Tom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

There is a move afoot by New York activists to use the SRBC as leverage to influence New York Governor Cuomo’s decision on fracking in that state.  It’s the usual suspects doing the usual things, of course, but the shallowness of this efforts represents still another low in tactics.

The anti-gas crowd, desperate to avoid bringing any economic hope to upstate New York, is at it again with a hapless letter to the governor and the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) suggesting New York use its position on the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) to go after Pennsylvania.  It’s a transparent attempt to take the edge of the Commonwealth’s success.  Pennsylvania’s good fortunes have become increasingly embarrassing to Governor Andrew (Lady MacBeth) Cuomo as he tries to avoid deciding on whether or not to allow high-volume hydraulic fracturing in his state while the Southern Tier disintegrates economically.

The letter, delivered to the DEC and the governor on June 18, purportedly expresses deep concerns about what’s happening within the SRBC region, but that is belied by the cast of characters who signed it.  They include, for instance, Maya van Rossum, the infamous Delaware Riverkeeper who would have us believe she has so many crises in that watershed one wonders how she has time to interject herself in SRBC matters.  Then there is Barbara Arindell, who the “Damascus Citizens for Sustainability,” an anti-gas group headquartered in Manhattan that claims to speak for residents of my home town in the DRBC region.   There is also the coordinator of the Lehigh Valley Gas Truth group, the founder of Berks Gas Truth, a member of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy and a representative of RFK, Jr.’s Hudson Riverkeeper group; none of who have any SRBC natural gas development anywhere near them.

There are, too, many of the usual opponents, including Kate Sindig (sic) of the NRDC, Earthworks, Grassroots Environmental Education (all funded by the Park Foundation) as well as a representative of something called the Center for the Celebration of Creation, which is out of Philadelphia.  We also celebrate creation, of course, including the organic  natural gas available to sustain our jobs and lives today with a clean, inexpensive fuel source put here for our use millions of years ago.  Somehow, I doubt that’s what this center is all about, but it’s worth considering.

It isn’t who these folks are that’s ultimately what is important, however.  Rather, its the evidence they put forth, which is plainly wrong.  Consider the following assertions:

ASSERTION:

In 2011, 86 percent of active oil and gas wells in the state were not inspected and many operators repeatedly violate the same rule at different well sites from one year to the next.  That same year, 43 gas drilling companies were cited nearly 1,200 times for activities that violated various environmental laws, yet more than 60% of these violations did not spur any enforcement action and 90% did not result in fines.

FACTS:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has increased its staff and its inspections even as the number of wells being drilled has been declining due to lower gas prices and better production.  Here is the essential data:

Unconventional wells drilled dropped by 29% in 2012, but DEP oil and gas staff increased by 15% and inspections grew by 20%.  The best part is that, even so, violations decreased by 42%.  It’s hard to get much better than this unless, of course, your objective is to portray improvements and self-correction as a dastardly scheme to avoid violations and penalties.  Unfortunately, that is the objective of many natural gas opponents who think every failure to complete a form or some similar infraction typical of most violations somehow warrants hanging and quartering because anything less might encourage the industry.

ASSERTION:

To date, the SRBC has abdicated its role in overseeing water quality within the Basin. Specifically, the Commission has failed to make any determinations as to whether Pennsylvania has prohibited and controlled pollution of the waters of the Basin according to the requirements of the Compact. Nor has the Commission examined the sufficiency of Pennsylvania’s water quality programs in light of the impacts of natural gas drilling operations.

FACTS:

The SRBC has developed a Regional Water Quality Monitoring Network that “continuously measures and reports water quality conditions of smaller rivers and streams located in northern tier Pennsylvania and southern tier New York. The data helps agency officials track existing water quality conditions and any changes in them on an ongoing, real-time basis. The stations are operating in areas where drilling for natural gas is most active, as well as other locations where no drilling activities are planned so SRBC can collect control-data.”  They monitor temperature, pH, conductance, dissolved oxygen and turbidity.  A report issued in April, 2012, concluded this (emphasis added):

While the need to maintain a continuous water quality monitoring network for all the RWQMN stations is clear, several stations exhibited water chemistry characteristics, while within water quality standards, warranting further investigation.

Continuos monitoring at 51 water quality stations over 18 months, in other words, failed to identify water chemistry that wasn’t within water quality standards despite extensive drilling activity in the SRBC region  (see photo of sampling to the right).  Like all studies, it recommends more study but this fact stands out as a rebuttal of not only the accusation the SRBC doesn’t do water quality examinations, but also the earlier assertion of “significant impacts on water resources and water resources management.”

ASSERTION:

Pennsylvania has allowed the destruction of important riparian forest buffers, increased runoff and sedimentation, forest and habitat fragmentation, spills, contamination of waterways and wetlands, including high-quality streams, impacts to agriculture and livestock, and groundwater contamination such as methane migration within the largest section of the Basin.

FACTS:

The sources offered for these assertions, interestingly, typically consist of nothing mote than speculation.  Consider for example the sources for the supposed riparian forest buffer destruction.  One is this report and this specific statement (emphasis added):

Another concern to brook trout habitat that has arisen in recent years since creation of this report is the natural gas activity in the Marcellus Shale Formation, which occurs largely in headwater areas and seeks to use headwater streams as water sources.

Notice the report says nothing whatsoever about buffers.  Instead, it merely raises a potential “concern,” offering zero evidence of any actual harm.  This is a source?

The other source is a report on Brook Trout that is based on 2006 data and doesn’t even mention gas drilling, let alone blame the loss of riparian buffers on the industry.

Likewise, the contention that gas drilling causes methane contamination of groundwater is sourced with a citation of this report from the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) program.  It is not a report about  gas drilling and methane migration, but a review of Pennsylvania’s hydraulic fracturing regulations and enforcement.  It says this:

The review team commends DEP for taking steps to ensure that demands on water resources related to hydraulic fracturing operations are addressed through a comprehensive water planning process… encouraging the baseline groundwater quality testing that is done in the vicinity of wells…requiring Prevention, Preparedness and Contingency

(PPC) plans and for requiring MSDS as part of the PPC plan…the use of Form 26R which contains the analyses and reporting requirements for hydraulic fracturing wastes transported off-site and for its annual production and waste reporting requirements that include volumes and disposition of waste hydraulic fracturing materials [and] efforts to increase staff levels to deal with increased drilling activities.

The report only mentions methane migration once to say Pennsylvania then (2010) had regulations in place and in process to “prevent the migration of gas or other fluids into sources of fresh groundwater.”

There are other similar examples but these three serve to illustrate the total lack of substance in the letter sent to Governor Cuomo.  It is a compilation of unsubstantiated assertions, speculations and worries that shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.  Given the authors and their habit of citing such material as evidence of problems that don’t exist, it’s clear they have no intention of actually influencing SRBC policy.  This is merely the latest in a long line of gimmicks being used to prolong the New York decision.  Trashing Pennsylvania and the SRBC isn’t going to work, though.  The successes here are resonating in the dying Southern Tier of New York.  That’s the problem for our friends on the other side, isn’t it?