And now, a year later, the protests continue against the MVP

From an Article by Tommy Lopez, WSLS News 10, Roanoke, May 20, 2019

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Va. – Some opponents of the Mountain Valley Pipeline are still sitting high up in the trees in protest, blocking construction of one section.

The last remaining tree-sit still has support in eastern Montgomery County near Elliston. Many pipeline opponents remain there, at the site that’s called Yellow Finch, which is just off US Route 460.

They’ve maintained the protest for the last eight months — through snow, rain and wind — blocking the pipeline’s path and preventing tree-cutting. Multiple protesters have rotated through the two tree-sits during that time.

Crystal Mello took her turn this past weekend, taking the position for about 48 hours. “I can’t picture [the pipeline] coming through here,” she said. “Somebody’s pockets are getting fat off of putting all of us in danger, even their own workers.”

A grandmother who cleans houses, she said it was emotional being up in the trees, supporting the anti-pipeline cause. “We all drink water. We all love these mountains. We all love our neighbors.”

She said hearing stories from landowners who’ve reported damage to their property and hearing of explosions along other pipeline routes motivated her to take action. Her biggest worry is that a pipeline would cause an explosion.

“This is definitely not a Democratic thing. This is definitely not a Republican thing. This should be the most bipartisan thing ever,” Mello said.

WSLS News 10 has told the stories of “Red,” “Nutty” and demonstrators on a Franklin County farm, among others. Now, Yellow Finch is the last tree-sit left on the MVP path.

The protesters can hike up an adjacent mountain to get a birds-eye view of the tree-sit. There, they can see a path of downed trees miles long — trees, which still remain on the ground.

People who live close to the path, like Penny Artis, remain concerned about the project’s effects. “The environment means nothing. Money means everything,” she said.

The pipeline opponents hope to keep their protest going. “The trees that are still standing are being held the best we can, to keep them from coming in,” Artis said. “We’re not eco-terrorists. We just want to live to see tomorrow.”

The MVP remains neither finished nor dead. A company spokesperson said Monday that it’s more than 80% complete and is still on track to be done by the end of the year.

“We respect the opinions of those who are opposed to the MVP project and, more importantly, we want to ensure everyone’s safety throughout the various phases of the construction process,” spokesperson Natalie Cox said in a statement sent to 10 News.

BACKGROUND:
The Mountain Valley Pipeline planned path runs from West Virginia into North Carolina, crossing through Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Pittsylvania counties in the commonwealth. The natural gas pipeline would travel 303 miles and is estimated to cost $4.6 billion.

Opponents have documented hundreds of alleged examples of environmental harm the project has caused, including water quality effects from storm runoff and erosion.

The project has been met with opposition since the planning stage. Opponents have voiced concerns in local meetings and federal court proceedings, and staged sit-in style protests that have ranged from so-called tree-sits — in which some protesters have positioned themselves in the path of construction workers for more than a month at a time — to protests in which opponents have chained themselves to construction equipment in order to delay work.

A federal agency issued a stop-work order in August for the project, citing environmental concerns. The order was lifted later that month for all sections except two stretches that cross federal land.

In October, a federal court pulled a federal stream-crossing permit, which was a major setback for the project.

In December, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring and the Department of Environmental Quality filed a lawsuit against the MVP, citing environmental violations.

The company behind the MVP said it received a letter in January from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia stating that it and the EPA are investigating potential criminal and civil violations of the Clean Water Act and other federal statutes related to the pipeline’s construction.

The MVP cleared a hurdle in March when the State Water Control Board decided it will not consider revoking a key permit. The news came after many pipeline opponents called on the board to take action against the project.

Diesel trucks deliver frack sand & chemicals

Boulder County’s New Fracking Rules: Three (3) Things To Know

From an Article by Jackie Fortier, KUNC, Boulder, Colorado, March 27, 2017

With its moratorium on new drilling permits set to expire in a few weeks, Boulder County commissioners unanimously passed new oil and gas regulations. The county calls them the “most restrictive” of such regulations in Colorado. They are about 60 pages and require a much higher environmental and public health standard than the state. Boulder County began the new rule process following two state Supreme Court decisions in 2016 that invalidated hydraulic fracking bans or long term moratoriums.

“In light of those decisions, the board terminated our moratorium that was in effect until 2018, and established a new moratorium until May 1, 2017, for the purpose of allowing us [Boulder County planning department] to update the regulations that we had adopted in 2012 and prepare for their implementation,” said Kim Sanchez, chief planner for the county.

Now that the commissioners have adopted these regulations, here are three key takeaways:

These regulations are ‘the most restrictive’ in Colorado

Boulder County wants to push the envelope. For example, an oil or gas company that wants to drill in unincorporated Boulder County would have to give notice to surrounding landowners and residents, have multiple public meetings, and do soil and water testing, which could be a very long and probably more expensive process than anywhere else in Colorado. State officials told Boulder County it is overstepping their local authority, a position that Commissioner Elise Jones said they would defend.

“Our focus is on adopting regulations that we think are the strongest possible, for our citizens and the environment, and our understanding of the law as we see it,” she said. “If the state disagrees well, so be it, we’ll deal with that. If the state wants to pre-empt local governments, on oil and gas then they need to do their job and protect us from the impacts of oil and gas, and they are not doing that. And until they do that, local jurisdictions like Boulder County will continue to push to do that work themselves.”

What can the state regulate and what can local governments like Boulder County regulate?

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulates location and construction of drill sites and associated equipment, for example what machinery is used. Local governments like Boulder County have substantial regulatory authority through their land use code, such as building permits for structures, traffic impact fees, and inspecting for compliance with local codes and standards related to water quality and wildlife impacts. Boulder County’s new regulations are the most stringent in terms of land use.

New regulations aim to minimize the noise, dust and pollution associated with oil and gas drilling, like the sand loading in the photo above.

You could get paid to live by oil and gas drilling

One of Boulder County’s regulations could require a company to pay residents “disruption payments.” Not every company would have to do this; it’s an option for the county to require. Within a mile radius of the drill site, companies would need to pay residents enough money to move and pay rent somewhere else during some operations. The closer you are to the drill site, the more money you would get. The amount would be calculated based on federal data for the area. Every month residents would get a check. It would be up to them if they would want to move temporarily or just keep the money.

Commissioner Jones said they thought disruption payments were necessary to include.

“Industry has never been required to say ‘Yes, I’m impacting those people’s lives and I’m going to pay to help move them to a place so their quality of life isn’t diminished by my noise and my dust and my vibrations and my emissions,’ Jones said. “We think that it’s an important first step in industry taking ownership of the significant impacts that drilling has, particularly when you’re drilling near homes and schools and the like.”

>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

>>> Hear a reporter debrief with KUNC’s Erin O’Toole and Jackie Fortier on the new oil and gas regulations, and how they compare.

Springtime is spoiled by toxic fumes & chemicals

Proctor Residents Suing Williams Ohio Valley Midstream

From an Article by Drew Parker, Wetzel Chronicle, March 22, 2017

Proctor, WV — An energy company is facing a lawsuit for allegedly disrupting the daily lives of local residents.

On January 4th, Proctor residents Glenn Whisler, Sandra Whisler, Gary Hall, James McKinney and Jennifer McKinney filed a lawsuit against Williams Ohio Valley Midstream LLC, claiming the company caused noise disruptions, exposed them to toxins and devalued their properties.

Williams operates a compressor site in close proximity to the homes in question, located near Rines Ridge in Marshall County.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit alleges the Williams operations caused fumes, dust, dirt and noise and bright light to be present on the properties during all hours of the day and night. The complaint also cited fear of risks such as possible explosions near the site, as well as constant traffic surrounding the homes.

Attorney Jim Bordas of Bordas & Bordas Law Offices said the alleged damages have caused fear and concern in the affected community.

“In all cases like these the damages are a result of these big factories being put in put in people’s backyards, which is not what they bargained for when they bought their homes. Now, they’re concerned not only about the noise, smell and toxicity but the value of their property. When you move to the country, you figure you’re getting away from the effects of industry,” Bordas said. “We’re seeking for them to pay damages for the annoyance, aggravation fear and diminishment of property value, which will be up to a judge to determine. We think they’re looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Their whole lives have been disrupted.”

Bordas & Bordas attorney Jeremy McGraw said the case follows several other similar suits filed against Williams, which include about three dozen local plaintiffs. Other suits involve the energy company’s main facilities in Oak Grove on Fork Ridge Road and at Fort Beeler on Waynesburg Pike Road, both in Marshall County.

The series of litigation began in late 2015.

“One of the things that worries us about the industry is that they put a lot of lobbyists in Charleston this past year (pushing for legislation) that would make them not responsible for these incidents,” McGraw said.

Officials with Williams Energy could not be reached for comment.

See also: www.Marcellus-Shale.us

Pipelines disturb neighborhoods, families, farms & forests

Residents look to township codes to block Sunoco pipeline

Photo: Workers install 20-inch epoxy-coated pipes on the Mariner East 2 pipeline in the rolling hills of Washington County, Pa., February 16, 2017. They can lay 2,000 to 3,000 feet per day.

Promises! Promises! Promises!

‘G-35-D posted on the website Monday, January 30, 2017’

From an Article by Ken Ward, Jr., Charleston Gazette-Mail, February 11, 2017

During a series of interviews before he left the WV-DEP last month, Randy Huffman talked about his belief that the agency needed to continue to do more to help address the on-the-ground effects of the natural gas boom on residents in those communities — and about how the standard agency inspectors should apply to what is acceptable for industry to do really wasn’t that complicated.

“When we run into issues out there that are subjective in the regulatory world, like the noise and light and mud on the road, the degree of a lot of that is subjective,” Huffman said. “I tell my folks there’s an easy standard here. The easiest one is to say if you lived in that house, how would you do it? Use your mother, if your mother lived in that house.

“If you approached every person who had an issue out there with an activity that we regulate, if you approached them with the same sensitivity you would if it were your mother, because that is somebody’s mother, and they don’t need to be subjected to these kinds of inconveniences and nuisances in their lives. I have this notion that we need to be very sensitive to that.”

In late December, Huffman’s WV-DEP had put out for public comment a revised version of the general permit, this time called G35-D. The new version was simply to include the changes the air board had ordered the WV-DEP to make. Because those didn’t include the noise and light language the board had upheld, citizen groups didn’t really pay much attention to the issue.

Huffman’s last day on the job was January 13, the Friday before Justice’s inauguration, on January 16. The Justice transition team announced Caperton’s appointment on Jan. 13. Austin Caperton visited the WV-DEP office and Huffman introduced him to some of the senior staff.

January 23, a week after the inauguration, was the final day of the public comment period on the revisions to the general permit.

That day, Blankenship sent the DEP a letter on behalf of the oil and gas association. Among other things, Blankenship urged the DEP to reverse itself and get rid of the noise and light language. The letter raised the same issues the industry group brought up in its appeal before the air board.

“The West Virginia Division of Air Quality has no authority to regulate noise and light, and it cannot impose limitations in the Draft General Permit that purport to regulate noise and light,” Blankenship wrote. “Even if it could, the prohibition of a ‘nuisance’ and ‘unreasonable noise and light’ is too vague to enforce, as it gives the permittee no guidance as to what constitutes permitted behavior. This section should be eliminated from the General Permit.”

Four days later, on the morning of January 27, it was the end of Caperton’s second week on the job at the DEP. Before noon, he fired Radcliff from the agency’s environmental advocate office and also dismissed Kelley Gillenwater, DEP communications director.

Later in the day, Durham signed the revised general permit, but not before removing the noise and light language. In a letter to Blankenship, the DEP said it was now the agency’s opinion that state law “does not require this permit condition” and therefore it was removed.

At 5:07 p.m. that Friday, Durham sent an email to Caperton and to DEP general counsel Kristin Boggs. “DAQ removed the noise and light provision contained in section 3.2.8 and issued the Natural Gas Compressor general permit G35-D today. It will be posted on the website Monday (1/30/17).”

>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

-   See the full Article at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20170211/dep-eliminates-protections-for-noise-light-from-natural-gas-facilities#sthash.vwRK3CSU.dpuf 

• >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  > 

Noise Pollution from Oil and Gas Development May Harm Human Health

 Press Release, PSE Healthy Energy, December 9, 2016

 Modern oil and gas development techniques such as directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” produce noise at levels that may increase the risk of adverse effects on human health, including sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease and other conditions that are negatively impacted by stress, according to a study by authors at the nonprofit science and policy research institute, PSE Healthy Energy and West Virginia University. It is the first peer-reviewed study to analyze the potential public health impacts of ambient noise related to fracking operations.

“People living near oil and gas development may bring up concerns like air pollution, traffic and groundwater safety, but many also complain about noise,” said Jake Hays, Director of the Environmental Health Program at PSE Healthy Energy, and lead author of the paper, which was published December 9 in Science of the Total Environment. ”But until now, most of the research relevant to public health has focused on the impacts of air and water pollution,” Hays said.

Fracking technologies have unlocked oil and gas deposits from formations like shale and tight sands that previously were not considered economically viable. But the environmental and public health effects of such operations are still emerging. To understand whether noise from fracking might impact the health of surrounding communities, PSE Healthy Energy researchers gathered all available data and measurements of noise levels at oil and gas operations and compared the information to established health-based standards from the World Health Organization and other groups.

They found that noise from fracking operations may contribute to adverse health outcomes in three categories:

• Annoyance: Sustained noise may produce a host of negative responses such as feelings of anger, anxiety, helplessness, distraction, and exhaustion, and may predict future psychological distress.
• Sleep Disturbance: Awakening and changes in sleep state have after-effects that include drowsiness, cognitive impairment and long-term chronic sleep disturbance.
• Cardiovascular Health: Studies have found positive correlations between chronic noise exposure and elevated blood pressure, hypertension, and heart disease.

Environmental noise is a well-documented public health hazard. Numerous large-scale epidemiological studies have linked noise to adverse health outcomes including diabetes, depression, birth complications and cognitive impairment in children. Noise exposure, like other health threats, may disproportionately impact vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people with chronic illnesses.

High-decibel sounds are not the only culprits; low-level sustained noises can disturb sleep and concentration and cause stress.

“Oil and gas operations produce a complex symphony of noise types, including intermittent and continuous sounds and varying intensities,” said PSE Healthy Energy Executive Director Seth Shonkoff, who is also a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management and an affiliate of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. For example, compressor stations produce a low rumble; drilling a horizontal well is a loud process that can take four to five weeks 24 hours per day to complete; and using large volumes of water at high pressure results in pump- and fluid-handling noise. 

Compound or synergistic effects also may be at play, Shonkoff said. For example, noise reduction technology may lower negative impacts, and synergistic effects of noise and air pollution may create a new health threat or amplify an existing one.

Researchers note that data collection methodologies varied across public and private entities and types of drilling operations, requiring some estimates in the data. They say additional research is needed to determine the level of risk to communities living near oil and gas operations.

However, initial evidence suggests that policies and mitigation techniques are warranted to limit human exposure to unsafe noise levels from fracking. Policies can specify setbacks from residents and communities – in particular vulnerable populations such as schools and hospitals – noise mitigation techniques such as perimeter sound walls, and location siting decisions that make use of natural noise barriers like hills and trees.

Michael McCawley, the Interim Chair of the Occupational and Environmental Health Department at West Virginia University, was also a coauthor on the study, titled “Public health implications of environmental noise associated with unconventional oil and gas development.”

 ###

PSE (Physicians, Scientists and Engineers) for Healthy Energy is a nonprofit research institute dedicated to supplying evidence-based scientific and technical information on the public health, environmental and climate dimensions of energy production and use. We are the only interdisciplinary collaboration of physicians, scientists and engineers focused specifically on health and sustainability at the intersection of energy science and policy. Visit us at psehealthyenergy.org and follow us on Twitter @PhySciEng.

North Dakota

North Dakota requires compensation for surface owners

As reported in the Western Livestock Journal, February 1, 2013 

Recognizing the concerns of surface owners who do not own the minerals, North Dakota law has been modified through the years to offer the surface owner more property protection rights; the key legislation at this time is the Surface Damage Compensation Act, which defines two categories of surface damage. The first category is damage and disruption and the second is loss of production. The legislation includes examples of compensable damages, such as lost land value, lost use of and access to land, and loss value of improvements.

The mineral developer must provide the surface owner a notice of planned activities (seven days for activities that do not disturb the surface and 20 days for oil and gas drilling operations) and a written offer to compensate for damages through a surface compensation agreement. If the surface owner does not accept the agreement the parties can proceed in court.

However, in an effort to reduce the number of court proceedings, the North Dakota Legislature has directed the Department of Agriculture to provide mediation service for the surface owners and mineral developers. This statute also states that these payments are intended to compensate the surface users, such as a farm tenant.

The anticipated network of pipelines that is intended to reduce truck traffic and gas flaring is leading to a need for pipeline easement. Executing the easement is an opportunity for a surface owner to thoughtfully specify what rights are being granted….

Surface users and mineral owners may be told when they are offered a lease, compensation agreement or document to create an easement that states “this is standard language” or that it is “a standard document.” However there is no such thing as a standard document.

Mineral owners and landowners should not feel obligated to accept the first offer. They should take their time and review the document, consider their situation, assess whether the document addresses their needs and concerns, and seek outside council if they so desire…

David Saxowsky, North Dakota State University, prepared this article in the Western Livestock Journal. Professor Saxowsky teaches Farm and Agribusiness Management and related subjects, and maintains the ND Oil and Gas Law site at this site.

…………………