Wednesday, April 18, 2012

In NYS, Irony Equals Hypocrisy — But We Don't Like to Talk About It Much

From the April 17, 2012, Norwich (NY) Evening Sun, whose generally pro-drilling coverage has long been invisible outside the region, behind a paywall.  For more on this incident, see Exhibit B below.
[Original post April 12, 2012.  Some updates internally, and to adjust for the clipping above.]

It's right under everybody's nose.  But you sure don't hear much about it.  Must be too dangerous. 

Ordinarily, irony — especially cheap irony — is something with great appeal for media people.  But apparently not in New York.  Reportorial senses seem to be dulled by youth, overwork, underpay, and relentless furrowed brows from Sixties Generation editors.

Some things are just too impolite to point out, evidently.

So, here, let me do the honors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit A — Ithaca, NY:  Progressive entrepreneurs organized as Energized Ithaca recently announced a plan to install a co-generation facility somewhere in that city's Nifty Downtown Area — in order to efficiently generate both electricity for the grid, and heat for nearby buildings.

I endorse this.  I'm all for electricity, heat, and efficiency.

This co-gen plan is still in its infant stages, and it doesn't look like any particular site has been picked yet.  But the apparently unprincipled Ithaca City Council was asked to back it in principle, and did so, unanimously, April 4, 2012.  Their symbolic act was greatly simplified by the fact that taxpayers aren't expected to be asked for any funds or tax breaks.

I endorse this.  I'm all for unsubsidized private sector development.

The entrepreneurs were apparently just looking to get some sign of Advance Public Consensus — and thus to fend off any possible Developmental Train Wreck, down the line.  That can happen.  In fact, energy infrastructure projects tend to often derail in that way, especially in highly educated, highly touchy, full-of-themselves, prone-to-protest regions— where it's practically a matter of Social Custom to challenge pretty much everything.

An area like Ithaca.

So what's the fuel source?  (Good question!  Excellent friggin' question!)

In its next-day coverage, generally describing how co-gen works, the Ithaca Journal made a trepidacious, passing reference to "gas turbines."  But nowhere did the reporter come out and openly report that this thing is gonna be powered by natural gas.  (That's inevitably the case, unless, I suppose, the developers were to later reveal they're actually thinking about wood chips, coal, sewage sludge, or garbage — and something tells me those ain't gonna fly, next door to The Commons, the pita man, the tapas bars, and the head shops.)

Now, if you've seen the news lately, you know that natural gas is the same stuff they're fracking the hell out of Pennsylvania in order to supply, among other places, still-frackless New York, including Ithaca — which ranks as The Northeastern U.S. Left Wing's HQ for the War Against Fracking.

It's heavy metal irony, dude.  It's radioactive hypocrisy.  It's everything you ever wanted in a local news story, but were simply too afraid to publish.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit B — Town of Plymouth, Chenango County, NY:  As can be divined by a close reading of the online conversations hosted by the CNY Landowners' Coalition, a local anti-frack activist (and recently unsuccessful candidate for a seat on the town board), Peter Hudiburg, of South Plymouth, was exposed at an April 9 public meeting as somebody who — gasp! — signed, and then later extended, a gas lease!

(Not only that, but these were low-paying boilerplate lease documents, drafted by lawyers working for Norse Energy, the dominant operator in that locality.  And, not only that, but the time frame for at least one of Hudiburg's fully compensated signatures laps well into the period after shale gas became Public Enemy Number One for at least a certain class of Righteous Upstater.)

It would be one thing if Hudiburg had already voluntarily gone public with his past indiscretions, possibly somewhere within one of his lengthy letters to the editor published by the Norwich Evening Sun.  Or before he got rolling, during one of his prior, long-winded appearances before the Plymouth Town Board — seeking to add another locality to New York State's Symbolic Frack Ban Scoreboard.  (That's what the group Fleased stands for — upstate landowners who acknowledge they signed oil and gas leases in the past, before the enterprise became so controversial that they have now gotten pretty well freaked out about it.  Which is fair enough by me, for as long as they feel the need to be that way, concerning their own land.)

But that was never part of Hudiburg's schtick.

Instead, here's how it all went down, according to fastbasser, giving his review later the same night as a Plymouth Town Board meeting:
"When it was brought up, poor old Pete freaked...  He started yelling and would not let the 'presenter' finish what he was saying!  He was so belligerent, the Supervisor was forced to suspend the meeting, call the Sheriff's Department and have his sorry butt escorted out!"

"It was so entertaining!  A copy of his gas contract was then given to the board for their records."

"I wonder how he is gonna 'spin' this to all the sheep he has been lying to.  What a piece of work!!!!"
I suppose it's too much to hope that smartphone video cameras might have been ready and rolling.  If it helped the technologically blessed anti's, I'm sure it would have been posted by now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit C — Hamilton, NY:  This is the home of Colgate University, and — like most upstate college towns — even the graying members of the local population are generally Youthfully Outraged at the Threat Fracking Obviously Poses to Upstate.

Meanwhile, however, elected village elders — starting nearly three years ago — have been slowly shepherding through a plan for a non-profit, municipally owned utility to bring natural gas to the college, the hospital, the schools, and, later on, businesses and residents.

Two different supply pipelines could be tapped into, only eight miles away.  And, for the bigger institutions, the savings in heating costs alone are currently forecast to be 50% or more.  Which is kind of hard to argue against, unless you happen to be the sort of villager who takes seriously his or her philosophical consistencies. 

Media coverage on this one has, on at least one occasion, had the good, dutiful sense to call passing attention to the Psychological Stress such a money-saving innovation is triggering among the Anti-Frack Faithful.  Here's how a March 21, 2012, story in the Utica Observer-Dispatch handled it, down at the tail end: 
"[Mayor Margaret Miller] said the other topic that drew the most interest at the public hearing was how the gas utility would relate to hydraulic fracturing."
“'There is obvious concern, not only in Hamilton, but statewide and nationally, about the process of fracking in mining for natural gas.  Hamilton will not be mining for gas.  Our proposed municipal gas utility will be structured to buy gas from existing third-party sources and distribute it to users in the village,' explained Miller. 'Our plan is to provide access to an energy source that is cleaner and more economical than some of the other fuels currently available in the village. We respect the concern, and expect to explain the distinction again during the public meeting.'”
Isn't that special?

The latest report on Hamilton's utility plan indicates there's a referendum coming right up — open to registered village voters, April 17, noon to 9 p.m., at the Hamilton Public Library.  If I were running that vote, I would just love to slip in a second question, asking Hamiltonians how they feel about their own fellow Upstate New Yorkers someday being finally allowed to help supply the village — by making business arrangements to develop their subterranean resource.

[Update April 18:  Hamilton villagers proved themselves Wildly Gung Ho on the natgas question — at least as measured on the End Consumer side.  Reports today have the tally as 240-56 in favor, or better than 4-to-1 (Utica paper), or 240-86, or just less than 3-to-1 (Syracuse paper).  Now if we could just see about renting a table at their summertime farmer's market, and setting up a "Buy Local" shale gas promotion.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit D — Binghamton, NY:  The Gannett chain's Press and Sun-Bulletin — the merged successor to the newspaper I grew up delivering, reading, and at one time respecting — on April 10, 2012, announced it could no longer afford to give away its coverage for free online.  A pay wall is coming, which will slam shut before non-subscribing readers, after a limited number of teasy reads. 

I don't begrudge them this.  In fact, I don't begrudge anyone the need to make a living, certainly not around these parts.

But I do begrudge them the outrageous hypocrisy of working aggressively for years against the economic interests of their own readership, and then — way, way, way late in the game — complaining about the area's economic decay, and vowing to finally maybe do something about it.

Here's the part that just kills me:
"Starting in May, we will expand the way we deliver information to our readers and focus our reporting on the topics you have told us are most important...  We will be focusing more on topics you've told us you're passionate about: revitalization of the Triple Cities area, economic development and new opportunities for better jobs...  We believe that, as a business, we can no longer give away our unique and valuable content on the Web. The business model is changing, but we will continue our mission: serving the greater good of our community for many, many more years to come."
Isn't that choice?

This is the same paper that's systematically led the transformation of Upstate's Shale Gas Opportunity — and there's no place richer in natural gas from Marcellus shale than virtually every single acre traipsed by the God-forsaken carriers delivering that publication — into some kind of Freaky Cataclysmic Demon.

I don't know what, in particular, has finally triggered this avowed journalistic turn-around (nor will I believe it, until I see it).  Could be the well-publicized stumblings of the parent corporation, or the now-obvious poverty of its readership area, once called the Valley of Opportunity, an epithet that's now wholly sarcastic.

If it were up to me, though, heads would be positively rolling at that publication!

It is not enough to give readers a non-apology for years of ignoring their complaints of outrageous bias — and then to vow to finally cover what the people really care about, in a tolerable style of wide-angled perspective, and even-handed professionalism.

I don't care what kind of Woodward and Bernstein Dream World you live in.  But you don't earn a living, or win prizes, economically hurting your own people.  And that's exactly what the Binghamton Press has done for too long.

For that, I hope future readers — even if they have to pay for the privilege — never forget, and never forgive.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

More Great Quotes From Upstate's Frack War

“No one denies the economic benefits are happening.”
— Pioneer anti-frack journalist Abrahm Lustgarten at an April 9, 2012, forum put on by ProPublica, the left-leaning investigative reporting collective that laundered funds to pay for all his early work.

"So the whole scheme shapes up to be an uneconomic structure whose primary purpose is to game the reg's to prove that some acreage might have uneconomic dry gas.  Sounds like a real propane commie clusterfrack, don’t  it?"
— Cooperstown, NY, anti-frack zealot James "Chip" Northrup in an April 5, 2012, posting — opposed to a landowner-brokered, Tioga County, NY, proposal, designed in part to appease environmentalists by substituting much smaller quantities of liquid propane for water as the medium of fracking.

"Fossil fuels are just so dangerously yesterday."
— Ruth S. Young of Horseheads, NY, in an April 11, 2012, letter to the editor of the Binghamton Press, opposed to the same plan.

"I wonder if you haven't got your elephants ass-backwards. Given the volume of media attention toward drilling as the assumed culprit behind everything that's in Dimock water, it hardly qualifies. The true elephant in the room is the very real possibility that this water has returned to its pre-methane migration background state — some gassy, some with salts or minerals, but not toxic, and not anything that thousands of rural homeowners in PA and NY haven't long lived with."
— Andy Leahy (NY Shale Gas Now), taking to task anti-frack reporter (and now anti-frack book author) Tom Wilber for his self-serving journalistic assumption to the effect that drilling impact on domestic water in Dimock, PA, represents some kind of "elephant in the room" in that long-running saga.

"Unfortunately, my clients cannot afford to pay me to travel to Albany to attend the conference.  It is our position that my clients have been dragged into this investigation for no meritorious or legitimate reason.  Although it is our position that this investigation is, in fact, frivolous, I am not avoiding the conference because of disrespect or irreverence to the tribunaL  Again, my clients simply cannot afford to pay a lawyer to represent them in Albany, NY."
— Dec. 6, 2011 letter from Robert J. Madigan, Jr. (a lawyer with Binghamton firm Coughlin & Gerhart), to the New York State Public Service Commission, while representing a land-owning couple in the Town of Sanford, Broome County, NY.  This had to do with a state inquiry against the developers of the so-called Bluestone Pipeline — but allegedly triggered by the actions of landowners, who harvested their trees along their portions of the anticipated route, far in advance of final project approval.

"Marcellus Land With House:  30 Acres of Marcellus shale with renovated & fully furnished home.  Great investment potential for gas royalties & lucrative rental income.  MLS #182006.  $199,900."
— From a print-only Exit Realty ad in a Binghamton Press insert, April 7, 2012.

Friday, April 6, 2012

SUNY (Finally) Sticks Its Neck Out On Shale Gas; Anti's (Undoubtedly) Sharpen Cynicism

From a SUNY University at Buffalo press release, April 5, 2012 (and only noted by opposition press so far):

Shale Resources and Society Institute to Analyze Shale’s Potential as an Energy Resource

New institute will provide policymakers and other stakeholders with research-based information on the development of shale
 


BUFFALO, N.Y. — A new Shale Resources and Society Institute based in the University at Buffalo Department of Geology will serve as a resource to help the public, policymakers and other stakeholders understand shale’s potential as an energy resource.
 


The goal of the institute is to provide accurate, research-based information on the development of shale and other unconventional resources, said John P. Martin, the institute’s director.


Specifically, the institute will conduct and disseminate peer-reviewed research that can help guide policymakers on issues relating to hydraulic fracturing and the development of energy resources. The institute will also educate students and provide the public with accurate information.



The institute’s work will draw on the expertise and perspectives of external research partners and UB faculty members in disciplines ranging from engineering to law and the social sciences. Activities will focus on four areas relating to shale development: fractures, fluids and migration; groundwater and surface environmental impacts; societal impacts; and policy and regulation.
 


“We’re really trying to provide fact-based, objective information,” Martin said. “We’re guided by science.”
 


“Many people in New York State have a strong opinion on this issue,” said Robert Jacobi, the center’s co-director and a longtime UB professor of geology. “We want to become a valuable community resource where anyone can come and read about current research, outreach and education, and have a feeling that they can trust these data.”
 


Martin said the institute plans to seek funding from sources including industry and individuals, as well as agencies that support scientific research relating to energy. Future plans include establishing a management committee for the institute that includes the voices of environmental organizations and other stakeholders.



In addition to serving as director of the Shale Resources and Society Institute, Martin is the founder and principal consultant of JPMartin Energy Strategy LLC, which provides strategic planning, resource evaluation and other services to the energy industry, academic institutions and governments.
 


Prior to forming the consultancy in 2011, Martin spent 17 years working on energy research and policy issues at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and developed a series of projects targeting oil and gas resources, renewable energy development and environmental mitigation. He holds a PhD in Urban and Environmental Studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.


Jacobi, a field and lab geoscientist, has extensive experience in academia and industry. A member of UB’s faculty since 1980, he has over 30 years of experience teaching the structure, tectonics and evolution of North America, marine geology and geophysics, sedimentology and stratigraphy.
 


His present research focus includes identifying, understanding and predicting the trends of faults, fractures and folds in black shales. In addition to his work at UB, Jacobi is senior geology advisor for EQT Production, a Pittsburgh-based energy company. He recently consulted for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation concerning hydraulic fracturing, with respect to faults and potential seismic activity. He holds a PhD in geology from Columbia University.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Below, I'm going to try to embed a 24-frame PowerPoint by Dr. Martin — presented at an overseas conference, Feb. 6, 2012.  This is likely representative of the quasi-technical, academic, non-partisan, but-generally-pro-regulated-enterprise stylings of the institute's future work — which will undoubtedly be rejected as Funding-Source-Biased by the anti-drilling side, and tossed aside as Too Colossally Dull by most mainstream media.

But I guess we'll have to see.

Presentation by John Martin 2-6-2012

Saturday, March 31, 2012

To The Editor: Severance Taxes, and the Under-Appreciated Downside of Home Rule

This is a snippet from the 2011 assessment roll for the Town of Smyrna, Chenango County, NY.  (Click it into a new window to see it all clearly.)  The taxable real property shown is not a Downstater's McMansion, or an Upstater's Fourth-Generation Dairy Farm — assessed at nearly $3.6 million, or a full market value of $5.5 million and some change.  Instead, it's the Corey 1, a/k/a the Corey 2H, a natural gas well drilled horizontally in Herkimer sandstone by Norse Energy during the Winter of 2008-2009.  This is a conventional gas well, but I acknowledge it is not an average representative of that group.  State records online from 2010 show it was then the Number 1 producer in Chenango County, and Number 9 statewide. 

Two points on this:

First, I've read some recent belly-aching from certain officials in Ithaca's brainy Tompkins County, complaining about the purportedly uncompensated burden of maybe someday having to add unconventional shale gas wells to this same record-keeping system.  But one can readily see that the civil servants in rustic Chenango County didn't seem to have much trouble adapting.


Second, anti-drillers have long spread the mantra, "There's no severance tax in New York."  But this graphic belies that claim as yet another example of Sneaky Misdirection:  There is a severance tax in New York!  It's derived from a state formula, based on oil and gas production, and efficiently folded into the familiar local property tax system.  As with McMansions and dairy farms, these taxes feed towns, counties, and, in this case, the Sherburne-Earlville School District.  But, no, it's true, they don't feed coffers spent statewide by Albany — which doesn't bother me in the slightest.  So there's your Nugget of Truth in a Gold Field of Opportunity.
Responding to letters on shale gas, from The (Syracuse) Post-Standard, March 29, here and here:

Severance Tax — "Unlike most states, New York does not have a severance tax — levied before extracting..."  Wrong on three levels:  The writer is describing an impact or permitting fee, not a severance tax — which, by definition, is based afterwards on production.  New York already collects permit fees, in line to go higher.  And we already have a local severance tax — in all but name.  Oil and gas wells pay property taxes under a state-supervised formula covering a rolling average of production.  Local governments in productive Marcellus, Utica or Upper Devonian shale zones will spend this money — not unaffected Downstate, or Thruway corridor cities.  It's okay with me if opponents want to argue this tax should go higher, but I won’t stand for their continuing to mislead the public on this point.

Oversight — repeated worries over the sparseness of DEC staffing levels, using a now-outdated forecast for drilling.  The Cuomo Administration has already
repeatedly said the costs of regulation will be borne by the regulated, through fees, and that staffing will ramp up over time, paced with drilling, and occasionally suppressing it, if necessary.  Under the current economics of natural gas oversupply, and of New York's plan to lay out the toughest rules in the world, drilling is likely to go much more slowly than some have hoped, and others feared.

Cumulative Impacts.  Of course shale gas has impacts, and, therefore, cumulative impacts.  Claims these haven't even been analyzed are simply not true — based on the DEC's world-class, 1,000-page study.

But the Really Big Cumulative Picture here — to which some in the environmental community now flinch, when it's disruptive to their persuasive motivations — is that all energy sources have impacts.  Shale gas should be analyzed in that context, not as a Stand-Alone Demon.  Much used to be written about coal, but that must be passé now.  Nuclear, renewables, and even conservation — all have impacts.  And what about the unacknowledged 700-Pound Gorilla in the Room?  What are the cumulative, fully externalized impacts of our oil-protective foreign wars?

Water — "Hydrofracking should not go forward until there are workable disposal solutions."  I'm down with that.  But some eyes must glaze over anytime they’ve faced reporting on the solutions that have already evolved.  PA operators now treat and recycle 90 percent of flowback water, simply reusing it on the next frack job.  Zero-discharge treatment enterprises have sprung up — a helluva business opportunity for an unemployed graduate of SUNY ESF.  Frackers are also starting to use alternate hydraulic media that significantly reduce the perceived burdens of water consumption or treatment.

Home Rule.  If towns in suburban Ithaca want to ban alcohol, roosters, gravel mining, and drilling — seems like it’s no skin off my back.  (Except maybe a nagging fear for the freedoms that individual townspeople must surrender to appease over-zealous town boards, and a budding resentment that this sort of NIMBY behavior — all the benefits of the modern world, but none of the burdens — is inherently selfish and anti-community.)

The Big Picture Again:  I'm here in Syracuse, making coffee, running a computer, and I just heard my furnace switch on again.  My kilowatts come by wire — over easements across somebody's private land — from a locality like Oswego County's Scriba that didn't forbid power plants, not even nuclear.  The natural gas I burn was drilled, fracked and piped out of mostly private lands, in distant places where local governments have been wisely restrained from behaving in panicky ways.

At what point does the Mania for Home Rule become an Abuse of Commerce?  Further balkanizing this state so thoughtlessly will eventually throttle benefits to end consumers — to say nothing of my fellow New Yorkers who need jobs, and landowners who need income.

That’s not my community.

Andy Leahy

Blogging and tweeting as:  NY Shale Gas Now

Friday, March 30, 2012

Dear Governor Cuomo: How About This
For A Second "Energy Highway"?

Dear Governor Cuomo:

I happened to be working from home in Syracuse, March 28 — in fact, telecommuting on a shale gas job in Ohio, believe it or not — and in the background I heard your comments on public radio's "The Capitol Pressroom with Susan Arbetter," regarding your "Energy Highway" ideas.

There was a spot there, sometime between 6:00 and 12:00, where I thought you really got into it, you know? — answering Arbetter's dutiful-but-somewhat-tiresome "Yeah, but's" with this:
"Look, I understand problems, you know?  There are 9,000 reasons why you shouldn't do something.  I tend to be an optimist and focus on how do we get to yes here.  I understand the concerns.  I understand the problems.  I also understand — we need energy.  And, if we're talking about bringing jobs back to this state, you need energy.  And you need a constant supply of affordable energy.  How are we gonna do it?  [In a rumbling, lowered voice] 'Well, I see issues.'  Yeah, I see issues, too.  How do we sit down and get to yes.  And that's the difference — one of the differences — between government being the obstacle and the facilitator.  It's easy to find reasons not to do something.  It really is.  And it's easy to pander to the fears of people.  Yes, but that's not, I believe, doing the job responsibly.  How do you address the problem, but get to yes, so we can move forward?"
Now — of course it occurs to me — we could certainly apply that sort of progressive, responsible thinking to developing shale gas in New York State — as easily as we could apply it to your "Energy Highway" endorsement of the Lake Champlain-Lake George-Hudson River, mostly-underwater, electricity transmission cable idea.

But that's not what I'm writing you about (at least not this time).

Instead, I'm talking about another possible "Energy Highway":  There have been two private sector plans revealed in the last month or so, putting forth the idea of a natural gas pipeline inter-connect that would run from the Northern Tier of PA, briefly through the Southern Tier of NY, and then deep into NY's Leatherstocking Region.  There, at junction points somewhere in Schoharie County, the pipeline would hook into two existing major northeastern transmission lines — one east-bound, feeding Albany and beyond, and the second southeast-bound, sending the natgas to Greater NYC.

From what I understand, these proposals are inspired by a forecast surplus of mostly Marcellus shale gas, coming out of PA, coupled with a deficit of transmission capacity — which will otherwise eventually bottleneck flow at a number of points between the rural production zones, and the largely urbanized, business, residential, and power-generating End Consumers — in both NY and New England. 

The first plan out of the box is called "Northeast Exchange," and it was put forth by El Paso's Tennesee Gas Pipeline.  It may or may not be on hold at this point (see a comment from an apparently knowledgeable anonymous person at the end of my post). 

The second plan is called "Constitution Pipeline," and it comes from a 25-75 joint venture involving Cabot Oil and Gas and Williams Partners.  A month has gone by since the announcement, and I've been hearing — through my own grapevine, as of just this week — that it's already triggering some landwork employment opportunities within Upstate.

The two proposals appear to be in the preliminary stages of competing with each other on two levels — for obtaining enough future contracted flow to justify construction, and — if either manages to get that far along — for winning approvals from federal and state authorities as to "public need."

(It has occurred to me also that these plans might also prove to be in a more subtle competition with an entirely different plan, called "Commonwealth Pipeline," to connect the Marcellus Shale gas fields of PA with markets as far southeast as Baltimore and Washington, DC.  But whether there will be enough natgas to go around for all, so that this won't be an issue — I just don't know.)

Now, I have been around Upstate my whole life, which is long enough to recognize that any such energy infrastructure proposal hereabouts — even a plan for a wind farm — will inevitably inspire Not In My Backyard opposition, often allied with slightly less provincial, supposedly environmentally minded thinkers.  (As a graduate student at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry here in Syracuse (GPES '95), this was definitely one of the many nettlesome modern-day issues we studied — but never, of course, did we learn exactly how to resolve all of them in bullet-proof ways.)

But, with regard to this PA-NY interconnect pipeline, I have a half-cocked suggestion which might pro-actively limit this kind of conflict.  I wonder if a significant portion of the necessary routing couldn't be much less controversially arranged for, by simply doing this:  Have the State of New York take the lead in negotiating to get paid for an easement, or an easement option, covering a strip of land just inside the fenceline of the already-taken-in-fee Interstate 88 corridor.  (I'm assuming NYS is in title, not USA, but, either way, seems like you could have some influence over the situation.)

Starting in Sidney or Bainbridge or maybe even a point southwesterly, and running as far northeasterly as Central Bridge, that could take up to maybe 80 miles out of the realm of affecting the fields or forests of private landowners.

Of course, there will be a number of landowners with holdings immediately adjoining Route 88 who might still object — either due to the real or perceived impacts, on top of what's already there from the highway, or due to the state beating them out of a business opportunity. 

But, in the latter case, it occurs to me that the state's easement could be generously structured so as to give preference on more or less equivalent terms to any private landowners eager to offer up their parallel footage.  I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me the pipeline — and any necessary above-ground infrastructure, such as valves, connections, and compressors — could be laid out so as to wander back and forth under the highway fence, as necessary or appropriate, keeping the complicated stuff away from both the traffic and people's houses.

And, that way, everybody wins:  Pipeline company; willing landowners; unwilling landowners; NYS; local property tax-collecting jurisdictions; people on the job, or who need a job; and end consumers (including NY residents, businesses, and power plants).

(You know, also, maybe you could even get the pipeline company to help out, down the road, with some of the Route 88 mowing and tree-pruning work, at least in the areas closest to its line.)

There are a lot of factors of economics, geology, topography, wetlands, and so on, that go into planning these things.  And, of course, I'm in no position to say whether using all or part of the Route 88 corridor would make any sense on these grounds.  But, in terms of minimizing the most glaring, publicly perceptible impacts, it seems like doing it that way would be a winner.

I have tried to research issues of public safety so far as the wisdom, or lack thereof, of burying fossil fuels pipelines along or near interstate highways.  But, sorry to say, I haven't found much, one way or the other.  Again, this could very well be an unworkable idea — based just on those sorts of issues.  But I'm sure you've got professionals in your transportation, public service, or environmental departments who could do a much better job of looking into that.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it.

Andy Leahy

Blogging and tweeting as: NY Shale Gas Now

http://nyshalegasnow.blogspot.com/

P.S. — Good job on the budget!

Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Otselic Statement: Some Upstate Towns Not (Yet) Heard From on Home Rule

I'm calling this "The Otselic Statement" — not the authors.

It is a resolution in the form of a letter to state officials, passed unanimously by the Willet Town Board, representing a community on the banks of one of my favorite rivers, the Mighty Otselic, in Cortland County, NY.

If you've done any poking around on these pages, you can probably tell I have been keeping fairly close tabs on New York's Ongoing Debate Over Shale Gas for going on two years now — including the ruckus over the seemingly unassailable, bedrock-solid "Home Rule" concept.

I've heard about lots of upstate towns, villages, and cities — many of them with little geological prospect of ever even seeing any drilling — confronted with opposition-organized flash mobs, demanding that they zone out drilling, heavy industry, and any associated infrastructure.  Some of these local officials have been pretty easily swayed, and others have been split. 

But I hadn't heard about this.  This is a statement in the opposite direction, from people who tend to speak forcefully, clearly, quietly — and then mind their own business.  I'm told several nearby towns in Cortland County also approved the same text, or something very similar, and I'll update this later on, when I get firmer details.

There's no reason, in my mind, why similarly minded communities on the upper reaches of the Susquehanna watershed, or the Delaware, couldn't or shouldn't do likewise.

That would be nice.  We can always rename the statement later, if you like.

Meanwhile, check it out...
January 4, 2012

Senator James Seward
430 Capitol
Albany, NY 12247

41 S. Main Street
Oneonta, NY 13820

Dear Senator Seward,

We, the Town Board of the Town of Willet, are writing to state that we oppose efforts to overturn the current New York State prohibition for local municipalities to regulate oil and gas drilling through “home rule” laws.

We, unanimously, feel that it would be better to ensure a more uniform rule by continuing to let the State rule in these matters. New York State has spent almost three years of time, effort and money to study the issues surrounding gas drilling. We feel the Towns do not have the time, expertise or money to do their own studies to come to a proper ruling. Nor do we, as a Town, have the resources to defend against any lawsuits from either gas companies or property owners whose rights are violated through such bans, moratoriums or zoning decisions. To give local governments veto power over natural gas drilling through zoning authority will only create more division between government and its townspeople.

We support the DEC’s efforts to study all the different aspects of this issue and welcome their final approval based on unbiased science. We feel the DEC is better equipped to enforce the necessary regulations than each individual Town.

While New York State does allow municipalities to zone mining activities that have significant surface impacts, we feel that the gas industry does not fall into this category. From the sites we have visited, gas wells are not as obtrusive as open mining when completed and surfaces are restored within a short time of surface disturbance.

Rather than opposing the whole industry based on the hysteria of a few, we prefer to move forward towards energy independence, clean energy, economic prosperity for the entire region, while taking a responsible view towards safe extraction of natural gas. Through properly executed road agreements we feel we can protect the Town’s infrastructure without placing an undue burden on the taxpayers.  We also support the property rights of our taxpayers to enter into leases, to allow the extraction of their resources, and to profit by them.

Shale drilling could also mean more money for municipalities in the form of increased revenues from taxes, relieving the tax burden felt by residents. The entire State of New York economy will benefit.

Governor Cuomo promised that the decision to do HVHF will rest on science. Not hysteria, not misrepresentations of facts and data.

We remain hopeful that the SGEIS approval process will be complete so that development of our significant shale resources can commence in 2012.

Respectfully,



Alvin Doty, Jr., Supervisor
Willet Town Board

Cc:

The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, New York 12224

Commissioner Joe Martens
Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 14th Floor
Albany, New York 12233

Assemblyman Gary Finch
Rm 448 Legislative Office Bldg.
Albany, New York 12248

Honorable David Fuller
Cortland County Legislature, District 17
Cortland County Office Building
60 Central Ave.
Cortland, NY 13045

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Great Quotes of Late in the Fracking Debate

"My property is in Lycoming County, and I'm fortunate that I'm surrounded by the PA State Forest.  I was notified today that I've been pooled for royalties, and I received my first check from Anadarko.  This is going to be a monthly occurrence??  The check stub indicated this check was for gas extracted between December 11th 2011 and January 12th 2012.  Ho-Ly Smokes!"
— 47seijar, a Natural Gas Forums participant, in a  
March 26 entry deep inside a thread entitled, 
"Big Week for PA Royalty Owners — or — 
OMG, Mildred, We've Been Side-By-Sided!"

"Enjoy the weekend, and keep in mind that every single thing that the Tom West's and Henry Kramer's of the world have told you about the law in this area has been dead wrong. Period."

"P.S. Go 'Cuse."

— Park Foundation-funded local government lobbyist David Slottje, in a March 23 
email to his anti-frack supporters — apparently rattled by an Oneonta Daily Star story 
by Joe Mahoney.  Industry lawyer Tom West was reported to have recently
unearthed some old papers which could reverse town drill bans — on the 
strength of better documentation of NYS "legislative intent," circa 1981. 
('Cuse exited the Elite Eight the following night.  As for the rest, we'll see.) 

"Look, I understand problems, you know?  There are 9,000 reasons why you shouldn't do something.  I tend to be an optimist and focus on how do we get to yes here.  I understand the concerns.  I understand the problems.  I also understand — we need energy.  And, if we're talking about bringing jobs back to this state, you need energy.  And you need a constant supply of affordable energy.  How are we gonna do it?  [In a rumbling, lowered voice] 'Well, I see issues.'  Yeah, I see issues, too.  How do we sit down and get to yes.  And that's the difference — one of the differences — between government being the obstacle and the facilitator.  It's easy to find reasons not to do something.  It really is.  And it's easy to pander to the fears of people.  Yes, but that's not, I believe, doing the job responsibly.  How do you address the problem, but get to yes, so we can move forward?"
— New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, appearing March 28 on public radio's 
Capital Pressroom with Susan Arbetter — but not actually talking about 
shale gas.  Instead, Cuomo was responding to previously aired criticism 
of his "Energy Highway" plan — which has been so far mostly associated 
with a private sector proposal to import Canadian power through 
a low-aesthetic-impact underwater cable running down the 
Lake Champlain-Lake George-Hudson River corridor. 

"They don't get how close they came to losing 1,100 jobs out of this community...  We could be looking at an entirely different scenario — one where they're packing their bags and leaving the area."

— Delaware County IDA Chair Jim Thomson, March 27, in a story by Lissa Harris of the
Catskills regional blog Watershed Post.  Thomson was referring to drill ban activists 
who nearly succeeded — prior to intercession from the county Planning Board — 
in convincing the Town of Sidney to zone out both natural gas drilling and 
infrastructure.  As first written, the ban was alleged to jeopardize a push 
by 1,100-worker Amphenol to stay put in Sidney, partly by 
converting to natgas — if a proposed supply pipeline 
goes through down the Susquehanna River Valley.
 
"It is unclear how a comprehensive health impact assessment would be performed on an activity that is not taking place in New York at this time."


— IOGA of NY Executive Director Brad Gill in a March 23 statement 
urging New York leaders to not bother budgeting for a $100,000 study 
of the presumed human health impacts of hydraulic fracturing — pathways 
unspecified.  The proposal was actually dropped days later in the push 
to get an on-time budget — disappointing anti-drilling activists, who 
appear to have been hoping to create another study they 
could then argue New York should await the results on. 


"Thanks for the synopsis...  It helps me to focus when I read the course of events...  I know what I know and I refuse to rewrite or negate the history of events here."
— yoko (pen name of Dimock, PA, anti-frack activist Victoria Switzer), in a 
March 19 comment on a blog post by former Binghamton Press reporter 
— now book author — Tom Wilber.  Switzer was reponding to the 
(for some reason, disheartening) news that federal EPA water test results 
showed clean water among 11 of the households that have been locked 
for months in litigation with Cabot Oil and Gas (alleging the opposite).


"Norse Energy CEO Mark Dice awaiting a decision on the environmental approval in New York in a few weeks."

— Hegnar Online, an overseas web site for investors, in a March 28 headline 
(Google-translated from Norwegian) for a brief item that 
didn't seem to have much further detail.