* Rep. Hinchey rebuts DRBC's DeLuca, 9-30-10
* Prof. Robert Howarth warns EPA on shale gas greenhouse footprint, 9-15-10
* Editorials ("Fomenting dissent," Sierra Club takes apart Corbett on severance tax), 10-7-10
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BULLETIN 9-30-10:
Philly and NYC pass
resolutions demanding DRBC
extend moratorium on shale
gas drilling to allow studies
 |
| William Penn presides over a major event in Pennsylvania history. |
Philadelphia lies south of the Marcellus Shale and thus shale gas fracking will miss that great urban center where millions live but, like New York City, Philly gets her drinking water from northern reaches of the Delaware River Basin which are threatened by drilling. The Philadelphia Resolution (as we’ve dubbed it) gathered witness testimony Sept 28 and was passed Sept 30 by the City Council to urge the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to extend its moratorium on shale gas drilling until a cumulative environmental impact study has been done to assess the risks to water supplies in the Delaware watershead. On a statewide level, the Philadelphia Resolution calls for passage of HB 2754, introduced by Rep. Tony Payton, for a 3-year moratorium and a Marcellus Shale Study Commission which would "study and analyze the environmental, social and economic impacts of Marcellus drilling in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
Nearly simultaneously, the day before (on Sept 29) the City Council of New York City passed a similar resolution calling for the DRBC to extend its moratorium until environmental cumulative impact studies have been done, meaning a combined total of nearly 10 million people represented by these two major city councils are calling on the DRBC to extend the moratorium (and PA statewide, while NY state already has one statewide) on shale gas drilling until studies are done (See "Action" on this site for details). This is an amplification, ladies and gentlemen. This is a growing chorus of voices demanding that the DRBC (and Harrisburg) stop and think -- and study carefully -- before rushing headlong into shale gas drilling like there's no tomorrow.
(Continued in Public Comments for further coverage and testimony of witnesses)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
9-30-10:
Hinchey calls DeLuca's view of his role contrary to DRBC compact
Below is Rep. Maurice Hinchey's letter to Brigadier General Peter A. DeLuca of the Army Corps of Engineers who represents President Obama and the administration on the Delaware River Basin Commission. In a previous letter to Rep. Hinchey (D-NY), Gen. DeLuca saw his role on the Commission as “supporting the economic needs of the region and our nation's need to secure energy reserves while protecting the environment." Hinchey disagreed with the first two-thirds of this assertion by DeLuca as to “economic needs” and “securing energy reserves,” since those views of his role contradict the DRBC compact which mandates that he attend to protecting the Delaware watershed. The compact makes no mention of “economic needs” or “securing energy reserves.” Hinchey's letter below walks us through it, revealing a shocking lack of understanding on DeLuca's part as to why he sits on the Commission.
The Obama administration wants the DRBC to fast-track its regulations to get drilling started in the protected watershed without waiting for USGS or EPA studies. USGS study funding was approved by the House and is now being considered by the Senate; the EPA study has begun and is expected to finish by the end of 2012 (two years). The Philadelphia City Council (see story) has just passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on new rig permits in the Delaware River Basin as well as in PA statewide to allow time for one or both of these studies to be completed. NY state already has a moratorium in place but only for one more year (through 2011).
Rep. Hinchey's letter appears in 4 pages below; click on each page; then click again to enlarge to read; hit "Back" button to return to next letter page:
Howarth says shale gas "probably as dirty as coal -- could be marginally better or substantially worse"
Those are the "error bounds" described by an independent environmental scientist we met in Binghamton NY. On 9-15-10, attending the EPA meeting on hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, professor of ecology and environmental biology, Robert Howarth, Ph.D., told a news conference that natural gas extracted from shale is nearly as dirty as coal or perhaps even dirtier in terms of greenhouse gas footprint. This is because of methane leaks and ventings over the lifecycle of shale gas production. Methane (which makes up most of natural gas) is far more potent than CO2 in worsening the greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change.
Howarth's statement is big news in the PR battle the gas industry is waging to convince the public that shale gas and its production are "clean and safe." "Natural gas is not the clean fuel we've been led to believe," said Prof. Howarth, certainly not a good "bridge fuel" to get beyond coal to sustainable green energy. See Howarth's preliminary study; also see our essay on this site "Fracturing the Talking Points" which takes apart the industry PR campaign saying natural gas is clean and safe. It's neither. The "unclean" qualities of shale gas are described by Prof. Howarth's research in terms of methane leaks and ventings which, cumulatively, leave a major greenhouse footprint considered "dirty" in the jargon of science examining it. Prof. Howarth expects that his Cornell team will have an updated report on their methane findings "in the next month or so."
A commenter on Bluedaze, a Texas drilling reform website, said on 9-20-10: "On top of all that there's the acid gas stream that is vented to the air during gas processing at amine treatment plants. These shale gases can contain some 6% to 40% CO2 which is vented to the air. More greenhouse gases."
Below is a video clip we caught of Howarth's remarks at Binghamton (1:28). It starts in midsentence where he's saying "EPA has a paltry budget for this study" of shale gas extraction and hydrofracking but he encourages EPA to press on. He suggests, "It's foolhardy to push ahead [with shale gas extraction with high-volume hydraulic fracturing] until we get the EPA study" (not due out until end of 2012). We agree.
See "EPA Comments" on this site and send your own written public comments by deadline Sept 28 midnight. Copy your comments to us at Public Comment and we'll run 'em here.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EDITOR'S COLUMN 9-16-10
"Fomenting dissent"
 |
| EPA meeting met at Forum Theater in Binghamton NY, Sept 13 and 15, 2010. |
Pro- and anti-drilling groups were widely separated 50 yards apart; tightly controlled behind barricades and monitored by police. Above are pro-drillers setting up early in the morning before crowds arrived. The wide separation of camps appeared to anticipate violence or riots. In fact, all parties were courteous and some even interested in the others' point of view. A special point of agreement between some pro-drillers and anti-drillers was concern about PA not yet having a gas extraction tax (severance tax) to help pay for regulations -- and possibly not getting one or getting a watered-down tax. Even the most vociferous pro-drillers we met saw the need for regulation of shale gas drilling to insure safety ("safe drilling now," they chanted) and hence the need for a robust severance tax in PA to help pay for it (more on severance tax below). Several pro-drilling people at Binghamton got the rightness of this logic, especially when they considered their own chant, "safe drilling now" and had to explain how they were going to keep drilling safe without effective regulation to monitor drilling activities and without a severance tax to pay for that regulation.
An alliance of pro- and anti-drillers on the severance tax, even a minority group, could be a potent PR threat to the industry, just as an alliance of doubts about the supposed "cleanness" and safety of shale gas. Is this one reason pro's and anti's were kept separated at Binghamton?
A smart mayor (Binghamton's mayor is an anti-drilling progressive) would have placed a few chairs in the center between the camps to let them sit together and chat, and let police enforce peacefulness of the chat. Both extremes would have shed some of their extremeness just by talking. It's natural. We look for associations (like the severance tax). We share facts. When facts are clearer, agreement is closer. We let our stereotypes of each other slip away. But that simple town square process would not have fit the frame of media or high officials who expect people who greatly disagree to be violent, especially the anti-drillers whom they see as "emotional."
The situation in Binghamton was disagreement between citizens, unlike Vietnam war demonstrations which were largely citizens protesting government policy. At that time there was violence in part because average citizens who protested government war policy couldn't sit down with high officials and could only make themselves heard by rioting. In Binghamton that was not the case.
This says to us that the enforcement going on in Binghamton might have been to make sure not government interests (keeping "order") but corporate interests were served by keeping the opposition to gas drilling penned and separated from citizens who favored drilling or had leased to gas companies because, one wonders, the anti-drillers, loaded with research information about risks of environmental damage and harm to human health, might influence the pro-drillers to reconsider their decision to sign up for huge bonuses and royalties. The mayor might have reversed field and ground to enforce peaceful dialog rather than separation.
Jay Tanley wrote in HuffPo 9-16-10 regarding PA Gov Rendell's Office of Homeland Security surveillance of anti-drilling groups (among others):
The "intelligence" bulletins containing the details of anti-drilling activism were sent not only to law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania, but also companies drilling gas in the Marcellus Shale. In an email obtained by drilling opponents, the OHS director James Powers wrote, "We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies." (emphasis ours)This last sentence of Mr. Powers (interesting name for this discussion) shows government fending for corporate interests while dissenters are thrown to the wolves of a popular perception of them as potential criminals because of their dissent with the corporate line and industrial actions like the shale gas craze.
Powers clearly defined "stakeholders" as the shale gas companies without including opponents among average people who are also stakeholders who include all citizens of Pennsylvania, even if they dissent. Gov. Rendell should have fired Powers on the spot but instead said he "took all responsibility." If that were true he would have fired him.
“Fomenting dissent” is the key phrase. Usually the phrase is “fomenting violence,” so in Powers' phrasing dissent was conflated with violence, a powerful denigration of dissent. Dissent by definition implies a minority position in face of some sort of majority, like a dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court, not necessarily or even usually violent. The dissenter is usually the smaller force, yet dissent is feared in some political contexts like the shale gas issue -- by whom and why?
If OHS is not capable of distinguishing between a few vaguely defined acts of vandalism and a serious terrorist threat, they should not be in the "homeland security" business (and given the OHS subcontracted security to a private contractor, it is apparently a profit-making "business.")
Federal and local law enforcement and state government in this case, acting on behalf of corporate interests of the gas industry, were fearful not of violence (which they possess the force to easily quell), but of dissent which can spread to the media and infect the general public with doubts about the headlong boom toward shale gas extraction like there's no tomorrow.
“The Marcellus Shale industry is paying big bucks to push their drill-hard-drill-fast-before-science-and-regulators-can-catch-up agenda in Pennsylvania,” said Amy Wilson of Protecting Our Waters. “Tom Ridge is their best PR tool right now, and we have to wonder whether Ridge in turn used PA Homeland Security as a tool against clean water/public health advocates, as part of a public relations strategy to delegitimize anyone who questions the industry.”
Lisa Baker, Republican state senator in PA, is holding a hearing to examine this incident A to Z, with special focus on the private contractor who created the bogus terror watch list including peaceful groups like gays and lesbians as well as pro-drilling activists. She's the sort of Republican (on this issue and in her skepticism about shale gas drilling) who gives Republicans a good name. Her letter to Gov. Rendell 9-16-10 included the following:
This will have a chilling effect on public activism at a time when it is critical for diverse views to be part of the debate. Understandably, critics of state government see this as an effort to intimidate them.
Concerned citizens and community activists have underscored the need for sufficient environmental and community protections. This sort of involvement should be commended, not retaliated against.
In your recent news conference, you anticipated some of the unhappy consequences of this unfortunate decision. While your apology was well made, it does not cover the concerns of those wondering if they are on a list, and if so, whether that might cause complications in any number of circumstances.
A woman emailed me to ask what might happen when she tries to board a flight in a few weeks. She has no way of knowing if her name may have been circulated, and what difficulties that may pose. In fairness, any individual or group appearing on a list should receive a letter ofapolory that contains an assurance that state government will take follow-up measures to ensure the removal of information improperly disseminated.Per Pro Publica 9-8-10:
Anti-drilling activists in [PA] say that public hearings and other events have been peaceful and that they see no evidence of violent opposition. Given the lack of evidence about "extremist" crimes, they say, the bulletin casts drilling opponents as criminals and threatens to stifle open debate.
"It may very well be designed to chill peoples' very legitimate participation in public decision making," said Deborah Goldberg, an attorney with Earthjustice, a national group pressing for stronger environmental protections. "If people who have concerns fear that they are going to be treated as a security threat they may very well be afraid to go and express their views."
 |
| Unquelled and unbowed, a public commenter addresses EPA panel, putting all her best thinking and research into two minutes flat. Photos by Dissenta |
UPDATE: Mr. Powers resigned from Gov Rendell's Office of Homeland Security on Oct 1, 2010. A few days earlier he apologized "to any individual or group who felt their constitutional rights were infringed upon because they were listed in the bulletin" (terrorist watch list). Yet another reason for Powers to resign -- his weaseling apology failed to clearly state that his terror watch list in fact infringed upon all citizens' constitutional rights by infringing in fact upon some, as opposed to the hypothetical that those citizens (and only some of them) "felt" that way, as though it were an emotional and not a legal/Constitutional issue.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SIERRA CLUB TAKES APART CORBETT ON SEVERANCE TAX
SIERRA CLUB TAKES APART CORBETT ON SEVERANCE TAX
Corbett's Shale Gas Ads Mislead the Public
In the last week, gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett has launched two campaign ads that focus on Marcellus Shale drilling and the severance tax. The first, a radio ad, refers to the severance tax as “a huge extra tax on drillers” that will: “make it more difficult for companies to compete, kill jobs, and increase utility bills.” The second, a TV spot, calls a severance tax “a massive Pennsylvania energy tax that will kill jobs and drive up utility bills.” These statements paint a dire and inaccurate picture of the economic impacts of a severance tax. PennEnvironment, Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club ask Mr. Corbett to pull these ads off the air.
“These ads are pure and simple fear mongering without any facts,” said Myron Arnowitt, PA State Director, Clean Water Action. “The reality is that communities have had their drinking water contaminated by gas drilling. It’s only fair to ask these multinational oil and gas companies to pay to clean up the damage.”
“A massive/huge extra tax”: Pennsylvania is the only major gas producing state require gas drillers to pay for our natural resources. Montana charges an effective rate of 7.5% on gas drillers. New Mexico: 7.3%. Oklahoma: 6.7% The proposals for a PA severance tax fall into this same range. Pennsylvania is also the only state in which property taxes cannot be collected on drilling rights, lowering the Commonwealth’s overall tax rate for drillers. It’s not a huge tax, it’s a tax that’s in line with established practice throughout the country and one that drillers expect to pay. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a drilling executive from Dallas told Rep. Karen Beyer (R., Lehigh) that the industry is willing to pay a production tax. Beyer called Pennsylvania's lack of an extraction tax "an outrage."
“Drilling poses serious risks to Pennsylvanians and our environment. A severance tax will compensate communities and fund projects that repair environmental damage,” state Dennis Winters, Chair of Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania Chapter. “It is time the drillers pay their fair share in Pennsylvania. The public deserves to be told that the severance tax is a tax on producers and not consumers. Mr Corbett seems to be running the same ads as the American Petroleum institute, the industry’s mouthpiece.”
“Drives up utility bills”: Gas is bought and sold on a worldwide market and the production price of any single gas source has a negligible effect on the market rate. Currently, most Pennsylvanians get their gas from out of state, from states that already impose a severance tax. Gas that is produced in Pennsylvania goes into the same gas market as the gas from everywhere else, meaning that an increased production cost in Pennsylvania due to a severance tax will have little bearing on the price paid by consumers.
“Mr. Corbett’s advertisement feels a bit like an Alice in Wonderland scenario where everything is topsy-turvy,” stated David Masur of PennEnvironment. “The environmental community by and large has vocally supported the passage of the natural gas severance tax so for Mr. Corbett to attempt to claim the environmental high ground on this issue by opposing the extraction fee is a bit ridiculous.”
“Kills jobs”: The argument that a severance tax will kill jobs is based on the idea that a tax will slow the production of gas in Pennsylvania and thus delay the creation of drilling jobs. This argument supposes that increased taxation will lead to less drilling. The massive amount of drilling currently occurring in Texas, Colorado, and the other states, each of which currently maintains a severance tax, belies this argument. Pennsylvania’s location, next to the major gas markets of the American northeast, means that Pennsylvania drillers will always have an advantage over other states due to decreased transportation costs. Additionally, a recent Penn State study* reports that a severance tax will actually create jobs in Pennsylvania. The study predicts that for every $100 million paid in severance taxes, the Commonwealth will see a net job gain of 1,100 jobs. Meanwhile, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development estimates that 70% of the jobs at Marcellus Shale sites currently go to workers from out of state. The job increase from state and local spending based on a severance tax would employ primarily Pennsylvania workers, meaning that the net job gain for Pennsylvanians would be even higher than the study reports. The real truth is that failing to enact a severance tax will cost Pennsylvania thousands of jobs each year.
“If you want to lead Pennsylvania, misleading its citizens is a bad place to start,” said Josh McNeil of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. “Mr. Corbett needs to take down these deceitful ads.”
Neither the Sierra Club nor Clean Water Action has made an endorsement in the Pennsylvania Governor’s race. Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania and PennEnvironment have endorsed Dan Onorato.
-- authored by Sierra Club, 10-7-10
