Aurora forgoes fracking moratorium but begins looking at local regulations

AuroraSentinel
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
By SARA CASTELLANOS


AURORA | It’s illegal for the city of Aurora to outright ban hydraulic fracturing but the city could enact an ordinance that regulates drilling-related land uses, city attorneys told Aurora City Council members at a public meeting on Feb. 25.

Council members at the meeting informally approved a draft ordinance regulating oil and gas development amidst growing tensions from the community about the environmental impacts of fracking.

City staff members in the coming weeks are slated to meet with major oil and gas developers to discuss the proposed draft, and council members will have to formally vote on the draft at a later date.

The draft ordinance puts stricter regulations on oil and gas developers than the city’s current ordinance, but concerned residents still say council should have done more.
City council members at the meeting rejected the idea of a moratorium to study the environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling, although Councilwoman Renie Peterson tried to push that proposal at the meeting.

Bob Rogers, deputy city attorney, said the moratorium would be pointless.

“We don’t need that breather,” he said. “Staff is on the way to change the ordinance and we think it’s better to get public hearings and to force negotiations on the (drilling) operators instead of waiting 30 or 60 days for nothing because we’re not going to be doing a fracking study.”

That was disappointing to Sonia Skakich-Scrima, a member of What The Frack? Arapahoe, a grassroots group that has spent the past several months trying to convince council members of the need for a moratorium.

“I would have liked to see a six-month moratorium to allow staff to better inform themselves,” she said.

Continue reading...

REVISIT - A Letter From Prison: Tim DeChristopher Speaks Out - handwritten letter

"What one person can do is to plant the seeds of love and outrage in the hearts of a movement," writes DeChristopher.

August 30, 2011    

 The following text appeared in a handwritten letter from Tim DeChristopher addressed to Grist’s Jennifer Prediger.

If I had ever doubted the power of words, Judge Benson made their importance all too clear at my sentencing last month. When he sentenced me to two years in prison plus three years probation, he admitted my offense "wasn't too bad." The problem, Judge Benson insisted, was my "continuing trail of statements" and my lack of regret. Apparently, all he really wanted was an apology, and for that, two years in prison could have been avoided. In fact, Judge Benson said that had it not been for the political statements I made in public, I would have avoided prosecution entirely. As is generally the case with civil disobedience, it was extremely important to the government that I come before the majesty of the court with my head bowed and express regret. So important, in fact, that an apology with proper genuflection is currently fair trade for a couple years in prison. Perhaps that's why most activist cases end in a plea bargain.

Since that seems like such a good deal, some people are asking why I wasn't willing to shut my mouth and take it. But perhaps we should be asking why the government is willing to make such a deal. The most recent plea bargain they offered me was for as little as 30 days in jail. (I'm writing this on my 28th day.) So if they wanted to lock me up for two years, why would they let me walk for an apology and keeping my mouth shut for a while? On the other hand, if they wanted to sweep this under the rug, why would they cause such a stir by locking me up? Why do my words make that much of a difference?

With all criminal cases, of which 85 percent end in a plea bargain, the government has a strong incentive to avoid a trial: In addition to cutting the expense of a trial, a plea bargain helps concentrate power in the hands of government officials.
The revolutionaries who founded this country were ...

Continue reading...


please vote on the poll below

New gas drilling dispute: Fracking or fracing? Tripped up by the F-bomb

Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:14 am by Associated Press

PITTSBURGH —

The Marcellus Shale natural-gas industry has gotten tripped up by the F-bomb.

Not that word.

“Fracking has become almost a dirty word,” said Brian McDermott, spokesman for Gregory FCA Communications, an Ardmore public relations firm that has measured popular sentiments associated with various resource-extraction terms. It found fracking lacking, scoring even lower in positives than strip-mining.

Fracking, of course, is short for hydraulic fracturing, the controversial natural-gas recovery process. The word — harsh, threatening and vaguely profane — has become a linguistic weapon in the shale-gas culture wars. The fracas over fracturing will be on full display in Philadelphia this week as the Marcellus Shale Coalition holds a two-day conference to promote the industry.

Anti-drilling activists plan a Wednesday protest outside the Convention Center, providing a stage for some censor-defying chants employing the new F-word. The oil and gas industry is irked about what it calls mischaracterizations of fracking, not the least of which is how the word is spelled. In the trade press, it is frac.

But as the shale-gas boom took off, and the mainstream media took interest, the K got appended to frac to reduce the chance of mispronunciation. Otherwise, fracing might look like it rhymes with racing. The new spelling has an unfortunate resemblance to one of George Carlin’s seven dirty words, providing anti-drilling activists with a bounty of double entendres.

“I take exception to the fact that drilling opponents have taken to using frack as euphemism for a curse word I can’t print in this family newsletter,”

- wrote Will Brackett, managing editor of the Powell Shale Digest, a trade weekly based in Fort Worth, Texas.

Mr. Brackett now inserts an apostrophe into the noun — frac’ing — to avoid the offensive K. But his adaptation has failed to win widespread acceptance.

The gas-drilling frack should not be confused with the made-for-TV frak, a faux curse coined by the writers of the science-fiction series “Battlestar Galactica” long before hydraulic fracturing moved into the mainstream. The Battlestar producers wanted a four-letter word, so they deliberately spelled the word with only a K. The ambiguity of frack has some unintended consequences, including creating new parental challenges. One Mount Airy mother whose young son encountered a neighbor’s anti-drilling sign struggled over when was the right age to talk to her child about fracking.

The industry was pretty much caught flat-footed by the controversy, and its message of clean-burning, job-creating, domestically produced natural gas has gotten blown off course.

Drillers have been fracturing wells for decades to release entrapped oil and gas, and nobody much cared, even back in the days when operators pumped rock formations with napalm to stimulate the flow of fossil fuels. In its modern incarnation, fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into a shale seam, which causes the rock to shatter.

The process is conducted after the well bore is drilled and lined with concrete and steel to prevent communication between the deep gas-bearing rock and shallow freshwater aquifers.

Josh Fox, the director of the documentary “Gasland” that attributes “fracking” as the source of all gas-drilling evils, including some unrelated to fracturing, says his broader use of the term is justified because there would be no shale-gas development without hydraulic fracturing.

Many activists, headline writers and the public now use the word fracking to describe all aspects of gas production, not just fracturing. The industry’s insistence that there are no documented cases in which fracturing has caused groundwater contamination seems disingenuous to a public that is aware of cases in which gas-drilling caused pollution.

Whether it was a bad frack job or bad cement work that allowed methane to leak into drinking water is irrelevant. In the public’s mind, it’s all fracking now. Greg Matusky, the president of the Gregory FCA public relations firm, has a solution: Stop using the word.

Matusky’s firm, using a Nielsen algorithm, has studied the use of the word fracking in traditional and online media against other terms used in natural-resource extraction. By the context in which words are used, Mr. Matusky can draw relative conclusions about positive and negative associations.

Natural-gas drilling and horizontal drilling scored positively. Hydraulic fracturing scored much better than fracking. About the only terms worse than fracking were longwall mining, offshore drilling and gulf drilling.

“A better, more positive term is warranted,” Matusky wrote in a blog post in February. “The industry needs to identify negatively charged words and replace them with positive language.” The negative consequences of fracking have taken on near-mythic proportions. After the recent earthquake in Virginia, some activists blamed hydraulic fracturing, though no drilling was taking place near the epicenter.

“It also caused the Great Depression, the Black Plague, the October Revolution and the breakup of the Beatles,” replied Chris Tucker of Energy in Depth, an oil and gas industry group based in Washington.

please comment

Professors Fight Over Fracking Impact

August 31, 2011
By Dennis Liu

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University released a study earlier this month on greenhouse gas emissions produced from hydraulic fracturing. The study challenges a similar study published by Cornell in May.

The study by Carnegie Mellon estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas is lower than emissions from coal burning by between 20 to 50 percent. The previous Cornell study said greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas were greater than coal emissions by 20 percent.

The new findings have energized the ongoing debate over the extraction of natural gas from wells underneath New York State through the controversial method known as “hydrofracking” — a technique where a chemical mixture is pumped into shale rock underneath the ground at high pressure to break apart rocks and release natural gas.

One of the authors of the Cornell study, Prof. Robert Howarth, ecology and environmental biology, explained the contradicting conclusions of the two studies by bringing attention to Carnegie Mellon’s use of data, which he called “internally inconsistent and poorly documented.”

Cornell’s study, conducted by Howarth, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, civil and environmental engineering, and Renee Santoro, a research technician in ecology and evolutionary biology, has previously been used as a scientific reference for advocates against hydrofracking.

Their research determined that the shale gas released through hydrofracking generated life greenhouse gas emissions that were “at least 20 percent greater” than that of burning coal. This meant that using natural gas as a source of energy was “dirtier” than coal in respect to its environmental impact.

According to a University spokesperson, Carnegie Mellon’s research will in no way affect Cornell’s current ban against hydrofracking on its land, a policy that has been in place since 2010.

One significant difference in the Carnegie Mellon study was...

Continue reading...





please vote on poll below

New Recommendations Issued in Hydraulic Fracturing Review - REVISIT

Hydraulic Fracturing Review
Source: DEC

• In Reversal of 2009 Report, High-Volume Fracturing Would be Prohibited in NYC and Syracuse Watersheds
• Drilling Banned Within All Primary Aquifers and on State-Owned Land Including State Forest and Wildlife Management Areas
• Drilling Permitted on Other Private Land with Rigorous and Effective Protections
• Advisory Panel on Implementation to Be Appointed

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) tomorrow will release its revised recommendations on mitigating the environmental impacts of high-volume hydraulic fracturing (high-volume fracturing). The recommendations contain these major revisions:

• High-volume fracturing would be prohibited in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, including a buffer zone;
• Drilling would be prohibited within primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries;
• Surface drilling would be prohibited on state-owned land including parks, forest areas and wildlife management areas;
• High-volume fracturing will be permitted on privately held lands under rigorous and effective controls; and
• DEC will issue regulations to codify these recommendations into state law.

These recommendations, if adopted in final form, would protect the state's environmentally sensitive areas while realizing the economic development and energy benefits of the state's natural gas resources. Approximately 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale would be accessible to natural gas extraction under these recommendations.

DEC Commissioner Joseph Martens said, "This report strikes the right balance between protecting our environment, watersheds, and drinking water and promoting economic development."
The ban on high-volume fracturing in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds represents a reversal of the Department's 2009 draft report, which would have permitted drilling in those watersheds. The New York and Syracuse watersheds are unique in that they are the only unfiltered supplies of municipal water in the state and deserve special protection. The prior report also would have allowed high-volume fracturing surface drilling in primary aquifers and on public forests, wildlife areas and parkland; the 2011 report reverses all of these recommendations.

There will be more opportunity for review and comment on the Department's recommendations. DEC plans for a 60-day public comment period commencing in August. There is no administrative or discretionary moratorium on high-volume fracturing. By law, no permits may be issued until the public comments are reviewed and considered and the final Supplement Generic Environmental Impact Statement is released.

DEC enforcement and oversight of high-volume fracturing will be rigorous and effective. No permits will be issued until DEC has the proper enforcement capacity in place to monitor all fracturing activities.

In preparing the new recommendations, DEC engaged independent consultants to perform research, sought further information from the gas drilling industry, considered more than 13,000 public comments and studied other states' regulations and experience, including site visits by Commissioner Martens and DEC officials to Pennsylvania incident sites. Since September 2009, DEC staff has spent approximately 10,250 hours updating the document. The 2011 version contains more than 900 pages, including more than 150 additional pages of data and analysis compared to the 2009 version.

The Department's extensive review has resulted in recommendations for rigorous and effective controls on high-volume fracturing on private lands. These state-of-the-art controls include such permitting rules as:

Protecting Drinking Water

• Well water protection and other water protection: No permits would be issued for sites within 500 feet of a private water well or domestic use spring. No permits may be issued for a proposed site within 2,000 feet of a public drinking water supply well or reservoir at least until three years of experience elsewhere have been evaluated. No permits will be issued for well pads sited within a 100-year floodplain.
• Additional Well Casing to Prevent Gas Migration: In most cases, an additional third, cemented well casing is required around each well to prevent the migration of gas. The three required casings are the surface casing, the new intermediate casing and the production casing. The depths of both surface and intermediate casings will be determined by site-specific conditions.
• Spill control: All new guidelines will require that flowback water on site must use watertight tanks within a secondary containment. No open containment may be used. A secondary containment will also be required for all fracturing additive containers, additive staging areas and flowback tanks to ensure any spills of wastewater or chemicals at the well pad do not migrate into water supplies.
• Stormwater Control: New permit process requiring strict stormwater control measures to prevent stormwater from contaminating water resources.
• Regulating Water Withdrawals:
• New Legislation: Pursuant to the Governor's signing of DEC's Water Withdrawal legislation, which the State Legislature recently passed, a special permit will be required to withdraw large volumes of water for industrial and commercial purposes to ensure there are not adverse impacts.
• Permit Condition: All withdrawals from surface water bodies will be subject to limits to prevent impacts upon ecosystems and other water quantity requirements. Identification of the water source an applicant intends to use will be required and an annual report must be issued on the aggregate amount of water it has withdrawn or purchased.

Properly Handling Flowback Water:

Since the 2009 SGEIS, many drilling companies have started to recycle much of the flowback water, greatly reducing the need for disposal.

• Flowback Water Disposal: Applicants must have DEC-approved plans for disposing of flowback water and production brine.
• Drilling & Production Waste Tracking: DEC would institute a process to monitor disposal of flowback water, production brine, drill cuttings and other drilling waste streams that is similar to the handling of medical waste.
• Water Treatment Facilities: Requires full analysis and approvals under existing state and federal water laws and regulations, which must be completed before a water treatment facility could accept flowback water. This would include a treatment capacity analysis for any publicly operated treatment works facility (POTW) and a contingency plan if the primary disposal for wastewater is a POTW.

Taking Local Governments & Communities into Account:

• Local Government Notification: DEC would notify local governments of each well permit application for high-volume fracturing.
• Local Land Use & Zoning: Applicant must certify that a proposed activity is consistent with local land use and zoning laws. Failure to certify or a challenge by a locality would trigger additional DEC review before a permit could be issued.

Identifying Fracturing Fluid Chemicals:

• Chemical Identification: The 2011 SGEIS identifies 322 chemicals proposed for use in New York and includes health hazard information for each as identified by the NYS Department of Health. Applicants must fully disclose to DEC all products utilized in the high-volume fracturing process. In addition, applicants must agree to publicly disclose the names of the additives, subject to appropriate protections for proprietary information.
• Chemical Alternatives: Operators will be required to evaluate using alternative additives that pose less potential risk.

Protecting the Air:

• Air Quality: Requires enhanced air pollution controls on engines used at well pads. DEC will monitor local and regional air quality at well pads and surrounding areas.
• Greenhouse Gas Impact: Requires use of existing pipelines when available rather than flaring gas.

Conserving Habitats:

• Private Forestland: Disturbing the surface of the land is strictly restricted in forests of 150 acres or more by requiring applicants to comply with best management practices.
• Private Grasslands: Disturbing the surface of the land is strictly restricted in grasslands of 30 acres or more by requiring applicants to comply with best management practices.

Making Sure We Get It Right - Community Impacts Still Under Study:

The 2009 SGEIS did not adequately consider the community and socioeconomic impacts of high-volume fracturing. To address this deficiency, DEC has engaged independent consultants to thoroughly research these types of effects.
Specifically, researchers are examining both baseline data and the potential effects of development in the areas of:

• Socioeconomic conditions including positive and negative impacts;
• Transportation infrastructure, current road use and the impacts of increased traffic; and
• Visual and noise impacts.

DEC expects the research to be completed by July 31, 2011. This research will be considered and reflected in the final draft of the report.

Appointment of Advisory Panel to Develop Implementation Plan:

Upon final adoption of the permitting standards, the Department will implement a system of oversight, monitoring and enforcement. The successful implementation of high-volume fracturing policy will also require close consultation with local governments and communities.
Commissioner Martens will announce the formation of the High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel, which will be composed of outside environmental and industry experts, and local government representatives. The Panel will be charged with developing recommendations for:

• funding to ensure the proper oversight, monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures, including both state and county agencies responsible for drilling activities and reviewing water sampling data;
• measures to minimize socioeconomic and other impacts on local governments and communities;
• a fee structure for drilling development; and
• a mechanism for the funding of infrastructure improvements

please comment


.

The “What the Frack?” Commission will submit its petitions to the Aurora City Council on Monday, August 8, 2011

AURORA, CO

Do you live, or know someone who lives in the city of Aurora, Colorado? The State of Colorado is allowing the Oil & Gas Industry to conduct hydraulic fracturing 'fracking' in Aurora, CO.

This is unprecedented and is wrong in so many ways to the citizens and the environment of Aurora. If you can allow 15-20 minutes of your day to voice the many reasons why natural gas mining in the City of Aurora is bad, please join the rest of us.

The State Land Board is currently considering proposals to lease the Lowry Bombing Range Land for 18-98 oil wells.



In 2007, this area, near the Aurora Reservoir, was designated for conservation use and low-impact development that is sensitive to our natural resources.

Fracking for oil in this area is not low-impact and will industrialize this land and pose a threat to our air, water, soil, quality of life, and health.





Public officials from the City of Aurora and Arapahoe County have not alerted the public or provided a formal statement of concern to the State Land Board. 
 
Our petitions request that this proposal needs to come before the public in hearings, and environmental impacts must be known before a leasing decision is made. We also recommend stipulations that should be part of the leasing agreements, if fracking is to proceed, that will reduce the risk to the public and the environment.

If you are as concerned about this proposal as we are, please show up and make a brief comment to the City Council.  Our public officials have all been told by the oil and gas industry that fracking is safe: it's time to tell them it is not.

 

YOUR VOICE IS IMPORTANT

The meeting starts at 7:30.  City Council meetings are open to the public and citizens are invited to be heard.  If you want to speak (and voice your concern about  fracking), you need to sign-up at 7:30 and comments are usually heard at the beginning of the meeting. You’ll have up to 3 minutes to speak.

WHERE:The Aurora Municipal Center (City Council Chamber)

ADDRESS: 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Aurora, CO

TIME: 7:30 P.M.

The debate over fracking — the controversial oil and gas exploration technique — is set to come to Aurora as state officials consider increased oil drilling on the Lowry Bombing Range east of Aurora.

Critics of the technique, which involves blasting tons of liquid into the ground to free fossil fuels from rock formations, say it could jeopardize Aurora’s water and air.

The Colorado State Land Board owns about 26,000 acres on the range, which stretches east roughly from Aurora reservoir between East Quincy Avenue and County Line Road.

Continue reading...