Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Justice Delayed Leaves Only Fracking Victims Upstate

landowners and laborers - Vic FurmanVictor Furman
Upstate New York Landowner Shale Gas Activist


Upstate New York and especially the Southern Tier is a wasteland of fracking victims denied the opportunity to economically survive by fractivist miscreants.

Justice delayed has no time stamp; there are only victims and, in the case of my part of Upstate New York, the Southern Tier, they’re fracking victims. It is sad when people such as Steingraber, Ingraffea, Ruffalo, Gore and lower-on-the-totem-pole provocateurs and purveyors of misinformation (e.g., Fox, Forpeace, Scoggins, Huston, Stevens) uncareingly go to war against struggling families and property owners in the name of ideology. Not one of them can live without fossil fuels, yet they happily deny landowners in New York and the Delaware Valley access to economic assets that would pay off mortgages, tuitions, medical bills and much more, as they sit upon two of the richest gas plays in the nation. We are the victims of their shallow narrow-minded selfishness; the only fracking victims who truly exist.

The people of Upstate New York and the Delaware River Basin are denied fracking because of a flood of lies and misinformation bought and paid for by elitist foundations these fractivists represent, many for a paycheck. Killing economic opportunity is the anti’s full time job. Weapons grade uranium really?  Lying and misinformation is the anti kryptonite used to sequester the truth and squelch justice.

fracking victims

The perpetrators should be held accountable. That there have been so many foreclosures of gas rich Southern Tier farms is an indictment I’d like to file on behalf my fellow fracking victims. So many lives have been ruined as farmers and landowners have succumbed to the delay caused by ignorant self-righteous fossil fuel users who don’t even have the commitment to live up to the standards they preach and ask us to adopt.

There are hundreds of real victims of all sorts; fracking victims who, because of false narratives spun by fractivists, have had their natural resources effectively seized. Economic assets were stolen on the basis of patently phony stories from a “list of the harmed” that reads and looks like a bubble gum comic from Bazooka Joe. Meanwhile, real children with great potential are washing dishes or working jobs that won’t allow them to raise families.  They couldn’t get a college education due to a lack of funding their parents property would have provided had drilling been allowed in New York and along the Delaware.

fracking victimsThe farms up for auction and the land subdivided just to pay the nation’s highest tax rates weren’t necessary. There was a solution that required no help from anyone but Governor Cuomo chose to appease the likes of the NRDC instead. He is the reason farms and homes have been lost to foreclosure. The economic destruction of an area that should be flourishing just as well as our neighbors just 20 mile south of me in Pennsylvania is on him. He sacrificed us. Our present would have been avoided and our future preserved if not for the corruption of the Cuomo administration.

Those harmed the most, the real fracking victims, are the ones like my good friend Fred Rovente who passed away from esophageal cancer knowing Cuomo and these “damned to hell antis” took away the one hope he had for providing for his family. Fred and I shared many conversations about the falsehoods and the personal level of destruction wrought by by their lies. It greatly burdened his last months.

Over the last ten years in fact there were many of just my friends who passed; Jim, Ed, Mark, Fred, Scott and so many more who suffered from cancers, heart attacks and strokes living their last few hours or days questioning who would provide for their families.

Heartless fools will respond by saying they would have the same worries anyway if the opportunity wasn’t there, but to them I say the opportunity was there, is there, and your lying selfish opinionated activism helped kill it. It denied them the rights of Nature and right to earn a living that come with the ownership of land as well as the rights to be the stewards of that land, a responsibility and obligation no serious farmer or landowner takes lightly.

So, let me say this to you antis who drive your SUVs, fly your planes, heat your homes and BBQ on your plastic maintenance free decks. Don’t text me from your cell phones or email me from your computers with your self-righteous claims that you love mother earth and want to protect her because I know better. Your cause is little more than self-justification, for which you are willing to sacrifice nothing but the livelihood of me and my neighbors. Some of you, such as Walter Hang, collect millions from the Rockefeller family to protest that which you can’t live without, living in natural gas heated homes and operating from natural gas heated offices. Sorry, but that’s the truth even if you can’t bear to hear it.

Editor’s Note: No one among our guest bloggers writes with more feeling and passion than Vic Furman, who always captures the reality of what the Southern Tier is experiencing at the hands of Governor Corruptocrat and the NRDC gang that pulls his strings. An integral member of the gang is the Open Space Institute, where Rockefeller descendant Kim Elliman runs the show and from which Joe Martens came and went back after serving as the official executioner of fracking in New York. OSI is a land grabber out to make a wilderness of all of Upstate New York for use as an elite playground and they use taxpayer money to do it. The organization, in fact, is now out with a new motto for their land grabbing, calling it “Focus on Places to Play.” Here’s what they just e-mailed, in fact:

fracking victims

The picture, of course, is intended to convey the idea OSI wants land for the ordinary family to enjoy the outdoors but, of course, New York has millions of acres of this already. What OSI really wants is a place for elites to play away from the ordinary people just trying to make a damned living without having every opportunity killed by those who want the land for themselves. That want our land for a place to play as we economically starve.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

100 thoughts on “Justice Delayed Leaves Only Fracking Victims Upstate

  1. You continue to ignore the countless victims of the gas industry downstate in Pa. from you and refuse to meet the suffering families in the Shalefields by promoting this poisoning Industry..

    Others have seen the suffering and will protect NY from the same awful fate..

      • yes, like Ray Kemble, and countless others throughout our Commonwealth…
        Ray has been verified by the DEP in Pa. and is part of the DEP Consent Order of 2010 that faults Cabot for contaminating dozens of water wells…

        you can argue with the DEP and their determinations and the violations and fines placed on Cabot..

        One day, you may be a victim, Tom, and then will see how you feel being ignored, defamed, called a liar ….

          • Please Vera, if your BS words were to be compressed,bottled & hooked up to our energy grid, we would have no need for fossil fuels as BS seems to be self energizing

          • You mean like how far you got in bringing HVHF to New York by using Cabot as your mascot, Mr. Shepstone?

    • Vera, you ignore the countless residents with lower gas bills, cleaner air, cleaner water, more jobs, and the increased tax revenue for local, county, and state government. The Susquehanna River Basin has over 50 water quality monitoring stations taking samples continuously since 2010, and those stations are backed up by frequent lab samples taken up and down the river: the only pollution sources discovered (again) is the coal mine run-off.

      Then there’s this — “A key development since AR4 is the rapid deployment of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, which has increased and diversified the gas supply… this is an important reason for a reduction of GHG emissions in the United States.” (Ch. 7, p. 527).

      The most important international body studying climate change recognizes the role of natural gas development in reducing greenhouse gasses. New Yorkers continue to have the most disfunctional “leaders” in the 50 states. Governor “Let the science decide” Cuomo does not bother reading the facts, Vera . . . and neither do you.

        • Wow… Shale field’s Vera… you mean farm fields any and everyone but you knows that the shares is 5000+ feet below the farm fields and even a troll like you knows that it is impossible for fracking fluids or even just water to travel against gravity through more then a mile of rock to the surface. It is why you can’t name one scientifically proven case in all the farm fields of PA. Trying to relate farm fields in PA with the movie The killing Fields shows not only your ignorance but the level your willing to stoop to

        • Vera, if you live in central PA, then all of that refers to you and your neighbors. Where do you think the shale fields are? According to the scientists at EIA.gov, the Number 1 shale gas field in the US is “Marcellus Shale Area, PA & WV”. Too bad Gov Cuomo couldn’t figure it out . . it would be nice for NY to be #1 in something besides highest taxes and highest rate of population loss.

          When PA State Forest land was leased, the money obtained was used to buy another 30,000 acres of land to add to the forests: pretty good deal for leasing less than 3,000 acres, which remain in the state forest range with new open lanes for wildlife movement.

          • No Barry- it says exactly what I stated- that fracking fluids (as well as many other contaminants) have indeed made their way up into groundwater. You asked for PA, which has one of the mildest cases. If you bother to look at the literature, you will find other cases in WV and WY that are even worse. And have you looked at the hundreds of references in the DOH and DEC reports to see you were also mistaken about that? Keep in mind that I used to support fracking, until I read the scientific and govt reports that started coming out after fracking geared up in 2007-8. And even that likely wouldn’t have changed my support. But the obfuscation, misinformation and smear campaigns of the O&G industry are what did it. As you can see by Vic’s and Tom’s MO, they don’t argue with facts nor science. They twist and spin, and if anyone steps up to objectively provide evidence that they are incorrect or that the industry talking points are mostly error-filled, then they smear…… because that’s all they can do. I appreciate that you at least have offered some science. But you have done it backwards- picking studies that reach the conclusions you already hold, rather than looking at all the studies, including the meta-analysis ones, and then drawing a valid conclusion from those.

          • You are the perfect example of projection, Glenn, the cardinal sin/virtue of all radicals. Read the study and it’s clear and not at all what you say.

          • So I see that denial is all you have, since you can’t seem to read a scientific study. Funny- if I’m misreading it, then all the other sources that cite that study are misreading it too. “even a troll like you knows that it is impossible for fracking fluids or even just water to travel against gravity through more then a mile of rock to the surface.” (Vic)…………. “One of the authors, Susan Brantley, distinguished professor of geosciences at Penn State, said the results were the first to show chemicals used in drilling migrating through rock formations. And they went a good distance—1 to 3 kilometers.” Guess what- that’s more than a mile of rock. And I notice that you haven’t been able to defend Vic’s contention that NY should open for fracking by explaining how contaminants would stop at property lines. Without that, his whole argument is unsupportable. http://insideenergy.org/2015/05/07/fracking-chemicals-found-in-pennsylvania-groundwater/

      • Yes. Nyers continue to have the most dysfunctional leaders and govt bodies too it seems as well as press. And since the NY press is massive and influential across the nation, what does that say when it comes to this issue and the movement that has arisen in NY State and spread elsewhere against natural gas?

      • Ha- the science did decide Barry. https://www.health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturing.pdf
        And, as I said in my FB comment, Vic didn’t even offer an argument to the point that people don’t have property rights to the extent that they can contaminate and disrupt their neighbors air, water and health. Until that issue is solved, the idea of property rights for fracking is moot.

        • That health report was based on fractivist studies by the likes of Sandra D (look at me) Steingraber. No credibility whatsoever.

          • Well no- did you ever read the whole thing or even skim it? There is a wide source of studies in both the DOH and DEC reports- and I’ve yet to see any of their content retracted or redacted, which I assume is why you concentrate on character attacks and name-calling rather than trying to show the science is incorrect. So Tom, can you explain how property rights is a good argument when a fracked parcel would negatively impact the neighbors?

          • Glen Wahl
            I was wondering if you sent a donation to the protest site cleanup on the DAPL. WHAT WAS IT YOU LEFT IN THE FLOOD ZONE: 127 TONS OF PLASTIC, TENTS, SLEEPING BAGS HUMAN FECAL MATTER, DEAD DOGS, CANISTERS OF DIESEL, GAS AND KEROSENE,TRASH,MAGGOT FILLED COOLERS LOADED WITH ROTTEN MEAT. Why would I argue with a environmentalist like you who doesn’t give a damn what’s downstream from their protest camp.

          • Try reading carefully Tom- none of the studies have needed retracting or modifying- the science is solid that fracking is risky enough to ban it in NY. And look at Vic- can’t even stay on topic- notice that neither he nor you have even tried to explain property rights in terms of pollution crossing property lines? Or in terms of compulsory integration (forced pooling)? Care to try now, or will you and he just pretend it’s not at the core of the property rights issue?

          • Tom,

            Show the Studies by Sandra Steingraber in this NY Health Study Report?

            Under the water issues in this report , I see these researchers listed:

            Water-quality Impacts:
            Studies have found evidence for underground migration of methane associated with
            faulty well construction (Darrah, 2014; US EPA, 2011). For example, a recent study
            identified groundwater contamination clusters that the authors determined were due to
            gas leakage from intermediate-depth strata through failures of annulus cement, faulty
            production casings, and underground gas well failure (Darrah, 2014). Shallow methanemigration
            has the potential to impact private drinking water wells, creating safety
            concerns due to explosions.
            Other studies suggest additional sources of potential water contamination, including
            surface spills and inadequate treatment and disposal of radioactive wastes (Warner,
            2013). A recent review paper presented published data revealing evidence for stray gas
            contamination, surface water impacts, and the accumulation of radium isotopes in some
            disposal and spill sites (Vengosh, 2014). One recent study also suggests that chemical
            signals of brine from deep shale formations can potentially be detected in overlying
            groundwater aquifers (Warner, 2012). These contaminants have the potential to affect
            drinking water quality.

            pages 13 and 14 of the Report that Glen Wahl referenced.

        • Glenn, bet of luck, but let’s try some actual peer-previewed science, not a DEC press release written after Andy Cuomo approved the content. I suggest you should read a peer-reviewed study “The geochemistry of naturally occurring methane and saline groundwater in an area of unconventional shale gas development” from Duke University, funded by the NRDC. As Duke professor of geochemistry and study co-author Avner Vengosh said of the study,

          “Based on consistent evidence from comprehensive testing, we found no indication of groundwater contamination over the three-year course of our study.”

          Leader author Jennifer Harkness, a recent PhD graduate, noted that, “The integrated suite of tracers we used — which were developed at Duke in recent years — provides us with tools sensitive enough to accurately distinguish these subtle differences, which might be missed if you only used a handful of simple measurement techniques.”

          Vengosh noted that the paper was likely the “… first to report a broadly integrated study of various geochemical techniques designed to distinguish natural from anthropogenic sources of natural gas and salt contaminants both before and after drilling.”

          The study also included water samples from 112 drinking water wells and baseline sampling from 20 wells. By incorporating the latter baseline sampling, the researchers were able to take into account water issues that pre-date recent West Virginia shale development that has led to more than 3,000 unconventional wells being drilled in the state.

          Or you could go to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission web page at http://www.srbc.net/ and read up on their water quality monitoring net: real science, 24 hours a day, on line at over 50 locations since 2010.


          • Barry, I know it’s cherry season, but picking just two studies showing low risk that are limited geographically and temporally is just not the same as taking a wide-range of studies. Funny you imply that the NYS reports didn’t include peer-reviewed studies. Take a look at pp92-171 in the DOH report and Bibliography pp1-20 in the DEC report. Literally hundreds of studies were included in reaching the conclusion to ban. And can you help Tom and Vic out? They need to explain how pollutants can be made to stop at property lines so if a landowner wants to frack, only his land, air, water and health will be impacted without affecting his neighbors. They don’t seem to have an answer………….

          • “Peer-reviewed”

            Are you kidding? The peer reviews were done by other fractivists. The whole thing was a complete fraud.

          • Really? You are claiming that each of the hundreds of studies done in all those different universities, institutions and govt agencies, and published in dozens of different scientific journals, was only reviewed by fractivists? Wow. Take a look- they list the reviewers on each. Check out their credentials and what they do and see conclusively that you are incorrect (again). You dismiss the science and the scientists because it brings to light things your industry does not want people to know. That fracking does contaminate water, air and soil, and negatively impacts health. That’s why there are still tens of thousands of us in NY working to transition off fossil fuels, to build infrastructure for the 21st century instead of more O&G infrastructure, and to stay on guard against the dim-witted notion that NY should be opened to fracking. And that’s because we don’t dismiss the science. We form our conclusions after looking at the studies, not before like you seem to do.

          • Vengosh’s study was done in West Virginia

            and this is his appraisal of what can be found

            in different , geologic areas:

            ““What we found in the new study in West Virginia is different from what we have found in previous studies in northeastern Pennsylvania and Texas but similar to what we found in Arkansas,” Vengosh said. “That’s because geology varies by region, as do the drilling operators and conditions. Time also plays a factor. What we found in the study area in West Virginia after three years may be different from what we see after 10 years, because the impact on groundwater isn’t necessarily immediate.”

            “Using this integrated toolbox, we can conduct similar tests in as many other regions as possible, over longer time frames, to determine both the unique short-term local impacts on water quality, and the broad, cumulative long-term impacts,” he said. ”

            And the study only had 20 water wells with pre-tests to study; that is a rather small number for a study…

            also from his study: ”However, we did find that spill water associated with fracked wells and their wastewater has an impact on the quality of streams in areas of intense shale gas development.”

            “The bottom-line assessment,” he said, “is that groundwater is so far not being impacted, but surface water is more readily contaminated because of the frequency of spills.”

            what happens here in my county in northeastern Pa. can be a different story; different geology…and long-term, cumulative effects are another concern.
            and why would anyone thing that intense, industrial activity would have no negative effects on the environment….?


        • Don’t others notice the repeated use of “potentially” in Vera’s extract–the last two sentences, with my emphasis:

          “One recent study also suggests that chemical
          signals of brine from deep shale formations can POTENTIALLY be detected in overlying
          groundwater aquifers (Warner, 2012). These contaminants have the POTENTIAL to affect
          drinking water quality.”

          Lots of things have POTENTIAL outcomes that could POTENTIALLY occur, but true science sticks to things that can be measured and repeatedly verified.

          And BTW, I personally witnessed Sandra Steingraber proclaim at a fear-inducing public information awareness event, “With enough studies we are going to learn that ALL CHEMICALS CAUSE CANCER!” No credibility there whatsoever.

          • And now I note I missed another use of ‘potential’ in another sentence (again my emphasis):

            “Other studies suggest additional sources of POTENTIAL water contamination, including surface spills and inadequate treatment and disposal of radioactive wastes (Warner, 2013).”

          • You really don’t get science. Studies will qualify every conclusion they make, and hedge, since science never fully proves something. However, if you’ve reviewed the literature, you would know that there are hundreds of cases where failed well seals, spilled fluids, etc etc, have conclusively contaminated groundwater and water wells.

          • Here’s one for Glenn, who keeps insisting “if you’ve reviewed the literature, you would know that there are hundreds of cases where failed well seals, spilled fluids, etc etc, have conclusively contaminated groundwater and water wells.”

            Vera provided a list from the DEP. Here’s a couple of quotes from one of the Susquehanna cases, in a letter dated May 22, 2015:

            “The Department has investigated the possible degradation of your water supply at the address noted above in response to a September 5, 2012 complaint that recent gas well drilling may have affected our water supply. On September 6, 2012, October 24, 2012, April 10, 2013, and July 24, 2014 the Department collected samples from your home water supply. The sample results were previously mailed to you. Additionally, Mahaffey Laboratories, on behalf of Carrizo Marcellus LLC collected at least five additional samples from your water supply during that time period.

            The results of the samples collected from September 6, 2012 through July 24, 2014 indicate a decrease in the levels of the compounds that exceeded pre-drill levels in the September 5, 2012 sample. None of the parameters analyzed exceeded primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels since the October 9, 2012 sampling event.

            Because drilling activities occurred at a gas well within two thousand five hundred feet of our water supply, and the pollution occurrred and was reported within one year after completion of those activities, under section 3218(c) of the Oil and Gas Act (58 P.S. 3218(c)), the gas well operator is presumed to be responsible for the temporary degradation of your water supply. However, subsequent water sample results indicate that the concentrations have returned to pre-drill levels.”

            So even though the concentration of compounds had decreased to pre-drill levels in less than 30 days, DEP continued to test for 2 years . . . . and the compounds remained at or below pre-drill levels.

            If there were “hundreds” of cases, where is the documentation? PA is averaging nearly 7,500 active gas wells on line per year since 2011. The Susquehanna River Basin commission has had a set of over 50 real-time monitoring stations on the river since 2010, backed by manual samples and lab analyses, and they are not finding evidence of what you call “conclusively contaminated”. The latest press release from DEC about the river water quality didn’t even mention natural gas production as a potential pollution source.

            Enough with the scare tactics.

          • Nice of you to always look for the evidence and cases that don’t show contamination and ignore the ones that

            We know lots of people that are ignored .
            I’ll still advocate for those folks…

            And why can’t the lovely 213 acres below sell after all these months since we’re supposedly such a desirable and happening area…

      • Barry, try this for your assertion that Pa. has lower gas bills than NY…

        I found this with some research phone calls:

        I just did a comparison of NY rates to Pa. rates…for heating gas …

        and found interesting facts not normally publicized.

        Rates for UGI Utility in Harrisburg and surrounding cities, in Pa. is a whopping 67 cents per ccf ….or therm…

        and my son lives in Binghamton, NY and his gas rate is
        only 32 cents per ccf or therm…

        Pa. is charging their residents more than double compared to the residents in the Southern Tier where Vic Furman, pro-gasser, lives and his buddies.

        Why should Pa. residents pay more than double..?
        when we have the Savior Gas Industry rampant in our midst?

        Can anyone explain this without avoiding the issue by calling me names and telling me to live in a cave…

        have fun with this one…

        • Vera, let’s take a look at data available on the EIA.gov web site for gas and electricity costs. Price of natural gas: PA ranks 25th, at $13.22 per thousand cubic feet. Average retail cost of electricity: PA ranks 15th at 14.67 cents/kWhr. Of course in PA you’ve had at least 3 new natural gas electric generation stations come on line, and the one in Selingsgrove is well on its way to completion. At the same time Andy the Engineer Cuomo wants the NY residents to kick in a couple of billion to keep out-dated nuclear plants on line because his brilliant clean energy plan cannot deliver results. Pathetic.

          And what states have higher natural gas and electricity costs? Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and of course New York. . . . failure to add new natural gas-powered electric power generation and failure to add natural gas pipeline capacity to support the electricity demand thanks to your environmental activists.

          “PA is charging” is incorrect. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doesn’t sell gas and electricity to consumers. If you think you can sell electricity at lower cost, go ahead and start up a company and make money: capitalism is a good thing. I suggest you take a look at the abject failures of the highest-tech Ivanpah solar power plant, built with $1.6 billion in borrowed federal tax dollars, or Crescent Dunes, cheaper at only $733 million taxpayer dollars. Neither plant is performing to specification, and Ivanpah actually had to ask the California regulators if the “solar” plant could use more natural gas in their auxiliary boilers to keep the heat up when the sun doesn’t shine.

          The really sad thing about you is that you are so busy protesting that you’ve failed to notice what the federal government, more than 30 states, and the IPCC have figured out: natural gas development and use is good for the environment, good for the economy, and the cheapest, fastest way to reduce global warming.

          No name calling required.

  2. Curious–What ever happened to the Claim that the Indian Tribes in New York still own all of the gas rights? Recall it was once alleged that only surface was taken from the Tribes following various wars. Also recall as a Student at Jerry Sandusky University an attorney telling our Class that as a Commonwealth, there really were no private rights to minerals in Pennsylvania!

  3. Vera, here’s some of the direct impact of using more natural gas in New York, provided by the National Journal:

    “the number of large NYC buildings using natural gas increased from 300 to 1,300 from 2011 to 2013, according to the city’s utility company, Con Edison. The city also worked to phase out more than 2,700 buildings that relied on traditional heating oil in this same time period. As a result, the National Journal reported,

    “New York City’s air quality reached its cleanest level in 50 years in September 2013.”
    “Since 2008, levels of sulfur dioxide dropped 69 percent.”
    “Since 2007, soot pollution dropped 23 percent.”
    “According to the city’s 2013 estimate, improved air quality is preventing 800 deaths and 2,000 emergency room visits and hospitalizations from lung and cardiovascular diseases annually, compared to 2008.”

    As Michael Bloomberg told the New York Times in 2013

    “The continued health benefits of this conversion to cleaner heating fuels will make it the single biggest step to save lives since we began our comprehensive smoking control program. City government’s number one responsibility, I’ve always thought, is protecting the health and safety of our people. And when you look at the results like that, at the lives being saved and the illnesses being prevented, it tells you that we’re definitely doing something right.”

    • Why can’t you respond to my reference to how my county’s environment has not improved in Susquehanna County…
      With 50 gas compressor stations belching out their pollution and the increased truck traffic to develop 500 gas pads and all the infrastructure connected with this industrial development…

      • There’s plenty of evidence from the SRBC and DEP that neither water noir air quality have declined as you full well realize.

      • Vera, let’s check a few facts here: FERC requires that the noise level can be no greater than 55 decibels day/night average sound level (dBA Ldn) at the closest noise sensitive area (NSA). Noise sensitive areas would include occupied residences, places of worship, and other locations. There are no overriding state regulations governing noise emissions from compressor stations in Pennsylvania. According to the Penn State Extension Service, 55 decibels is equal to the noise from a dishwasher. Horrible.

        Do you happen to have an actual example of the air pollution from compressor stations in your county? I reviewed the PA Bureau of Air Quality web site and didn’t find any recent air quality alerts other than one on August 2nd for Philadelphia, which is not part of your county.

        http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/NewsRoomPublic/articleviewer.aspx?id=21262&typeid=1 is a nice press release from a couple of weeks ago about the progress DEP is making on the Susquehanna River cleanup, and it lists “where mining, agriculture, stormwater, and dams have impaired macroinvertebrate, fish, and plant life, . . . .which streams have been impaired by farming activities . . . . which streams have been impaired by acid mine drainage” but there’s no mention of issues related to natural gas development.

        Now let’s talk about truck traffic in Susquehanna County, shall we? You object to the trucks used to support natural gas development, but don’t provide any data on how many and how often. A casual glance at a map shows that Interstate 81 runs through the county, and there’s lots of truck traffic around the clock.

        How many milk trucks run around in the back hills? Ag Census data shows about 1,000 dairy farms in the county and some 25,000 cows. What’s the number one source of methane in the atmosphere, according to the EPA? Why, it’s cows and manure.

        Then there’s the trucks running on Route 6. How do you expect the food gets delivered in your county?

        From the PA department of Agriculture web site, we see that “Forest products are a mainstay of Pennsylvania agriculture. In fact, forests cover more than 60% of Pennsylvania’s land, and are growing. Pennsylvania ranks number one among the 50 United States in the production of export grade hardwood. Forest products are our second most exported product group, following only our food products. Nothing beats the outstanding quality and beauty of our black cherry, red maple, red oak, and sugar maple trees. Pennsylvania’s forest products account for nearly $700 million of the State’s many exports.” Those all move by truck.

        • you write exactly as one who does not live next to these industrial sites …..
          you don’t know the reality of it…
          you need to live with folks next to these sites for a few days
          and get the true picture..
          otherwise, you write as one from an ivory tower…

          typical response from those not living in the shale fields..

          • Vera, I live in Broome County, and I’ll be a happy guy when we get rid of Andy Cuomo and I can sign a lease for natural gas development. Friends of mine that live in your county have paid off decades of farm debt, built new barns and homes, paid for their children’s college, and now can afford to keep the family farm in the family thanks to natural gas. I do know the reality of it, and you apparently do not.

            Yes, truck traffic tears up roads, which is why road use agreements get written and the roads get rebuilt, wider and smoother than they were before. County governments get more money from taxes, people have jobs.

            Have you been to the hospital in Montrose recently? Do you know who donated one million dollars to help get it built? It was not the EDF, it was not NRDC, it was not the Park Foundation or the Heinz foundation or Tom Steyer.

            That million dollars came from Cabot Oil and Gas.

            You want to know about evidence from DEP and SRBC that the air and water quality in your county has gone down . . . ask your pals at State Impact PA. They can’t find evidence that things are worse because there is no evidence other than things are getting better. Read the press release from DEP I cited earlier, and notice that the DEP found a number of pollution sources, and none of them were related to oil and gas.

            I live on 50 acres of what used to be part of a large dairy farm. Maybe you’d prefer I clear-cut it, put up fences and barns, and bring in 299 cows to belch out methane while we run milk tanker trucks up and down the roads day and night. Single largest source of atmospheric methane in the US every year since 2009? Cows and manure. No, thanks. I’ll be happy to have 4 weeks of noise and 30 years of gas (and oil) production on my land.

          • Cabot gave one or two million to the new hospital but
            it cost 48 million and
            the rest was given by other individuals
            and others even gave one million who do not publicize themselves…
            Cabot gave 5% of the cost and that is something to crow about…!

            Nice of you to leave out all the families suffering with their lost water and degraded air quality and the noise living near the 50 compressor stations…
            why don’t you visit them on one of my tours and see how they live now…
            hope you get what you want , but you may have to move to my county to do that…or the other counties that are fracked…

  4. Glen, nothing you or I or anyone can show with evidence to folks like Tom and Vic and others will move them….

    They will support gas till their dying breath..
    They want this next to their homes and schools and farms..
    I wish they could have their experience of this without involving others …

    Any evidence will be dismissed.

    I write and show what I know for others who are silent on this list and who can check out what I write
    and see how those who oppose us, think and act…

    I will endure the abuse to get the word out to all so they can make a better decision.

    Truth will prevail and better alternatives exist and are being developed…
    so, no one can experience pollution and harm..

    • You have no idea who I am Vera even though you think you do. Once again thanks for providing Cabot with all the evidence they needed to sue Ray Kimble with your phony videos. You have become a hero to a point, to many prof gas activist.

  5. Try this for proof that natural gas has helped the environment.
    1. When New York State has statewide pollution alerts for ozone, the southern tier is not included because the air is now so clear since the coal fired plants in this area have been shuttered or converted.
    2. With the conversion from coal to natural gas acid rain in the Adirondacks has been so reduced that some lakes are actually reproducing their own trout without being stocked.
    3. Cuomo is funding 11 micro-grids fueled by natural gas from Pa, and touting them as environmentally green.
    4. And of course no one except Natural Gas Now is talking about the horrible solar economics and the cost of disposal of defunct solar arrays and solar manufacturing plants, and especially not the double standard that it is okay to export the solar environmental consequences to China, while allowing the Third World to continue to build coal fired plants while we shut ours down.

    • don’t forget to talk about all the waste from each gas well drilled and fracked in our counties…
      Tons of solid waste that has to go to landfills in NY, Pa., Ohio, NJ…
      and thousands of gallons of liquid waste to deal with per gas well…

      here is a sample from a gas pad and one gas well in my county:

      Waste Summary:
      Total Drill cuttings: 624,220 pounds (312 tons)
      Total Drilling fluid waste: 32,906 gallons (783 bbls)
      Total Flowback fracturing sand: 2,415 gallons (57 bbls)
      Total Fracing fluid waste: 1,512 gallons (36 bbls)
      Total Produced fluid: 59,346 gallons (1,413 bbls)
      Total Produced fluid (in barrels): 21,616 gallons (515 bbls)
      Total Produced fluid (in barrels) rwc 802: 2,310 gallons (55 bbls)
      Total Produced fluid (in barrels) rwc 802: 13,482 gallons (321 bbls)

      from http://www.marcellusgas.org: Mackey gas well in Susquehanna County, Pa..

      and we have 1300 plus gas wells waste to deal with….

      and What do you suggest to replace hydrocarbons …. since you consider solar to problematic?

  6. Sadly, you are correct Vera. After many years of trying to have a discussion, they have consistently avoided the facts, changed the subject, called names, tried to smear us, etc etc, and you can see them doing several of those here again. That they conclude they are winning is just one more example on their part of how starting with false assumptions leads to forming invalid conclusions.

    • Two landmark studies, one from the US Department of Energy, confirm what we’ve contended all along: The process of extracting natural gas by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is safe.

      The 18-month DOE report found no evidence that chemicals released during fracking move upward to contaminate drinking water. Instead, they remain some 5,000 feet below the surface water supplies.

      This was confirmed by a separate study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Here Ohio State, Duke, Stanford and Dartmouth researchers found that any water contamination stemmed “from well-integrity problems such as poor casing or cementing.” In other words, poor construction, which can be remedied.

      Neither of these studies is particularly revolutionary.

      Indeed, their findings mostly confirm prior research that led the Obama administration to embrace fracking as an environmentally safe way to expand America’s energy production, create jobs for the American people and make us less dependent on foreign energy.

      Meanwhile, New York remains shut out, even as our fracking neighbors prosper. The question is, will Gov. Cuomo move forward — or maintain the place of New York Democrats as the party of science denial?

    • terrible the lack of facts, the smears, changing subjects, horrible I say horrible on another note, did they close the cemetery? how did vera get loose?

  7. Sanctimonious deluded utopian NIMBYs need to stop using fossil fuels or shut up.

    That enough name calling for you? I’ll add unpatriotic…

    You have NO viable scalable energy alternatives and you could boycott the current energy system- today.

    Our side consists of pragmatic conservationists. In NY, as Vic points out, we are oppressed disenfranchised crime victims. Economic justice only applies to those the left approves of.

  8. Vera, let’s try taking about water pollution in PA. 3.5 million people in PA get their drinking water from over 1,000,000 private wells. Around 20,000 new wells are drilled in PA each year. According to date from the Rural Conservancy, 40% of all PA private fresh water wells do not meet at
    least one federal water standard. This suggests that over 400,000 fresh water wells are unsafe, and 8,000 new below-standard water wells are drilled each year in PA.

    Consider “The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies” by Boyer, Swistock, Clark, Madden, and Rizzo, Pennsylvania State University, March 2012. “Dissolved methane gas was detected in 24 percent of the 189 water wells in this study that were sampled pre-drilling.”

    Then there’s the US Geological Survey study “A Reconnaissance Spatial and Temporal Baseline Assessment of Methane and Inorganic Constituents in Groundwater in Bedrock Aquifers, Pike County, Pennsylvania 2012-2013” by Lisa A. Senior, which included the following information:

    “Results of the summer 2012 sampling show that water from 16 (80 percent) of 20 wells had detectable concentrations of methane”


    “The two well-water samples with the highest methane concentrations (about 3.7 and 5.8 mg/L) also had the highest pH values (8.7 and 8.3, respectively) and the highest concentrations of sodium, lithium, boron, fluoride, and bromide.”

    Please note that the USGS study was done in Pike County, where natural gas development has not yet begun . . . but the water is already contaminated by naturally occurring sources.

    Got any data from Susquehanna County? I mean data, not “families suffering with their lost water”. I’ve read lots of published DEP reports as they investigate claims. DEP is certainly willing to hand out violations and force the responsible parties to drill new wells, provide alternate water sources, and clean up where they’ve messed up. On the other hand, many of the incidents are not related to natural gas activities: folks who use ground water and shallow wells are going to have turbidity problems when we get a lot of rain, and then the water runs clear after a few days. Water quality in a significant number of PA wells: as much as 40% – – fails to meet Federal standards even in counties where no gas development has taken place. Give me some data, Vera: I already know that lots of the wells in PA deliver below-standard water.

    • thanks, Barry for your polite response.
      appreciate that.

      can you show historic data USGS about Susquehanna County which is heavily gas drilled and where I live.?

      I have shown plenty of data to support the negative impacts in my county; you can look up the archives on this site.

      here is DEP data on gas drilled impacted water wells:
      their list of determination letters.
      which show gas /methane levels well over the 5.8 mg/l you mention for Pike County and where pre-tests in my county showed no methane.
      I’ve been to a bunch of testing of water wells by Cabot, DEP and private tests that show no methane in our water wells..
      see this list of such on :

      I have seen and have copies and you may see this in the list of DEP determination letters, methane levels reaching over 28 mg/l and even in the 30 plus range of mg/l

      methane is just one indicator and with methane , other levels of heavy metals also rise to levels of concern…etc..

      • Vera, thanks for the list. I took a quick count, and found (I think) 43 of the 289 citations are in Susquehanna Country, with the most recent report dated 2015. StateImpact PA shows 1,079 active wells in the county, and the DEP lists 43 incidents, which is 3.9%, with the most recent report coming in 2015. This does not suggest a problem that is getting worse, Vera.

        When DEP issued their original list I took a more detailed look at the information available at the time. From the data available at the time, it appeared to me that DEP had on the order of 120 unresolved (or resolutions not reported) cases, out of a total of 198 individual water sources, since 2009. Note that in some cases there have been multiple users of a single water source, so DEP replied to each user, inflating the numbers of sources being investigated.

        The DEP letters that were published often referred to lab results in appendicies, but those were seldom made available in the on-line material available them. I haven’t looks as the newer reporting, but there was a large improvement in the level of detail after the changes DEP made in 2012. The original list had 243 entries, but when I actually downloaded and read the DEP letters linked from the list I found 198 distinct water sources for which there are complaints.

        Due to the poor administrative processes pointed out recently by the auditors, it’s sometimes difficult to figure out what the DEP has done. I counted 123 wells, 26 springs, and could not identify the water source for 49 others. DEP letters indicate that 82 of the 198 complaints, or 41%, have been resolved. 42 of those were resolved with no action required: lab testing indicates that the water quality returned to normal with no further action required. There are 116 complaints, or 59%, where the DEP letters available on line do not indicate that those issues have been resolved. That may mean that those issues remain, or it may mean that DEP did not include the final resolution letters in the material available. I suspect that the number resolved is less than the number of outstanding issues. In reviewing all the letters, it looks to me as if the changes made in the rules and regulations in 2012 have made a difference in DEP reporting. The format and amount of detail in the letters varies by DEP district office, but in general the newer the report is, the more detail it has.

        In 89 of the individual cases the reports have enough data to look at the DEP response time. In these 89 cases, where both the date of the complaint and the date of the first DEP on-site visit and collection of a sample for lab analysis is available, 45% of the initial lab samples were taken on the day the complaint was received. 75% of the cases had at least one lab sample taken within 12 days of the initial complaint. That could be better, but I was pleasantly surprised by the 45% sample rate on the same day the complaint was made. I have no data on the distances between DEP offices and sample locations, since the names and addresses have been redacted from the letters.

        What is clear is that the DEP has tried to determine what happened, who is responsible, ran lots of lab tests, and has been willing to tell the public that “gas well drilling has impacted your water supply”. Good for them. DEP is willing to say “we are still looking to find the source” and also to tell folks when tests indicate that the methane in their water is from previously existing shallow sources, not natural gas development. DEP is also going after companies that are slow to provide remediation. DEP may not be as fast to respond as we all might like, when it comes to making the companies respond, but they have to get lawyers and judges involved to produce “Orders” if the companies do not get the hint. It’s also clear that each DEP office does things a bit differently, and that needs to be fixed.

  9. Pingback: The Guilt-Ridden Elites Behind FractivismNatural Gas Now

  10. And, it should be pointed out that even though the O&G folks have posted dozens of comments, not one has provided support to Vic’s claims that landowners are having their property rights denied, which they could do by explaining how contaminations will stop at property lines. Without that, fracking is just one more thing we ban, along with burning tire dumps and other environmentally hazardous uses of one’s property.

    • We continue to have problems with gas drilling in my county in Pa. and one is issue is well casing failures..
      and still having issues in 2017 even with any new techniques and improvements:
      here is the latest this month of a well casing issue and violation by DEP for a Cabot gas well:

      PA Permit Violation Issued to Cabot Oil &Amp; Gas Corp in Harford Twp, Susquehanna County

      Environmental Health & Safety violation issued on 2017-08-21 to Cabot Oil &Amp; Gas Corp in Harford Twp, Susquehanna county. 78a85(a)5 – CASING AND CEMENTING – CEMENT STANDARDS – Operator failed prevent gas flow in the annulus and use gas block additives and low fluid loss slurries in areas of known shallow gas producing zones.
      Tags: PADEP, frack, violation, drilling

      and we continue to have folks struggle with water issues ; ATSDR , from our government , recently tested 25 homes, their water wells for water issues which happened after gas drilling next to and near them in a 9 sq. mile area of Dimock, Pa…
      the results will be forthcoming and public.

      as Glenn stated, there are loads of publications and studies showing the risks and harms related to gas drilling/fracking…

      • Vera, did the violation you cite on 2017-8-21 result in any release of pollutants? I’m not familiar with the details of how those rigs are supposed to work, but “gas flow in the annulus and use gas block additives and low fluid loss slurries in areas of known shallow gas producing zones.” does not immediately translate into a danger to public health as far as I can tell.

        Bases on data from EIA.gov on the number of gas rigs producing in PA between 2011 and 2015, the average number per year was 7,482. The data set you provided had an average number of incidents during those years of 36. That’s one incident for every 207 wells. To me, that’s a mighty good engineering record. And you’ve provided evidence that DEP does react and investigate when informed, and that doesn’t count their routine inspection programs which also finds problems and gets the contractors busy correcting those problems before they get big. Nobody is perfect, but the engineering is always getting better to prevent problems and keep lawyers on the golf course instead of in the courtroom.

        The list you provided indicates that the 2 biggest years were 2010 (with 60) and 2015 (with 53) and the next highest was 2012 (with 37). The data only lists 9 for 2016.Want to know how many truck accidents there were in PA that resulted in a spill of fuel or some other pollutant? PA DOT data for 2016 indicates that there were 6,740 heavy truck crashes in the state, 151 involved HAZMAT, and 30 of those resulted in a HAZMAT release. Tell me again about where pollution is coming from in PA?

        I’m still not seeing lots of risks and harms from natural gas development, and the air keeps on getting cleaner, and the 50+ continuously on line water quality monitors in the river don’t go off, so . . . . you are not convincing.

        • Thankfully , I don’t need to or have to convince you…
          Those who can hear me on a deeper level will hear me..
          All the trucks crashing are not changing our water so we can’t drink it any longer or change our air that makes us not feel well..
          You keep believing what makes sense to you..
          It’s a free country ..
          I can only share what I see and experience and feel and what makes sense to me….

          • You go right ahead with feelings, Vera, and I’ll keep looking at the numbers. And so did the Feds and more than 30 state governments, which is why we have cleaner air and water and an economic boom.

    • Glenn, you can write me down as a landowner who has my property rights denied because I cannot lease my land for natural gas development. My friends and neighbors across the border in PA have been able to make major improvements in their lives thanks to natural gas leasing while New Yorkers are denied the same opportunities.

      Add in all the landowners in all the coalitions in the Southern Tier of NY. Then add in the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York: I don’t know how many landowners are members. http://www.jlcny.org/site/

      “Contamination does not stop at property lines” is a cute catch phrase. Natural gas and oil shale fields don’t stop at state boundaries either, and the federal government and over 30 states have determined that development of energy resources using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing can be done (and is being done) safely every day. You are relentlessly willing to find fault and appear to be unwilling to recognize the positive outcomes from our increased development and use of natural gas. Clearer air, cleaner water, reduced use of coal for power generation (and don’t forget the environmental costs of obtaining and transporting coal in addition to the combustion end products), economic benefits for land owners, job seekers, increased tax revenues at the local, state and federal levels. This country has reduced dependence on overseas energy supplies and has even started to export natural gas, improving our trade balance and helping allies and partners reduce their vulnerability to economic blackmail.

      If the leadership in NY was actually interested in improving the lives of New York residents and concerned about public health issues, they could start with the 25,000 people in NY who die of lung cancer each year an an estimated cost of $9 billion. But being anti-lung cancer doesn’t pull in the big bucks from the NRDC, Tom Steyer, the Park Foundation, and all the rest of the deep-pocket gentry interested in keeping NY land prices down and the various regions if the state wrapped up in an endless stream of competitions for the money New Yorkers have already paid to the state. Andy Cuomo has wasted billions on give-aways and hair-brained “Job Creation” programs that only create jobs for those hired to create jobs.

      • Way to totally avoid the main issue Barry. Right now in NY, you cannot start charging people $1 to dispose of their tires on your property (thereby saving $1 or more at the county-run transfer stations). When you get too many tires, just burn them and start again. Why can’t you do that? Do you think that’s a denial of your property rights? No, it’s not, since the pollution etc from that tire dump would adversely affect your neighbors and community. Why don’t we hear you complaining about that? It’s the same exact thing with fracking, where contaminations and pollution from your activities would adversely affect your neighbors. And that’s why, unless you can show how those contaminations and pollution will stop at your property line, you have no support for your claim that you are being denied any rights. And judging by the lack of results for your side’s lawsuits, the law doesn’t provide you with any support either. Time to give it up- there are very few landowners who want fracking, as evidenced by the paltry number of FB likes the group has as well as the lack of numbers for their “huge” rally they had last year. Ask Vic- every year we demonstrated at the state of the state speech, we had thousands and you had dozens, despite all that free transportation, t-shirts and pizza. Maybe it’s time for you to realize that pumping tons of toxic chemicals underground isn’t a good idea.

        • Glenn, nice evasion. I’m not talking about burning tires and you know it. I’m talking about landowners being able to lease the land they own.

          “There are very few land owners that want fracking” you keep saying, but there are at least 1,000 of them living in Vera’s Susquehanna County.

          You and your Alinsky-trained propagandists can motivate the masses, but those same masses are heating their homes and cooking their food with natural gas, and it’s natural gas that’s making the electric power they use for their laptops and mobile phones. It’s the slow and steady decrease in the number of coal-fired electric plants and the increasing number of natural gas-powered electric generators that’s responsible for the cleaner air and water we have today.

          You can’t get over the fact that the Feds and over 30 states have all evaluated natural gas development and have found regulatory, safety and inspection rules and processes that allow the safe production of natural gas.

          The New York ban on natural gas development will not last. Demand continues to rise, and even New York’s disfunctional state government will finally figure out just how much revenue they’ve passed up. It’s just a matter of time.

          • Wow, do you live in fantasy land, thinking that you should be able to contaminate your neighbor’s air, water and land without anyone having a problem with it. And no, there aren’t 1k in Susq- otherwise you would have had more than a few hundred at your huge rally in Bingie a few years ago and you would have way more than the 697 likes on the Joint Landowners page after all these years.

          • Glenn, there are 1,079 active wells in Susquehanna County, PA: that makes me think there are at least 1,000 land owners . . . just in one county, right where Vera lives. Guess maybe you and Vera are not doing quite as good job trying to scare people as you think – – who is living in a fantasy land?

            And you should figure out the air and water pollution from the 1,000 dairy farms in the county who “contaminate your neighbor’s air, water and land without anyone having a problem with it.”

          • Glenn, congratulations on noticing that landowners in PA have the right to lease their land, while that is not true of landowners in NY. Did you remember the premise of this discussion:

            “Justice delayed has no time stamp; there are only victims and, in the case of my part of Upstate New York, the Southern Tier, they’re fracking victims. It is sad when people such as Steingraber, Ingraffea, Ruffalo, Gore and lower-on-the-totem-pole provocateurs and purveyors of misinformation (e.g., Fox, Forpeace, Scoggins, Huston, Stevens) uncareingly go to war against struggling families and property owners in the name of ideology. Not one of them can live without fossil fuels, yet they happily deny landowners in New York and the Delaware Valley access to economic assets that would pay off mortgages, tuitions, medical bills and much more, as they sit upon two of the richest gas plays in the nation. We are the victims of their shallow narrow-minded selfishness; the only fracking victims who truly exist.”

          • The only ones who get to pay off their huge debts are the large landowners…
            And what is the percentage of those in any one county?
            Ten per.cent or less?
            Most have a few acres or less or none and will still be struggling .
            Introducing gas will impact all and benefit the few..
            Like friends I know with 20 acres.or less and they are getting about 100 or less in royalties monthly…! Big deal..
            And the per acre one time price for leasing was anywhere from $25 . to 5700 per acre….not going to make anyone rich…
            Money is not the main focus..
            Keeping our air and water clean needs to be the focus..
            And keeping the dust, noise and endless truck traffic out…
            How many acres do you have Barry?

          • Vera, bad news for you: as a Susquehanna County resident you have personally benefited from natural gas development. From 2012 through 2015, 37 counties split $160 million in impact fee revenue while nearly 1,500 municipalities split $267 million. Fee revenue was distributed in Lackawanna, Wyoming and Susquehanna counties. Susquehanna ranked No. 3 statewide in impact fee revenue from 2012 to 2015. According to your county supervisor “the impact fee revenue enabled the county to hold the line of taxes and avoid borrowing, in addition to other uses.”

            Anyone within a drilling unit gets royalties once production starts, so even folks with small parcels are getting money they otherwise would not. You can’t get past the fact that 4 or 5 weeks of industrial activity is followed by 30 years of production. There is no endless truck traffic, other than the milk trucks running back and forth every day and the lumber trucks . . . Do you have a retirement plan? Is it invested in the oil and gas industry, so that you benefit from the very thing you oppose?

            Neighbors of mine who signed with a land owner coalition that had members on both sides of the NY-PA border got $5,500 per acre. I’ve got 50 acres. Make me rich? No, I was with a different coalition, so I got nothing, but when those folks were paid in January 2012 they certainly got a big head start on paying off debt, buying new cars, fixing up old homes and barns, and the money got spent . . . creating taxes and creating jobs. You completely ignore the job creation that has taken place, the amount of federal, state and local funds raised . . . .

            There are 1,076 wells in your county, and the average farm size is 170 acres (according to a real estate web site I looked at). Let’s make the conservative assumption that the royalties for those wells was $1,000 per acre. Since we don’t know if each of those wells was drilled on an average farm, the lower royalty estimate may make up for the uncertainly in actual acres of land leased. So 1,067 x 170 x $1,000 = $182,920,000. That’s going to create some economic activity and result in lots of tax colection. It is a big deal.

          • Nice try Barry…
            How many farms do we have here with 170 acres or more.
            Show real data recorded ..
            And show any real data what is the average royalty payment. Per acre.?
            I’ve seen 100 or less per acre and especially now with low gas prices…
            We wouldn’t have hundreds of landowners especially in Bradford county suing for their low royalty payments…
            One of my friends with 40 acres in Montrose and across from three gas Wells that are fairly new and he’s getting a total of about 1000 a month at this time…

            Sorry you missed the gravy train when things were hot…

            Now the Industry is more savvy and will reluctantly invest in areas that have lower gas potential like Southern Tier NY and even the northern part of my county
            All shale in Marcellus is not the same …

          • Vera, http://www.city-data.com/county/Susquehanna_County-PA.html is where I found the information that “Average size of farms: 170 acres” That’s the average, so naturally some are bigger and some are smaller. US Dept of Agriculture data from their 2012 census lists 1,005 farms with an average size of 166 acres. This is the data set where I learned about the 25,138 cows. Is that good enough for you?

            Did you ever run some numbers to compare the amount of methane generated by the cows in your county? How about the amount of truck traffic? Once a well is completed the truck traffic moves on to the next site, but the milk trucks just keep running every day over the exact same routes.

            I don’t know what the royalty payments were, and I don’t have to. My math excursion was just an example. You’ve already pointed out that some royalties were over $5,000 per acre, so I was being conservative.

            If the land owners are getting cheated by the gas companies, I’m all in favor of the landowners going to court.

            I’m glad to hear that someone you know is getting $1,000 a month from royalties. That’s going to help them out. The thing is, why are you working so hard to keep me (and the other NY landowners) from having the same sort of benefit?

            You are correct, Vera, all shale in the Marcellus is not the same. Some of it is dry, and some of it is wet, and in that case we get oil and gas at the same time. And then there’s the Utica shale underneath that . . . . sounds good to me.

          • Don’t speak for me Barry…
            I never say that gas development has improved our environment .
            And I don’t “”know such a thing”..that gas improves our air and water.

            You will have to buy land in my county and try to finally experience being gassed…

            And I did not say anyone was getting 5000 an acre in royalties…

            Talk to the landowners suing for royalties..and hear their truth.

            They live it…you only imagine it…

            You’re a frustrated landowner…
            You will have to make your money another way …

            And the farms you quote ..
            In 2012 …it’s now 2017 and the numbers keep going down and how many were dairy farms..I hardly see milk trucks going by compared to the water tankers passing me for fracking…
            We live this development and you only dream of it and imagine what it’s like …

          • Vera, I don’t need to buy land in PA, I just have to have a little patience. Once Andy the Engineer’s refusal to allow more pipelines causes the lights to go out on a cold winter’s night in NYC or Boston there will be a change in gas development plans.

            The people in my town that signed with the Friendsville coalition were paid $5,500 an acre in royalties. You do know that Friendsville is part of Susquehanna Country, right?

            “And I don’t “”know such a thing”..that gas improves our air and water.” All you have to do is read, Vera. On Thursday the Department of Environmental Protection reported 2015 methane emissions from unconventional natural gas operations increased slightly– from 107,735 to 112,128 tons- 4 percent– with more facilities and an increase in natural gas production from 4.1 to 4.6 trillion cubic feet between 2014 and 2015. That’s a 4% increase in methane with a 12% increase in natural gas production.

            Air emissions from other pollutants including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOx) and particulate matter (PM2.5) all saw decreases from 2014 emission levels.

            Even though the total tons of methane reported increased due mainly to the increase in the number of sources, the average emission per facility has declined.

            The average methane reported from each mid-stream compressor station decreased from 106.9 tons in 2012 to 97.5 tons in 2015.

            The average emission per well site was 8.3 tons in 2012 and 5.8 tons in 2015. Year to year changes in other emissions are related to a variety of factors, including where wells are drilled and types of equipment being used.

            The engineering is getting better. The rules are getting tougher, and the monitoring programs are also getting better.

            I provide you with lots of numbers and cite sources, while you provide emotional arguments devoid of references and facts. “the numbers keep going down and how many were dairy farms…I hardly see milk trucks going by compared to the water tankers passing me for fracking…” help me find a fact in there, Vera. If you live in the middle of town you probably never did see milk trucks going by. There are no working dairy farms in my town, not one parcel zoned for agriculture, but I still know that dairy farms mean milk trucks.

          • Vera, you are correct about my mis-use of the term “royalties”. I did mean the lease fee . . . . and I was trying to point out how much money the landowners got up front, and how that money would benefit the local economy as well as the individual landowners. My estimate of around $183 million was low, since I only assumed a $1,000/acre fee, and as you point out, the Friendsville Coalition got $5,500 per acre. This was a group of about 600 landowners in Susquehanna, Bradford, and (in NY) Broome county, and their overall contract up-front fee was for $165 million. That’s an average of $275k each.

          • Barry, notice that neither you nor any of your colleagues have even attempted to explain the one question that needs to be answered before anyone could entertain the ludicrous notion that NY landowners who want fracking are victims of anything. Until you do, the rest is totally moot, especially since you don’t have the numbers, the law, nor science on your side- contaminations of air, water and soil totally disregard property lines. You can’t have a burning tire dump on your property and you can’t frack. Both result in you not being able to exploit your land due to environmental reasons. Get used to it.

          • It is always the poor who are supported and given opportunity by the rich, making the whole society richer, and that has been true since before records were kept. Greek sculptors, Renaissance Painters and Composers all had to have benefactors and sponsors. Cattle and sheep drovers all had to be employed by someone with too many critters to take care of alone.

            You’d better hope LOTS of rich people are made and stay around to invest (employ other people, to make more riches) and spread their disposable income around (travel, art works, activities, donations and sponsorships).

            Much of the anti-carbon hysteria is driven by those who fabricate “we poor” versus “them rich” antagonism. That is a societal poison.

    • UNKNOWN POSSIBLE contamination boundaries is no reason for Cuomo denying Property Rights; that is just a flaky-logic excuse, generated by a non-landowner no doubt!

      The gas harvested does not stop at boundary lines, and that is why landowners in a ‘block’ are given royalties even if they refuse to sign up.

      The denial of property rights from disallowing fracking is so obvious that it does not need any argument for support.

      • Apparently it does need an argument, since you have won no lawsuits. Care to explain why? Probably not, since you can’t explain how fracking is any different than all the other anti-pollution laws we have for landowners. Btw, I own 140 acres.

        • Care to explain why the federal government and more than 30 states, including PA, agree that natural gas development can be done safely?

          • Give statements from the governments.of 30 states that gas development can be done safely and give statements from our Pa. DEP that gas drilling has not contaminated or impacted our drinking water / water Wells…

          • Vera, you and everyone else opposed to natural gas development can look up the information on which states allow natural gas development. You already know the Feds allow natural gas development. I don’t need to do your homework for you. Not all states have regulations in place, because not all states have exploitable natural gas resources, so be sure to keep track of which is which.

            I never ever said that natural gas development has been pollution free. DEP has pointed out where gas drilling has impacted drinking water. Just like ever other human activity, mistakes are made, unexpected material failures or procedural failures or human error cause bad things to happen. And one of the major and important facts you seem to ignore is that as these mistakes are made, the combination of regulatory oversight, the cost motivation for corporations, and the desire of the engineers to continuously make improvements means the numbers and scales of accidents tends to go down. EPA reporting for the past several years clearly indicates that as the amount of natural gas produced and used goes up, air quality is improving.

            You and your friends shout to the sky about the horror of natural gas, when you should be glad to see the reduced amount of coal needed to be mined, transported, and used to create electricity. You can’t seem to get over the fact that in cases where problems are documented, remedial action is taken.

            Your best shot at showing documented problems is the DEC list, and I’ve already run through the numbers to show that DEP gets investigators on site quickly, spends years following up, and frequently finds that the water quality problems resolve themselves quickly without human intervention. In other cases, remedial action is taken, from providing on-site water services to drilling new wells.

            As far as water quality in PA: haven’t you ever been to Salt Springs State Park? The saline content of the water is so high that the native Americans used it as a salt source for food. You can’t blame natural gas development for that. USGS water quality surveys in Pike County consistently reveal barium, managanese, magnesium, chlorides, and high turbidity in water where no natural development has taken place. Glenn keeps reminding us that natural gas does not respect property lines: neither does water that fails to meet Federal drinking water standards and has failed that test since before hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling were invented.

            If you and your friends are so socially aware and willing to take a stand about air and water pollution in Susquehanna County I suggest you run some numbers on the amount of methane and water pollution coming from the over 1,000 dairy farms and 25,000 cows (most recent USDA data I could find). Cows produce between 30 to 50 gallons of methane per day. The most recent DEP press release regarding Susquehanna River pollution includes agriculture as a pollution source, but does not mention natural gas development.

      • Glenn Wahl–please turn over the mineral and gas rights on those 140 acres to me for a consideration, say $1, since they mean nothing to you.

        • What gas is in New York? Google the ” line of Death” . Why do you think New York geology is different? Bunch of dreamers think gas is in New York!

          • The term “line of death” term seems to have become extrapolated and hyped-up from the way geologists talk about it (around the anthracite coal region).

            The situation of the NYers is captured perfectly by Keith Yates above — “we are oppressed disenfranchised crime victims” by arbitrary gubernatorial edict. Let the FREE MARKET decide what is “economical” or not.

            Government has always proven terrible at making ‘market’ decisions, and this one is no different.

            And even if the Marcellus thins out and becomes shallow to the north, remember there is still the Utica below that–a huge potential target, albeit more expensive to get to. And the two Utica wells in that county to the south of NY have reportedly been hugely productive.

          • Al, FYI New York produced 17,609 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2015 (last data available at EIA.gov) from 7,065 wells. And those are from the old-style vertically drilled wells, not from multi-leg horizontal drilling.

            “The Utica play spans about 60,000 square miles across Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York. The geologic characteristics of the Utica and Point Pleasant formations, which are discussed in EIA’s update, are favorable for the accumulation and production of hydrocarbons.” map can be found here https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26052

            To generate formation structure and thickness (isopach) maps, EIA uses stratigraphic correlations provided by state geological survey agencies based on data from 2,416 wells. The Marcellus currently produces in four states: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and New York. Because hydraulic fracturing had been effectively suspended (and more recently banned) in New York, natural gas production in New York reflects production from wells drilled prior to 2010.

            “The Marcellus Middle Devonian-age shale extends from New York in the north to Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and is the most prolific natural gas-producing formation in the Appalachian basin.” and then there’s “The Marcellus range is up to 950 feet thick and generally shows a decrease in thickness westward from the central part of the basin and pinches out in the subsurface along its eastern limit. The thick, potentially natural gas-rich interval extends southwest in an arc through New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and runs parallel to the western edge of the Appalachian Mountains.” and you can find a nice map at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20612

            We’ve got gas in NY, and we’ve got the finest politicians money can buy.

          • Those numbers are exactly why it is NOT worthwhile going after New York gas. Worked with gas companies who never expected the Line Of Death as in their judgement those areas looked almost as good as New York

        • You are delusional if you think they mean nothing to me. But you are equally delusional if you think I would ever allow fracking under my land. I used to support fracking and O&G, but have read hundreds of studies and reports and know that it’s not at all the benign process the industry makes it out to be. I see you like to avoid the main issue in Vic’s column, which is that he thinks fracking has absolutely no impact on the neighbors and therefore should be allowed in NY. But, the science shows that air and water pollution doesn’t stop at property boundaries. Can you help Vic out by showing that if NY allowed fracking and my neighbor signed a lease, that it would have no negative impact on my land, water and air? Good luck on that, since the studies show it likely would have a strong negative impact.

          • Glenn, you and Vera already know that natural gas development has had a positive impact on the air quality, water quality, local employment, increased tax revenues, and had a significant effect on the national economy.

            Dave offered you $1 for your mineral rights. I’ll double that.

            And if one of your neighbors signs a lease, and production starts, you will get royalties if your land is included in the production block (close enough to the well), and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

            You keep saying “the science shows that air and water pollution doesn’t stop at property boundaries.” So why is it that the science being applied by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, with their 50 continuous water monitoring stations and lab tests, have not found any of that water pollution? They’ve only had their system on line since 2010.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Powered by Max Banner Ads