Saturday, January 4, 2014

Gasland is "fiction"? I think, NOT.

So now, Josh Fox’s Gasland II is "fiction"? I think, NOT.

This is what collaborating with the gas industry gets you.

You end up being used as an unwitting shill for the drill, and are used to discredit, marginalize, and ridicule those who have had the guts to stand up, tell the truth, fight back, and used to try to convince others that this dangerous, toxic, destructive, extreme industrial activity can be conducted "responsibly" where people live, and that "if" we can just clean up the air to tolerable levels, the contaminated water, the fragmented forests, the loss of viable agricultural land mass, and the effect that our continued use of fossil fuels is having on our climate will be an acceptable trade-off for corporate profits and 'cleaner' air. Not clean, not safe, just 'cleaner and... safer'. Which means that maybe less people will become ill, or suffer chronic respiratory illnesses, and maybe a few less children will suffer from asthma.

It also creates the illusion that "regulations", either voluntary, or mandatory can work, and that the industry can be trusted to police itself... at their expense, because they really want to be our "good neighbors", and they care about people.

Organizations such as C.O.G.E.N.T. and BESC claim to be "following the example of Calvin Tillman", but fail to state that he eventually gave up and moved off-the-shale. Now, on top of their misguided support of John Hanger and his "world class regulations" that he claims to have in his back pocket, that there is no regulatory model he can site as an example, they've become the "poster children" for the industry, and have undermined the efforts of every socially conscious individual who has worked so hard to protect the areas that have not been devastated yet by the gas industry in PA, and the rest of the world.

Is this what "realistic and constructive" looks like? It seems a lot like a Faustian deal to me.
~~~
The following articles are among the most outrageous and disingenuous pro-gas propaganda I have ever seen.  
 

The One Issue on Which Anti- and Pro-Drillers Agree

why can't we all just get along
Is there an issue on which both anti- and pro-drillers can agree? Is there ever a time both sides can sit at the same table and discuss a potential problem, and do so without hyperbole and snarky comments? Is there an issue over which both sides can talk and not have it end in shouting?
 
Indeed there is–and it is the issue of air pollution. MDN realizes we’re on shaky ground with our industry friends by writing this, but on several occasions we’ve pointed out there is a growing body of evidence that shows a marked increase in air pollution in heavily drilled areas–mostly from compressor plants, but also from drilling rigs, truck traffic, etc. (see PA DEP Report: Counties with Fracking Have More Air Pollution). The issue of air pollution is enough to unite two neighbors from Dimock, PA who were formerly on opposite sides of the drilling debate.
 
One of those neighbors starred in Josh Fox’s Gasland II fiction–Victoria Switzer (see More on “Pro-Drilling” Conversion of Gasland II Star from Dimock). We wouldn’t say Vickie is exactly pro-drilling these days, but she’s decided to be realistic and constructive, instead of obstructive, and that’s a positive change. She’s once again on speaking terms with her Dimock neighbor Ron Teel, a pro-drilling landowner. Ron and Vickie both belong to the local advocacy group Breathe Easy Susquehanna County.

More on “Pro-Drilling” Conversion of Gasland II Star from Dimock

A few days ago we told you that one of Josh Fox’s stars in Gasland II, Victoria Switzer, has changed sides and now wants to work with the drilling industry to ensure the air is clean in Susquehanna County, PA (see Gasland II Starlet Leaves Anti-Drilling Behind, Adopts “Realism”). This is a huge problem for the anti-drilling movement, a movement that is typically shrill and frankly, unthinking. We now have at least a few people who, while they don’t like natural gas drilling going on around them, are willing to have a cogent, what they call “respectful” dialog about it. They also recognize shall drilling is here to stay–they are realists. Finally, some people on the other side of the issue we can talk to!
A bit more about the new tone and the new group which Switzer and other former anti-drillers have formed–a group called Breathe Easy Susquehanna County.

Gasland II Starlet Leaves Anti-Drilling Behind, Adopts “Realism”

What’s this…one of the stars of Gasland II, someone who trash-talked the shale drilling industry in Dimock, PA has changed sides? Yep. Well, sort of. Victoria Switzer has given up what she calls “tunnel vision” and has adopted “realism.” She says, “Realism is good.” She no longer calls for a halt to drilling in PA and instead wants to ensure it’s done safely–by working with industry and regulators. Welcome to logic and sanity! Glad to have you on our side.
Watch out Josh Fox: Switzer is not the only former anti-driller now whistling a different tune.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Penn State's "MarcellusByDesign" Has Design Flaw

MarcellusByDesign Has Design Flaw 
                                                             By Ann Pinca 
 
Laporte, Pa.  - A MarcellusByDesign workshop held December 4 in the courtroom of the Sullivan County Courthouse fell far short of the expectations of many looking for an opportunity for real discussion and public input on the physical impacts of natural gas development.
 
Presented by landscape architecture professors and students from Penn State University, the workshop was a component of a larger National Science Foundation (NSF) grant project, "Marcellus Matters: Engaging Adults in Science and Energy," under the direction of Michael Arthur, professor of geosciences and co-director of the Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR). The stated goals of the workshop were:
 
  • Familiarize citizens with the scope and potential benefits of planning in landscape protection
  • Identify the roles that citizens can play in planning
  • Empower citizens with the knowledge they need to participate in planning
  • Identify potential goals and priorities for participatory
    Students presented ideas to preserve ridgeline views like this one in
    Elkland Township.
       
    planning
Brian Orland, Director of Interdisciplinary Programs, a
nd Timothy Murtha, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, were the
facilitators for the workshop, aided by twelve undergraduate students and one graduate student. The program consisted of individual student presentations and three break-out sessions incorporating hands-on activities.
 
Student presentations included many topics, and to their credit, the students' work reflected that they had invested much time, effort, and creativity to the problems selected to solve in terms of landscape architecture. Topics ranged from strategies to protect ridgeline views and reduction of visual impacts of infrastructure to storm water run-off prevention. Included were a few promising sustainability measures the county could better use to avoid the inevitable boom and bust cycle that natural gas development will bring.
 
But most presentations were about cosmetic fixes, and simply disguising industrial infrastructure is not what people concerned about health impacts from pollution are concerned about. A less visible compressor station or condensate tank disguised by camouflage-type painting may better blend in with the landscape, but does not in any way reduce its impact: it is still there and so is the pollution.
The imposing M1S Compressor Station better blended into the background when different paint techniques were digitally applied to photos - but it was still there.
Likewise, other student projects on pipeline placement and mitigation techniques that may lessen the overall visual effect of pipeline corridors 
still do not take away the very real problems of forest fragmentation or
the species population isolation, stream chemistry changes, edge  
habitat and invasive species problems that the hundreds of miles of pipeline anticipated for Sullivan County will bring.
 
Hands-on break-out sessions included to allow public input were troubling. Designed mainly to rate or rank areas of the county most important to protect, the activities forced participants into a  "Sophie's Choice" situation, making them choose which area to save and which to condemn to industrial destruction. 
 
The only redeeming feature of the hands-on activities was direct interaction with the students. They appreciated hearing the concerns of the citizens to provide a better understanding, since, as one student said, "We don't live here." While encouraging to know that college students are at least looking into the problems facing citizens in rural areas of gas development, it can only be hoped that they understand the real issues, even through the lens of a landscape architecture class.
 
In the end, there seemed little presented at this workshop to assuage the worries of those in Sullivan County faced with the infliction of an aggressive, pollutant industry on the rural beauty of their homeland, other than that the damages might be covered up through landscaping visual tricks. Suggestions that the oil and gas industry will cooperate with landowners in infrastructure placement and design as suggested in this workshop seem unlikely, especially since most would include added costs.
 
Sadly, the likely reality seems more "business as usual," like what came up shortly after the workshop at the county planning meeting, when a resident asked if there was anything known about the placement of a particular gathering line and no one could answer his question. He just wondered, he said, since the actual location had been under dispute for some time and 
was now staked out across his front lawn--and the pipeline crew had been there working on it that morning.
 
Students used crowdsourcing to determine the most important view in Sullivan County. Their results showed that the view of the Loyalsock Canyon Vista was #1.
ALL IMAGES: ANN PINCA
My comments:

But most presentations were about cosmetic fixes, and simply disguising industrial infrastructure is not what people concerned about health impacts from pollution are concerned about. A less visible compressor station or condensate tank disguised by camouflage-type painting may better blend in with the landscape, but does not in any way reduce its impact: it is still there and so is the pollution. *Cadaver cosmetics!
 
"the inevitable boom"  *Who decided that this was inevitable? Tom Corbett, Ed Rendell, or some corporate hack from Texas who has no vested interest or personal attachment to Pennsylvania?  

"The only redeeming feature of the hands-on activities was direct interaction with the students. They appreciated hearing the concerns of the citizens to provide a better understanding, since, as one student said, 'We don't live here.'"  *The students admitted they were unaware of, and not at all informed of the negative public health, safety and environmental issues. Fortunately, they agreed that the health and environmental concerns should take precedent over the 'cosmetics' and were eager to learn more. Many of them asked for links to organizations, citizen groups, and reports on these more serious issues, and asked to have access to the findings of the Sullivan County Listening Project that is already underway and should be completed and made publicly available by March 2014.
 
"In the end, there seemed little presented at this workshop to assuage the worries of those in Sullivan County faced with the infliction of an aggressive, pollutant industry on the rural beauty of their homeland, other than that the damages might be covered up through landscaping visual tricks." *Superficial camouflage designed to distract from the bigger environmental, public health, and way of life issues.  
 
 
"Sadly, the likely reality seems more "business as usual," like what came up shortly after the workshop at the county planning meeting, when a resident asked if there was anything known about the placement of a particular gathering line and no one could answer his question. He just wondered, he said, since the actual location had been under dispute for some time and was now staked out across his front lawn--and the pipeline crew had been there working on it that morning." *Still no evidence of transparency and co-operation from this industry. 
 
 
One has to question why this presentation of the cosmetic and superficial and not the public health and environmental.
 
The answers are quite simple:
1) To address these other very real concerns would be an admission by the industry and their political cheerleaders that these issues are real.
2) The industry needs to distract from, and downplay these issues because there really is no remedy for them.
3) Research programs at all institutes of higher learning rely on "outside funding" from the corporate world, and the oil and gas corporations are not going to fund colleges, universities, or research programs that are counterproductive to their "bottom line", or that may cause their shareholder investment to drop-off.
 
Now, if this was a true and honest presentation that actually dealt with the truly substantive issues of unconventional gas development, these are the questions that would, and should have been addressed, and must be addressed:

 
- How the hell are you going to assure desirable forest regeneration when you are creating edge habitat EVERYWHERE!!!!! (all trees are not created equal).

- How are you going to correct the problem with nutrient loading of streams after you cut down "only 2%" of the forest? We are not talking about sediment and erosion - we are talking about changes in stream chemistry when they change deep forest into open field.

- How are you going to maintain viable populations of interior forest dwelling critters like neotropical migrants and amphibians?

- How are you going to prevent population isolation and genetic inbreeding from critters that avoid road and ROW crossings due to predation threat and moisture gradients?

- How are you going to provide for viable corridors for wildlife migration when you are creating a grid of pads, roads, and pipeline ROW's?

- Why are you trying to convince us that ubiquitous species - species that exist everywhere due to human disturbance (deer, raccoons, groundhogs) are a fair exchange for deep forest species?

-What is your restoration plan for interior forest, what is the timeframe and where is the funding source?

- Never mind "beautification" - How the HELL are you going to assure the forest structure and function - the very ecosystem services that drive our economy are going to remain viable!!!

- Is Penn State, the DCNR, or the gas industry going to control invasive species along all this new edge habitat for the LIFE of the OPENING???

- Who is going to pay me to control the invasive species on my property when it migrates off your damn pipeline ROW???

- Mr. Penn State LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - how are you qualified to address forest sustainability issues? Or is your job just to "greenwash" i.e. throw green paint on a building riddled with termites?

- What about the impact on climate change/climate instability that increased methane leakage and our continued use of fossil fuels?
 
THESE PEOPLE WHO CONDUCT THESE PRESENTATIONS ARE MOCKING US ALL WITH THIS PATHETIC ATTEMPT AT PLACATION. WE HAVE JUST CALL TO BE ANGRY AND REFUSE TO AQUIESE OR ACCEPT WHAT IS CLEARLY AN INSULT TO OUR COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE!!!
 
I brought up some of these issues at the PSU/MBD presentation, and although Prof. Orland conceded that my questions and concerns were indeed legitimate, and did not, or could not dispute them, he respectfully reminded me that the focus was on the "visual impacts".
 
Therefore, I challenge PSU, the Sullivan County Energy Task Force, the Sullivan County Planning Commission, and our local elected officials to hold public presentations that specifically address the very real issues, concerns, and questions I've put forth in this email, if they are to maintain any credibility.
 
I shall continue to push these issues via email listserves, social media forums, affiliated organization websites, and at upcoming political debates until they are thoroughly and adequately publicly addressed.
 
 
John Trallo
Executive Committee,
Shale Justice Coalition
 
*Contribution by Kevin Heatley
Bio-habitat Restoration Expert 

Friday, November 22, 2013

PA FOR $ALE

These production figures are taken directly from industry reports and the PA/DEP data base, and from campaign finance disclosures. (*The 2013 financial disclosures won't be available until a few weeks before the 2014 primaries.) 
 
(*I'm guessing that's a bit more accurate than the MDN blog, or the industry's press releases to "friendly" media outlets.) 
 
But first, here's a really interesting figure. It's the dollar amount in fines levied against the industry for various violations $ 4,585,557.00: the total amount of penalties assessed in Pennsylvania to date.  
 
(Wow!) That's $22,541,443 less than they paid for the legislature... in "campaign funds" of course, and that's even not counting the $1,833,275 in "lobbying expenditures".  

New Report: Natural Gas Industry Has Spent More Than $23 Million to Influence PA Elected Officials

MarcellusMoney.org update details $774,000 in new contributions; $6.8 million in new lobbying in 2011 and 2012 
HARRISBURG, PA--The natural gas industry and related trade groups have now given nearly $8 million to Pennsylvania state candidates and political committees since 2000, according to new research by Common Cause Pennsylvania and Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. Top recipients of industry money given between 2000 and April 2012 were Governor Tom Corbett (R) with $1,813,205.59, Senate President Joseph Scarnati (R-25) with $359,145.72, Rep. Dave Reed (R-62) with $137,532.33, House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Turzai (R-28) with $98,600, and Sen. Don White (R-41) with $94,150.
 
Total contributions from natural gas interests between 2000 and 2012: $8 million
 
Total lobbying expenditures by natural gas interests between 2007 and 2012: $15.7 million
 
View the data online or download the data sheet.
After reaching an all-time annual high of $1.6 million in 2010, the new study found that contributions declined to $560,800 in 2011. Lobbying expenditures surged during this same period, however, with $5 million being spent in 2011, an increase of $1 million from 2010. An additional $1.8 million was spent in the first three months of 2012, bringing the total since Q1 2007 to $15.7 million.
 
“The industry has largely had its way in Pennsylvania and has spent millions to put their friends in the state legislature and the Governor’s mansion,” said James Browning, Regional Director of State Operations for Common Cause. “The industry’s focus now is on protecting these investments and maintaining access to key elected officials.” 
 
“Pennsylvania politicians sold gas companies the right to pollute Pennsylvania’s land, air, and water for bargain basement prices,” said Josh McNeil, Executive Director of Conservation Voters of PA.  “For their $23 million political investment, gas companies avoided hundreds of millions in taxes that could have paid for thousands of teachers, roads and desperately needed environmental protections.” 
 
Pennsylvania continues to be one of just 11 states that fail to limit campaign contributions, and the state’s failure to require electronic filing of campaign finance reports has resulted in delays by the Pennsylvania Department of State in making these reports available on its website. According to Common Cause, less than half of the reports due to be filed by all candidates at the end of last March were available on the DOS website as of April 20, just four days before the April 24 primary.
 
MarcellusMoney.org is a collaboration of Common Cause PA and the Conversation Voters of PA
 
 
Production Drop-Off Data:
 
Average Per-Day Production in 6 Month Segments - entire State of Pennsylvania

The graphs below display the average per-day production values
   for wells as they progress through 3 years of production.

3,503 - qualifying wells used in average per-day production calculations

70 % - percentage drop in production over 36 month period
                                                Show/Hide Statistical Criteria

Average Per-Day Production in 6 Month Segments
          Based on production data up to Jun 30th, 2013
 PA DEP Well Inspections and Cited Violations for the Entire State

46,130: the total number of inspections reported in Pennsylvania to date.

Lycoming County is the county with the highest number of inspections to date (6218 ).

4,632: the total number of violations reported in Pennsylvania to date.

Susquehanna County is the county with the highest number of violations to date (841 ).

$ 4,585,557.00: the total amount of penalties assessed in Pennsylvania to date.

Show/Hide Statistical Criteria

Graph: PA DEP Well Inspections and Cited Violations per County for the State of Pennsylvania
          Pennsylvania Counties in Alpabetical Order
          Based on data from Nov. 16th, 2013
          © MarcelluGas.Org - All right reserved - Contact MarcellusGas.Org for reprint information.

Return to top
Graph: PA DEP Well Inspections and Cited Violations per Year for the State of Pennsylvania
          Based on PA DEP compliance data from Nov. 16th, 2013