I wouldn't call it unprecedented, but its definitely rare. EPA has been forced to cancel a public meeting because the venues that can hold the number of people they'll be attracting are a little too nervous about hosting it.
With three meetings in the can on its quest to gain insight into how to study hydraulic fracturing, EPA has to reschedule its meeting for New York. Originally scheduled for Thursday Aug. 12 at the University of Binghamton, then for Syracuse, its the meeting every anti-drilling activist in New York wants, but no public venue in New York wants to host.
The University of Binghamton actually tried to raise venue rent on EPA from $6,000 to $40,000 to discourage them from holding the hearing on their campus, once they had a reality check about what is likely to transpire when the meeting is held. Public safety folks in Syracuse told EPA it simply could not have enough security ready for this event on such short notice.
Rumor has it EPA, which apparently understands the problem completely, is expecting over 5,000 people. That's not a public hearing. That's a small rock concert.
Many who read my blog know that even in my attempts to be completely honest about my opinion and use my real identity in my discussions on drilling as to avoid anyone telling me I'm hiding my industry ties, I have experienced first hand the rage of many anti-drilling activists. I've been called some pretty ugly names by people I've shared my opinions with. I've had my life threatened by an activist from a prestigious institution. My evilness has been compared to that of the ultimate villain, former Vice President Cheney, in the online comments section of The New York Times. Twitter has blocked people from viewing my tweets on account of their anti-violence policy.
Most pro drilling people I speak with tell me I'm more than cordial and straightforward with my adversaries. At least more than they admit they would ever be. Many jokingly chide me for trying to share what I know with people who don't want to know it. Some former colleagues have been wholeheartedly concerned for my safety.
My point is this. I don't blame EPA a bit for rescheduling. Anti-drilling activists in New York are, to their credit, passionately dedicated to their view point. Quite frankly, without a real security presence, someone is likely to get hurt. Potentially seriously hurt.
I ask everyone planning to attend this meeting (and I know a number of you on both sides) when it is rescheduled to go in the spirit of true democracy -- to share ideas, regardless of how disparate they may be, not to insult those who do not share your view, and to refrain from any kind of violence or outbursts. Don't boo people or heckle them. Respect the liberties we've been given to share our ideas and opinions with our government in a way that would make our forefathers proud.
Finally, please remember what EPA is holding this meeting to do. They are looking for ideas on places to research the alleged impacts of fracturing. Give them what they need. Locations to study. They've heard every argument and theory about how fracing can poison water. That's the reason for the study in the first place.
Everyone -- activist or industry shill like me -- wants to see this study done correctly so this debate can put to rest once and for all.
No one needs to be harmed or demeaned in the process.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The PA Land Trust Proves "Trust" has Nothing to Do With It
The Pennsylvania Land Trust released some of its own research last week that should quite frankly embarrass anyone who belongs to the group.
According to the "study," which was hardly scientific, 43 major drillers in PA had 1400 some violations to date since 2008. Or was it 900 some? Or 1500 as the Patriot News reported? I guess it doesn't matter -- like the use of accurate research techniques in this case. Or even accuracy in violation description. Anyway, the media sure couldn't figure out what they were saying -- they reported all of these numbers.
First, JW Operating is not a driller. They're a service company. They can get violations as well, and may have even drilled a well of their own, but its wrong to include them in company with major E&P's like Talisman and Chief. The study calls the companies addressed "major" drillers. JW is not a "major" driller.
Second, not all of these drillers drill the same kind of wells. For instance, MDS drills almost all vertical wells in the Marcellus. Most of the other big guys do multiple horizontals on one pad. Once again, apples and oranges. MDS is a local spin off of another local driller, that mainly does conventional work. I would hardly put them in the same box as Anadarko, Chesapeake or Range Resources.
If you look at the study and read some of the descriptions of of violations, there are major mistakes here. My personal favorite in the description of remediation violations. Here the Land Trust gives a description of well plugging or closing which occurs when the well is no longer producing. In fact, drillers are required to remediate land that's been drilled on when their work putting the well into
production is complete. What that basically means is land where wells are actively producing gas has to be remediated on and around the pad. There is equipment left behind there, like tanks and tending equipment, but there is no rig, the ground is reseeded, and vegetation is regrown there. Here's a picture of what a site like this (worked on by one of the so-called big violators here) looks like.
There's another interesting omission here. Sure there are violations -- no permitted business operates without them. Ask US Steel or Horseheads Co. In fact, its not commonly known, but DEP can actually give a well site operator a violation for doing something BETTER than it told DEP in the permit it would do something. So, if during operations, the well drillers find there is a better, gasp, more environmentally responsible way of doing something, DEP can actually issue a notice of violation to them, if that better practice was not included in the permit in the list of "best practices" the company said it would be using. Stupid, huh? When people should be getting patted on the back for innovation, they get slammed. Anyone who's ever worked in government regulation knows some of these could well be paperwork violations. For instance -- some one pulled the posted permit from the cute little tube at the site entrance and didn't put it back fast enough. Or, as in the early days, some activist with a little savvy stole it from the tube and called DEP to tell them the operator didn't have their paperwork posted.
In reality, violations get listed when inspectors -- particularly the green (not eco/but wet behind the ears) ones, make mistakes or don't know how to properly interpret a reg. Or as I discussed in an earlier entry, just don't communicate well with the people on the site. They go back to the office, send their report off to their supervisor, then, once approved off to the person who's name is on the permit, usually someone in corporate, and then, after someone reads it and alerts the site team to fix it, the inspector is back saying "You didn't do what I said to do."
So take those 900, er, 1400, er 1500 violations with a grain. The Land Trust can't even correctly identify what those violations are.
And just for good measure, there's likely a little bit of sour grapes here, too. Big surprise. If you don't know what a land trust does, it purchases a land owner's development rights to their property to "conserve" green space. Prices are usually not even near what a developer -- or a gas royalty -- would pay. Sounds ok though, until they tell you they'd also like you to set up a fund to sustain (basically upkeep) your property. So in essence, they pay below what someone else would, and then ask you to keep paying for keeping it up, as if you'll ever reap any other benefit from it. Needless to say, they don't do so good with this with average property owners. I know, because I explored it once to conserve a historic piece of property I own.
Funny thing is, drilling, in the last few years, has preserved more small Pennsylvania farms than the Land Trust could hope to. And no one gave up their development rights, or was asked to pay to upkeep something they had no hope of benefiting from any longer. Nope -- they got a first bonus payment, and then for those where wells have made it through cries of "go slowly!" to drilling, a sustaining royalty payment. Check out PIOGA's web site for details: www.PIOGA.org.
According to the "study," which was hardly scientific, 43 major drillers in PA had 1400 some violations to date since 2008. Or was it 900 some? Or 1500 as the Patriot News reported? I guess it doesn't matter -- like the use of accurate research techniques in this case. Or even accuracy in violation description. Anyway, the media sure couldn't figure out what they were saying -- they reported all of these numbers.
First, JW Operating is not a driller. They're a service company. They can get violations as well, and may have even drilled a well of their own, but its wrong to include them in company with major E&P's like Talisman and Chief. The study calls the companies addressed "major" drillers. JW is not a "major" driller.
Second, not all of these drillers drill the same kind of wells. For instance, MDS drills almost all vertical wells in the Marcellus. Most of the other big guys do multiple horizontals on one pad. Once again, apples and oranges. MDS is a local spin off of another local driller, that mainly does conventional work. I would hardly put them in the same box as Anadarko, Chesapeake or Range Resources.
If you look at the study and read some of the descriptions of of violations, there are major mistakes here. My personal favorite in the description of remediation violations. Here the Land Trust gives a description of well plugging or closing which occurs when the well is no longer producing. In fact, drillers are required to remediate land that's been drilled on when their work putting the well into
production is complete. What that basically means is land where wells are actively producing gas has to be remediated on and around the pad. There is equipment left behind there, like tanks and tending equipment, but there is no rig, the ground is reseeded, and vegetation is regrown there. Here's a picture of what a site like this (worked on by one of the so-called big violators here) looks like.There's another interesting omission here. Sure there are violations -- no permitted business operates without them. Ask US Steel or Horseheads Co. In fact, its not commonly known, but DEP can actually give a well site operator a violation for doing something BETTER than it told DEP in the permit it would do something. So, if during operations, the well drillers find there is a better, gasp, more environmentally responsible way of doing something, DEP can actually issue a notice of violation to them, if that better practice was not included in the permit in the list of "best practices" the company said it would be using. Stupid, huh? When people should be getting patted on the back for innovation, they get slammed. Anyone who's ever worked in government regulation knows some of these could well be paperwork violations. For instance -- some one pulled the posted permit from the cute little tube at the site entrance and didn't put it back fast enough. Or, as in the early days, some activist with a little savvy stole it from the tube and called DEP to tell them the operator didn't have their paperwork posted.
In reality, violations get listed when inspectors -- particularly the green (not eco/but wet behind the ears) ones, make mistakes or don't know how to properly interpret a reg. Or as I discussed in an earlier entry, just don't communicate well with the people on the site. They go back to the office, send their report off to their supervisor, then, once approved off to the person who's name is on the permit, usually someone in corporate, and then, after someone reads it and alerts the site team to fix it, the inspector is back saying "You didn't do what I said to do."
So take those 900, er, 1400, er 1500 violations with a grain. The Land Trust can't even correctly identify what those violations are.
And just for good measure, there's likely a little bit of sour grapes here, too. Big surprise. If you don't know what a land trust does, it purchases a land owner's development rights to their property to "conserve" green space. Prices are usually not even near what a developer -- or a gas royalty -- would pay. Sounds ok though, until they tell you they'd also like you to set up a fund to sustain (basically upkeep) your property. So in essence, they pay below what someone else would, and then ask you to keep paying for keeping it up, as if you'll ever reap any other benefit from it. Needless to say, they don't do so good with this with average property owners. I know, because I explored it once to conserve a historic piece of property I own.
Funny thing is, drilling, in the last few years, has preserved more small Pennsylvania farms than the Land Trust could hope to. And no one gave up their development rights, or was asked to pay to upkeep something they had no hope of benefiting from any longer. Nope -- they got a first bonus payment, and then for those where wells have made it through cries of "go slowly!" to drilling, a sustaining royalty payment. Check out PIOGA's web site for details: www.PIOGA.org.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Is Science Debatable?
Growing up, I was more than a pretty good student -- except when it came to science and math. My father, an engineer, used to wonder why that was, and tell me the great thing about science and math was that there was only one answer -- you knew if you were right or wrong for the most part.
When I went to work for the PA Department of Environmental Protection as an adult, I learned that I should have paid more attention. But I also learned, through my interaction with a voluminous number of citizens, that there were more people like me when it came to math and science -- and government, too, but thats another posting.
Looking at the news of late, I'm beginning to wonder why so many people think the various laws of science, physics, chemistry and the natural world are open for debate.
Just today, I was reading about a study done by Cornell University that asked New Yorkers if they believed the environmental risks of gas drilling were worth the economic benefit to the state. Apparently, there is some difference across geographical boundaries when it comes to how New Yorkers answer that question (surprise, surprise, pepole in the city are more likely to believe fracing is environmentally bad). As a marketer, I understand the reason for the poll. But this isn't exactly a consumer question like "Do you like ice cream?" Its a question thats asking people for opinions on things they are not necessarily qualified to make a determination on. Its like asking "Do you believe in gravity?"
Have we regressed so far in our educations that we now believe we can question the laws of nature when they don't suit our needs? Take the gentleman in Avella, PA who claims his water was contaminated by gas drilling. Atlas Energy, the company in question tested his well and found nothing. (Note: the testing isn't actually done by the company, they hire a lab qualified to do the work). DEP came out and tested the well next and found the exact same thing. Spokeswoman Helen Humphries said on KDKA-TV last week that the samples came back as your basic Western Pennsylvania water. Basic PA water doesn't include chemical concentrations that are of concern when it comes to human ingestion. But of course DEP is lying -- they are in cahoots with industry, doctoring the the lab results of two independent laboratories. Yet no one else is forking over the money to have it tested again.
Its no wonder those Asian kids keep beating Americans in science and math. We seem to think we can manipulate scientific law for our own purposes. Or at least make facts essay questions.
One petroleum geologist who testified at the EPA hearing last week wrote in the Post-Gazette this week that he was booed and cursed by the audience for giving a simple scientific explaination of how fracing works, and how its severely unlikely it could cause acquifer contamination. He warned anti-drilling interests who seem committed to doing everything they can to vilify this process that the only way the would ever be able to really do this was to overturn the laws of physics. More letters to the editor telling him that his years of education and experience in science didn't prove a thing ensued.
A gentleman I follow on LinkedIn with a scientific background may be the one who put it best. He noted that this same controversey follows most environmental discussions. Industry finds new technology, puts it to work, and finds out that its a great way to do things. Concerned citizens question the process and ask for explaination. In most cases that brew to this extreme, many in the general public cannot grasp the intricate scientific details of the question they asked, are somewhat concerned that they don't understand, and in their own ignorance, decide that the principal or process in question is wrong or polluting beacuse they don't get it. That and the fact that today people take their environmental science from Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo -- people who know absolutely nothing about science, except that people like them will think they're smart and altruistic and spend $10.50 a piece to see their new movie.
Somewhere along the way we decided that its bad for Exxon to make a profit, and beacuse Dick Cheney (who by the way isn't an oilman -- he was in government his whole life until Haliburton hired him to help get contracts between Republican administrations) isn't Miss Congeniality that there isn't a single trustworthy person in the oil and gas industry. And yet, the majority of people refuse to curtail their energy use to make dependence on these "evil" people less necessary. Lets forget the fact that the people out there risking their lives everyday, and some not risking their lives but working hard for the industry none the less, produce the energy we need to make the world work. Without them, there are not LCD TVS, heating, cooling, Blackberries or Wiis.
These folks have years of experience doing what they do, and prior to that, years of education in science and math and all of that boring, way-over-our-heads stuff none of the rest of us ever wanted to master on our own. And we have the audacity to believe a 21-year-old unemployed kid with a video camera when we want scientific facts.
As my dad, who has been right before, tells me all the time, this little problem of ours is why this country doesn't make anything anymore. Or more acurately, why we are now, and will likely continue depending on people who hate us for energy.
Good thing we got the Industrial Revolution out of the way before the environmental extremism came along. Instead of builiding the modern world through people like Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Ford, and Whitney, we'd still be in public forums asking them to explain how they could possibly be smarter than any of us.
When I went to work for the PA Department of Environmental Protection as an adult, I learned that I should have paid more attention. But I also learned, through my interaction with a voluminous number of citizens, that there were more people like me when it came to math and science -- and government, too, but thats another posting.
Looking at the news of late, I'm beginning to wonder why so many people think the various laws of science, physics, chemistry and the natural world are open for debate.
Just today, I was reading about a study done by Cornell University that asked New Yorkers if they believed the environmental risks of gas drilling were worth the economic benefit to the state. Apparently, there is some difference across geographical boundaries when it comes to how New Yorkers answer that question (surprise, surprise, pepole in the city are more likely to believe fracing is environmentally bad). As a marketer, I understand the reason for the poll. But this isn't exactly a consumer question like "Do you like ice cream?" Its a question thats asking people for opinions on things they are not necessarily qualified to make a determination on. Its like asking "Do you believe in gravity?"
Have we regressed so far in our educations that we now believe we can question the laws of nature when they don't suit our needs? Take the gentleman in Avella, PA who claims his water was contaminated by gas drilling. Atlas Energy, the company in question tested his well and found nothing. (Note: the testing isn't actually done by the company, they hire a lab qualified to do the work). DEP came out and tested the well next and found the exact same thing. Spokeswoman Helen Humphries said on KDKA-TV last week that the samples came back as your basic Western Pennsylvania water. Basic PA water doesn't include chemical concentrations that are of concern when it comes to human ingestion. But of course DEP is lying -- they are in cahoots with industry, doctoring the the lab results of two independent laboratories. Yet no one else is forking over the money to have it tested again.
Its no wonder those Asian kids keep beating Americans in science and math. We seem to think we can manipulate scientific law for our own purposes. Or at least make facts essay questions.
One petroleum geologist who testified at the EPA hearing last week wrote in the Post-Gazette this week that he was booed and cursed by the audience for giving a simple scientific explaination of how fracing works, and how its severely unlikely it could cause acquifer contamination. He warned anti-drilling interests who seem committed to doing everything they can to vilify this process that the only way the would ever be able to really do this was to overturn the laws of physics. More letters to the editor telling him that his years of education and experience in science didn't prove a thing ensued.
A gentleman I follow on LinkedIn with a scientific background may be the one who put it best. He noted that this same controversey follows most environmental discussions. Industry finds new technology, puts it to work, and finds out that its a great way to do things. Concerned citizens question the process and ask for explaination. In most cases that brew to this extreme, many in the general public cannot grasp the intricate scientific details of the question they asked, are somewhat concerned that they don't understand, and in their own ignorance, decide that the principal or process in question is wrong or polluting beacuse they don't get it. That and the fact that today people take their environmental science from Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo -- people who know absolutely nothing about science, except that people like them will think they're smart and altruistic and spend $10.50 a piece to see their new movie.
Somewhere along the way we decided that its bad for Exxon to make a profit, and beacuse Dick Cheney (who by the way isn't an oilman -- he was in government his whole life until Haliburton hired him to help get contracts between Republican administrations) isn't Miss Congeniality that there isn't a single trustworthy person in the oil and gas industry. And yet, the majority of people refuse to curtail their energy use to make dependence on these "evil" people less necessary. Lets forget the fact that the people out there risking their lives everyday, and some not risking their lives but working hard for the industry none the less, produce the energy we need to make the world work. Without them, there are not LCD TVS, heating, cooling, Blackberries or Wiis.
These folks have years of experience doing what they do, and prior to that, years of education in science and math and all of that boring, way-over-our-heads stuff none of the rest of us ever wanted to master on our own. And we have the audacity to believe a 21-year-old unemployed kid with a video camera when we want scientific facts.
As my dad, who has been right before, tells me all the time, this little problem of ours is why this country doesn't make anything anymore. Or more acurately, why we are now, and will likely continue depending on people who hate us for energy.
Good thing we got the Industrial Revolution out of the way before the environmental extremism came along. Instead of builiding the modern world through people like Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Ford, and Whitney, we'd still be in public forums asking them to explain how they could possibly be smarter than any of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)