone XL Pipeline, as does Tom Wolf personally. 
 
Wolf's *severance tax will not cost the oil and gas industry one dime as it will ultimately be passed on to the consumers in rate increases. What it will do is create a "cash cow" for the state to milk and become dependent upon as a source of revenue for "other programs" and essentially institutionalize unconventional oil and gas exploration, extraction, and development. Keep in mind, Wolf is first and foremost a "businessman", and as such, will do what he believes is necessary to generate more tax dollars. In order to accomplish that, we will soon see more regulations "on paper" and enforcement become even more lax than it already is. 

(*The Act 13 impact fees were not allowed by law to be passed on to the consumers and had to be absorbed by the industry, and would have expired over time. This rule does not apply to any severance tax which is in place forever.)
 
The ONLY way to stop this industry from advancing and expanding in PA is for the people to begin adopting "home rule charters" ASAP that will render weak and corrupt township supervisors powerless so communities can enact Community Rights based ordinances that will by-pass the ineffective regulatory agencies like the *DEP, the **EPA, and ***FERC making them irrelevant. 
 
(*The PA/DEP is funded by the PA Department of Oil and Gas whose operating revenue is generated from "permit fees" for oil, gas, and coal extraction. **The EPA is funded by congress, and congress is now funded by the energy industry lobbyists. ***FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is NOT a true federal agency since they receive $0 in congressional funding, and 100% of their funding from the oil, gas, and coal industry, the very industry whose activities they are commissioned to "regulate"!
 
I would also like to point out that the job of "regulatory" agencies is to issue permits that will allow a measured destruction of the environment by simply attempting to control "the rate of damage", without controlling "the amount of damage" in order to allow destructive industrial activities to continue. 
 
It's the classic example of the "fox guarding the hen house", which is exactly how it is meant to be. The regulatory system has been designed to keep concerned citizens trapped inside the "regulatory box", navigating the rules that in most cases were written by the industry, implemented by agencies funded by the industry, and supported by politicians who are either deeply invested in, and/or stand to profit personally from the industry's continued expansion (like Tom Wolf), or reliant on "campaign funding" from the industry to get elected/re-elected (like Tom Corbett) and/or the corrupt pro-industry shills in both parties in the house and the senate whose "campaigns" were funded by the oil and gas industry. 

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Benton resident Dean Marshall rightfully calls out Press Enterprize editor, Jim Sachetti

Dear Sir; 
The Editorial published 8-12-14 in PE has numerous factual errors and achieves a new low in  journalism.
It begins by labeling the "green" left as "irrational", "knee-jerk conservatives" with "closed minds", "leading any fair-minded observer to conclude that they did not feel the need to ascertain facts."   

I must conclude that you sir, are the epitome of the previous descriptions.  The commenters you have cited and who were named in the 8-7-14 article by your own Susan Schwartz, (Public decries pipeline plan), included Teachers, Healthcare workers, a Restoration Ecologist, a Professor with published works on Ecology, Local Residents, and concerned citizens of no particular Political Party, as you allude. We have taken the time to find the facts. We have attended these meetings and hearings for several years.  Were you at the FERC mtg. Mr. Sachetti, or did you arrive at your narrow-minded opinion based on the work of Ms. Schwartz?

Furthermore, the  fact that fracking, was "denounced", was and is Central to the Pipeline issue due to the fact that if FERC approves Williams plan as a "Public Convenience" it will grant Eminent Domain rights for the taking of Right of Way when the truth is that Williams fracking partners intended to fill this pipeline with a steady supply of Marcellus Gas for Export.  This is a known fact and the proof is readily available by reading the "Forward Looking Statements" on the Stock pages of Cabot, Range Resources, Anadarko, and all the other fracking Companies also listed by Williams as contracted customers for the 42" LNG Export Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline.
 
It seems that you, Mr Sachetti, have undermined your credibility by failing to do your homework, and disclosing your bias.  We do not feel that using any and all forums to educate the public so they can make an informed decision is "Grandstanding" as you put it.   Fracking for Unnatural Gas has become a huge investment and this project is aimed at making a huge return, by peddling it to Asia and thus raising the prices here.  So much for "Cheap, Abundant, American Energy Independence".  If these greedy corporations invested in Sustainable Energy development we "Greens" would not "behave badly".      
                                                                                                                       Dean H.Marshall
                                                                                                                       Benton,Pa